Ron Paul said that compared to the other two, Obama's foreign policy would be better since he seems to think that Obama will get us out of Iraq quicker. To say that he likes his foreign policy is, I believe, a bit of a stretch.

"Instead, Paul favors Sen. Barack Obama because of positions on foreign policy"

The big O is a socialists and how that squares with Paul is beyond me.

"The big O is a socialists and how that squares with Paul is beyond me."


Hrmm... Maybe you're initial determination that Obama is a socialist may not be correct???

So, I guess he figures Obomba is more of an isolationist than McCane.....well, that's probably true....

"The big O is a socialists and how that squares with Paul is beyond me."

Wow! Whodathunkit....Ron Paul doesn't give a crap about what names Sniper calls Obama!
Can't wait now for all the Ron Paul supporters to do the right thing and vote Obama for America.

Face it, McBush makes any candidate look good. Remember, this is the guy even Republicans don't like.

Danni,

All the Ron Paul supporters?

Ron Paul supporters to do the right thing and vote Obama for America.

Posted by danni


Voting for Obama in the next election is like voting against Kerry in the last election.

It's just silly to think that Obama could actually be a good President.

Hrmm... Maybe you're initial determination that Obama is a socialist may not be correct???

Posted by __b__

He is the most lib person in the senate. I don't think so. Have you realy listened to what he says or are you just looking at his stand on Iraq?

Yeah Eddie, George W. Bush was such an intelligent choice. Some folks are just so dumb there is no hope for them.

Ron Paul's foreign policy dismatles the American Empire. The first thing Paul will do as President is to bring every soldier home who is serving overseas.

Obama's policy is the only one that comes close to that.

It's just silly to think that Obama could actually be a good President.


You've got to admit, Bush has set the bar so low, anybody will be a better President. We can only hope Obama'll be a war winning, deficit eliminating global leader like Bill Clinton.

"All the Ron Paul supporters?"

Just the ones who aren't lunatics, which I will admit is a fairly good portion of his supporters.

"Remember, this is the guy [meaning McCain] even Republicans don't like."
posted by Northguy

Actually, Republicans love him. It's conservatives that don't.

Yeah Eddie, George W. Bush was such an intelligent choice. Some folks are just so dumb there is no hope for them.

Posted by danni


I don't think Paul voters should vote for Obama because he is the least of the 3 evils, is what I'm saying.

Obama does not have the "full package" to lead the American people.

The big O is a socialists and how that squares with Paul is beyond me.

Posted by Sniper at 2008-05-06 03:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obama is a 'socialists' like Bush is a Nazi.

S'OK, a majority thought president dimwit was the "full package" in 2004 and look at how wrong they were.

Obama is a 'socialists' like Bush is a Nazi.

Posted by COMMONSENSE


No, Obama is definately a socialist. Why are you saying he is not?

S'OK, a majority thought president dimwit was the "full package" in 2004 and look at how wrong they were.

Posted by evilpolock


You are following my logic very well, then.

That means that Danni tends to believe Obama CAN run the country...

Many people like here are wrong.

Voting for Obama in the next election is like voting against Kerry in the last election.

It's just silly to think that Obama could actually be a good President.

Posted by Eddie at 2008-05-06 04:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Honestly, and without any republican/limbaugh talking points, what, in your own opinion made you think that Kerry would not be a good president compared to Bush?

Was it education?
His experience in Combat?
His having been a DA and Senator?

I see people say this all the time and so far nobody had been able to clearly give me an anwser that didn't involve something stupid like 'having a beer with him'. Anyone else?

Eddie People are voting for Obama because he is theri first choice, Hillary would be their second choice, McBush would be an unacceptable outcome which probably could only happen with a stolen election.

The big O is a socialists and how that squares with Paul is beyond me.

Posted by Sniper at 2008-05-06 03:41 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


"The big O is a socialists and how that squares with Paul is beyond me."


Hrmm... Maybe you're initial determination that Obama is a socialist may not be correct???


