While I think Palin falls short with regard to experience when compared to Biden, she isn't running for President. I don't believe she's an idiot.
I think Obama supporters are the idiots. And I think Obama, himself, is an idiot.
Don't get me wrong,I know Obama is an educated man. In fact, he is the chiche of the "over achieving....." I'm not going to finish and be called racist b/c I'm far from it.
What's up w/ refering to the "middle class" as those who make less than $250,000 a year? The truth is they will see tax breaks after he raises them first. Check his senate record. And then tell me why, after catching the 5:40AM train every day for 15 years and never coming home earlier than 7PM, I should give 50 %of my salary away? To whom????? I've worked my ass off to get to where I am. Because I WORK, I should help those who either don't or make no money? This may be the land of opportunity but that doesn't mean my salary should carry those people who can't. I already give to charity.
Democrats really misinform people. When it comes to spending, they do it all TOO well.
Let's take a look at his voting record in the Senate,and compare it with how he claims to vote. They are two sets of facts. The true fact is that he has always supported an increasing in spending, except in the area of National Defense.
He is against spending money for our military in Iraq, claiming we should "just bring our military home in 16 months". Sounds like he wants to see another Vietnam. Ask the soldiers in Iraq, and you will hear they want to finish their job and come home heroes.
Obama doesn't seem TO GET foreign policy. He appears impulsive and his ideas re: foreign ANYTHING aren't realistic. He has virtually no experience, and has never visited any of these mentioned countries. He is well-supported in terrorist counties b/c he is known to "talk the talk" but wouldn't know the direction to WALK. These countries would have fun with him at our/our military's expense. So, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan have his vote. I would doubt Iraq would.
He doesn't seem TO GET, the Iranian Gov't dragged its feet the last 3 years when their own newly trained soldiers sat idly and let the US fight for them. When anti-war activists and Bush critics claim we were there simply for oil, have we gotten any? No, it is time for Iraq to step up to the plate so we can concentrate more on the borders, and the surrounding countries like Afghanistan.
We have Special Forces in Afghanistan. It isn't well publicized. because it is a very tedious terrain to work in, and very unsafe. The countries which border it, like Iran and Pakistan can't be trusted. They don't support US troops bc they are engaged in terrorism, both selling and shipping weapons. Their insurgence into Iraq has made securing Irag difficult. The result:more troops are needed. More spending....alas there is an end in sight.
The question has been "are we safer than we were post 9/11" I haven't seen any recent terrorist attacks in the US. We saw quite a few before 9/11. We have managed to avoid attacks due to the information coming out of Iraq. Unfortunately Democrats keep referring back to being AGAINST this war. That's easy to say now. Enough of them supported it then. However, we are in one and need to finish what we started. And only an idiot says it can happen in 16 months.
I think Democrats also need to remember that the President of the US is never working alone. So, the overreaction of "what if Palin were to be President" is unfounded. She will have the Senate, a Cabinet, and chief advisors. And, obviously, Palin wouldn't have that IDIOT Katie Curic (pretending she knew anything beyond colonoscopies), in her face.
Let's see.....how many times in the last 20 years has the VP become Commander in Chief? For 10 minutes twice? One hour? While Reagan was under anesthesia?
I think Palin did just fine. She is no idiot. Just not a smooth talking bs artist. I'm sick of Obama's knack for saying absolutely nothing specific.....nothing striking......and people thinking he has the ability to lead beyond a boy scout troop. Read the facts and read between the lines.
The man says NOTHING.....he can say nothing in 1500 ways...
signed,
making over 7 digits and tired of giving away half in taxes.
PS Biden has the right to cry, I feel for him, but not during a debate. That was a nice try. Sleazy Democrats.
COMMENT:
Let's See If The Uber Wealtly Are Realy Patriotic
And Love America Like The Rest Of Us.
Let's Have A TEMPORARY Tax On The Uber Wealthy
To Pay For The Iraq War.
