Obama's socialist agenda

Gleeclub, I read through the entire post and not once I felt rufus was acting like a racist.
I just hate ppl crying out "racist" "damn riches" when things don't exactly turn out the way they wanted.

I am 100% sure that rufus and many others in this forum would support Obama if he had a simliar policy to the republicans.

ba294, rufus reveals his racism on other threads on this board. Combined with that, his stated views on this thread are clearly based on his racist views.

But I'm still waiting to hear whether he hates quadroons and octoroons as vehemently as he hates mulattos.

If Person A makes $1, Person B makes $2.
Obama taxes (in various ways) person B $0.50 and gives it to Person A.

End result Person A = $1.50, Person B = $1.50
So why should Person B work harder?

Like many have said, Dow will plummet, RE will bottom out, businesses will go oversea.

And what about the billion dollars tax-cut to Exxon?

mimi,
we all know that there is no such thing as a perfect policy. I just hate seeing this country go stalingrad route.

now, what did we gain from this billion dollar tax cut?
How much taxes did Exxon pay in just one quarter?

I'll gladly anwer your question, if you already don't know.

Mimi,
I use to be a democrate and saw the way you did.
Billion dollar tax cut! 700billion bailout for dirty IB!

I certainly don't like to see oil company nor IB belly up but doing so yields greater return.
I personally think Clinton was an excellent president. I could care less if he slept with every girl in the whitehouse. He sure did raise taxes, and redistribute wealth to the public but within the reasonable limit when the economy is booming and things are affordable for a middle class family.
In this downwhirling economy, obama's policy is not the way to go...it simply does not work.
Where will we get the $ for health care he is proposing? How is he going to prevent investments/companies from flocking?

I know that most of the middle and lower income people retiring this year need a tax cut to be able to survive this moment. I also know that most of the lower income families that are struggling with mortgages will need it to. I know that to have the lower 50% of the population survive a recession without falling in marginal life is very important for the economy in general. I also think that it is a dignifying concept for a country to not let all these people fall in a ditch. It is humane factor. Something not very considered in the kind of capitalism that resulted from the last 3 decades of steady growing income gap.
The 40% of the people that already don't pay taxes will not get a cut because they are not paying taxes. This is where Rufus' rant fails.
Please, put yourself in this situation: You worked all your life as a plumber making 70 thousand dollars a year (double than Joe). You are about to retire, and have a mortgage payment of $800, that you were planning on taking little by little from a 401k. I don't know where you live. But there is a good 95% of the american population that makes less than 250k. Do you care about them? These are not normal times. We need to protect them. I have stock in Exxon and have been hurting with losses. But it just kill me to think of the hordes of people hurting from this economic mayhem. I am willing to pay more taxes to help in these hard times.

ba294, you say:

"If Person A makes $1, Person B makes $2.
Obama taxes (in various ways) person B $0.50 and gives it to Person A.

End result Person A = $1.50, Person B = $1.50
So why should Person B work harder?"

The answer is obvious: B will work not only harder but also smarter, so that he can make $3 and keep $2.25 of it (or $2.20 if there's a properly progressive tax structure). He works for incremental profit, just as any business does. With the extra $0.20, he can get a Cadillac Coupe de Ville instead of just a Lincoln Town Car, and really strut his stuff.

Or, alternatively, maybe all B feel he needs to be comfortable is $1.50. If he's taking home $2, he'll start to slack off. Productivity will decline because he's taking home more than he feels he needs. Worst of all, he'll spend the time playing golf, and our nation will have one more golf clown wearing ugly clothes.

ba294, I don't know if you realized that one wall fell before Wall St, it was in Berlin. Stalingrad is over. There are many countries in the world that have universal health care, higher taxes for the wealthy, etc. And they happen to be the most powerful countires other than Russia and China (the position of American in this chart is rapidly shifting.) When I picture people talking like u, I imagine them with a hat and a cool car, in a movie set street. Black and white. The good and the bad guys. The pretty innocent girl. You are dated. We are in the XXI century. Communism is gone. Take a breath, several decades went buy. You can relax.

rufus, you don't like mulattos.

How do you feel about quadroons and octoroons?

mimi makes another very good point.

And the US is #4 in wealth worldwide -- behind Norway, Switzerland and Luxembourg (all countries with taxation and social programs that make any nominally commie nation look like capitalist pigs).

btw rufus,

You don't like mulattos.

How do you feel about quadroons and octoroons?

"I use to be a democrate and saw the way you did.
Billion dollar tax cut! 700billion bailout for dirty IB!"
For me, it's unexplainable how a law created by republicans and pushed by Bush, and supported by Mc Cain and most every political and economy commentator in the country turns to be the ugly production of democrats.

Alan, what are quadroons and octoroons? People of 4 or eight different ethnic origins?
When I did my USA citizenship, they asked for my race. I am totally caucasian. But I was born in south america, from 2 european parents. When I asked what should I state, they were at loss. They say, put whatever. What happens f I have a japanese mother fathered by an american soldier and a mulatto dominican father with a german last name and an italian grandparent?

By the way, Alan, I answered you email but my mulatto-south american server sucks and it turns out that most of my emails are being lost in cyberspace. Just for u to know.

quadroon and octoroon are terms from the Old South, referring specifically to people who are 1/4 and 1/8, respectively, black. It's conceptually similar to (and probably the inspiration for) the Nazi definition of a Jew as anybody who's at least 1/8 Jewish.

The US Govt, at least for census purposes, has separate categories for "hispanic" vs. "non-hispanic white", "non-hispanic black", "non-hispanic asian" etc.

To answer your last question, I suspect what happens is that rufus wouldn't want you to be president, and would practically crap in his pants at the thought of the tax-increases you'd impose. If you were white like Bill Clinton, he'd think that you were campaigning that way, but will be very right-wing once in office, but with all those non-white ethnicities he doesn't see that scenario as a possibility.

"how exactly is Obama not a socialist when he intends to massively redistribute wealth and undertake the biggest expansion of the welfare state since the 1960's?"

Can you provide any evidence of this bald assertion?

I guess you don't know what the top marginal tax rate was in the 1950s, do you?

You probably don't remember what it was in 1980 either, because you weren't born then, probably.

I can tell you're ver-r-r-r-r-ry concerned about the Obama promise to roll back the Bush supposedly temporary REDUCTION in the top marginal income tax rate.

It is your referring to Obama as the biggest redistribution in wealth since the Great Society (which was when starving people were given a few crumbs of bread so they wouldn't faint in school from lack of lunch to eat) or since the New Deal that is so dumb. And the commie/socialist word is dumb, dumb, dumb. The USA was this over-the-top zealous champion of the downtrodden capitalist wannabes of the world who was on a worldwide campaign to free the globe of potential threats from socialist revolutions back when our income tax code was vastly more redistributive of wealth than it has been in your entire lifetime.

