Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 29, 2014, 02:52:31 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83838 Posts in 2261 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 74 75 [76] 77 78 ... 85
3751  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / There is no such thing as "bipartisanship in DC" on: November 13, 2008, 10:12:59 AM
Talk of "bipartisanship" is as always just that - talk.
OK here is another sign the Dems are all talk.   Lets bring Bush in to "investigate him" and his administration.   Does anyone think this is not just a ploy to deflect criticism of the incoming BO/Clinton administration from the mess we are facing?  Here we go again.  And BO who spoke of change during his campaign is bringing back all the "I want a job" Clinton hangers on from the 90s.   And we all know how partisan they all are.

If he does pick any "can" for a cabinet post it will only to take them out of the opposition and make him into a crat.  Anyone remember Cohen who basically became a hack for Clinton.
Is he still in politics?

By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: November 12, 2008
WASHINGTON — When a Congressional committee subpoenaed Harry S. Truman in 1953, nearly a year after he left office, he made a startling claim: Even though he was no longer president, the Constitution still empowered him to block subpoenas.

“If the doctrine of separation of powers and the independence of the presidency is to have any validity at all, it must be equally applicable to a president after his term of office has expired,” Truman wrote to the committee.

Congress backed down, establishing a precedent suggesting that former presidents wield lingering powers to keep matters from their administration secret. Now, as Congressional Democrats prepare to move forward with investigations of the Bush administration, they wonder whether that claim may be invoked again.

“The Bush administration overstepped in its exertion of executive privilege, and may very well try to continue to shield information from the American people after it leaves office,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, who sits on two committees, Judiciary and Intelligence, that are examining aspects of Mr. Bush’s policies.

Topics of open investigations include the harsh interrogation of detainees, the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, secret legal memorandums from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and the role of the former White House aides Karl Rove and Harriet E. Miers in the firing of federal prosecutors.

Mr. Bush has used his executive powers to block Congressional requests for executive branch documents and testimony from former aides. But investigators hope that the Obama administration will open the filing cabinets and withdraw assertions of executive privilege that Bush officials have invoked to keep from testifying.

“I intend to ensure that our outstanding subpoenas and document requests relating to the U.S. attorneys matter are enforced,” said Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. “I am hopeful that progress can be made with the coming of the new administration.”

Also, two advocacy groups, the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First, have prepared detailed reports for the new administration calling for criminal investigations into accusations of abuse of detainees.

It is not clear, though, how a President Barack Obama will handle such requests. Legal specialists said the pressure to investigate the Bush years would raise tough political and legal questions.

Because every president eventually leaves office, incoming chief executives have an incentive to quash investigations into their predecessor’s tenure. Mr. Bush used executive privilege for the first time in 2001, to block a subpoena by Congressional Republicans investigating the Clinton administration.

In addition, Mr. Obama has expressed worries about too many investigations. In April, he told The Philadelphia Daily News that people needed to distinguish “between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity.”

“If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated,” Mr. Obama said, but added, “I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.”

But even if his administration rejects the calls for investigations, Mr. Obama cannot control what the courts or Congress do. Several lawsuits are seeking information about Bush policies, including an Islamic charity’s claim that it was illegally spied on by Mr. Bush’s program on wiretapping without warrants.

And Congressional Democrats say that they are determined to pursue their investigations — and that they expect career officials to disclose other issues after the Bush administration leaves. “We could spend the entire next four years investigating the Bush years,” Mr. Whitehouse said.

But if Mr. Obama decides to release information about his predecessor’s tenure, Mr. Bush could try to invoke executive privilege by filing a lawsuit, said Peter Shane, a law professor at Ohio State University.

In that case, an injunction would most likely be sought ordering the Obama administration not to release the Bush administration’s papers or enjoining Mr. Bush’s former aides from testifying. The dispute would probably go to the Supreme Court, Mr. Shane said.

The idea that ex-presidents may possess residual constitutional powers to keep information secret traces back to Truman.

In November 1953, after Dwight D. Eisenhower became president, the House Un-American Activities Committee subpoenaed Truman to testify about why he had appointed a suspected Communist to the International Monetary Fund.

Truman decided not to comply and asked his lawyer, Samuel I. Rosenman, for help. But there was little time for research.

Edward M. Cramer, a young associate at Mr. Rosenman’s law firm, recalled being summoned with two colleagues to their boss’s office at 6 p.m. and told to come up with something. The next morning, they helped dictate Truman’s letter telling the panel he did not have to testify — or even appear at the hearing.

“I think, legally, we were wrong” about whether Truman had to show up, Mr. Cramer, now 83, said in a phone interview from his home in New York.

But the committee did not call the former president’s bluff. It dropped the matter, and Truman’s hastily devised legal claim became a historical precedent.

In 1973, President Nixon cited Truman’s letter when he refused to testify or give documents to the committee investigating the Watergate scandal.

Mr. Cramer recalled, “Nixon used it, and we said ‘Oh, Jesus, what have we done?’ ”

The first judicial backing for the idea that former presidents wield executive privilege powers came in 1977, as part of a Supreme Court ruling in a case over who controlled Nixon’s White House files. The decision suggested that Nixon might be able to block the release of papers in the future. But it offered few details, and Nixon never sought to do so.

In 1989 and 1990, judges presiding over criminal trials related to the Iran-contra affair blocked requests by defendants to make former President Ronald Reagan testify and release his diaries.

But the Supreme Court has never made clear how far a former president may go in trying to block Congressional demands for documents and testimony — or what happens if a president disagrees with a predecessor about making information public.

“There is no relevant precedent on the books,” Mr. Shane said.
3752  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: November 10, 2008, 03:58:30 PM
Crafty,
Please carify.
Is the Ronen report more recent than the report from May? (no date noted on your post)
Does this mean that Malley was recently dispatched to the Middle East and was thus not really fired?
3753  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for Reps/Conservatives on: November 10, 2008, 03:49:06 PM
***The larger point is that tax cuts, a key strand of Reaganism, remain quite popular across the political spectrum***
True and
BO did disingeniusly steal Rep thunder with the rant about reducing taxes on 95%.

3754  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for Reps/Conservatives on: November 10, 2008, 11:26:13 AM
***Mr. Obama ran like Reagan. Will he be able to govern that way, too?***

Oh comon.  What spin.  He ran the opposite of Reagan.  First of all Reagan didn't want tax "cuts" to be only for certain chosen segment of the population nor did he expect that the other segments would be the ones to pay for them.

Reaganomics is trickle down and Bomonomics is build from the *bottom* and let it work up.

BO is huge government and soak the succesful to pay for it.

BO did not run on Reagan principles. 
3755  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Talking with Iran has been done for 30 years. on: November 10, 2008, 10:50:34 AM
I got this in the mail and here is a link to a position paper about the 30 year failure of negotiations with Iran.  BO is going to continue down the same path.   Iran may already even posses of bomb.  Of course Iran sees as as weak now.   Of course they will play the lets talk game.   They have been doing it for decades.   Yet "70%"  of Iranians are not happy with the Radicals in control.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/images/userImages/mvanderwei/Page_4221/ImprimisOct08.pdf
3756  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for Reps/Conservatives on: November 08, 2008, 10:43:45 AM
***These words bear re-reading-- especially with BO about to give driver licences to illegals, and the vote to anyone with a driver's license:***

Crafty,

and....?

I'm all ears.....

What do you prescribe?  Lets face it.  There is no political will to do anything about the illegals because as Lou Dobbs points out everyday they parites are afraid to lose votes.  Each party is ignoring this issue to get Latino votes.  The Democrats sold american citizens down the river years ago on this issue to bring in the Spanish who overwhelming vote for them.  The Republicans did not or could not stand up to this and W/Rove/et al must have felt it was too late fighting the tide and tried to also kiss up to those who just got here.  So they tried, and unfortunately, even that didn't work because the Dems won them over with more promises.

It doesn't help that Romenys own lawn guy was using illegals.  Though I think my lawn guy does to.  The cans did not seem willing to go after those in this country who employ illegals.  And of course it didn't help that it at least in some places it appears to have been made a crime for empolyers to even try to verify citizens status.  ("Why this is not a state or local problem" the local governments would scream - its up to the INS to do that).

Now the only party that would have had any will to do anything about it is out of power.

So what do you suggest?  I'm all ears because I am disgusted with seeing ever more people who obviously are not here legally all around me (and far from just Latinos - people from Asia, Africa, Europe) just walking in at their leisure and we sit here like dopes doing nothing.  All the while the left talks our own country down and now is going to use their prescription for winning over the world's love by ensuring we become a second rate country.


So did Rove et al make a mistake trying to win over the illegals?  I don't know.  I do know the Dems are happy to sell out US citizens who were born here or who are non citizens here LEGALLY to get and keep power.
Could Republicans have secured our border and improved standing among immigrants and Latinos in particular?  I guess Doug alluded to that question *I don't know to what extent securing borders offends how many Hispanics.*  I would think Rove looked into this and made his conclusions that led to his and W strategy regarding this.


3757  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: November 08, 2008, 09:32:00 AM
I assume its Matthews saying he will do everything he can to support and cover for BO "for the good of the country".
Of course when W was President he did everything he could to destroy the President, I assume, "for the good of our country".