The TEMPORARY Tax On The Uber Wealthy
Will End One Year After The Iraq War Ends.
I Can Already Here The Howls From The Greenwich Country Clubs.
"Bring Our Troops Home !!!!!"
More And More American's Are Losing Thier Chance At Having A Little Slither Of The American Dream, Because Greedy Hedge Fund Guys Are Taxed At A 15% Rate And Thier Secretaries Are Tax At A 35% Rate.
Now Greedy Wall Street Guys Want Honest Hard Working American's To Give Them Over 750 Billion In Corporate Welfare Payments, Because They Were Irresponsible.
During the period from 1947 to 1974, the real income of households across the board remained relatively steady when measured as a percentage increase. The gap between the rich and poor was growing, but the extent to which this was occurring was rather controlled.
After 1974, however, this trend changed dramatically, resulting in slower and less evenly distributed increases in real income. The result of which was a drastic widening of the gap between the rich and the poor.
There are significant partisan differences that have led to this skewed income distribution.
Under Republican administrations, and allowing a one-year lag to provide for time for policies to have effect, unemployment has increased, while gross national product and inflation have decreased. The opposite has occurred under Democratic control of the White House. This, reflects the basic divergence in policy objectives of the two parties.
Where partisan differences really begin to exacerbate income inequality is taxation.
The tax policy of Republican administrations tends to favor the wealthy segments of society through policies such as tax cuts that mostly favor the rich and businesses, and repeal of the estate tax, which only applies to multi-millionaires. Democratic policy follows more egalitarian values, utilizing redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation to decrease inequality.
In fact, there are significant data that show a pattern between Republican administrations and slow income growth across the board, and among the poor especially. On the other hand, the data suggest that, under Democratic administrations, inequality temporarily decreases, while more robust income growth is seen overall, and is especially concentrated in the middle- and lower-classes.
The shame of this great country is the lack of compassion we show with the minimum wage.
Republicans tend to favor a lower minimum wage, while Democrats support its increase.
Historically, public opinion has been strongly in favor of increasing the minimum wage, but despite this, the political system is not responding to public opinion and the real value of the minimum wage has actually decreased since the late 1960s.
People who earn the minimum wage can't afford high paid lobbists or massive amounts of political contributions.
Partisan Republican political bias is evident here.
In the 25 years between 1949 and 2004 in which Democrats controlled the White House, the real value of the minimum wage increased by $4, while during the 31 years in which Republicans were in office, it declined by about $2.
Members of congress, regardless of party affiliation, are not responsive at all to the public opinion of the bottom third of voters. Republicans were more responsive than Democrats to the most wealthy voters, but this does not alter the fact that neither party even appeared to consider the opinion of the poorest portion of society.
With the gulf between the rich and the poor increasing, these opposite ends of the economic spectrum are becoming more and more isolated from one another. When added to existing racial and social tensions, this leads to less sympathy for poor people among the rest of society, which in turn leads to policies that further increase inequality.
Only emergencies are likely to bring attention to the rising inequality between the rich and the poor, and even these have limited effectiveness.
We all say I don’t like what I see, but that doesn’t make it go away.
Despite these bleak results, the poor are not powerless. Partisan identification has a greater effect on a Congressman's voting behavior than the opinion of the constituency that he or she represents.
Look at how Chis Shays has changed as the number of registered Democrats has exploded in his district. He is now puts Obama in his campgain ads.
As a result, simply by voting, even the poorest member of society has the opportunity to profoundly impact the political process.
If you and your family is hurting go out in November and vote for Obama and watch how the Republicans come around and kiss your butt next time.
PLEASE ALSO SEE:
Tax the Wealthy
Why America needs the estate tax.
By William H. Gates and Chuck Collins
For more than a decade, a powerful group of special-interest organizations has waged a multimillion-dollar campaign to turn public opinion against a tax that falls on the wealthiest 2 percent of the population. It worked. The "death tax," many Americans now believe, afflicts family farmers and small-business owners, robbing them of the opportunity to bequeath their lives' fortunes to their children.