Posted by __b__

If either of you had read the article, it's clear that the reason given for him favoring Obama is foreign policy, not whether he's a "socialist" or not. Just because he favors O's foreign policy doesn't mean he favors everything else. Here let me help you:

Instead, Paul favors Sen. Barack Obama because of positions on foreign policy.

The big O is a socialists and how that squares with Paul is beyond me.

Ah, the proganda is strong is this young one.

American proganda has spent billions of dollars over the last several decades convincing it's citizenry that socialism equates to communism which it doesn't.

In fact, one of the things that has made America the great country it still is in many respects is the hard fought and won gains for workers in the early part of the previous century. 5 day working week. Overtime. MAternity leave and so on and so forth.

Socialism within the bounds of a truly democratic structure is preferable to the kind of corporate fascism which America creeps closer and closer to becoming, day by day and year by year.

Infrastructure and social programs are things to be desired not derided.

Corporate Welfare and over-influence is to be derided and quashed where ever possible unless you are of a mind with asswipes like John Jay Rockerfeller who once stated that "Those who own everything should run everything"

That way lies a internal third world-ification of the once proud USA.

That is also the path yer on now, btw.

Be Well.

On Topic?

Of course Paul prefers Obama to McCain. Despite being half crazy RP was the only half sane candidate the reichwing nutjobs fielded this time out.

McCain is a dangerous lunatic and a meat puppet for the worst elements on the right despite being sold as being a Republican-lite anti-Bush.

"We can only hope Obama'll be a war winning, deficit eliminating global leader like Bill Clinton."
posted by Northguy

This is a great point, but it only works if he has a Republican congress. Last time we had a DemPres with a DemCongress ('77-'80, '93-'94) things didn't work out so well, nor has a RepubPres with a RepubCongress ('01-'06). Opposite of that would be our success of opposing parties ('81-'88 and '95-'00). We need opposing ideals in those positions or things go to hell.

"McBush would be an unacceptable outcome which probably could only happen with a stolen election."
--DANNI

Nevermind that the polls are showing McCain as very close behind, tied, or narrowly beating either dem.

I guess you're simply getting the excuses warmed up just in case.

Obama is a 'socialists' like Bush is a Nazi.

Posted by COMMONSENSE


No, Obama is definately a socialist. Why are you saying he is not?

Posted by Eddie at 2008-05-06 04:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've seen his policies and they don't resemble socialism in the least. I don't care how many times Rush Limpblob tells you this shit, it simply isn't true.

Remember when Rush said that all drug addicts should be in prison? he flipped pretty quick when it came to his own ass and McCains wife, What I'm saying is that you can't believe anything Limpblob tells you.

Do you really think you're going to be goose stepping after he takes office? Do you think that you're going to be told where to live and what job to do? Seriously, do you think like that?

Kerry would not be a good president compared to Bush

To me? John Kerry came across as a fake and leaned too far to the right. I voted for Bush and had it to do over again, I would have voted independent.

This time, I will vote independent.

If Kerry won in 2004, IMHO, would have brought on the recession much faster. The war would still be going on. But we would be on the road to recovery now instead of being on the edge of a looming recession.

Actually, Kerry makes a better candidate than Obama or Clinton.

BTW, McCain must not win the election, IMO

"I've seen his policies and they don't resemble socialism in the least."
--COMMONSENSE

Please do expand on that thought. Show us how Obama's policies don't resemble socialism at all, not even a little bit.

Do you really think you're going to be goose stepping after he takes office? Do you think that you're going to be told where to live and what job to do? Seriously, do you think like that?

Posted by COMMONSENSE


I think my taxes are going to go up and I truely think that small business oppotunities will be even more limited.

But, what you are eluding to is a Communist way of thinking.

Big difference between Socialism and Communism.

"BTW, McCain must not win the election, IMO"
--EDDIE

Actually, I think that could be the best thing to happen to the GOP. To just shut down for a while. Let them realize that what they're doing now, has to stop.