Joe Scarborough laughed when Matthews claimed it was "his job" to do this.  "Your job" he asked.  "I thought you are a journalist?"

Matthews was already on MSNBC last night claiming BOs attempt at humor was "really really funny".  I guess he meant the "mutt" comment.
I am not sure if he was claiming BOs Nancy Reagan insult was also funny, because I changed the station.  I thought BOs discussion about the dog was a tangential waste of time.  The cheap shot at NR was just that.  Neither was really really funny but that was Matthews spin at making BO appear to be a raging success.  MSNBC states the USA is already getting dividends from the BO presidency(which by the way hasn't yet started) because Iran congratulated him and Iraq is elated the US will not pull out.

With regards to MSNBC I really don't recall a "MSM" outlet doing everything it can to humiliate and insult people who recently lost an election like they are doing to Palin, McCain, and the losing party in general.

As O'Reilly has pointed out, even any attempt at objective journalist in the USA is past history.  He made an off the cuff comment to Bernie Goldberg that "we are old and almost dead anyway".

I had an elderly patient in her 80s tell me her brother made a similar comment to the effect, "aren't you glad we are on the way out with what is going on today?."

Anyway I digress.

3758  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for Reps/Conservatives on: November 07, 2008, 03:53:28 PM
Doug,
Thanks for the thoughtful take.  I am happy to leave Coulter out of it.  I used to like her but she has lost me.

As for Reagan it is hard to keep him out of it when many conservative journalists, some of them posted here, keep bringing up his name as though he can come back from the dead to save the R party.

I would like to leave him in his rightful place in history within the pantheon of party greats  but move on in a forward not backward direction.

As for your point about the immigration thing there is probably a small *majority* of Americans (not only those on the "far right") who want the illegal immigration flood stopped.  And I agree with this stance.  I want to dispose of old laws that make it ok for people to come here illegally and utilize our hospitals to have babies who are thus legal citizens automatically.  Or for those who come here be able to bring 12 or what is it 18 relatives over to live here.  I bet more than 50% of Americans would still agree with this. 

But!!!  I question if it is not *too late* for this because the voting power of the immigrants and particularly the Latino immigrants is now so huge they can make or break national candidates.  Look at California, New Mexico, Colorado, and possibly NY and NJ etc.
These states have huge Latino voters. 

I feel we must be realists.  Some including Rove have felt if we get too strict with the Latinos we "will lose them for generations."
After seeing the Latino voting polls he appears to be right and that was even after W and McCain taking leniency.

Rove was pointing out how Latinos have conservative values with regards to work ethic and family and religion.  While that may be true I see them wanting government sponsored health care and many government programs.  If they loved Repub. ideals so much they would vote for that party.  But many love the big government the Dems offer. 
3759  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The 2008 Presidential Race on: November 07, 2008, 12:36:19 PM
Interesting take from Krauthammer.  He doesn't take the right's rebuke of McCain.  Indded, because McCain tried to please the right wing ideologues by picking Palin he made a devastating choice.
I thought Palin was a good pick but I was wrong.  The lesson - you can't take someone who is not prepared and throw them inot a PResidential race at the last minute.  BO was not experienced but he had years of preparation.  Palin did well considering she was thrown into the fire.  I am inclined to think BO may very well be great. It is the typical senerio wherein the opposition in their wishful thinking will underestimate their nemesis.  And he will have the adoring MSM on his side to spin everything tohis favor.
I can just hear it now - in four years - "Folks you need to re - elect me so we can finish the great work we have started".

From most though not all the right goes right back to its' pettiness, unwillingness to change or compromise.


****The Campaign Autopsy

By Charles Krauthammer

 http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | In my previous life, I witnessed far more difficult postmortems. This one is easy. The patient was fatally stricken on Sept. 15 — caught in the rubble when the roof fell in (at Lehman Brothers, according to the police report) — although he did linger until his final, rather quiet demise on Nov. 4.

In the excitement and decisiveness of Barack Obama's victory, we forget that in the first weeks of September, John McCain was actually ahead. Then Lehman collapsed, and the financial system went off a cliff.

This was not just a meltdown but a panic. For an agonizing few days, there was a collapse of faith in the entire financial system — a run on banks, panicky money-market withdrawals, flights to safety, the impulse to hide one's savings under a mattress.

This did not just have the obvious effect of turning people against the incumbent party, however great or tenuous its responsibility for the crisis. It had the more profound effect of making people seek shelter in government.

After all, if even Goldman Sachs was getting government protection, why not you? And offering the comfort and safety of government is the Democratic Party's vocation. With a Republican White House having partially nationalized the banks and just about everything else, McCain's final anti-Obama maneuver — Joe the Plumber spread-the-wealth charges of socialism — became almost comical.

We don't yet appreciate how unprecedented were the events of September and October. We have never had a full-fledged financial panic in the middle of a presidential campaign. Consider. If the S&P 500 were to close at the end of the year where it did on Election Day, it will have suffered this year its steepest drop since 1937. That is 71 years.

At the same time, the economy had suffered nine consecutive months of job losses. Considering the carnage to both capital and labor (which covers just about everybody), even a Ronald Reagan could not have survived. The fact that John McCain got 46 percent of the electorate when 75 percent said the country was going in the wrong direction is quite remarkable.

However crushing the external events, McCain did make two significant unforced errors. His suspension of the campaign during the economic meltdown was a long shot that not only failed, it created the McCain-the-erratic meme that deeply undermined his huge advantage over Obama in perception of leadership.

The choice of Sarah Palin was also a mistake. I'm talking here about its political effects, not the sideshow psychodrama of feminist rage and elite loathing that had little to do with politics and everything to do with cultural prejudices, resentments and affectations.

Palin was a mistake (" near suicidal," I wrote on the day of her selection) because she completely undercut McCain's principal case against Obama: his inexperience and unreadiness to lead. And her nomination not only intellectually undermined the readiness argument. It also changed the election dynamic by shifting attention, for days on end, to Palin's preparedness, fitness and experience — and away from Obama's.

McCain thought he could steal from Obama the "change" issue by running a Two Mavericks campaign. A fool's errand from the very beginning. It defied logic for the incumbent-party candidate to try to take "change" away from the opposition. Election Day exit polls bore that out with a vengeance. Voters seeking the "change candidate" went 89 to 9 for Obama.

Which is not to say that Obama did not run a brilliant general election campaign. He did. In its tactically perfect minimalism, it was as well conceived and well executed as the electrifying, highflying, magic carpet ride of his primary victory. By the time of his Denver convention, Obama understood that he had to dispense with the magic and make himself kitchen-table real, accessible and, above all, reassuring. He did that. And when the economic tsunami hit, he understood that all he had to do was get out of the way. He did that too.

With him we get a president with the political intelligence of a Bill Clinton harnessed to the steely self-discipline of a Vladimir Putin. (I say this admiringly.) With these qualities, Obama will now bestride the political stage as largely as did Reagan.

But before our old soldier fades away, it is worth acknowledging that McCain ran a valiant race against impossible odds. He will be — he should be — remembered as the most worthy presidential nominee ever to be denied the prize.****

3760  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: November 07, 2008, 10:32:17 AM
Thanks GM.
I meant some if not most Americans.
3761  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for Reps/Conservatives on: November 07, 2008, 10:31:00 AM
***Thanks to the greatest living Republican***

Obviously a mistatement.  I meant RR who is not alive.

And don't get me wrong.  I loved RR.  But lets not blindly put him on a pedestal and idolize his (though ok to idolize the man who is great one) policies as though he had all the answers to the world we live in today.

We need *new* ideas.  Or at least new applications of his ideas with *real* adjustments to the changing world.

We don't need a simple rehash of Reagonics or Reagan's lets let capitalism and free markets roll as though everything will take care of itself.   It obviously doesn't. Yet I certainly lean more towards Reaganomics and away from bomonomics.

We need great thinkers who can adjust what is wrong with Reaganomics and fine tune them.  Not simply declare we need to go back to them blindly and stupidly as though they are the answer to all.  Lets learn from history not cling to it.

I guess my views are not able to be heard.  I would be willing to bet there is a great mass of those who would agree with exactly what I am saying in this country. But all the far right cans are coming out with articles defending the hard themselves and villifying moderates like me. 
3762  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Israel warns of talks with Iran on: November 07, 2008, 10:15:00 AM
***Then Israel warned Obama last night that his claim that he was ready to open talks with Iran could be seen in the Middle East as a sign of weakness.***

Well The US has already been recognized as weak.  Why does anyone think the anti-Israeli crowd is delighted and supportive of BO.
That doesn't mean he will be weak but we will see...

Hopefully all the *liberal* (cough cough - I mean "progressives" wink) Jews who helped BO get elected will also see to it he doesn't sell Israel down the river.  But American Jews will have to continue standing up for Israel.  Because I don't believe that Americans will sad.