But I will give you this much credit - by somehow imputing this massive sea change to a New New Deal welfare state to Candidate Obama, who I've never heard articulate anything resembling that, you are sounding exactly like the eager-beaver pro-Obama bullies with their arm twisting at caucuses and dutifully handing out fliers in the streets. You both have drunk some kind of wild kool-aid in which a candidate need not make a single concrete policy promise and yet they are the next LBJ/FDR. It would be funny if it weren't all so pathetic. "Hope.. change.... change .... hope"

And the fact that any candidate at all can't beat him shows how his opponent is even worse. People who have ridden the fence and held out for the last home stretch have now been so disgusted by McCain's tactics that even they are deciding it's better to have the Blank Screen Lulu (bone up on your 19th Century literature, genius) Candidate and hold their breaths to see what he does than to have McCain. That says more about McCain than it does about Beauty Pageant Winner Obama.

lowery, the top marginal rate in 1980 was 70%. Reagan cut taxes and deregulated business, leading to the economic boom of that decade. When he left the White House in 1980, the top rate had fallen to 28%.

Here's what's troubling about Obama's tax plan. First, he insists that tax increases are essential to reducing the deficit and funding our priorites. Fine. If that's the case, it only makes sense to raise taxes on all income brackets since we're all a part of this country. But instead, Obama wants to CUT taxes for those making under 250K and then punish those who are making more by drastically raising their tax burden. It is class warfare at its worst. If Obama really believes that all Americans should be asked to help, he needs to raise taxes on everyone. Second, this is just not good policy. The top 5% are the ones who are producing jobs and making investments, and Obama's policy will lead to an outflow of capital. And finally, the 40% who are not paying federal taxes will get refundable credits under Obama's plan. This is nothing more than welfare.

And finally, as I said multiple times, the difference between Obama and Clinton is drastic. The democratic congress in 1993 was a lot less liberal than the one we have now. Remember that Clinton's tax increase passed by only one vote because a lot of democrats opposed it. And ideologically, Clinton had always been more moderate; he won office in a conservative southern state and headed the moderate Democratic Leadership Council. In the early 90's he told his party to move to the center on issues like taxes, welfare, and crime. This is one of the reasons why he was able to win back Reagan democrats and win two terms in the White House. In contrast, Obama is the product of liberal Chicago politics, who spent his adult life working with terrorists like Bill Ayers and crazy anti-government racists like Jeremiah Wright. In the Senate, he has adhered to the liberal orthodoxy on almost every issue, with the exception of school vouchers and faith-based initiatives. So I see no evidene that Obama will move to the center once he is elected.

Oops. I meant 1989, when Reagan left the White House.

obama's health plan will benefit those making under 30k year and hurting the rest including small businesses.

"Reagan cut taxes and deregulated business, leading to the economic boom of that decade. When he left the White House in 1980, the top rate had fallen to 28%." ---> that boom was the result of Jimmy Carter's economic policies in the 1970s.

"he needs to raise taxes on everyone" ---> he will; everyone earning >$250K

"The top 5% are the ones who are producing jobs and making investments" ---> that reminds me of an ad for EF Hutton in Off The Wall Street Journal. Foreground, bankers saying "At EF Hutton, we make money the old-fashioned way: THEY earn it." Background, laborers.

"So I see no evidene that Obama will move to the center once he is elected." ----> Correct. He's solidly right-of-center as it is, and probably won't move too far to the left, unfortunately. Maybe he'll wise up on all that taxpayer-sponsored religious proselytizing, though.

For what job did you move to New York?

alanhart, you're an idiot. Economists agree that Reagan's policies, along with Volcker raising rates in the early 1980's, played a crucial role in the economic boom of the 80's. Carter was a disaster, both at home and abroad, and rightfully is considered one of the worst presidents in our history. You really should read some economics and history before rehashing your liberal nonsense.

So according to you, a socialist is now right-of-center? Wow! You really are a radical leftist with no understanding of economics. But once again, I'm not surprised that people like you are supporting Obama.

"people like you are supporting Obama."

people like me: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Carto/Oct19-c.html

rufus, you don't like mulattos.

How do you feel about quadroons and octoroons?

"lowery, the top marginal rate in 1980 was 70%."

Correct. It's a lot lower than that now, and even if the maximum change that Obama has mentioned is effectuated, it will be a lot less then. So Obama's agenda is not akin to The New Deal or the Great Society. The degree is important, as well as the context.

Yes, he did.

That's open to debate. Many economists have documented that nothing trickled down. However, I will grant you this: Reagan CHANGED the rules of the game completely. Since Reagan, ALL US elected officials have been tinkering around the edges with nothing more than what Reagan articulated as "trickle down." They are all, in a word, Reaganomists, whether they're Dems or Pubs. You have this idea they're "LIBERALS," and I disagree with you. The big nasty LIBERAL here is lowery.

Correct again. And ain't no way in hell it's going back to 70%. No way.

You have wisely omitted any discussion of that American Sacred Cow, the "loophole" and the "deduction" and the "tax credit," all of which are manifestations of the same American Holy Sacred Commandment: Thou Shalt Say We Shall Do One Thing, But In The End, Let's Say We Do It And Not Do It.

Okay. I'm all ears. Sounds reasonable. Would you agree to such a thing? Honestly?

The promise to CUT taxes for those making under 250K is a promise, and I nearly vomited when I saw it. You and I probably have some common ground here. That represents most of the country. That's an awful lot of money.

Which gets back to the Sacred American Holy Law: Thou Shalt Always Tell The Middle Class During An Election Year That They Are Not The Ones Who Will Pay More Taxes Next Year.

Equally guilty of this are Republicans.

Bottom line - no one will get any tax cuts. We may get rebate checks. The threshold for the lowest level of poverty may change, so that one may have to earn more money to qualify to pay taxes. I have no problem with that. Republicans might want to think that through as well. Maybe a nasty old hippy LIBERAL like me actually could shake hands with you on this one: let's give people at the bottom of the social scale an INCENTIVE to get off all forms of public assistance. Another one might be to ensure that they continue their healthcare coverage when they go off welfare. Or you can just talk around in circles and grand stand and use ideologically outdated words like "liberal" and "conservative" which make nasty brawls much easier to get into.