"This time, I will vote independent."

I'm with you on that.

"I've seen his policies and they don't resemble socialism in the least."
--COMMONSENSE

Please do expand on that thought. Show us how Obama's policies don't resemble socialism at all, not even a little bit.

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE



Obama is the most left candidate to get this close to the election in history.

Can you name any candidate in the past who has been more socialist that Obama?

It's the trend of the US. We are becoming more like Europeans-- Wanting everything from the government.

Eddie,
Even if people vote based on the premise of it can't get worse than it's been with Bush, I can almost guarantee you they will be right. The righties defend this guy to the very end and his presidency is basically indefensible, unless you are scared to death of the muslim boogey man and believe this coward is the only one who can protect you. Outside of his cowboy rhetoric, he's worse than an empty suit.

""This time, I will vote independent."

I'm with you on that."
posted by LIVE OR DIE

That makes three of us. Wayne Root in '08!

Outside of his cowboy rhetoric, he's worse than an empty suit.

Posted by evilpolock at


Agreed

so far nobody had been able to clearly give me an anwser
Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2008-05-06 04:25 PM


Because he was a fucking traitor!

Paul was still on today's NC ballot. So were Alan Keyes and Mike Huckabee.

Kerrin,
Who was a traitor? Kerry? Explain...this should be good...

a fucking traitor!

Are you talking about McNutso again?

The guy who "wet started" his jet on the USS Forrestal and blew up a bomb on the wing of the jet behind him starting a masive fire on board in which many were injured?

Okay, that was merely a spoiled, thoughtless, military royalty brat trying to act like a hot shot not so much the act of traitor.

That sed, there are dark rumours that McInsane actually sold out his fellow captors in the Hanoi Hilton in order to achieve better conditions for himself and those rumours, if true, would make him a traitor.

His backing of this insane coroporate over-reach in Iraq makes him a traitor to the people of his country albeit a hero to the mostly American based multinationals whose agenda started the thing.

Be Well.

Eddie-
re: Obama is the most left candidate to get this close to the election in history.

I dunno. The guy who delivered this speech was pretty out there:

''Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children . . . This is not a way of life at all in any sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.''

No, Obama is definately a socialist. Why are you saying he is not?

What industries is he advocating nationalizing? We already have free schools, roads and libraries.Even Maggie Thatcher supported nationa health care, so that's gotta be okay. Obama is in the mold of social democrats, the kind of people that run ever other democracy in the world, except Russia.

Or do you define socialist as everybody left of Cheney?

No, Obama is definately a socialist. Why are you saying he is not?

What industries is he advocating nationalizing? We already have free schools, roads and libraries.Even Maggie Thatcher supported nationa health care, so that's gotta be okay. Obama is in the mold of social democrats, the kind of people that run ever other democracy in the world, except Russia.

Or do you define socialist as everybody left of Cheney?

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

LOD, you're incredibly far off on that assertion. Please do a little research and come back with the truth. That number included entire family income, a spouse and multiple children, and only in the most expensive area(s) of the country. In no way is it the average, or the mean, or truly representative of the idea of S-chip. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot not to like about it, but you're being irresponsible by throwing out misleading crap like that.

Live or Die-
re: Obama would ammend this statement to include middle class 30 year old men making 60+ grand a year. (they need free health care too)

Really? Obama is offering free health care to single 30ish men making over $60,000 a year?

Would you provide a link, or did you just make that up?

God, I HOPE Obama's a socialist. It's time we started evolving.

"No, Obama is definately a socialist. Why are you saying he is not?"

No, Obama is definitely not a socialist. Why are you saying he is?

See, blogging is easy!

Sagmain-
How do you think pundits and professional assholes would react if Obama delivered some of Eisenhower's speeches nearly word for word?

My, how we've changed over the last fifty years.

Yes, Evilpolock... a traitor. The why has been hashed to death, so why bore you and me?

Just like I can see Bush was a slacker in the reserves and Cheney dodged the draft.