We know a McCain-Liberman block wouldn't have let Israel down, but that is now distant footnote worthy history .
3763  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for Reps/Conservatives on: November 07, 2008, 09:38:01 AM
The modern Republican Party has risen above its insecurities to achieve political success. Ronald Reagan, for example, held an unshakably positive vision of American capitalism. He didn't feel a need to qualify the meaning of his conservatism. He understood that big government was cruel and uncaring of individual aspirations. Small government conservatism was, by definition, compassionate -- offering every American a way up to self-determination and economic prosperity.

Do not every single poll out there show the majority of Americans believe the Democrats are better for the economy?

Total deregulation had led us to the savings and loan fiasco (thanks RR!) and now this.

And again I state the RR led us to the immigration mess we are in.

No mention of that from nonobjective RR lovers.

There will be a never ending fight from the wings of the political spectrum yanking America back and forth.

Real compromise and moderation is always torn by these two extremes.

I really feel like there is no place/party for me to go.  I am disgusted by both ends.

I am also disgusted by the rights blaming McCain.  Who in there right mind would not agree that the campaign process is not corrupt and yes controlled by special interest groups?  I can only hear the libertarians scream over this now.

Why we don't even have any clue where BO got his billion dollars from.  Does anyone really think this was from all small donors?

McCain was right about this.  But because the Cans held the fund raising advantage (at least in the past) they threw honesty out the window for party politics.

And McCain did come out for regulating Fanny and Freddie.  So what was he supposed to do let the market confidence completely crash now and not support the government credit ballout?

I don't want all my savings going to zero.

And people like Coulter who of course blame the loss on McCain.  Well who should have been the Can nominee?  Romney?  He has zero charisma.  He would have been wiped even more.  McCain is a great American hero.  Coulter is a great American embarassment.

Why W was the rights candidate in 2000 and 2004!  And W was right to reach out to immigrants and was McCain.  Thanks to the greatest living Republican we are left with that mess.  And they don't vote for RR's party!
That said Latinos sitll voted for crats by over 2 to 1.  Can anyone imagine if Romney was in there?  It would have been 10 to one.

I am now a reluctant member of the Can party.  I simply have no where else to go.  Many of these people don't speak for me.

BTW, I like and respect Dick Armey but I disagree with him and think he is to some extent out of touch.



3764  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Palin phenomenon on: November 06, 2008, 07:50:33 PM
The answer is apparantly yes but... not directly.

According to MSNBC.  Something to the effect she could resign and appoint or be repolaced by the leutenant governor to her position as governor.  Then he could replace Stevens post with her if he resigns or gets removed.
3765  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: November 06, 2008, 07:46:14 PM
I like the one from Jim Manzi (whoever he is).

That is preciesly my position as to where we need to go not just as a party but as a country.

We don't need more Ann Coulter's analysis whose shrill (as usual) discourse from her stonified position on the far right is beyond obnoxious.  I wouldn't bother to post it.  You all know where to go if you want to waste your time as I did reading it.

Her brand of exclusionism is exactly why so many in this country despise Republicans.

3766  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The 2008 Presidential Race on: November 06, 2008, 03:23:05 PM
Crafty,
I must disagree.  Bush seniors approval ratings went from 90%+ofter desert storm to a lot less because he didn't speak to the recession going on while Clinton did.  He just sat back at said a let the market take care of itself.  Meanwhile his poll numbers sank while Clinton's rose.  And to think Clinton who was a big underdog against a known entity with previously sky high approval ratings.

I don't follow your reasoning on McCain.  I think if McCain had run as a stricter conservative he would have lost by even bigger margins.  Romney would have gotten wiped all over the floor IMO.

I don't believe about these polls Hannity sites in *swing* states.
For goodness sakes the entire Northeast as well as the WEst and expanding into the Southwest is turning die hard Democrat.

What are the conservatives talking about? Open their eyes.

I mean I could be wrong but I don't see your conclusions at all.
3767  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants on: November 06, 2008, 11:17:22 AM
Well BOs first announced decision for White House Chief of Staff does not bode well for any hope of bipartisanship.
But I agree with those who say lets give him a chance.  I hope he *will* be great.  But I admit I am very skeptical, and this choice is certainly a bad first sign.
Did you see Dick Morris who stated Emanual will use BO for his personal gain and is someone who play to the Washington inside Crat establishment?  Interesting. 
3768  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The 2008 Presidential Race on: November 06, 2008, 11:12:31 AM
***YOU LOST, SUCK IT UP AND MOVE ON...***

As someone who voted for McCain I actually agree with you 100%.
The Republicans lost.  As a "moderate" Republican I am deeply saddened but not surpirsed at the literally stubborn stupidy of talk radio including Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannity neither of which speak for me anymore.

If the Republicans continue with the same losing messages they are doomed.  Now their mantra is that W just didn't stay true to their roots, etc. and that is the cause for this huge party defeat. 

What Goddam fools, and in total denial.

The reason we had "compassionate conservatism" in the first place was because Rove and others recognized that strict classic Reagonics is doomed and does not speak to the "growing" majority of this country who are simply not expanding their share of the pie like the wealthy have been.  That *is* why BO won.   End of story.  Until the Right recognizes this and finds a way to deal with this they are doomed.  Unfortunately, the party is held hostage by "strict" conservatives like those two talk show hosts I speak of.

Let them continue with their rants.  They do sound more and more like just a bunch of bigoted out of touch and just rich white guys.  I am saddened by this because I used to like Rush.  Hannity is just a right wing political hack. While I more often then not agree with him he is just a talking points narrow minded guy.  He doesn't speak for me.  I still like Mark Levin and Bob Grant.

We need to support BO.  He just may be a great President.  I am sick of the party bickering.  I hate the crats who did everything they could to destroy W the last several years.  They spend more time playing their Goddam party politics for persona power than caring about the country.  I have no illusions about what lying scum they are with this speak of "bipartisinship" and "reaching out" to Republicans they pretend they are going to do.  We all know that is nonsense.  Now they are in almost total power they speak of this.  What crap.  Yet I don't Repbuplicans to paly the opposite game.  Lets get this country going.  Rebublicans should just be patient and analyze what happens and plan for the future.  Their time will come again, but only if they come up with real ideas for *change* that reaches everyone and people at their dinner tables can relate to as Rove states.  I think Rove has it right.

We will see.  But I am sicikened by some of the cans.  Now the Far Right talk radio propagandists down moderates liike me.  I am beggining to wonder if we need a new party without them.
3769  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants on: November 04, 2008, 05:31:47 PM
***Was it not because Republicans colluded with Democrats in pushing "affordable housing," subprime mortgages, for folks who could not afford houses? Is the GOP prepared to demand tough terms for home loans? Was it not GOP presidents who appointed the Fed chairmen who pumped up the money supply and created the bubble? How many Republicans objected to the easy money when the going was good?***

Well there is a concept of "compassionate conservatism".  The reason this concept arose dear Patrick is becasue the nature of this country is changing.  And if the republicans don't change they will continue to swim upstream against a demographic current that does not see that trickle down is going to work for them.

***"The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves.***

The fault does lie with ourselves.  But not for the reason you state dear Patrick.  It is because the cans cannot preach the same old tired mantra of tax cuts and let the market take care of itself.  Not unless you want to spend your life trying to sell a plan to a majority of new Americans who are skeptical.
3770  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: November 04, 2008, 05:24:26 PM
I have heard about these visits on talk radio.
It is not clear what the visits mean in the context of visiting another country of a college friend.

I don't recall that Indonesia is particularly in love with the US.  He lived there for a few years.

I guess the Jews are about to find out what his real relationship with these past associations means going forward.
Hopefully nothing.  But I am fearful of this guy's motives and true intentions.

He is clearly shown a flair for pathologic dishonesty.  He can lie like the best of them.  Without even a flinch or trace of emotion.
This to me is very worrisome.




3771  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The 2008 Presidential Race on: November 04, 2008, 09:03:33 AM
Can Republicans sell the old style pitch to the changing face of America?  I don't think so.

Immigrants of today are less likely from Europe and are Latinos from S and C America and Asians and a smaller number from the Middle East.  They come from places where they are used to government control.  If they come here and government is their nanny they don't have a problem with that.
They are happy for it. 

What ever they do they have to face demographics and what appeals to the Evangelical Right is not the same although we have to find common shared values.

Rove is up there saying that Latinos tend to be social conservatives with family values and work ethic.  Maybe, but most of the ones I know also want free health care, and big government social programs.

It is more than just salesmenship.   You can say 5 + 1 instead of 3 + 3 but the answer is still 6.
3772  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Obama Phenomena on: November 03, 2008, 09:28:25 AM
 
 
 
Well he already is showing signs of being an outright liar who duped the electorate.  Now middle class is 120K per year.

I told my wife I better sell my arch coal stock.  She said why. I said it isn't part of OBonomics.  How the heck could W Virginia vote for this guy?  They've been duped.  I am worried this is just a small foreshadowing of what is to come.  With regards to his phrase, "our time is come"?  Exactly who is "our"?  Is this some sort of code?

Coal official calls Obama comments 'unbelievable'


11/2/2008 4:37 PM
By Chris Dickerson -Statehouse Bureau

 
Obama
 
 
McCain
CHARLESTON - At least one state coal industry leader said he was shocked by comments Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama made earlier this year concerning his plan to aggressively charge polluters for carbon and greenhouse gas emissions.