The people pushing this line include the heirs to the Gallo wine and Mars candy fortunes, along with an organized association of more than 100 independent newspaper owners. Together with a veritable antitax industry of think tanks and lobbying firms in Washington, these groups have formed a potent "death tax elimination" lobby.
Of course, the vast majority of family farmers will never owe an estate tax. Rather, the windfall of estate tax repeal will shower upon the heirs and heiresses of the 3,000 wealthiest estates. This elite group will inherit billions in appreciated stock and real estate -- significant capital gains, many of which have never been subject to taxation.
Why do we raise the issue now? Because in a matter of days the Senate will decide whether to make permanent the 2001 repeal of the estate tax. It's an issue that has scarcely made the news, but its consequences will profoundly affect the health of the republic.
Many Americans believe that the estate tax debate has already played out. After all, the tax's phase-out and eventual repeal were included in the $1.35 trillion tax cut that President Bush signed into law last June. But the Bush tax bill includes such a puzzling assortment of phase-outs, delayed activation dates, and gimmicks that money guru Jane Bryant Quinn called it "a contemptible piece of consumer fraud." To mask the bill's enormous cost in outlying years, its authors included a "sunset" provision: At the end of 2010, tax rules revert to those in effect as of May 2001.
Predictably, the original patrons of the tax bill -- some of whom have spent millions in campaign contributions, political advertising, and lobbying fees to abolish the estate tax -- find the sunset provision unacceptable. They urgently wish to make repeal of the estate tax permanent. And if they don't succeed in doing so now, the odds will soon be against them, as budget deficits grow and the cost of repeal escalates.
If, however, the Senate bows to this lobby's pressures by permanently repealing the estate tax, the country stands to lose $800 billion between 2011 and 2021. It's a loss that will significantly undercut Social Security and Medicare over the next seven decades, hitting hard as the eldest baby boomers reach retirement age.
The United States also stands to lose one of its most progressive federal taxes. Only estates worth more than $1 million (or $2 million for couples) are subject to the tax -- and the bulk of it is paid by the fewer than 3,000 estates with assets in excess of $5 million. Thanks to the Bush tax cut, between now and 2009 the exemptions will rise to $3.5 million for an individual ($7 million for couples).
Some people object to the notion of a tax at death, but taxing dead multimillionaires is eminently more fair than taxing the not-so-rich living. Between now and 2052, the intergenerational transfer of wealth is projected to reach between $41 trillion and $136 trillion. An estimated one-third to one-half of this wealth will be transferred by estates worth more than $5 million.
The estate tax, should it remain in place, will therefore be an increasingly significant progressive source of revenue in the coming decades. Meanwhile, state budgets, already straining from plummeting tax revenues, will lose more than $6.5 billion a year when state-linked revenue from the estate tax is eliminated in 2005.
If the direct costs weren't high enough, the indirect ones could be beyond measure. Philanthropy is not solely inspired by the tax code, but the estate tax unquestionably provides a powerful incentive for charitably oriented people to stretch their giving. Estate tax repeal will most likely reduce charitable giving and bequests, particularly from estates in excess of $20 million, by an estimated $5 billion to $6 billion a year. This will certainly hit large charities that depend on bequests, such as hospitals, universities, and land conservancies. But it will also affect the entire nonprofit sector because one-third of all bequest dollars go toward creating or expanding foundations.
The debate that will decide all this may go by very quickly. Senators Phil Gramm of Texas and Jon Kyl of Arizona are fervently pushing to attach permanent repeal as a provision to any moving legislation. After Gramm threatened to attach the provision to the energy bill, the Senate Democratic leadership agreed instead to allow a freestanding vote on the matter before June 28. The vote currently looks too close to call, as each side pressures a handful of swing senators. Ultimately, the question is this: How high a price is America willing to pay in order to give a handful of millionaires and billionaires a tax break?