We can agree to disagree.

"God, I HOPE Obama's a socialist. It's time we started evolving."

Stifling an economy just to make it fair for everyone is evolution?

"LOD, you're incredibly far off on that assertion."
--DANFORTH

I won't deny that I completely exaggerated it.

"Please do a little research and come back with the truth. That number included entire family income, a spouse and multiple children, and only in the most expensive area(s) of the country. In no way is it the average, or the mean, or truly representative of the idea of S-chip. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot not to like about it, but you're being irresponsible by throwing out misleading crap like that."

I'm failing to see where his plan (as presented on his campaign's website) narrows down the offered subsidies to families with multiple children in only the most expensive areas of the country. Perhaps you could help me out.

God, I HOPE Obama's a socialist. It's time we started evolving.

~Sagmain

Stifling an economy just to make it fair for everyone is evolution?

~The Pink and the Stink

Fair is evolution.

Unfair is devolution.

America is becoming more like a third world country everyday due to corporate over-influence.

Essentially, America is a democracy in name only and in practise is really a country run by the golden rule (ie. Them wot gots the gold makes the rules) which is the very anti-thesis of a democracy.

America's manufacturing base has all but fled in search of climates that do not have worker's rights or enviromental laws and that frequently have heavy handed regimes that enforce the will of government over the express wishes of the people.

The rich get richer.
The poor get poorer.
The middle class are squeezed out of existence.

Working towards social justice, less inequity and against corporate over-influence is not merely a matter of morals and self interest but one of survival in the long term.

The technology now exists that can make a "1984" like state work for BigGov/Big Biz perpetually and thus prevent any real meaningful social reform.

The time to become aware of these issues and to act is NOW.

The fierce urgency of now calls.

Listen up or lose big.

Be Well.

Spud...I have been reading about Mac also. I have yet to come to my own conclusion. I'm not going to stick my head up where the sun don't shine singing nananananana about Mac... just because he is the closest thing to a conservative my side has.
Excuse me that made me a little nauseous.
You know...like y'all did with Kerry,Clinton, and are now doing with info about BHO.

"This time, I will vote independent."

Do us all a favor, Deddie, and stay home drinking. It's what you do best.

What have conservatives done for this country? Seriously. What
have they done to advance us as a nation? To open up possibility to all Americans? What wars, in this century, have conservatives won -- save for the Gulf War, which come on guys, was a pogo dance over a paper tiger. Beside hijacking religion to advance a political agenda, promoting fear as a lifestyle, widening the divide between the classes and bankrupting our future so to make Grover (deadneck) Norquist's cigarette hard -- what the F have the conservatives done for America? If you really think about it, conservatives have been the most anti-american of all. The ultimate tricksters. Satanic, maybe?
Eh, don't matter anyhow. They can kick and scream and make some noise but they are done. Basta. Over and out. And in the words of Monty Python --- there was much rejoicing.

Actually, Republicans love him. It's conservatives that don't.


A "conservative" is a Republican that hasn't got the guts to admit they supported Bush.

Barack is not the most liberal in the Senate. He's not in the top ten. That's easy to google. Barack is no socialist. Indeed, not even by the standards of the DR righties who pin that label on any person who's ever thought of another person. herm

By Brian Friel, Richard E. Cohen and Kirk Victor, National Journal
National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, Jan. 31, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.
**************
I don't make this shit up.

"I'm failing to see where his plan (as presented on his campaign's website) narrows down the offered subsidies to families with multiple children in only the most expensive areas of the country. Perhaps you could help me out."

You're right, you're "failing to see" it. So---what---you decided to throw feces against the wall to see what would stick?!?

You made the bogus assertion. That means the onus is on you to either prove or retract. We're going to have big enough problems, regardless who gets elected, to make up some pretend ones. For starters, look up "poverty level" and "cost of living".

Think it was Pinkie above who said we need a divided government.

Can we imagine a GOP congress, like the one that caved to each and every Bush/Cheney excess, writing even one little bitty piece of legislation that would benefit rank and file Americans... forget about it !