"What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there," Obama said in a Jan. 17 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle that was made public today on the Web site newsbusters.org, which calls itself "the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias." The story later was linked on The Drudge Report.

An audio excerpt from the interview can be found at YouTube.

"I was the first to call for a 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter," Obama continued. "That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

Calls and e-mails to West Virginia Obama campaign officials seeking a response for this story were not returned. But according to ABC News, an Obama spokesperson said the comments were taken out of context.

"The line they pulled out is in the context of cap and trade program," the spokesperson said. "The point Obama is making is that we need to transition from coal burning power plants built with old technology to plants built with advanced technologies -- and that is exactly the action that will be incentivized under a cap and trade program."

A spokeswoman for the Obama campaign in West Virginia replied to The Record's requests for comment with a quote from Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland about McCain's energy plan.

"After John McCain said he'd like to 'transition away from coal entirely,' his campaign is hardly in a position to criticize a coal state Senator like Barack Obama who has outlined a $150 billion investment in clean coal and other technologies to create jobs and build a new energy economy," Strickland said. "The truth is, John McCain and Sarah Palin can't name a single thing they'd do differently on the economy than George Bush, so all they have to offer is last minute, desperate distortions. Hardworking families don't need more Washington-style political attacks, they need a President who will create jobs and stand up for the middle class - and that's Barack Obama."

According to the West Virginia Office of Miners' Health, Safety and Training, the coal industry provides about 40,000 direct jobs in the state, including those for miners, mine contractors, coal preparation plant employees and mine supply company workers.

West Virginia is the second largest coal-producing state in the country behind Wyoming and accounts for about 15 percent of all coal production in the United States. The Mountain State leads the nation in underground coal production and leads the nation in coal exports with over 50 million tons shipped to 23 countries. West Virginia accounts for about half of U.S. coal exports.

In addition, the coal industry pays about $70 million in property taxes in the state annually, and the Coal Severance Tax adds about $214 million into West Virginia's economy. The coal industry payroll in the state is nearly $2 billion per year, and coal is responsible for more than $3.5 billion annually in the gross state product.

"The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster," Obama said in the San Francisco Chronicle interview. "What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it."

The senior vice president of the West Virginia Coal Association called Obama's comments "unbelievable."

"His comments are unfortunate," Chris Hamilton said Sunday, "and really reflect a very uninformed voice and perspective to coal specifically and energy generally."

Hamilton noted other times Obama and vice presidential candidate Joe Biden have made seemingly anti-coal statements.

"In Ohio recently, when Joe Biden said 'not here' about building coal-fired power plants -- this is exactly what will happen," Hamilton said. "Financing won't be directed here. It will all go aboard for plants elsewhere in the world. The United Sates is importing more coal today from Indonesia, South Africa and Colombia than we ever have.

"If we're going to create a situation where coal-fired power plants are at that much of a disadvantage, there will be new ones built. But as Biden said, just not here."

Republican presidential candidate John McCain's state director said Obama's statements are troubling, especially for West Virginians.

"I think this clearly shows the attitude the Obama-Biden ticket has toward coal," Ben Beakes said Sunday. "Rhetoric is cheap, but behind closed doors what they tell their supporters - that's what we have to take as gospel.

"They're definitely not friends of coal."

Beakes noted other examples of Obama and Biden making seemingly anti-coal statements, such as in February when Obama said he'd like to tax "dirty energy" such as coal and natural gas.

"And their cohorts in Congress make similar statements," Beakes said. "(Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid (D-Nevada) said this summer that 'coal makes us sick.'

"This is an attitude and view that, to me, shows their hatred of coal. And therefore, their view would cost West Virginians thousands upon thousands of jobs."

Beakes touted McCain's view toward coal.

"John McCain has embraced coal," Beakes said. "He doesn't agree with everything in the coal industry, but his view of coal is positive. He will make it part of his energy policy. He's met with leaders in the coal industry and let them know that. He's sought advice from coal industry leaders.

"McCain understands that coal supports about 49 percent of our electricity in this country. He'll continue to make coal important. He wants to reduce our foreign dependency on oil."

Hamilton also said the Obama campaign needs to find varied sources for coal and energy advice.

"If they're victorious Tuesday, they'd better go to someone other than Al Gore on energy and environmental matters," he said. "They've tipped the balance way -- unnecessarily so -- toward protecting the environment."
   
   
 Coal official calls Obama comments 'unbelievable'
Non-partisan judicial elections could be coming
Woman blames doctors for toddler son's death
McGraw, Obama in trouble in W.Va., poll shows
Va. woman sues trucking company for hit-and-run
   
3773  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / More election fraud from the obama clan on: November 01, 2008, 11:02:39 AM
Well this isn't acorn but it is about election fraud which is synonymous.

BOs aunt not only living here illegally in public housing but as a non citizen she is illegally donating money to his campaign.

Yet Geraldo Rivera is outraged anyone has the discriminatinory nerve to question why we are not kicking out illegals.

***According to Federal Election Commission documents filed by the Obama campaign, Onyango has contributed $260 to Obama over a period of time. Under federal election law, only U.S. citizens or green-card holders are legally permitted to give money to campaigns. Onyango, who listed her employer as the Boston Housing Authority, gave in small increments to the Obama campaign. Her latest contribution was $5 on Sept. 19.

3774  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Nuclear War? on: October 31, 2008, 04:50:58 PM
Since we are not doing anything about it why worry?

Then again it would have helped if we had real leadership that got us off dependence on the foereign oil.

Our only hope are the Iranian moderates.

Of course BO will fix it with a genius argument.

3775  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants on: October 31, 2008, 04:42:24 PM
***Republicans love to recollect Ronald Reagan, though they forget why. Reagan's strength was looking to the future***

Yes. Well said.

***Today's ballooning Hispanic community is socially conservative, the sort of up-and-comers who would appreciate lower taxes, more opportunity. America's YouTube generation is naturally entrepreneurial, and doesn't like anyone telling them what to do***

This one kind of makes me laugh.  If this was the case the Latinos would be voting McCain as would the younger folks who at least according to all we hear on the news are overwhelmingly for BO.

And as for Latinos, Bush tried to reach out to them with only limited success.  Which ever party can grab the lions share of their votes has the future.  It is ironic that the most recent immigrants have electoral control over the future of the this country.  But that appears to be the case.

3776  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Will BO's policy cause long term growth in the economy on: October 31, 2008, 03:16:30 PM
BO states:

***"The point is, though, that -- and it’s not just charity, it’s not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class -- it’s that when we actually make sure that everybody’s got a shot – when young people can all go to college, when everybody’s got decent health care, when everybody’s got a little more money at the end of the month – then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise. That’s what happened in the 1990s, that’s what we need to restore. And that’s what I’m gonna do as president of the United States of America***

I don't see how giving households a few extra bucks is going to stimulate long term growth.  Other than a quick boost in spending as soon as the cash runs out paying off the mortgage, the bills, the cigaretters etc that we will be right back where we started.

His whole argument seems based on a fallicious argument to start with.  But this is not really about "raising all boats" anyway.  This is smoke and mirrors for what he really intends which is just to take others money to give to whomever he deems is appropriate.

Yea it is essentially "reparations".  BO won't say it like it is.  He'll pretend the country as a whole benefits.  I don't see it.
3777  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: October 31, 2008, 11:11:46 AM
now why do I care who wins; I will continue to "pay no taxes" so the Obama plan and the
McCain tax plan is all the same to me, isn't it?  Therefore I doubt if Obama is pandering to this group; they receive no benefit and therefore
no tax incentive to vote for him.

Did I say this?

BO is offering rebates to the 40%. I didn't say they don't care - I say they are happy to vote for BO who bleieves in redistribution of wealth.
And payroll taxes is not income tax that pays for the supposed federal services that are offered.
Although I guess government borrows from these funds.

No, quite the contrary, I think people who pay no income tax get off easy.   I think they don't get a rap.  And to me that is a problem.
Just as it is a problem that the rich are getting richer and the rest going nowhere is a problem I think 40% paying no federal income tax is also a problem and wrong.
And the more we run to the left the worse this will get.
Yet Reagonimcs while I think is better does not address this wholly either.  Now we have Obamanomics.  That to me is far worse but both fall short IMHO.




3778  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Drudge headline on: October 31, 2008, 09:49:28 AM


For those who maybe don't look at Drudge - you certainly won't see this on MSM unless CNN picks it up only after Fox presses the issue.

To me this is an example of what we are in for and is abuse of power far beyond what the framers of the Constitution would have ever desired.

This is censorship of the press no different than McCarthyism of the 50's and just a starter smaple of what we are in for.

I really can't believe this is happening in 2008.  On the one bright side Novak reports the Dems won't get their super majority so fillibustering is this country's last stand against outright socialism.

Of course the 40% of people who pay no taxes don't have a problem with this as the 20 million illegals who will be made legal in a few months.  Of course the 30% of people in New Jersey who in some way are either government employees or on the dole in some fashion won't mind bigger government.  Don't expect me to be thrilled as a small business man at the concept of taxing me even more and than the Dems giving it right to my employees. 
Why should I bother?  I just might *have* to let one employee go.