It is pandering at its worst. I find the class warfare the Bush neocons have engaged in to be class warfare at its worst: "Let's tell the dumb shmucks that if they're not careful those scum on welfare might actually get a better deal than them. Let's talk about tax cuts and how THEY will take home $300 more per year while we take home $3 million more a year. Let's point at the lowest classes and blame it all on them."

< If Obama really believes that all Americans should be asked to help, he needs to raise taxes on everyone.>

Okay..... Is McCain suggesting that? Bush? Anyone? You? Would you buy that? I think it sounds reasoanble.

< Second, this is just not good policy. The top 5% are the ones who are producing jobs and making investments,>

Here's where we disagree. Make no mistake about it. That's beeeloney. But it would take a very, very, very long rant to talk about that.

< and Obama's policy will lead to an outflow of capital.>

I don't see how, unless you're talking about capital flight as the wealthist 200 Americans transfer their money out of the US, which they do anyway, another thing we have in common with my favorite analogous country, ARGENTINA.

I'd be open to hearing more about that, but again, I feel you must look at that in the total context of the attempts over the years to deal with the impossible contradictions of our system, in which yes, you are correct, not everyone pays taxes, not everyone benefits exactly in the same degree, and people pay in differing degrees. But make no mistake about it: People in the top bracket have no difficulty following that Sacred Holy American Law: Thou Shalt Not Pay The Full Amount Of Taxes Theoretically Possible If One Looks Only At One's Highest Marginal Rate.

I so enjoy talking specifics with you. I think all Democrats in 2008 are way, way, way less LIBERAL than they were in 1993 and CERTAINLY than in 1968. Perhaps it is the extreme right-ness of the Republicans currently in power that makes anyone not foaming at the mouth to deport all aliens and set up militias at Our Precious Homeland Borders or who does not favor nuking all persons of the Islamic faith, no matter where situated or how inclined politically seem downright "liberal."

It is the "more" that I am not agreeing with you on.

Yes, his own cabinet members have testified to this. Said one former cabinet member, Clinton said we need to do this, that and that to get re-elected, according to the polls. Said former cabinetista said, but, Mr. President, what's the point of getting re-elected if we have to do these things? To which Clinton responded, what's the point of doing those other things if we don't get re-elected?

Which is exactly what some of us Democrats who've been around a long time suspect is going to be the way in which Obama is more similar to Bill Clinton than even Bill Clinton himself. There is no there, there. He will be whatever he feels he must be, according to what his worshippers want him to be. For a few minutes, that is, until he walks into another room full of worshippers who have a different agenda.

< In contrast, Obama is the product of liberal Chicago politics, who spent his adult life working with terrorists like Bill Ayers and crazy anti-government racists like Jeremiah Wright.>

Here's where you start to sound like a dumb redneck, rufus. I couldn't care LESS what Jeremiah Wright says in church about ANYTHING. And the idea that Bill Ayers is somehow a picture of the true inside Dorian Gray beneath the pretty facade is a bad pulp romance novel.

< In the Senate, he has adhered to the liberal orthodoxy on almost every issue, with the exception of school vouchers and faith-based initiatives. So I see no evidene that Obama will move to the center once he is elected. >

He thinks Bush's "faith-based initiatives" are just fine. Those are in fact the craws in my throat that make me abhor Bush's politics and, by logical extension, Bush's political clone, Barak Obama.

Now stand back and watch the Obama loyalists flame me. You see, it's not I who you is the koolaid-drinking ideologue here. I'm the tired old guy sick and tired of politics.

oops, that sure got truncated. It deleted quotes from rufus. Rufus made the statement that Obama is more liberal than Clinton, and that the Congress today is more liberal than in 1993. Disagree. A mention of the "faith-based initiatives" as being why I consider Barak Obama Bush Light, and a prediction that this will be followed by me being flamed by fellow Democrats for DARING to liken a Democratic candidate to our nemesis.

Well, it beats the gratuitous one-liners, anyway.......

lowery, you make some points that are actually reasonable. i don't think tax rates will ever go to the level before Reagan because the elctoral consequences for the democrats will be too devastating.

But I still think Obama and the current congress are a lot more liberal than Clinton and his congress in 1993. What are your reasons for thinking otherwise? There were a lot of conservative democrats in congress back then, before they retired or lost to republicans in the 1994 Gingrich revolution.

Lowery, I wonder, why is Argentina your analogous country?

Rufus, you should check property in this south american county. Mr. Benetton and Mr. Turner had bought a quarter of it already....Crime is down, women are world-known for their beauty and you can get an apt. for a 10% than in the UWS....And everybody looks european!... unlike these crime-ridden neighborhoods in NYC you hate so much...Yes, time to time their system goes "south" and everybody loses a lot of money, but, didn't this just happened a few weeks ago in America?

I strongly believe we're in for very exciting times with Obama as President...give him and the democrats a chance. We'll earn much needed respect around the world and the middle east might take notice of the change and begin to think peace can work. Obama is not stupid..he's never going to tax rich people out of their park avenue apartments. We're in for good changes..just take a deep breathe and relax.

I would like to ask this question...how will Obama's tax changes affect Manhattan real estate.

julia, obama's tax policies will make the economy A LOT worse, since his socialist tax polices will especially hurt the wealthy people in NYC. Real estate will plummet in the next few years, money and jobs will leave the city, and crime will drastically increase.

yes, and then Obama will take your children away from you and make them live in communistical re-education centers . . . with octoroons!!!

rufus, cut back on the blow.

mimi, don't recommend Argentina to that simp. I like Argentina.

Well, it was a joke. We like americans down here but not the rufus kind.

The same thing actually happens all around the globe...people are waiting for Obama to win to begin loving america again...Now that america ended it's world hegemony, it might be a good idea to choose a president that is overwhelmingly preferred by the rest of the world.

rufus, most of my comments were somehow lost in pushing the "send" button on the last one.

One thing I said was that the Democrats are not more liberal now than they were in 1993. I think you did get my comment that post-Reagan both parties have changed completely. The movement to the right in the Democratic Party you see in such things as, for instance, targeted tax deductions as social engineering tool. In other words, you get a deduction if you spend X dollars on a program that does Y socially beneficial thing. This is very different from taxing people and then using the money to fund those programs directly.

One thing that got lost was my contempt for Candidate Obama's promise to lower taxes for everyone making under 250K, which I do share with you for more than one reason. It is the lowest form of politics, and there is no good reason for it. It also translates into English as "I am a liar."

Where I diverge from you apopletically is in your claim that the 5% wealthiest people are the ones who are really doing the work of our capitalist system, fueling growth, etc. There's no point going into it. I vehemently disagree. The super-rich have only one thing in mind for their money: keeping it to themselves. The truly rich do not work, but instead live off inheritances, income generated from investments, or their ridiculously high compensation packages if they are the New Royalty, CEOs. And no, CEOs do not "work for their money," because no one works so hard that their labor should be priced at whatever hourly rate arrives to $30 million per year.