Give us a Dem pres with real Dem house and senate majorities and we can eventually work our way out of what BushCo has done to us.

And those filibustering GOP Senators ? Seems like they will be coming up for election, right ?

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.
**************
I don't make this shit up.

No, but the National Journal does.

And yer quite correct to call it "shit".

On Thursday afternoon, political reporters across the country received a gushing email from the Republican National Committee, with a big picture of Barack Obama next to the words "Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007." It was a reference to the National Journal, Washington's big-deal political trade magazine, which released its annual bipolar rankings of the Senate. The results: Hillary Clinton was the 16th most liberal member of the Senate. Barack Obama was #1.

For those Democrats who still have nightmares from the 2004 election, the importance of this fact is unmistakable. Back then, Republicans repeatedly tarred nominee John Kerry with the fact that he had been ranked as the #1 most liberal member of Senate in 2003. Could it all be happening again? If Obama is the nominee, you can bet on it. In point of fact, both Obama and Clinton are relatively liberal members of the Senate. But "most liberal"? That sounds a bit like being the drunkest guy at a Superbowl party--not something to be proud of in a general election.

The more interesting question, though, is, Does this "most liberal" ranking actually mean anything? And the answer, once you look at the National Journal's methodology, is not really. I say this only because I got an email from Dave Meyer, a researcher here in DC, who is one of the many usually-unnamed people who toil behind the scenes in Washington brokering in information. Here is what Meyer wrote:

I actually browsed through the scorecard National Journal used to determine the ranking. There are precisely two scored votes where Obama took the liberal position and Clinton took the conservative. The first was Joe Lieberman's S.Amdt. 30 to S.Amdt. 3 to S.1 The Amendment was "To establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity." Here's the roll call of the 27-71 vote. Joining Obama on the "liberal" side -- meaning the side in support of Joe Lieberman's amendment -- were Republicans Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe Chuck Grassley, and John McCain.
The second was Jeff Bingaman's S.Amdt. 1267 to S.Amdt.1150 to S.1348, the Immigration Reform bill. The Amendment was "To remove the requirement that Y-1 nonimmigrant visa holders leave the United States before they are able to renew their visa." Here's the roll call of the 41-57 vote (60 votes needed to pass, so it failed by 19). Joining Obama on the "liberal' side were Richard Shelby, Chuck Hagel, and Tom Coburn.

So there you have it. Obama is more liberal than Clinton because he voted with John McCain, the most likely Republican nominee, and Tom Coburn, one of the Senate's most conservative members. Ain't political rankings a wonderful thing?

It's just silly to think that Obama could actually be a good President.
Posted by Eddie

It's silly to think that ANY of the three choices for POTUS could actually be a good president.
It always comes down to the lesser of evil doesn't it.

Just ONCE it would be nice to have a "real" choice!

I'm gonna be brief here to Spudmeister and company can comprehend:

1 - Paul did not (and will not) endorse Obama, he only favors some of Obama's foreign policy positions.

2 - any candidate who advocates government interference in any industry (including the medical industry) is a Socialist therefore Obama is a Socialist.

3 - McCain is a RHINO (Republican In Name Only).

> "God, I HOPE Obama's a socialist. It's time we started evolving."

Ha HA! Love this one. Let's get our own "Great Leap Forward" started right now, shall we? Give me a break.

1. Democrats are socialists. Look at their platforms. They have a government answer to every darned problem you can imagine. And even when they have to power to de-fund wars they won't do it, because they're bought and paid for just like all politicians.

2. Republicans have morphed into warlike socialists. They also have a government answer to almost all of your problems. And if they don't, they'll darned sure invade some country for your protection instead.

3. And for crissakes, QUIT referring to our country as a "democracy" you dolts! We must all take the same pill in government schools or when reading mass media to think that we're a "democracy". We are not and never have been, thank GOD (and I'm not even religious...)