Opponents of the estate tax tend to be animated by a zealous belief in individual success and a profound animosity toward government. If my success results from my own effort and industry, the thinking runs, then the estate tax -- or any form of taxation -- is a form of larceny.
Like the "great man" theory of history, our dominant "great man" theory of wealth creation borders on mythology. Such folklore fills the pages of business magazines. In a recent interview, one chief of a global corporation was asked to justify his enormous compensation package. He responded, "I created over $300 billion in shareholder value last year, so I deserve to be greatly rewarded." The operative word here is "I." There was no mention of the share of wealth created by the company's other 180,000 employees. From this sort of thinking, it is a short distance to, "It's all mine" and, "Government has no business taking any part of it."
There is no question that some people accumulate great wealth through hard work, intelligence, creativity, and sacrifice. Individuals do make a difference, and it is important to recognize individual achievement. Yet it is equally important to acknowledge the influence of other factors, such as luck, privilege, other people's efforts, and society's investment in the creation of individual wealth.
Consider the many components of the social framework that enable great wealth to be built in the United States. Among them are a patent system, enforceable contracts, open courts, property ownership records, protection against crime and external threats, and public education. Even the stock market is a form of socially created wealth that provides liquidity to enterprises. David Blitzer, the chief investment strategist at Standard and Poors, recently wrote, "Financial markets are as much a social contract as is democratic government." When faith in this social system is shaken, as it has been by recent breaches of trust, we see how quickly individual wealth evaporates.
Some potential beneficiaries of estate tax repeal are well aware of the dynamic relationship between individual wealth and the society in which it's produced. Last year, Responsible Wealth (an organization co-founded by co-author Chuck Collins) circulated a petition in support of reforming, but not eliminating, the tax. More than 1,100 business leaders and investors who will pay estate taxes in the future signed it, including George Soros, Ted Turner, and David Rockefeller Jr., as well as hundreds of small-business owners and "millionaires next door" whose wealth totals between $1 million and $10 million.
Bootstrap sagas and "great man" theories reflect deep strains of American self-perception, but a countervailing view of wealth also claims roots in this country's history. In response to the dramatically unequal distribution of wealth in the first Gilded Age, Andrew Carnegie wrote The Gospel of Wealth, which proposed to address these disparities through steep inheritance taxes and aggressive charitable giving.
Republican President Theodore Roosevelt also believed that society had a claim on the accumulated fortunes of the very wealthy, thanks to its role in creating those fortunes. In his 1906 State of the Union address, Roosevelt proposed the creation of a federal inheritance tax. He explained: "The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government."
As Roosevelt further argued in a June 1907 speech: "Most great civilized countries have an income tax and an inheritance tax. In my judgment both should be part of our system of federal taxation." Such taxation, he noted, should "be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits."
No doubt Roosevelt would consider the great income and wealth inequalities of our second Gilded Age reason to increase rather than to eliminate the one tax we have that limits the buildup of hereditary concentrations of wealth. Roosevelt and others of his day understood that the American experiment was an attempt to balance economic liberty and free enterprise, on the one hand, with a traditional concern about democracy and the dangers of concentrated wealth and power, on the other. The estate tax, adopted in 1916, was one of the means by which Americans rejected the Old World, with its political and economic monarchies.
The upcoming vote on the estate tax will tell us much about the Senate's ability to maintain fiscal discipline at a time of war and budget deficits. Responsible senators should vote against making repeal of the estate tax permanent. They should open the next year with an honest debate about the dangers of wholesale repeal and the possibilities for meaningful reform.
If need be, Congress should explore the possibility of linking estate tax revenue to the Social Security trust fund, providing long-term solvency for the fund without increasing payroll taxes or reducing retiree benefits. But Congress should reject the notion of wholesale repeal in the short term because it is fiscally reckless -- and in the long term because we recognize the importance of protecting our democracy from a further buildup of hereditary wealth.
Please Send Your Comments To GreenwichRoundup@gmail.com