Most people, whether rich, poor or somewhere in the middle, lead basically honest lives and give a little and get a little. But in all classes you have thieves and scam artists as well, and the thieves and scam artists in the top income brackets do a lot more damage than the petty criminals below them. Yet, they are glorified because in our country Money Is God. The more you have, the "better" you are regarded by society. Money buys you influence and power, so those who scam others at the top of the social scale rarely suffer any consequences for it.

I had outlined some more of the Sacred Holy Laws Of America, and they got truncated in the last message. Most importantly for purposes of our disagreement is that no matter what the marginal tax rate is, the wealthy don't pay it. The loopholes were much worse BEFORE Reagan's tax code overhaul, and the news was full of stories of people who paid zero tax by doing things like buying useless ships for the depreciation, etc. So Reagan promised to get rid of those loopholes and simplify things. The problem is, this is America, and no sooner do you close one loophole but another opens.

Creating new loopholes has been the way politicians of BOTH parties get what they want. See above. One reason I find the label of "socialist" ludicrous is that in countries sometimes referred to as "socialist" by Americans (though I would argue the label is inappropriate there as well), such as Sweden or France, you don't have the same system of tax deductions. The tax is what the tax is. One thing so radical about Sarkozy was that he wanted to introduce the home mortgage interest deduction. This was a way new, weird, neoconservative thing to do in France.

Another thing that got lost in my message was how similar I believe Clinton and Obama are politically. Clinton's swing to the "center" (try more like the Right) has been attested to by former cabinet members as resulting directly from polling results. He simply wanted to be re-elected. It was not about policies. It was about popularity. I see this writ large in Obama.

"Lowery, I wonder, why is Argentina your analogous country?"

Do you remember when the dollar/peso peg was dropped, the government had to allow the peso to "float," and the entire economy collapsed, with about four or five Presidents in the space of only a couple of months? It was around the time Enron collapsed. Oh, then WorldCom, etc., etc. ad nauseam. There was a very funny editorial in an Argentine paper that pretended to quote one of the Enron execs, either CEO or CFO, as saying, "Run away to Argentina? Are you kidding? I already OWN Argentina."

One can't look at the big deal made out of the media superstardom of our First Ladies without thinking of the second Mrs. Peron, Eva, and of the third Mrs. Peron, Isabel, who actually became President, despite no prior professional experience as anything but a "dancer." (Ahem......) Now a few years after the Argentine currency crisis we have another cases of a wife of a President becoming a President. We almost got there in the US, but with a hiatus of eight years in between Mrs. Clinton's candidacy and Bill's term, whereas Isabelita became President the moment Juan Peron died and Kirchner's wife was elected upon his final term's end.

Argentina is notable for having essentially no remaining indigenous (pre-Colombian) peoples. Sound familiar? Which other country in our hemisphere is that true of?

The middle class of Argentina was converted to pauperdom virtually overnight with that currency crisis. I'm one of those crusty old hippies who maintain that this has been happening in the USA over a long, gradual, continuous haul.

The US $$$ has until the past month or so been on a breathtaking trajectory down to the toilet. In Argentina it happened overnight.

I could go on...... Argentines eat lots of beef; so do Americans (or we used to, when we could afford to....)

Lowery, oh, yeah I remember that time, I flew down and bought a house in BA.
I love americans who know about Argentina. There is so few of them...Oh, maybe u are not american....

"One thing that got lost was my contempt for Candidate Obama's promise to lower taxes for everyone making under 250K, which I do share with you for more than one reason. It is the lowest form of politics, and there is no good reason for it. It also translates into English as "I am a liar.""

Why is this tax cut such a problem? Why would it go to the point of some kind of falsehood?

rufus
about 8 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse gleeclub, you're an idiot for having to resort to ad hominem attacks

that is entirely untrue

your character allows for the dismissal of your views

ba294
about 8 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse Gleeclub, I read through the entire post and not once I felt rufus was acting like a racist.

have you seen any of the posts where he calls black and latinos "hoodlums?"

have you seen then how he defends himself by talking about their higher propensity to commit crimes?

have you seen how he'll pull one single anecdote about a black person and use that to say that blacks have a higher propensity to commit crimes? and that because of that one particular incident white people are scared?

>Why is this tax cut such a problem? <

Tax rate cuts are good for everyone, the economy plus the middle class can sure use the relief. However, this tax proposal is structured so that folks that pay zero federal income tax will receive a check anyway. If the Senator were to instead lower the marginal tax rates for the middle class, as opposed to a rebate system, that would be preferable.

The taxes that are being raised to support this program can be problematic for the economy. Raising the dividend (double taxation) & capital gains tax rates are counter productive & punitive for an economy such as ours that is starved for capital. The US currently requires $1.5 billion/DAY of foreign capital inflows to finance our deficits. Investment capital does move around the globe seeking maximum returns and there are countries out there that have reduced corporate & capital gains tax rates which may benefit from the current US proposals on the table.

If need be, raise the top rate for individuals earning >$250 somewhat but the raising taxes on capital formation is....well, we shall see what is ultimately passed by Congress. There is a big difference between a proposal and actual passage of the legislation.

mimi
about 7 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse Please, put yourself in this situation: You worked all your life as a plumber making 70 thousand dollars a year (double than Joe). You are about to retire, and have a mortgage payment of $800,

wait a minute mimi, under what sensible personal economic situation would a person who makes $70K per year have an $800K mortagage? And the way you phrase the question, this isn't even a young person just buying a home, this is someone who has had some years in his or her place.

mimi
about 7 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse ba294, I don't know if you realized that one wall fell before Wall St, it was in Berlin. Stalingrad is over. There are many countries in the world that have universal health care, higher taxes for the wealthy, etc. And they happen to be the most powerful countires other than Russia and China (the position of American in this chart is rapidly shifting.)

huh?

mimi
about 2 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse The same thing actually happens all around the globe...people are waiting for Obama to win to begin loving america again...Now that america ended it's world hegemony, it might be a good idea to choose a president that is overwhelmingly preferred by the rest of the world.

The United States should be governed by the popular opinion of people from other countries. Is that the summary of your position?

$250K in income does not redistribute wealth.

Wealth is in the hands of people who make tons more in passive income and capital gains.

Taxing $250 and above is just a good way to keep people from aspiring and choosing to work hard. It will not redistribute. It will only cut productivity and keep the rich even richer than anyone else.