What's Michelle Obama so bittewr about? She's still mad about her SAT scores anr she sees nothing good about America. If we play her crazy rants 24/7 we won't have to wear out our Rev Wright tapes. Does Barack Obama have anyone around him that is not a left wring wacko flaming crazy including his wife.

"any candidate who advocates government interference in any industry (including the medical industry) is a Socialist therefore Obama is a Socialist."

Well, by that barometer, we've been socialist since the day America wrote its first regulation, and moved onto a new plain with the bailout/rescue of Bear Stearns.

Dan-add in agriculture, the energy industry,the auto industry, the aircraft industry, the pharmaceutical industry and America is positively communistic!

just a bit misleading.. he likes his foreign policy, because Obama talks (but will not act like it if elected) an isolationist like Paul.

Paul, an avid anti tax advocate will not endorse Obama's tax and spend socialist ways..

Paul is like an old uncle.. that's hard to dislike, but you know in your heart that he's nuts.

Who doesn't prefer Obama over McCain? The usual douchebags.

Charlie Gibson "It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent .... And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

"And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected? "


BHO
" what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness..... That's not fair."

"And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased."

There is a law of decreasing returns, lowering the rate will only gain higher revenues to a point at which it will begin decreasing revenues as is the case today.

"especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected? "

And about 80 million of those own small amounts and don't depend on stocks for income. Most just have stock in their 401ks and won't see any income from them until retirement at which point they can withdraw and not pay tax anyway.

"change" (i.e., revolution), to include socializing medicine, isolating our workers from foreign competition by beating back free trade aggreements, restricting gun ownership, redistributing income by raising taxes, and taking back the means of production from greedy corporations.

Are you talking about McNutso again?

The guy who "wet started" his jet on the USS Forrestal and blew up a bomb on the wing of the jet behind him starting a masive fire on board in which many were injured?


*Swat*

Bad dog!


Seriously, how many times does your specious bullshit have to be proven wrong before you stop spewing?

Righto is watching you....just like Santa Claus.

"And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased."

Charlie Gibson adds to the ranks of newspeople who would flunk a freshman Econ 101 midterm: he ddn't factor in inflation.

Once you do that, which every new Econ student must do before being dismissed for fall break, the truth emerges: tax cuts DO NOT increase revenue. The highest government revenues ever--once adjusted properly for inflation--were TY 2000, the last year of the Clinton tax codes.

" what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness..... That's not fair."

Currently, we tax unemployment at higher rates than long term capital gain; in some cases, more than double.

Fair?

2005 21,677,179t schedule D for capital gains or dividends. ... 29 %/6,452,405 had income under $50,000. 64%/13,859,448 had incomes under $100,000.


"the Wall Street Journal, capital gains realizations went from $269 billion in 2002, before the tax cut, to $729 billion in 2006. As a result, Treasury revenues more than doubled in the same time period from $49 billion to $110 billion.

In 1986, Congress raised the capital gains tax rate from 20 percent to 28 percent. Four years later, the Treasury was taking in 13 percent less revenue at a 28 percent rate than it did in 1985 at the 20 percent rate."

Currently, we tax unemployment at higher rates

Dan...splain for me.

""the Wall Street Journal, capital gains realizations went from $269 billion in 2002, before the tax cut, to $729 billion in 2006. As a result, Treasury revenues more than doubled in the same time period from $49 billion to $110 billion."

You're taking one stat in a vacuum. Compare total revenues to total revenues, that's the only stat that truly matters. If "tax cuts increase revenues", revenues would be higher once adjusted for inflation. They're not.

Besides, when it comes to tax cuts for their "constituents", the WSJ has about as much credibility as Newsmax.

"Currently, we tax unemployment at higher rates "

Unemployment is taxed as regular income, as high as 35%. LTCGs have a top rate of 15%. That's more than double. In the middle bracket it's 25% vs. 15%. In the lower bracket it's 15% vs. 5%. In the lowest, it's 10% vs. 5%. There are no brackets where LTCGs are taxed as high as unemployment, unless the taxpayer has no taxable income and is in the zero bracket.

when it comes to tax cuts for their "constituents", the WSJ has about as much credibility as Newsmax.


tsk...tsk...

