Election 2008

[negator]

The McCain campaign has tried to laugh off the foul-up, which still robbed the focus of the day from Senator McCain's attempt to outline his economic credentials."

"My friends, they support me - Jack Kemp, and Phil Graham, and Joe Nobodycares - because I was a POW. And a military leader. And that's what this country needs, is leading. And someone has to do it. Jack Kemp and Joe Blow and Jack Kemp, they know this and that's why they, my friends, support me as their leader for leading. My friends. Jack Kemp. "

what other "low-level unpaid staff debacle"s can we look forward to? abu-guacamole?

 

[titsrock]

I think McCain will be a lameduck candidate by June. "Family Recipe-gate" is just ridiculous! It's not a meltdown...it's just the kind of no-brain dumbfuckery that doesn't bode well for his administration potential. Although it does beg the question of whether the Republican presidential candidates purposely position themselves as phony down-home aw shucks types just to get elected....Is it really a hard decision whether or not to post alleged family recipes? If this guy fucks this up..do we really want him answering that 3am phonecall in the White House?

 

[Jason z]

What does everybody think about the fair tax?
Here is some info on it if you have not heard about it..
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
If you like please vote for it so congress can pass it. It could be the answer to our economic troubles.

 

[Friday on my mind]

What does everybody think about the fair tax?
Here is some info on it if you have not heard about it..
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
If you like please vote for it so congress can pass it. It could be the answer to our economic troubles.

Of course the devil is in the details.But I will say given just who are the people pushing it mainly republicans and right wingers I would probably think its not a good idea.While real wages for workers have been eroding since the 70s the wealthy have seen their incomes explode and had their tax burden reduced at the same time.We don't need more of that type of reform which just leads to a bigger gap between the rich and everyone else do we?
You have to be carefull the rich have lots of money to promote such things as a "fair tax" or the "flat tax".What we need is a simpler tax system with less loopholes that is progressive, meaning that your tax rate is based on ability to pay.Someone making $25,000 a year should not be paying a similar tax rate as someone making $250,000 a year.

 

[icerfan]

While real wages for workers have been eroding since the 70s the wealthy have seen their incomes explode and had their tax burden reduced at the same time.

Well that's funny.

In 1979, the bottom 80% of taxpayers paid 43.6% of the total federal tax burden; the top 20% paid 56.4%.

In 2005 (last data available), the bottom 80% of taxpayers paid 31.3% of total federal tax burden; the top 20% paid 68.7%.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8885

I'm pretty sure 68.7% is greater than 56.4%.

Nice try.


On an unrelated note ... HE FLIPPED HER THE BIRD! :thefinger

 

[YMIHERE]

Well that's funny.

In 1979, the bottom 80% of taxpayers paid 43.6% of the total federal tax burden; the top 20% paid 56.4%.

In 2005 (last data available), the bottom 80% of taxpayers paid 31.3% of total federal tax burden; the top 20% paid 68.7%.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8885

I'm pretty sure 68.7% is greater than 56.4%.

Nice try.

It's funny how statistics can be used to "prove" anything. Here's a link to disprove your point.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html

Nice Try.

 

[icerfan]

I'm a little perplexed. The WP article is pulling data from the CBO, and my link is directly from the CBO website. But the numbers in the article (from 2001 to 2004) don't match the numbers on the CBO site. I'm wondering if it has to do with the quickness of the analysis in the article (data for 2004 reviewed in 2004) instead of longer term (2004 (and 2005) reviewed in 2008) :dunno:

But Friday did say ...

While real wages for workers have been eroding since the 70s

and the long term trend is still there. I do wish they had numbers further back than 1979, though.

 

[Jason z]

i don't think someone who makes more income should have to pay more taxes..

 

[titsrock]

I think the "rich" will be able to "manage" nicely if the Bush tax cuts are revoked. I do wish that "the marriage penalty" would be "removed." There should be no penalty for getting married and having kids:dunno: There should be no penalty for being single either. But there might come a day when we need to "encourage" families to have 3 kids...I've read reports that we're becoming "the new Japan" meaning our population is getting old and kiddie birth rates aren't looking too good in general terms...

I think Friday's broader point pertains to the Middle Class feels inflation and the peso'ing of the value of the dollar before the "rich" ever do. The "purchasing power" and financial clout of the middle class has been descending into the shitter since the 70s basically...

 

[YMIHERE]

I'm a little perplexed. The WP article is pulling data from the CBO, and my link is directly from the CBO website. But the numbers in the article (from 2001 to 2004) don't match the numbers on the CBO site. I'm wondering if it has to do with the quickness of the analysis in the article (data for 2004 reviewed in 2004) instead of longer term (2004 (and 2005) reviewed in 2008) :dunno:

But Friday did say ...and the long term trend is still there. I do wish they had numbers further back than 1979, though.

I think the point is by changing the time period of the analysis to arbitrary time spans anything can be proved. Beware statistics. :thumbsup:

 

[Teddy X]

Obama iz my vote...Word em Up!!

 

[Friday on my mind]

Clinton's win still leaves her the underdog

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080423/ap_on_el_pr/primary_rdp

"WASHINGTON - Exuding fresh confidence after her Pennsylvania primary win, Hillary Rodham Clinton turned attention Wednesday to contests in Indiana and North Carolina and pressed her case that she can still win the Democratic presidential nomination despite the odds against her.