No, it's Collin Powell's. Check his comments on Obama restoring the image of America in the world. We are not alone.....it's a global conciousness. Get used.

Get used? No.

mimi, you are an unbelievably irresponsible person.

You want the U.S. not to live up to it's own standards, but to the standards of Europe.

You want someone who makes $70K to have an $800K mortgage. How does that even compute?

>And what about the billion dollars tax-cut to Exxon?<

I never understood why politician enjoy bashing Exxon. The company operates in I believe over 120 countries and their consolidated reported profits that gets peoples' attention are a product of their combined operation in all those countries, not only the US. Exxon sent the US federal government $14.3 billion in taxes in 2007 which is never mentioned. The company employs some 86,000 employees around the globe that earn darn good money, pay a sh*t load of taxes and have excellent health care benefits.

BTW, I don't own a single share of the company's stock. I'm not interested in owning a US integrated or oil exploration & production company until windfall-profits tax is taken off the table. It was adopted once & repealed for darn good reasons. Foreign companies with zero US reserves will not be affected by this legislation which places US competitors at a severe competitive disadvantage. This tax policy would be a %^@!&!

Gleeclub, I meant paying u$s 800 a month for the mortgage.

If the world was a co-op, they would be very unhappy they accepted Bush. They are scared about McCain as the new grumpy unpredictable new neighbor! It will be stupid if I think int'l approval is the only reason to choose a USA president. Still, I think you are blind about the new status of America as one more neighbor. It will need to regain it's leadership. To be a good new partner will be a start. There is a new paradigm at the door, see?

mimi, get your shit straight (i.e. your language, and your bad math), then consider returning to post your opinions.

What the heck does it mean if the world was a co-op? What if the world was a tomato?

ps - I love when people use the word paradigm. It pretty much means that the person using it has reached the end of his or her skills to make a cohesive argument.

God! What a loser! Needs to patronize and insult me! I would not like to have u as my neighbor....you show the same character traits as Mc Cain.

Darling, you couldn't see a new paradigm even if it's shitting in your nose....

Get used, or lose.

I don't know if gleeclub needs to get used to the idea that the US hegemony is over (we'll see). But it's good to have an understanding of why it matters what the rest of the world thinks of the US and its leadership.

We are the head of an empire that spans most of the world, and like all empires throughout history, we don't have the luxury of simply dictating policy. We need to get not-quite-buy-in from client nations and their people. It's much easier and cheaper for us to do so. When people in other nations view us favorably, they will support their own leaders' decisions that in turn support our government's decisions. It's that simple.

mimi, you are a clueless liberal who cares more about "feelings" and "acceptance" than sound economic and foreign policies.

i'm sick and tired of liberals bashing America and insisting that we should be more like Europe. Obama, who calls himself a "citizen of the world," wants to turn America into a socialist state, just like the European nations.

gleeclub, the fact of the matter is, the vast majority of NYC's violent crimes are committed by minorities. That's a FACT. If you think pointing out facts is racism, then i guess i am guilty as charged.

serge07, once again, you are one of the few people on this board who are making good points. I have a question though. Who was your top choice for the GOP nomination? I was really rooting for Romney myself.

ChicagoFinance, you just thought Romney was the prettiest candidate, didn't you?

mimi
21 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse God! What a loser! Needs to patronize and insult me! I would not like to have u as my neighbor....you show the same character traits as Mc Cain.

Darling, you couldn't see a new paradigm even if it's shitting in your nose....

Get used, or lose.

mimi, honestly, if you were not allowed in this country, the U.S. would have been a better place.

By the way, what prompted you and your American-hating parents to move here? Were you trying to hide your Nazi past?

I gotta say, this discussion board is filled with repugnant people and pathetic opinion, but I'd rather stand by just about any of them (except rufus) before you, because at least while I disagree with these people, they love America, rather than hate America like you. Go away

mimi
21 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse God! What a loser! Needs to patronize and insult me! I would not like to have u as my neighbor

leave the country and go back to where you came from. Then we'll have no problem. Seems as if you'd prefer to have a European as your neighbor than any American.

Rufus, are the european nations socialist? Do they redistribute the land, send children away, prevent the citizens from traveling abroad?

Do you think they are examples of democracy and civilization in this world, considering many of it's neighbors?

Do you think they do better or worse than America regarding to poverty and education? Does this mean something to you?

rufus
13 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse I was really rooting for Romney myself.

What exactly made Romney qualified? He was the Republican version of John Edwards. At least McCain and Obama have substance, regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum (the AMERICAN political spectrum, mimi you don't belong in any of it), but Romney and Edwards are just a bunch of pretty faced assholes.

alanhart
16 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse I don't know if gleeclub needs to get used to the idea that the US hegemony is over (we'll see).

alanhart, the issue isn't American hegemony. It doesn't matter if the U.S. is #1 or #1000, but the U.S. is a sovereign nation, by the people, for the people and of the people. The American people.

mimi
3 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse Rufus, are the european nations socialist? Do they redistribute the land, send children away, prevent the citizens from traveling abroad?

Do you think they are examples of democracy and civilization in this world, considering many of it's neighbors?

Do you think they do better or worse than America regarding to poverty and education? Does this mean something to you?

mimi - leave the country. Please. rufus should leave NYC, you should leave the USA.

It doesn't matter if Europeans are socialists, or better that American "regarding to [sic] poverty and education". The Europeans are Europeans. They can govern their own lands. The United States Constitution allows for U.S. Citizens to vote and have a say in the U.S. government. The U.S. Constitution has no room for foreigners in determining how our country is run, and shouldn't.

The European way of life - I don't agree with it. Bunch of Nazi children. But it doesn't matter even if I did agree with it. They should not be governing this country. And you should have likely failed the citizen test - people die trying to come to THIS country.

rufus
25 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse gleeclub, the fact of the matter is, the vast majority of NYC's violent crimes are committed by minorities. That's a FACT. If you think pointing out facts is racism, then i guess i am guilty as charged.

How do you explain calling out single episodes of violence, then pointing out that the specific incident was caused by a minority, and then saying in the same sentence that the specific incident is proof that minorities cause the majority of crime? How do you justify that extrapolation?

No need to send me away. I live abroad. My parents never lived in America. I am american. I choose to not live there. But I love it dearly, the country where my husband and children were born. I really do. That's why I care about giving my opinion. Technically, It's not worth more or less than yours. I pay a lot of money in taxes in the USA.