From what I can garner there are a lot of differing opinions from various economists on this. So I admit...we tend to gravitate toward the ones that reaffirm our own positions.
But from personal experience ...and having had to pay a very large capital gains tax after years scraping by and sweat labor...it is not just the rich.

Okay ...but to be taxed at the 35% rate one must include a pretty big lump(evil rich) in other income to kick one into that bracket ...right? I mean if you are living on unemployment ...wouldn't it be more than likely you wouldn't even kick into a minimum bracket?


Maybe a dumb question there but we alway hired our done.

"we tend to gravitate toward the ones that reaffirm our own positions."

You're joking, right? The bottom line numbers reaffirm my position. One has to cherry-pick stats to reaffirm yours. Independent groups agree with me. Groups with an agenda (the WSJ, with a vested interest in tax cuts for the wealthiest) agree with you. BTW, if you really want the truth--sometimes brutal--about American markets, I'd suggest the UK Financial Times.

"to be taxed at the 35% rate one must include a pretty big lump(evil rich) in other income to kick one into that bracket ...right?"

True. But consider an upper-level exec (making, say, $500K) who gets laid off on November 1st. His neighbor makes $1000 in LTCG and pays $150. He makes $1000 in unemployment and pays $350.

Fair?

Reinheitsgebot, thanks for the link. I'll bookmark it and save it for the next Econ 101 flunk-out.

"You're joking, right?

Not at all.

" Independent groups agree with me"

See?

"True."

So you are willing to sensationalize the size of that fruit just to make a more impressive argument.

"See?"

You're missing the point. Those who claim "tax cuts increase revenue" are ignoring the facts in favor of their agenda.

"So you are willing to sensationalize the size of that fruit just to make a more impressive argument."

I'm not sensationalizing anything. That's exactly what the tax code says. And the point isn't the example, it's the principle. A generation ago, the idea of taxing sweat-of-the-brow work MORE than unearned income was considering appalling. Today, it's standard operational procedure, in every tax bracket.

Fair?

"See?"

"You're missing the point"

And you cherry pick the " Independent groups agree with me"

Just proves my point.

"You're right, you're "failing to see" it. So---what---you decided to throw feces against the wall to see what would stick?!?

You made the bogus assertion. That means the onus is on you to either prove or retract."
--DANFORTH

Already said I completely exaggerated it. (duh, and learn to read)

"We're going to have big enough problems, regardless who gets elected, to make up some pretend ones. For starters, look up "poverty level" and "cost of living"."

Posted by Danforth

I'll just assume then that you can't show me where where his plan (as presented on his campaign's website) narrows down the offered subsidies to families with multiple children in only the most expensive areas of the country. Unless you want to show otherwise, especially since you're so concerned about me backing up an "assertion" which was really nothing more than hyperbole.

"especially since you're so concerned about me backing up an "assertion" which was really nothing more than hyperbole."

I'm not concerned. Keep throwing more feces for all I care. Just get accustomed to folks not believing a word you say. Fine by me.

"And you cherry pick the " Independent groups agree with me"
Just proves my point.

Then I'm sure you can find independent groups who agree with you.

Or maybe proof from the governmental revenue numbers, the only "group" that truly matters. Until you can show where revenues, adjusted for inflation, beat the TY 2000 revenues, you're provably full of shit.

Ron Paul got 8% on both the NC and IN primaries yesterday. No delegates, but it is interesting how much people dislike McCain.

"I'm not concerned."
--DANFORTH

Then this must've all been bullshit:

That number included entire family income, a spouse and multiple children, and only in the most expensive area(s) of the country. In no way is it the average, or the mean, or truly representative of the idea of S-chip.

You were barfing up a number which, you admitted, had no basis in reality. And now you want me to find what you admitted doesn't exist. Too precious.