I think Republicans just sitting back and hoping that BO will be unpopular in the polls in a few years allowing them to make a comeback with the same old message is a huge tactical blunder.  Hoping BO will look like Jimmy Carter is too big a risk.  He may not.  And he has an adoring press and is dead set on controlling the news, and any opposition.  Unlike anyhting Carter did.

I hope I am wrong but I hope even more the Republicans can adjust their message.

***PURGE: SKEPTICAL REPORTERS TOSSED OFF OBAMA PLAN
Fri Oct 31 2008 08:39:55 ET

NY POST, DALLAS MORNING NEWS, WASHINGTON TIMES TOLD TO GET OUT... ALL 3 ENDORSED MCCAIN

**Exclusive**

The Obama campaign has decided to heave out three newspapers from its plane for the final days of its blitz across battleground states -- and all three endorsed Sen. John McCain for president!

The NY POST, WASHINGTON TIMES and DALLAS MORNING NEWS have all been told to move out by Sunday to make room for network bigwigs -- and possibly for the inclusion of reporters from two black magazines, ESSENCE and JET, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Despite pleas from top editors of the three newspapers that have covered the campaign for months at extraordinary cost, the Obama campaign says their reporters -- and possibly others -- will have to vacate their coveted seats so more power players can document the final days of Sen. Barack Obama's historic campaign to become the first black American president.

MORE

Some told the DRUDGE REPORT that the reporters are being ousted to bring on documentary film-makers to record the final days; others expect to see on board more sympathetic members of the media, including the NY TIMES' Maureen Dowd, who once complained that she was barred from McCain's Straight Talk Express airplane.

After a week of quiet but desperate behind-the-scenes negotiations, the reporters of the three papers heard last night that they were definitely off for the final swing. They are already planning how to cover the final days by flying commercial or driving from event to event.

Developing... ****



3779  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: October 30, 2008, 03:14:17 PM
IMO just simply touting Reaganism does not imply *change*.  And the concept of "change" is I think where BO has won the hearts and minds of many.

For 72 years old McCain is truly an inspiring man.

Someone called Rush on the radio earlier this pm and claimed that McCain destroyed the Republican party.  Really?
IS that what some Rebublicans think?  I really think any Republican further to the right would get wiped up.  If Romeny was running on the Reagan mantra he would even be further behind.

We need a Republican party that can speak to change. 

3780  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: October 30, 2008, 03:08:48 PM
***Not that I care one way or another about the clothes, bigger issues exist, but Hillary and Obama pay for their own clothes;
they are not asking the DNC to pay for them.  In contrast, $150,000 in political donations paid for Palin's wardrobe.***

Do you really think that distinction if true is the issue?

It was really all about humiliating and embarrasing Palin.  Besides Hillary and co. had 100 million from years of people throwing money to them along with their political aspirations.  Palin doesn't have that kind of money - at least yet.


3781  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: October 29, 2008, 06:45:29 PM
"Doug,

My thoughts,

"It's true that too many Americans feel like they are running in place economically.  I think the reason is because of certain runaway costs rather than low income, an important distinction IMO.  Incomes are high and growing at least until recently"

They don't just feel this way - whatever the reason whether increase costs or incomes not rising fast enough - they are running in place.


"If Reagan mantras have been worn out lately it's from false use not because they are no longer true." 

Reagan also remained oddly silent while money was hemmorrhaging out the window with the Savings and Loan mess.   Thanks to his kindness we have quadruple the number of illegals in the US.  How many of their offspring (now citizens) vote for members of his party?

"but conservatism has suffered IMO from a leadership and salesmanship gap for a long time."

I think simple Reaganism is not the answer alone.  What about the costs of education, health care, energy?  Free markets are not controlling these costs (although one could argue the greens have suppressed energy growth such as nuclear power and offshore drilling).  And this is a huge reason the Republicans are in the tank.  I don't want Obamanomics. He is an angry nut job IMO.  But also IMO the republicans  neeed to come up with more ideas and salesmenship but not the latter alone.

 
3782  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / buchanan on BO's first 100 days on: October 28, 2008, 05:10:37 PM

   
   
   
 
Oh and he forgets that B Frank also has already called for an immediate 25% cut in military spending.

 
Comments Obama's First 100 Days
by  Patrick J. Buchanan

10/28/2008 

Undeniably, a powerful tide is running for the Democratic Party, with one week left to Election Day.

Bush's approval rating is 27 percent, just above Richard Nixon's Watergate nadir and almost down to Carter-Truman lows. After each of those presidents reached their floors -- in 1952, 1974, 1980 -- the opposition party captured the White House.

Moreover, 80 percent to 90 percent of Americans think the nation is on the wrong course, and since mid-September, when McCain was still slightly ahead, the Dow has lost 4,000 points -- $5 trillion to $6 trillion in value. Continued
Leading now by eight points in an average of national polls, Barack Obama has other advantages.

Not a single blue state is regarded as imperiled or even a toss-up, while Obama leads in six crucial red states: Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Missouri and Colorado. Should McCain lose one of the six, he would have to win Pennsylvania to compensate for the lost electoral votes. But the latest Pennsylvania polls show Barack with a double-digit lead.

Lately moving into the toss-up category are Nevada, North Dakota, Montana and Indiana. All voted twice for George W. Bush.

Not only is Obama ahead in the state and national polls, he has more money, is running far more ads, has a superior organization on the ground, attracts larger crowds, and has greater enthusiasm and more media in camp. And new voter registrations heavily favor the Democrats.

Though Congress is regarded by Americans with a disdain bordering on disgust -- five of six Americans think it has done a poor job -- Democratic majorities are certain to grow. Indeed, with Democrats favored by 10 points over Republicans, Nancy Pelosi's majority could grow by 25 seats and Harry Reid could find himself with a filibuster-proof majority of 60 senators.

Democrats already have 49, plus two independents: Socialist Bernie Sanders and Independent Joe Lieberman. Their challengers are now ahead in New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, New Mexico, Minnesota, Oregon and Colorado, with a chance of picking up Georgia, Alaska, Kentucky and Mississippi.

We may be looking at a reverse of 1980, when Reagan won a 10-point victory over Jimmy Carter, and Republicans took the Senate and, working with Boll Weevil Democrats, effective control of the House.

With his tax cuts, defense buildup and rollback policy against the "Evil Empire," Reagan gave us some of the best years of our lives, culminating in America's epochal victory in the Cold War.

What does the triumvirate of Obama-Pelosi-Reid offer?

Rep. Barney Frank is calling for new tax hikes on the most successful and a 25 percent across-the-board slash in national defense. Sen. John Kerry is talking up new and massive federal spending, a la FDR's New Deal. Specifically, we can almost surely expect:

-- Swift amnesty for 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens and a drive to make them citizens and register them, as in the Bill Clinton years. This will mean that Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona will soon move out of reach for GOP presidential candidates, as has California.

-- Border security will go on the backburner, and America will have a virtual open border with a Mexico of 110 million.

-- Taxes will be raised on the top 5 percent of wage-earners, who now carry 60 percent of the U.S. income tax burden, and tens of millions of checks will be sent out to the 40 percent of wage-earners who pay no federal income tax. Like the man said, redistribute the wealth, spread it around.

-- Social Security taxes will be raised on the most successful among us, and capital gains taxes will be raised from 15 percent to 20 percent. The Bush tax cuts will be repealed, and death taxes reimposed.

-- Two or three more liberal activists of the Ruth Bader Ginsberg-John Paul Stevens stripe will be named to the Supreme Court. U.S. district and appellate courts will be stacked with "progressives."

-- Special protections for homosexuals will be written into all civil rights laws, and gays and lesbians in the military will be invited to come out of the closet. "Don't ask, don't tell" will be dead.

-- The homosexual marriages that state judges have forced California, Massachusetts and Connecticut to recognize, an Obama Congress or Obama court will require all 50 states to recognize.

-- A "Freedom of Choice Act" nullifying all state restrictions on abortions will be enacted. America will become the most pro-abortion nation on earth.

-- Affirmative action -- hiring and promotions based on race, sex and sexual orientation until specified quotas are reached -- will be rigorously enforced throughout the U.S. government and private sector.

-- Universal health insurance will be enacted, covering legal and illegal immigrants, providing another powerful magnet for the world to come to America, if necessary by breaching her borders.

-- A federal bailout of states and municipalities to keep state and local governments spending up could come in December or early next year.

-- The first trillion-dollar deficit will be run in the first year of an Obama presidency. It will be the first of many.

Welcome to Obamaland!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, "The Death of the West,", "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."

3783  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: October 28, 2008, 04:47:26 PM
Hi Doug,

"Or do we mostly hear that someone spent too much on new clothes for Palin"

I had to wonder if anyone ever question how much Hilary spends on clothes, jewelry, and make up artists.

Every single time  I saw her she wears different top of the line pants outfits.