Now, your bully posts, glee and rufus,are so full of anger and contempt, show so clearly the divisive, agressive, anti-the other. anti-that one, patriarchal BS stink. Shame on you.

gleeclub: "alanhart, the issue isn't American hegemony. It doesn't matter if the U.S. is #1 or #1000, but the U.S. is a sovereign nation, by the people, for the people and of the people. The American people."

That's nice if you're seven years old. Beyond that, it's good to play strategically. That means not being abusive to your waiter, because you don't want the staff to spit in your food. It means treating your secretary with respect, so she'll provide you with the best support possible. And if you're an imperial power, it means keeping the client nations (including Europe) happy so that they'll keep you happy. Or you can have an "our country" temper tantrum.

So you are an American citizen who has left this country. Very nice.

If you knew anything about the U.S. Constitution, you'd know that the amount you pay in taxes has no bearing on your rights as a U.S. Citizen.

You need to be educated about the U.S. before you go telling the U.S. that we ought to mimic whatever foreign government you seem to be in agreement with.

Lastly, American is spelled with a capital 'A'

Shame on you.

alanhart
2 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse gleeclub: "alanhart, the issue isn't American hegemony. It doesn't matter if the U.S. is #1 or #1000, but the U.S. is a sovereign nation, by the people, for the people and of the people. The American people."

That's nice if you're seven years old. Beyond that, it's good to play strategically. That means not being abusive to your waiter, because you don't want the staff to spit in your food. It means treating your secretary with respect, so she'll provide you with the best support possible. And if you're an imperial power, it means keeping the client nations (including Europe) happy so that they'll keep you happy. Or you can have an "our country" temper tantrum.

-
Well, we can always strive for the lowest common denominator. We can always seek a strategy of appeasement because it is easy and makes friends. We can always allow Iran to have nukes because there is no reason to make waves. Hell, we could follow Chamberlain's example rather than Churchill's. Or follow Carter rather than Reagan.

I want people to like me, so I will give up my rights and allow people to trample me. Do you like me now Sir?

-
mimi
alanhart

gleeclub, you need to read up on your Machiavelli to understand what "like" means in global politics and its implications on domestic politics.

Rufie, it's about time for you to add something stupid or offensive.

And what is it that you liked about Romney? His purty blowdryjob?

papavaf, re the tax cut to everyone below the $250K mark, it increases the deficit
now, if you wanna raise the tax on those making over $250K, then at least leave the taxes those under $250K pay the same - the reason I think it is dishonest is that I don't believe that Obama even believes himself when he says "tax cut for those making under $250K" - it won't happen, because the need for revenue is too great

but getting back to rufus' belief that this is the greatest redistribution of wealth since FDR/LBJ, even if that sub-$250K tax cut plus an over-$250K tax hike were to happen, I think it's less significant as income redistribution than introducing Social Security and income taxes where there was neither before such introduction, and I believe the Great Society was a bigger change in "income reditribution" if you want to call it such - personally, I think of the Great Society's bigness/smallness having to do more with the nature of the programs' benefits, i.e., free lunches in schools = food in a stomach

My original post had to do with context and degree

mimi, another analogies Argentina/USA = what countries's launched invasions of much smaller territories and became unpopular when a quick victory parade didn't ensue?

yes, I'm an American by birth and citizenship, though one of my parents is only American by citizenship, and so half my relatives are non-Americans

I used to travel for my work, and I think there is no substitute for getting outside of our own country for extended periods.

Can I still buy a house or apartment in Argentina for something like $10K???? I thought prices had gone up significantly.

lowery, you made some good points regarding loopholes and the change in tax policy since Reagan. I still think, however, that Obama will govern far to the left of Clinton, but we'll see what really happens if he wins.

I do agree that Great Society was a bigger redistribution of wealth. And I personally think LBJ did ENORMOUS damage to this country, both economically and socially. Much of the problems we had in the late 60's and 70's were the results of his policies. Reagan tried to reverse some of the damage done by the Great Society and succeeded to an extent, but even he couldn't totally kill the beast.

No, no 10k. But you can buy a nice one bedroom in a very good neighborhood in Buenos Aires, it's most expensive city, for less than 100k. Prices didn't go down in the last year, but, like in NY, the market is soft and sales slowed down considerably, so low-ball offers and discounts are happening. Tons of foreigners bought 3-4 years ago, made a huge profit (200-300%), and now they are cashing it to invest in the global stock market when they feel it reached bottom. This is what I see.

I agree, the experience abroad is very enriching. I guess many people in this thread never travelled out of America, probably not even out of Chicago, hence they think they live in the belly-bottom of the world. They can't see anything from their window.

Not so good to generalize, Mimi.

I've lived in Europe, have relatives in Madrid and have visited most European countries multiple times either for business and leisure. I've had clients with with small businesses in the EU & it's a heck of a lot easier to pull it off in America than in Europe. I've also spent quite a bit of time in the Caribbean, not that it matters.

As they say in Texas, big hat, no cattle.

Excuse me Serge, I don't know to which of my posts are you referring. In which am I generalizing about pulling it off for small business?

serge07, which GOP candidate will you support in 2012 if obama wins?

>xcuse me Serge, I don't know to which of my posts are you referring. In which am I generalizing about pulling it off for small business?<

Dear, mimi, how about your statement directly above mine:

"I guess many people in this thread never travelled out of America, probably not even out of Chicago, hence they think they live in the belly-bottom of the world. They can't see anything from their window."

rufus, I have no idea. Heck, I'm just trying to close out this somewhat challenging year on a positive note. 2012 seems like an eternity at this point.

"I guess many people in this thread never travelled out of America, probably not even out of Chicago, hence they think they live in the belly-bottom of the world. They can't see anything from their window." Mimi dixit

I've lived in Europe, have relatives in Madrid and have visited most European countries multiple times either for business and leisure. I've had clients with with small businesses in the EU & it's a heck of a lot easier to pull it off in America than in Europe. I've also spent quite a bit of time in the Caribbean, not that it matters. Sergedixit

Where do this comments connect through a "generalization"? God, I was writing about traveling as an enriching experience, nothing related to pulling it off in different countries..Are republicans in Streeteasy having cognitive difficulties?

How many times must one repeat themselves before people read. I'm an "Independent" as in independent thinker that doesn't follow any garbage party line, propaganda and doesn't want or need any government handouts. End of the story!

Read your statement again that inserted in my post for your convenience. I read what you wrote and being first an English speaker, it means what it means. If you would like to clarify your statement for whatever reason(s), please feel free to do so.

Have a great one.

He's got my vote:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/old_grizzled_third_party

No Socialism there!

Why, it's rufus on video . . . they even show his mile-high condo!

"redistribution of wealth, punishment of success, and more welfare programs for lazy poor people and thugs."