More feces, please.

"You were barfing up a number which, you admitted, had no basis in reality. And now you want me to find what you admitted doesn't exist. Too precious."
--DANFORTH

I barfed up a number (in jest, btw) that you apparently thought existed, and made a bunch of assertions about.

So, you either admit it was bullshit (like I did), or you back it up.

"So, you either admit it was bullshit (like I did), or you back it up."

Before you admitted it was bullshit, I knew you were wrong, and surmised the only place you could have gotten that (bullshit) number is from the S-chip debate, in which case, you were wildly misrepresenting the truth. Since being caught, you've decided to bag on me for pointing out your admittedly purposeful lie.

More feces please, Lie or Die.

Really, all bickering aside, I'm assuming you said what you said because you actually do have a link to it. Just come out with it. I looked at his website and didn't find anything of the sort, but I'm assuming you have another study in mind, or something else of the sort.

"I knew you were wrong, and surmised the only place you could have gotten that (bullshit) number is from the S-chip debate"
--DANFORTH

No, actually it was my ass.

" I looked at his website and didn't find anything of the sort"

Really? You looked at his website and couldn't find any evidence of your lie? What a surprise!

"No, actually it was my ass."

Oh....the usual place. That explains it.

"Really? You looked at his website and couldn't find any evidence of your lie? What a surprise!"

Posted by Danforth

You must be a blast at parties. Or just really dense to think that first remark was anyting more than hyperbole. (which I admitted about a bazillion times ... oops another "lie")

So anyway, I checked out his web site looking for something on your comment (not mine, duh, and learn to read) about the families with multiple children in the most expensive areas of the country, thinking you were reference his health plan (since that's what I was joking about). I see now that you were talking about something else: "the S-chip debate."

Riveting "debate."

And Obama eats kittens. (damn, I just can't stop lying)

"which I admitted"

You posted the bullshit multiple times, and "admitted" the "exaggeration" only after being caught. Wow, that's some barometer for hyperbole you've got there.

Posted by Danforth


When did you beomce such a 'gotcha' guy?


I have been following your arguement with some interest and I construe LoD's comments as he's clarified them to be.

"Posted by Danforth

When did you beomce such a 'gotcha' guy?"

Posted by JeffJ

Meh, that's the way things go here. He gotcha'd me good, though. Gotta give him that.

I'm more interested now in whether Hans is out there archiving this information.

"American proganda has spent billions of dollars over the last several decades convincing it's citizenry that socialism equates to communism which it doesn't."

Posted by dethspud

No it isn't, but it is still more than halfway there.

Both require that the worker to contribute in some part to the whole for redistribution to and use by greater populace.

Not a critique, but an observation.

The US is already a semi-Socialist state: any successful country must per force be so.

Most Americans simply like to pretend that the US is a full-blown democracy, have little to no understanding that this is not so, and cannot grok the fact that the public school system, despite the cheeriest cheerleaders and the jockiest jocks, is a function/is a product of a Socialist state, as is the interstate highway system, as is any public transportation system, as are the various police forces and fire brigades.

"Despite being half crazy RP was the only half sane candidate the reichwing nutjobs fielded this time out."

RP is savvy enough to acknowledge that he could go nowhere running as what he fundamentally is: a Constitutional Libertarian, another concept that the American populace can't seem to grok. So he put on the suit of the Republican and hoped to work miracles from within the mainstream party.

No RP on the ballot?

Then I casts me vote for Mr. NOTA.

RP is savvy enough to acknowledge that he could go nowhere running as what he fundamentally is: a Constitutional Libertarian, another concept that the American populace can't seem to grok. So he put on the suit of the Republican and hoped to work miracles from within the mainstream party

Word brother..

Who gives a dam what the asshole Paul thinks!

Who gives a dam what the asshole Paul thinks!

People who don't have their head up their ass..

Who gives a dam what the asshole Paul thinks!

People who don't have their head up their ass..