I am not clear if she ever wore the same carefully chosen outfits twice.  One can only imagine the team of fashion consultants she paid off.   Trying to look like the Presidents of old with her fluffy collars and all.  But that is fine.  No one made and issue of it and neither did I.   It is just the hypocrisy and hatred of Palen by the lefty media that is not.

3784  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: October 28, 2008, 12:42:03 PM
JDN,

Well I meant early on it seems the Jews BO had associated with appear to be "radicals" or far left and simply all those who now support him among the larger overall Jewish community.

" I think the vast majority of Jewish voters are intelligent and conscientious."

Yes, but I believe you underestimate many Jew's hatred for all things Republican.

As a Jew who is familiar with the very ardent party affiliation of most Jews and their total hatred for anything Repbublican you overestimate their willingness or even emotional ability to cross over to the Republican side.  If it helps you understand what I mean try to consider the absolute visceral hatred some Blacks have for Republicans.  Many Jews are the same in this regard.  They *will not* open up in this way.  They will put misgivings aside to vote for a guy who is now saying things he has never said to vote party lines.

And no I am not saying Jews who support BO hate the US.  But I have not been made aware of Jews of the political center or the right who he has associated with prior to late in his campaign.  But I have not studied his life history so I could be wrong as to this point.

I am in the minority among my fellow Jews as for my leanings to the right.  Maybe I am like Jackie Mason.
3785  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: October 28, 2008, 10:54:56 AM
JDN,
Yes but this is not news.
Jews have for decades been overwhemingly Democratic.
I've posted before that for many Jews the Republicans are as evil as Hitler.
So what is your point?

Many older Jews in Florida reportedly are afraid of BO.
That is where this Sarah Silverman comes in and is doing the (for me) embarassing "great schlep" to Florida thing.

And actually a almost 2 to one margin is less than 66 percent which is less than the historical 75% of Jews who vote Democratic.
So actually the number you pose is actually a *drop* for Democrats among Jewish voters.

Getting most Jews to vote Republican would be as difficult as getting most Blacks to do that.

I guess they either believe BO will protect Jews or want to believe or don't care since he is from their party.   I don't know that BO will not do this but I am highly suspicious and would not risk the survival of Israel to a PResident who has apparantly had roomates and friends who are very much against Israel as has been his spiritual mentor WRight.  I think it reasonable to assume he must have had some agreement with them on this regard.  While there may be scant evidence for this there is absolutely zero evidence he disagreed with the anti Israel people until he was way into his campaign and the Jews around him convinced him he must do so for Jewish votes.

Remember how he will distance him from his friend and mentor of decades REv Wright.  What makes anyone think he wouldn't do the same to Jews if political puch comes to shove?  Just thinking out loud.
3786  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: October 28, 2008, 09:29:08 AM
"Elect us, hold us accountable, and make a judgment and then go from there. But I do tell you that if the Democrats win and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan," said Pelosi

I am not sure anyone other than Pelosi could make such a statement.

A house divided cannot stand.  With Pelosi who is the least bipartisan and thus the most partisan conspiring pol there is, there is no hope of any bipartisanship.   I suspect BO will cruise way left as well.  He may be more conspiring then all of them.  But he might surprise us as he probably wants to be the popular king so he may just continue to kiss up to the pollsters data.
We'll see.
3787  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: October 27, 2008, 07:32:31 PM
I don't equate centrism with populism.

3788  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / I agree wholeheartedly with your post on: October 27, 2008, 04:59:19 PM
SB,
Yes, yes, yes.

I agree with your commentary 100%.

Reagan *is* over.  They are wrong.  The country has moved left - though hopefully still right of center wherever that is exactly.

I am surprised by Blankley  who I thought was more practical but not by Rush who simply doesn't get it. 

"Could it be possible that the reason that we lack Reagan-style conservatives in elected office today is that they are having trouble getting elected?"

Absolutely.

That is the reason why Romney who ran on "Reagan ideals" did not excite a single person who was not from the far right.

You hit the nail on the head.  Rush and the religious right are pulling the Republican party off the cliff.  In fact they may have already done it.  I don' t personally disgaree with them or have any avarice towards the religious rights views but they are NOT mainstream.  They cannot keep winning with the population becoming more minority, with the middle class struggling harder and harder and more and more people happier than hell to have government add them to the doles.

Wake up.  Latinos are not Reagan Dems.  Younger people are not Reaganites either.  Blacks appear to be hopeless targets for the Republicans thought they must try.  And women?  Impossible to understand as always cry

The majority in the middle, left of middle and right of middle are screwed.  Now we go from Rush Limbaugh right to Pelosi, Bama radical left.

Why can't we get a party that is truly in the middle that represents most Americans???

To hell with the fringes before they send us all to hell.

Give me centrism or give me death!!!  wink

3789  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: October 27, 2008, 03:41:11 PM
yet the more we see a cost problem the more we move in the opposite direction.

Yes your so right.  The "government" fix will exponentially increase costs not reduce them IMO.
The "fix" is in.

You think we have illegals crossing the border now? 
3790  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: October 27, 2008, 12:43:36 PM
Well this in no surprise.

Jew hating Farrakhan calls BO the "messiah".

Is it a coincidence that the only Jews BO has associated with are US hating liberals/radicals?

The answer cannot be no.

I would like to put Sarah Silverman on the front lines between Israel and Hamas and Hezbellah and ask her to put her life on the line by trusting a person (BO) who has historically spent his entire adult life hanging out with haters of our country and Jews.

Oh I guess that little twirp is wiser than her grandparents who lived through the holocaust - yes?

Well again I guess we can only hope BO really is the second coming of Lincoln - only time will tell.





3791  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: October 27, 2008, 11:27:26 AM
"offset by savings from Mr. Obama’s proposals to reduce health spending"

Cutler and there is another Massachussetts liberal type - his name eludes me now - are getting everyone covered first and figuring about how to pay for it later.  Right or wrong I don't know but they are not being honest with all the ramifications of what they advocate.  But what else is new with liberals?

Health spending will not be reduced by expanding coverage to all without increasing people's personal responsibility for the costs as well.  I don't hear them say anything about this.  Not one iota.  Amazing isn't it?

The fastest way to reduce the costs of health care is to transfer costs to patients.  You would be surprised how quickly people will refuse tests not absolutely necessary or opt for generics as soon as they learn they will have to pay more.

But there is some blame for all.  The insurers, the providers (doctors and hospitals), administrators, politicians, pharmaceuticals, device makers, acadamia, lawyers, cottage industries and more.
3792  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The 2008 Presidential Race on: October 27, 2008, 10:17:11 AM
"Unfortunately he speaks to the choir"

I meant Mark Levin , not BO.

Levins message does not get out to the general public.

Can you imagine if the DEms subvert freedom of speech and get the fairness doctrine back into law - which they WILL do if McCain can't stop them.

The media which would be their only check will also be controlled by the government.  How doumb the young are.  They have no clue.  They just dream of love peace and equality while their parents foot the bills.
3793  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The 2008 Presidential Race on: October 27, 2008, 09:56:44 AM
Thank you Mark Levin on talk radio to opening my eyes to how leftist and truly Marxist BO is.  Unfortunately he speaks to the choir and the mainstream garbage media (who by the way is making fortunes on this election campaign by not doing their job) has ignored BOs hazy, fuzzy, past.

He obviously doesn't like our country the way it is or the principles it was founded on and kept it great for 200+ years.
Neither did/does his angry wife.

MSM did not do their job in getting his real past into the open.
He surrounded himself with radicals for one reason and one reason only.  He agrees with them. This is not rocket science.

I may be sorry that the Hill didn't win.  BO may just be far worse.

Ths country has fallen for him hook line and sinker.  Yet the country is right to be disgusted with the Republicans too. 

I can only hope it is not too late for McCain but it probably is.  The MSM and Academia who are teaching our young the propapaganda gobbly goop that the US is to be despised has contributed to this.





3794  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: October 27, 2008, 09:35:51 AM
Thanks for the responses.  I think this is a fundamental problem for the Republicnas that needs to be addressed soemhow in some fashion before they can ever regain power.  Maybe we can come up with ideas.  WE need new leaders in the Rebuplican ranks.  Is anyone out there?

I am pleased with the bombshells on Drudge this morning.

I don't think most people in this country realize that BO is a marxist and a socialist and what they are actually voting for.

IF he gets in with full power in the House and Senate and can pack the court with judges who liberally interpret the constitution in ways that is not equal to all Americans we are headed for the end of AMerica as we now it and will second rate status.

As Mark Levin has apply put:

BO's philosophy is a form of reparations.  I don't think America really understands that and of coursse the mainstream media wants to ignore this in their hatred of Bush and Republicans in general.


I am terrified at the thought of a Dem controlled government with the likes of crazy loons like Pelosi and Reid, and BO.  I am terrfied for our great country and our future.   The younger generation has no clue what they are doing and who they are giving power to and what it means to their future.  As they said in ancient Greece - "youth is wasted on the young".

And BO will get everything he wants  with them controlling all of governement.  I can just hear it now - oh how he is such a compromiser and he gets all sides to work together - even though the Dems are ramming everything throught for hims with a helpless opposition.

Yes  - "clusterf..k" is right.