"One thing the financial markets do very well, however, is concentrate
wealth. Government debt, for example, can be thought of as a means for
upward redistribution of income, from ordinary taxpayers to rich bondholders.
Instead of taxing rich people, governments borrow from them,
and pay them interest for the privilege. Consumer credit also enriches the
rich; people suffering stagnant wages who use the VISA card to make
ends meet only fatten the wallets of their creditors with each monthly
payment. Nonfinancial corporations pay their stockholders billions in annual
dividends rather than reinvesting them in the business. It’s no wonder,
then, that wealth has congealed so spectacularly at the top. ...

for the purposes of this introduction, however, a
couple of gee-whiz factoids will do. Leaving aside the principal residence,
the richest 1/2% of the U.S. population claims a larger share of national
wealth than the bottom 90%, and the richest 10% account for over threequarters
of the total. And with that wealth comes extraordinary social power
— the power to buy politicians, pundits, and professors, and to dictate
both public and corporate policy.
That power, ... , is something economists often
ignore. With the vast increase of government debt since the Reagan experiment
began has come an increasing political power of “the markets,”
which typically means cuts in social programs in the name of fiscal probity.
Less visibly, the increased prominence of institutional investors, particularly
pension funds, in the stock market has increased rentier power
over corporate policy.

Though globalization and technology have gotten
most of the blame for the recent wave of downsizings, the prime culprits
are really portfolio managers demanding higher stock prices — a demand
that translates into layoffs and investment cutbacks. This growth in stockholder
influence has come despite the fact that outside shareholders serve
no useful social purpose; they trade on emotion and perceptions of emotion,
and know nothing of the businesses whose management they’re increasingly
directing. They’re walking arguments for worker ownership."

- http://www.wallstreetthebook.com/

"they even show his mile-high condo!"

LMAO. The Unibomber.

rufus, you're making me hedge my disagreement with you as to the DEGREE you attribute to Obama's proposed tax changes in relation to The Great Society. I actually don't know how LBJ's programs translate into dollars, nor how you would compare that with Obama's proposed tax changes.

This is a bit like the RE-market argument; predicting the future is impossible. We don't know what Obama's possible changes to income via tax changes will be. I for one don't believe there will be any tax cuts to anyone. I don't think rolling back the big break that the top bracket got under Bush (canceling it) amounts to "socialism," and I suspect that taken alone as the only change to be effectuated, were that to be the case, it would still amount to less of a change than The Great Society.

But now that you make me think about it...... just how was income redistributed by LBJ's programs? Were there changes in marginal tax rates? Because that's what policy changes we're talking about now, whether and by how much people of particular income increase/decrease.

But I think you're agreeing with me that The Great Society was a very significant change, and that your disagreement with me is whether that was a bad thing or a good thing. You know I feel it was a good thing, but even taking this agreement as a given, how do you get that Obama's proposed income redistribution is of the same magnitude? Are you assuming all uninsured people will actually be enrolled in the members of Congress' healthcare insurance plan, for free? Wanna take a guess on whether I believe he intends to follow through on that either?

As to the horrid bad things that LBJ's policies caused, I'm always interested to know the specifics of this feeling so many people have expressed since the 1980 election. Your initial posts were of the conclusory, shoot-from-the-hip variety with no specifics, but perhaps you've studied these questions in depth.

Whether Obama has a "socialist agenda" depends on whether you believe people's campaign promises, and then you have to remember the process of negotiation in Congress, even with a Democratic-controlled Congress (if that happens). Then rewind to the campaign promise and how much the candidate really believes what he's saying will ever happen.

The tax policy changes during the Bush presidency were in favor of the top income earners, so reversing that trend does not in itself constitute "socialism." When someone throws out hot-button, simplistic

Regarding the Bush tax cut, is anyone aware of a study that show's what the person making over $250,000 in NYC faired pre and post tax cut, taking into account the AMT, which would impact this group.

lowery, during Johnson's administration, the top marginal rate was 71%. It was actually 91%, but JFK wanted to cut it to 71, and after his death congress passed the tax cut. As expected, revenues soared, and Johnson began using it to fund his programs. The problem was twofold: first, it further exacerbated people's dependence on government programs, leading to a welfare culture. Second, Johnson insisted on funding both the Great Society and Vietnam simultaneously, which led to inflation and economic stagnation.

The reason I think Obama's tax policy is dangerous is that under his plan, the top marginal rate will go from 35 to roughly 50%. This is due to him not only repealing the Bush tax cuts but also repealing the social security payroll cap. And of course, he says that he will CUT taxes for those making under 250K, which includes giving refundable tax credits to the 40% of Americans who don't fay federal tax to begin with. So in essence,

So in essence nothing. I couldn't have put it better myself.

mets2009. for individuals it is $200k
for those married its combined $250 so ie each averages $125k

And for obama's social security tax increases it is $97.5k

Just to be clear, I don't think people making $97,500 in NYC are rich unless they live in Iowa and commute in each day on someone else's dime.

i am originally from upstate NY and ALWAYS have to explain to my relatively why my standard of living is low compared to their when they make 40% less than what I make...it's always fun having people in the rest of country thinking we are rich when in fact we give most of it back in taxes...it's already progressive you know.

my post got cut off, so let me finish. So in essence, Obama's "tax cuts" is nothing more than welfare. I don't mind him raising taxes on everyone because at least that is an honest and somewhat sensible policy. But to drastically raise taxes on those making above an arbitrary 250K amount and then giving out government handouts is wealth redistribution in its pure form.

I know the Republican talking point memo states that it is wealth redistribution, but that is more than a little misleading. This is not Eugene Debs suggesting that the government seize all asset of those with more than $10 million dollars and give it to the rest of the country with less (as he did in the 1932 presidential election). This is a tax policy that is intended to have the wealthiest of Americans pay a little bit more and those who make the least have their burdened eased a bit.

To call Obama's tax cuts wealth redistribution is like saying the Bush adminsitration letting Lehman fail was simply a case of job redistribution....on some level yeah, but in reality, not so much.

Secondly, insinuating that Obama's tax cuts would extend the welfare state is pure rubbish. You know what extends the welfare state? Unemployment and 8 years of an economic policy that only cared about the top 2% of the wealthiest Americans. W has done more to extend poverty in this country that any president since Hoover.

Finally, I think you need to actually pick up a book and learn what social advancements came out of The Great Society. Being and upper middle-class white person you probably cannot fathom the level of poverty and discrimination that minorities had to deal with in the country prior to the 1960's. LBJ will always be remembered for his inability to get us out of Vietnam, but his social advances moved mountains for many in this country and he should be admired for his courage to do this. JFK wanted to talk about this change, but never had any real intention of doing anything tangible. LBJ saw it as his obligation to do what was best for the country and without him, it wouldn't have happened as quickly as it did.