In a round of morning television interviews, Clinton argued that her feisty act of political survival, defeating Barack Obama in Pennsylvania by more than nine points, confirms her contention that she would be the stronger challenger against Republican John McCain because she has shown she can win in big, swing states."


Obama outspent her big time and still lost by 10 points.He has not carried any of the major swing states besides his home state of Iliinois.Hope the dems come to their senses and nominate her and not him or they will go down in flames in Nov IMO.

 

[titsrock]

I believe Al Gore will come out and endorse Barack Obama next week...right before Indiana and North Carolina..and that will effectively end Hillary's campaign.

She doesn't have the money to go further and she doesn't have any surrogate who has the stones to get up in her face and say, "It's over, Hillary. We gave it a shot." I guess the sense of presidential entitlement runs deep within Hillary and Bill...the Empress is always the last to see her new clothes in the true light, eh?

 

[negator]

"I'm Barack Obama. I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore,"

. . .The oil executives did not return phone calls.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-money24apr24,1,2328541.story

top 20 oil recipients:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=E01

 

[Friday on my mind]

"I'm Barack Obama. I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore,"

. . .The oil executives did not return phone calls.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-money24apr24,1,2328541.story

top 20 oil recipients:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=E01

Oh he just takes money from the executives and workers directly instead of the companies themselves.Thats a big difference isn't it?


And in related news.
Clinton's donations surge after Pennsylvania victory
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080424/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp

"Clinton said donors had contributed more than $3 million to her candidacy in the hours since her Pennsylvania victory, some of it from thousands of new donors. Her campaign said she was on track for raising $10 million in the first 24 hours after her victory."


And a little of that was from me lol.She ain't broke or out yet by a long shot.

 

[gunslingingbird]

I hope neither Obama nor the ball-busting bitch win. I don't care for McCain, but at least he seems like he can get over the bickering and backstabbing that American politics are. He did so even when Romney was flinging shit in his direction. I still think I'm gonna vote for myself in November.

 

[ninetysixcavy]

I hope neither Obama nor the ball-busting bitch win. I don't care for McCain, but at least he seems like he can get over the bickering and backstabbing that American politics are. He did so even when Romney was flinging shit in his direction. I still think I'm gonna vote for myself in November.

Vote for Ron Paul or Nader. Might as well make a statement. At least no one can point their finger at you if you stick to your principels. I'm proud to say I voted for Nader in 04'. One of the few who was never for the Iraq war. As far as I'm concerned there is blood on all the others hands.

 

[titsrock]

Oh he just takes money from the executives and workers directly instead of the companies themselves.Thats a big difference isn't it?

It is a big enough difference..even for me. These are private citizens expressing their choice with their checkbook. Not company funds. Not PAC funds. Same as what you did with Hillamonster. Should I write an LATimes piece entitled, "Hillary loves Porn and Porn Donors!" and list Friday at the top of the list!

It's not a perfect system or election...but I have no doubt that an Obama presidency means a return to "normalcy" at the pump...normalcy means--$215-$2.40 at the pump...within 6 months.

 

[Friday on my mind]

It is a big enough difference..even for me. These are private citizens expressing their choice with their checkbook. Not company funds. Not PAC funds. Same as what you did with Hillamonster. Should I write an LATimes piece entitled, "Hillary loves Porn and Porn Donors!" and list Friday at the top of the list!

It's not a perfect system or election...but I have no doubt that an Obama presidency means a return to "normalcy" at the pump...normalcy means--$215-$2.40 at the pump...within 6 months.

Well you know my thoughts on his electability.But forget that ,HOW can any american president reduce the price of gas? About the only thing they could do would be to reduce the tax on it which isn't going to bring it down all that much anyway and would be a bad idea to boot.We need that money for road and other infrastructure upkeep.No you will never see prices like 2 something again unless the economy collapsed and nobody was buying nearly as much as they do now.
And my small donation is nothing compared to the numbers the oil execs have given Barak.I don't mind him taking the money I just don't like him trying too present himself as different and not getting big bucks from such interests because he has.

 

[titsrock]

^^^
Friday...you disappoint me greatly....what have we been talking about here for the past 6 months! THE TROOPS! THE WAR! Once we end the occupation in Iraq...Oil will begin to decline rapidly. Mark my words. For one thing...there is a global recession (started in the US but it's spread) happening...are you telling me that "global demand" for oil is STILL the cause for the price runeup? Nope. Sorry. U.S. consumption is declining right now and will intensely decline as the summer progresses. Food riots are happening all over the world. We are standing at the precipice of global economic meltdown.

I more believe that Bush and Cheney are artificially manipulating the price of oil (as payback to our Saudi masters) so that all their Big Oil buddies in Texas reap billions now because change is coming....moreover than the price is still rising because of "global demand"...

Does the American consumer have any money right now to buy the cheap shit that floods our store shelves which is made in China through their consumption of oil?????

Sorry.

We are being bent over the pump from Dubya's last swan song F-U to this country....when Obama (or Hillabeast:thefinger) is elected and the troop withdrawal begins....oil will fall sharply.

There is fear and uncertainty built into the price. Probably $40/barrel fear factor right now...