3795  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: October 25, 2008, 11:59:58 AM
Crafty,
you keep responding to this with a comment agaisnt taxing the rich as have others on the board.

I am not advocating taxing the rich to give to those who don't contribute.

I am saying that there is a growing welth dipsparity in the US and if the Rebpublicans do not address this in some fashion they will continue to swim against the dmeographic currents and may never recover.

I don't want to punish succesful people.  Hell I would like to be one of them.

There has to be some other answer to this.

Ignoring this has resulted in the Demcocrat tsunami in my opinion.

The Republicans today are in part not those of 1980 because they tried no to alienate the "middle class".  They treid to reach out to Latinos and immigrants.  So they got incredibly careless with spending thinking they won't turn off the majority.

Well that didn't work, that didn't attract more voters.

They must rethink the whole thing out.

There must be another way to raise the living standards of the majority of Americans who are running in place and indeed slowly slipping behind while that has not been true for the rich..

They can ignore it at their own peril.

People I think are tired of REagan's mantra philosopy and ideals.  They want action.  They want results.
3796  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Wealth trends since the 1990s on: October 24, 2008, 05:08:32 PM
Well here is one source of what I am talking about.  I am not a fan or advocate of wealth confiscation and redistribution but there must be a fair way of getting the middle and bottom echelons to do better along with the top.

As Clinton used to say the problems in this world stem from the haves vs. the have nots.

Despite his tax raises he noted how the wealthy got wealthier faster then the others.
 
We may be seeing a "peaceful" revolution in the US

http://www.cbpp.org/4-9-08sfp.htm

*** All Reports by DateAll Reports by Date

A state-by-state examination of trends in income inequality over the past two business cycles finds that inequality has grown in most parts of the country since the late 1980s.  The incomes of the country’s highest-income families have climbed substantially, while middle- and lower-income families have seen only modest increases.

In fact, the long-standing trend of growing income inequality accelerated between the late 1990s and the mid-2000s (the latest period for which state data are available).

On average, incomes have declined by 2.5 percent among the bottom fifth of families since the late 1990s, while increasing by 9.1 percent among the top fifth.

In 19 states, average incomes have grown more quickly among the top fifth of families than among the bottom fifth since the late 1990s.  In no state has the bottom fifth grown significantly faster than the top fifth.

For very high-income families — the richest 5 percent — income growth since the late 1990s has been especially dramatic, and much faster than among the poorest fifth of families.

Similarly, families in the middle of the income distribution have fallen farther behind upper-income families in many states since the late 1990s:

On average, incomes have grown by just 1.3 percent among the middle fifth of families since the late 1990s, well below the 9.1 percent gain among the top fifth.  Income disparities between the top and middle fifths have increased significantly in Alabama, California, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, and Texas.  Income disparities did not decline significantly in any state.

The benefits of economic growth were broadly shared for a few years in the late 1990s — the only period in the past two decades for which this was true — but this broad-based growth ended with the 2001 downturn.  Once the effects of the recession were left behind, the trend toward greater inequality quickened, as the incomes of the richest families climbed while those of low- and moderate-income families stagnated or declined.

Methodology

This analysis uses the latest Census Bureau data to measure post-federal-tax changes in real incomes among high-, middle- and low-income families in each of the 50 states between the late 1980s, the late 1990s, and the mid-2000s — similar points in the business cycle (“peaks”).

In order to generate large enough sample sizes for state-level analysis, the study compares combined data from 2004-2006 with data from 1987-1989 and 1998-2000.  The study is based on Census income data that have been adjusted to account for inflation, the impact of federal taxes, and the cash value of food stamps, subsidized school lunches, housing vouchers, and other government transfers, such as Social Security and welfare benefits. 

Realized capital gains and losses are not included, due to data limitations.  As a result, our results show somewhat less inequality than would be the case were we to include realized capital gains.

In this analysis, changes in income inequality are determined by calculating the income gap — i.e., the ratio between the average family income in the top fifth of the income spectrum and the average family income in the bottom fifth (or the middle fifth) — and examining changes in this ratio over time.  These changes are then tested to see if they are statistically significant.

States fall into one of two categories:  (1) those where inequality increased (that is, the ratio increased by a statistically significant amount), or (2) those where there was no change in inequality (the change in the ratio was not statistically significant).  It also would be possible for a state to fall into a third category — states where inequality decreased by a statistically significant amount.  In this analysis, however, no state experienced a decline in income inequality.
 


Specifically, real wages for low- and moderate-income families grew more slowly in 2002 and the first part of 2003 and then began to decline; on average, they are now the same or lower than they were in 2001.  The highest-income families also saw declines in real income during the 2001 downturn (due both to the broad sweep of that recession in the job market and to the loss of realized capital gains), but their incomes grew rapidly once they recovered from these losses.  The federal tax cuts of the early 2000s, which were targeted primarily on wealthy families, helped widen the income gap between the wealthiest families and those with low and moderate incomes.

An examination of income trends over a longer period — from the late 1980s to the mid-2000s — shows that inequality increased across the country.

In 37 states, incomes have grown faster among the top fifth of families than the bottom fifth of families since the late 1980s.  No state has seen a significant decline in inequality during this period.  Nationally, the richest fifth of families have enjoyed larger average income gains each year ($2,060, after adjusting for inflation) than the poorest fifth of families have experienced during the entire two decades ($1,814).

Middle-income families have also lost ground compared to those at the top.  In 36 states, the income gap between the average middle-income family and the average family in the richest fifth has widened significantly since the late 1980s.


Top 5 Percent of Families Pulling Away Even Faster

The widening income gap is even more pronounced when one compares families in the top 5 percent of the income distribution (rather than the top fifth) to the bottom 20 percent.  The higher one goes up the income scale, the greater is the degree of income concentration.

In the 11 large states analyzed, the average income of the top 5 percent of families rose by more than $90,000 on average.  (In three states — New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts — the increase exceeded $100,000.)  By contrast, the largest increase in average income for the bottom fifth of families in these states was only $3,000.  In New York, for example, average incomes grew by $108,000 among the top 5 percent of families but by less than $1,000 among the bottom 20 percent of families.

In the 11 large states for which this comparison is possible, the incomes of the top 5 percent of families have increased by 34 percent to 91 percent since the late 1980s.  By contrast, the percentage increase in incomes of the bottom fifth of families in these states ranged from no change to 20 percent over the same period.[1]


Wide and Growing Gap Separates High-Income Families from Poor and Middle Class

The resulting disparities between the incomes of high- and low-income families are substantial.

In the United States as a whole, the poorest fifth of families have an average income of $18,120, while the top fifth of families have an average income of $132,130 — more than seven times as much.  In 22 states, this top-to-bottom income ratio exceeds 7.0.  (In the late 1980s, in contrast, just one state — Louisiana — had a top-to-bottom ratio exceeding 7.0.)  The states with the biggest increases in income disparities since the late 1980s are Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Alabama, New York, Kentucky, Maryland, Kansas, New Jersey and Washington.

The average incomes of the top 5 percent of families are 12 times the average incomes of the bottom fifth.  The states with the largest such gap are New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Mississippi, New Jersey, Tennessee, New Mexico, Alabama, California, and Virginia.

Similarly, income gaps between high-income and middle-income families have grown.

In over two-thirds of states, incomes have grown faster over the past two decades among the richest families than among families in the middle of the income spectrum — more than twice as fast, on average.  In the remaining states, incomes have grown at about the same rate for the middle and top fifths of families.

The states with the largest gaps between high-income and middle-income families are Oklahoma, Mississippi, California, New York, Texas, New Mexico, Florida, Arizona, Louisiana, and Virginia.


Causes of Rising Inequality

Several factors have contributed to the large and growing income gaps in most states. 

Growth in wage inequality.  This has been the biggest factor.  Wages at the bottom and middle of the wage scale have been stagnant or have grown only modestly for much of the last two decades.  The wages of the very highest-paid employees, however, have grown significantly.

Wage inequality is growing for several reasons, including long periods of high unemployment, globalization, the shrinkage of manufacturing jobs and the expansion of low-wage service jobs, and immigration, as well as the lower real value of the minimum wage and fewer and weaker unions.  As a result, wages have eroded for workers with less than a college education, who make up approximately the lowest-earning 70 percent of the workforce.  More recently, wages have been relatively stagnant even for college-educated workers (up only 2.5 percent between 2000 and 2007), in part due to the bursting of the tech bubble, but also due to the downward pressure on wages from offshore competition.

Only in the later part of the 1990s did this picture improve modestly, as persistent low unemployment, an increase in the minimum wage, and rapid productivity growth fueled real wage gains at the bottom and middle of the income scale.  Yet those few years of more broadly shared growth were insufficient to counteract the two-decade-long pattern of growing inequality.  Today, inequality between low- and high-income families — and between middle- and high-income families — is greater than it was in the late 1980s or the late 1990s.

Expansion of investment income.   Forms of income such as dividends, rent, interest, and capital gains, which primarily accrue to those at the top of the income structure, increased substantially during the 1990s.  (Our analysis captures only a part of this growth, as we are not able to include capital gains income due to data limitations.)   The large increase in corporate profits during the recent economic recovery has also contributed to growing inequality by boosting investors’ incomes.