Saying The Great Society grew the welafare state is the same BS tactic that racist and ignorant conservatives used to turn the word liberal into a negative. This PR tactic was crap then and it is crap now. neither stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever.

waverly, Obama's tax policy is not "paying a little bit more." Under his proposal, the top marginal rate will go from 35%, the current level, to around 50%. And for people in NYC, after state and city tax, we're looking at the top achievers giving more than 60% of their income to taxes. That's more than just "a little bit more."

I applaud LBJ signing the civil rights and voting rights act, but the Great Society made a large number of people dependent on welfare and government assistance. I believe that LBJ's domestic policies have actually made Black America worse off.

Worse off? Really? If you truly do think that, you are either completely stupid or in so much denial over what this country was (and still to some degree is) like for minorities. You need to learn much, much more before you speak about this topic. Your lack of understanding basic facts is just saddening. Where did you grow up?

Since you don't live in NYC, and you hate NYC, why don't you not worry about how much we will have to pay in taxes. Since NYC is such a liberal city, I have a feeling most here understand the s*** sandwich that the Bush administration has made for us and we will happily take our bite out of it if it means we will move the country forward....which we will.

You learned some nice buzzwords from your conservative websites, but you just don't have any real understanding of how the economy, or frankly the world, works. I suggest you volunteer for Habitats for Humanity or the Peace Corp and learn how most of the world lives before you say ignorant statements like...the wealthiest Americans drive the economy....no, they do not. The American economy has always, and always will, perform the best when the middle class grows and the lower class get jobs - two things the Republicans have never figured out how to do. Trickle-down economics - that is the biggest joke!

Rufus, I did look up Obama's tax cut promise on his campaign's web site. He promises to cut taxes three times as much as McCain. I think that means McCain is also making a promise for a tax cut.

I think The Great Society cost taxpayers more in percentage terms than our income taxes will be after Obama's changes even if he were to not lower anyone's taxes but were to tax the highest brackets more than they are now taxed.

About the qualitative arguments about The Great Society, I see above that race has been thrown into the mix, and I don't feel comfortable discussing whether and how The Great Society was good, bad or indifferent, because the discussion will then go down an unhappy route. All I would like to add to that is a figure I've heard stated by many people who have studied welfare policies, that most welfare recipients are "white" (Caucasians?). You can research racial breakdowns of welfare policy recipients if you wish, but it doesn't interest me. I think trying to end poverty is a good thing. Whether the specific policies of The Great Society helped to get closer to ending poverty is a complex subject, and instead people rant emotionally about it. I could add a few rants of my own.

My argument with you has been whether Obama is a "socialist," and I'm afraid my opinion remains that he is an unknown, that while a candidate he makes lots of promises, and that nothing as momentous as The New Deal or The Great Society is on the horizon.

I did want to take issue with the statement that Obama hangs out with dangerous terrorists like Jeremiah Wright and the Ayers weatherman boogeyman. First, about JW, the man is entitled to say whatever he wants to say, and it's gross that Obama is judged by JW's statements. I was equally offended when anti-McCain/Palin zealots floated a video taken from Sarah Palin's church and ridiculed her beliefs, her religious practices, her cultural milieu. In Sarah Palin's case, it's her own business, and one reason I took offense at the JW faux "controversy" was that it brings politics' reach down to new lows of depravity: now it's not enough to delve into whether candidates have smoked pot, inhaling or not inhaling, and their entire sexual/marital history; now we are actually dissecting everything that ever took place in their church and making judgments about that too.

Ayers..... who cares? "Terrorist"? Is the fear that if Obama is elected his friend Ayers is going to start bombing public buildings because he's friends with the President? That his relationship with Ayers makes him a Socialist with a capital "S"? Are you concerned that there's a wolf in sheep's clothing here who is not just a Democratic, but once elected will turn into Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro? I don't get those conclusions from either the nature of Obama's relationship with Ayers or from who Ayers seems to be.

The issue about Ayers is that one is judged by the company he keeps. If Ayers were a former Nazi prison guard, a member of the KKK or some other objectionable group, would that bother you, even if the person were reformed and apologetic, which Ayers is not.
I'd have respect for Ayers if he were willing to put his life on the line and fight the the government but he chose to leave bombs in places where innocent people got hurt. Richard Winters ("Band of Brothers") he isn't.
That said, the Ayer's issue is not the reason I'm not voting for Obama. The specter of Pelosi and Reid running unchecked is frightening.

"If Ayers were a former Nazi prison guard, a member of the KKK or some other objectionable group, would that bother you,"

I wouldn't be at all surprised. Do you think there are no elected officials at high levels who don't know members of the KKK? I could scream all I wanted to about how I disapproved, but others would be shouting me down saying that the elected official is not a member of the KKK, so cut 'em some slack.

lowery, there is a huge difference between merely knowing an unrepentant terrorist and working closely with him, which is what Obama did. This raises issues about his judgment and values. Ayers threw a fundraiser for Obama in 1995 and praised him to his friends in Hyde Park. What does that say about Obama's ideology? The fact that a radical anti-American like Ayers is willing to help advance Obama's career, speaks volumes about the type of worldview that informs Obama.

Jeremiah Wright is relevant, because he used the pulpit to preach utter hatred against his own country, and Obama chose to stay there for TWENTY years, and praised him as a great man. Wright was a close spiritual mentor, and this once again raises the question of what exactly Obama's values are. The fact of the matter is, for the past two years, the liberal media has given Obama a free pass and has failed to ask him the tough questions that should be required for a future president. As a matter of fact, Joe the Plumber has gotten more media scrutiny than Obama. Any critique of Obama's policies or values is branded as "vicious" or "racist." So the man remains an enigma, and when I look at his past, associations, speeches, policy proposals, interviews, etc., I do see a radical socialist who wants to remake America.

mets2009, great point. I am TERRIFIED of an ultra-liberal congress giving Obama everything he wants. Expect massvie tax increases, attempts to strengthen the power of unions, and net neutrality law that will curb freedom of speech. It really is scary to even think about.

Give 'em hell, Rufus! Obama is a socialist and Hitlery is a fascist...

sorry guys...but Obama is going to win in a landslide. The democrats will win congress and the senate and the next eight years are going to be great.

>sorry guys...but Obama is going to win in a landslide. The democrats will win congress and the senate and the next eight years are going to be great.<

It's okay, Julia. Just a hunch but I suspect this will create some terrific buying opportunities.