Government policies.  Government actions — and, in some cases, inaction — have contributed to the increase in wage and income inequality in most states.  Examples include deregulation and trade liberalization, the weakening of the social safety net, the lack of effective labor laws regulating the right to collective bargaining, and the declining real value of the minimum wage.  In addition, changes in federal, state, and local tax structures and benefit programs have, in many cases, accelerated the trend toward growing inequality emerging from the labor market.


States Can Mitigate the Growth in Inequality

Growing income inequality not only raises basic issues of fairness, but also adversely affects the nation’s economy and political system.  The country has now entered a new economic downturn — quite possibly a recession — and already there are unmistakable signs that low- and middle-income workers will be hard hit.  The uneven distribution of the country’s prosperity over the last two decades has left families at the bottom and middle of the income scale ill-prepared to weather this latest downturn.  While the recent decline in the stock market is affecting the incomes of the wealthiest families, they have more savings to cushion the impact, and, if the 2001 experience is repeated, their incomes will again bounce back strongly.

A significant amount of increasing income inequality results from economic forces that are largely outside state policymakers’ control.  State policies, however, can mitigate the effects of these outside forces.  State options include:

Raise, and index, the minimum wage.  Until Congress acted in 2007, the federal minimum wage had not been adjusted for inflation for almost ten years, and its real value had fallen considerably.  Even with the 2007 increase, however, the minimum wage is not indexed to inflation — that is, it will not automatically keep up with the rising cost of living — so its value will begin to erode again after 2009 unless Congress acts.  In addition, its value still falls well short of the amount necessary to meet a family’s needs, especially in states with a high cost of living.  States can help raise wages for workers at the bottom of the pay scale by enacting a higher state minimum wage and indexing it for inflation.

Improve the unemployment insurance system.  In 2007, the share of unemployed workers receiving benefits was only 37 percent — a sign that the current unemployment insurance system does not reflect the realities of work and family today.   The current economic downturn makes it all the more urgent that federal and state policymakers act to make more jobless workers eligible for unemployment assistance by modernizing the system.

Make state tax systems more progressive.  The federal income tax system is progressive — that is, it narrows income inequalities — but has become less so over the past two decades as a result of changes such as the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.  Nearly all state tax systems, in contrast, are regressive.  This is because states rely more on sales taxes and user fees, which hit low-income families especially hard, than on progressive income taxes.  (The income inequality data in this report reflect the effects of federal taxes but not state taxes.)

Many states made their tax systems more regressive during the 1990s.  Early in the decade, when a recession created budget problems, states were more likely to raise sales and excise taxes than income taxes.  Later in the decade, when many states cut taxes in response to the strong economy, nearly all chose to make the majority of the cuts in their income taxes rather than sales and excise taxes.

States now appear to be on the brink of another fiscal crisis, and a new round of tax increases is both likely and appropriate if the economy remains weak and the fiscal crisis deepens.  Economists recognize that tax increases and other revenue measures, especially if targeted to high-income taxpayers, can be a reasonable alternative to spending cuts, and can actually be less harmful for a state’s economy than big spending cuts.

There are many ways a state can increase taxes in a way that makes its tax system more progressive at the same time.  For example, it can reduce its reliance on sales taxes by increasing its income tax on a temporary or permanent basis.  If states instead turn to increases in sales taxes or fees to balance their budgets, they can offset the impact on those least able to pay by enacting or expanding tax credits targeted to low-income taxpayers.  For example, more states could follow the lead of the 23 states that have adopted state earned income tax credits.

States can also improve the progressivity of their tax systems by not enacting at the state level the corporate tax cuts included in the federal economic stimulus package and by restoring state estate taxes eliminated as a result of the phase-out of the federal estate tax.

Strengthen the social safety net.  Federal and state changes to programs that assist low-income families have contributed to the increase in income inequality in recent years.  While welfare reform efforts in the mid- and late 1990s succeeded in helping more families move to work, they often made it harder for very poor families unable to find jobs or work consistently to get income assistance — and intensive job preparation and training — they need both to make ends meet in the short run and to become employable over the longer period of time.

States can take steps — such as improving assessment procedures and establishing job preparation programs for those with barriers to employment — that will make their assistance programs more responsive to those at the very bottom of the income scale while maintaining the work-focused nature of the program.

States can also strengthen their social safety nets by providing low-wage workers with supportive services such as health coverage, child care, and transportation.  In addition, they can provide intensive case management and other services to help current and former welfare recipients maintain their current jobs, move into better jobs, or obtain the education and training needed for career advancement.

While these are all useful steps, state policies are only one of a range of factors that have contributed to increasing income disparities over the past decade.  If low- and middle-income families are to stop receiving steadily smaller shares of the income pie, federal as well as state policies will have to play an important role.

TABLE A:
TOP TEN STATES FOR SELECTED INCOME INEQUALITY MEASURES
 
Greatest Income Inequality
Between the Top and the Bottom, Mid 2000s   Greatest Income Inequality Between the Top and the Middle, Mid 2000s
  1. New York       1. Oklahoma   
  2. Alabama       2. Mississippi   
  3. Mississippi       3. California   
  4. Massachusetts       4. New York   
  5. Tennessee       5. Texas   
  6. New Mexico       6. New Mexico   
  7. Connecticut       7. Florida   
  8. California       8. Arizona   
  9. Texas       9. Louisiana   
  10.Kentucky       10.Virginia   
Greatest Increases
in Income Inequality Between the Top and the Bottom,
Late 1980s to Mid 2000s   Greatest Increases in Income Inequality Between the Top and the Middle,
Late 1980s to Mid 2000s
  1. Connecticut       1. Connecticut   
  2. Rhode Island       2. Oregon   
  3. Massachusetts       3. Oklahoma   
  4. Alabama       4. Maryland   
  5. New York       5. California   
  6. Kentucky       6. New York   
  7. Maryland       7. New Jersey   
  8. Kansas       8. Rhode Island   
  9. New Jersey       9. Washington   
  10. Washington       10. Mississippi   
Greatest Increases
in Income Inequality
Between the Top and the Bottom, Late 1990s to Mid 2000s   States Where
Income Inequality Increased Between the Top and the Middle,
Late 1990s to Mid 2000s
  1. Mississippi       1. Mississippi   
  2. Alabama       2. New Mexico   
  3. New Mexico       3. Missouri   
  4. Connecticut       4. Illinois   
  5. Indiana       5. Alabama   
  6. Illinois       6. Florida   
  7. South Dakota       7. California   
  8. West Virginia       8. Texas   
  9. South Carolina           
  10.Massachusetts           

Click here for PDF of full report.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End Notes:

[1] An analysis of the average income of the top 5 percent of families was conducted for 11 large states that have sufficient observations in the Current Population Survey to allow the calculation of reliable estimates of the average income of the top 5 percent of families.  These states are California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas.
 
  To ask questions, or send comments, write to bazie@cbpp.org
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
820 First Street, NE, Suite 510
Washington, DC  20002
Ph: (202) 408-1080
Fax: (202) 408-1056
 

 
 
3797  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Greenspan on: October 24, 2008, 12:10:56 PM
Isn't it refreshing for a high profile person to admit he made a mistake?

My opinion of Greenspan just went up ten fold.   Just a little honesty.  That's all it takes sometimes.   We so rarely get that from people we vote to be our "leaders".

Compare that to most of the coward politicians, Frank, Dodd et al.

3798  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / We need a new republican party on: October 24, 2008, 08:58:11 AM
I'm afraid the country isn't interest in all the philosophy we are throwing around this board.

I will state one more time that as long as the country's wealth keeps getting concentrated to a smaller and smaller percentage of the population we will get exactly what we are seeing.

The Republicans of 2000 and later are not the Republicans of 1980 for this very reason.

Unregulated trickle down economics does not work for the majority of Americans who are working 60 hours per week, two peopel per household pulling in money, savings rates of effectively zero, and people still can't apy their bills.

Comprende?Huh

Lawyers and philosophers can talk about ideals. constitutional abstracts all you want but the Republicans need to stop and rethink and retool what they are about.  Reagan is dead and so is some at least of his theories.
3799  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Obama Phenomena on: October 21, 2008, 08:47:34 AM
Why is it that JKF is remembered for only the "missle crises" and not the Bay of Pigs.
Wasn't JKF the skipper who drove his PT boat right under the bow of a Japanese destroyer?
Wasn't he the guy who first sent advisors to Vietnam getting us involved over there?
I remember my history professor in college saying he couldn't really conclude whether JFK was a good President or not because he wasn't President long enough.

But all that said, BO is no JFK. 
The Democrats of 1962 are not the Dems of 2008.
And at least Carter served in the Navy.
BO served in liberal academia and community organizing.

OF course we will likely have Joe the blowhard help him save us from foreign threats.
3800  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Coming Clusterfcuk on: October 20, 2008, 02:06:39 PM
Watch them vote in overwhelming numbers for Barack Obama. He is their future

And that is what Rachel Maddow is all about - her agenda.
Pages: 1 ... 74 75 [76] 77 78 ... 85
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!