by Mike Bullis
The idea that taxation is really government confiscation of "my" resources seems so simple and obvious, that it's hard to argue with. Particularly when I look at my paycheck. The problem is we just haven't come up with a better way.
At one level, the problem is wealth and intelligence and success aren't distributed equally. God knows I wish they were. Roughly ten percent of the people alive today will be very successful as measured by money accumulation. Partly because they're smarter than the rest of us, and partly because they're luckier. Then there is a broad group of about seventy percent of the population who will pretty much eek out a living, not being able to save much, and working from day to day. When they get old or have a crisis in health, they'll either be thrown over the side of the boat or we'll find a way to help them. We used to send them to poor farms here in the U.S. and in other societies we just let them die.
Then there is the bottom fifteen or twenty percent. They're just plain too stupid or lazy or, well, hell, you could say lots of things about them. They're a drain on society because no matter how much we spend on them they don't ever seem to get to the place that they'll really contribute to the over all good. So, what do we do with or about them?
What seems to happen in societies is that if we just leave them to fend for themselves, they unite with some of that broader seventy percent group and overthrow the rest of society. They're starving and desperate and eventually they get behind some new leader who promises them a piece of the pie that they, either through inability or lack of initiative, have been unable to get for themselves.
Much of the government turmoil in Central America, Central Africa, Indonesia and other places can give you a glimpse of what happens when you let massive parts of the population starve or fend for themselves. It leads to social instability, rampant crime and government instability--which translate into revolutions. The solution is often brutal dictatorships to keep the masses under control.
The honest truth is that we really struggle with this as a society. It offends our sense of justice that people who haven't contributed should get what "we" earned. But, again, we just haven't found a better way.
Republicans have used mantras against "socialism" and "wealth redistribution” very successfully since the 1980's. It plays well with voters, particularly if they're young and healthy--read as in baby-boomers. The dirty little secret is that Republican leadership knows what I've said above as well. They know that our society would not long tolerate the abandoning of the poor. They know it wouldn't be tolerated not just because it's ultimately cruel and destabilizing to society, but, it's destabilizing to Capitalism.
When John McCain calls Barack Obama a socialist he's really saying that the Democrats are far more willing than he is to pander to these unworthy groups and promise them more of the money they haven't earned than are the Republicans.
Every society has interest groups that form around particular issues. In the simplistic view, there are the free enterprise business interests and the humanitarian interests.
Although we capitalists talk about the fact that capitalism raises all boats, we've never been able to prove our contention. Yes, we can argue that capitalism raises the overall level of society's value (whether measured in dollars or production or standard of living), but the truth is that many are still left out.
Our country, in the 1930's came to a crisis point. We had had several major recessions in our history. The one in the 1890's was horrendous. The one after the Civil War was also very ugly. Millions out on the roads without a place to live, people dying without help. It was truly awful.
In the 1930's we decided that, whatever we may think about society, we had to do something to keep society from disintegration. We were being hit by the Communists, saying that capitalism was using workers and not giving them the value for their work. We had Hitler who argued that the superior amongst us should be allowed to cull out the inferior.
Our nation truly stood at a brink. Would we intervene to stabilize or simply let the chips fall where they would.
We chose to stabilize. I don't regret that decision.
Rather than simply inflame the masses against government and against programs we truly need for social stability, I'd rather work toward a government that produces results more efficiently.
The problem right now, is that for the past thirty years, the distance between the top and the bottom is increasing. That seventy percent in the middle is getting smaller and smaller. Their incomes are going down. Those kindly companies that we work for have found it more expedient to reward shareholders than employees. Although unions got greedy and out of control, the thing they did provide through the 70's in our country, was a baseline for wages and benefits. They gave workers some bargaining power, a place at the corporate table if you will. When unions declined, working people had no bargaining power. No matter what we capitalists say, we don't give up our profits willingly to workers. Yes, yes, I know, the marketplace should fix that.
But, the truth is that the marketplace devalues workers because company owners can use a so-so worker almost as well as a really good one. And, a really good worker just isn't that much more valuable to them. In other words, the rich have been getting richer and the poor have been getting poorer and the middle class has been moving toward the bottom.
There's no doubt that what we will see under Obama and a Democratically controlled Congress will be an attempt to change this. For millions in the 1930's the problem was that they simply couldn't ride out an economic crisis. Do you have two years worth of income in the bank ready for any problem that comes? If you don't, you're going to need help from someone if things get tough. Can you afford to pay your mortgage if you lose your job? If not, what will you do? If you lose your job how will you feed your kids? Put a garden plot in the backyard? That's a great idea but it won't help enough. Are you going to shoot deer in the neighborhood? Probably not a likely option for most people.
When we were a simpler society it was a bit easier for people to "live off the land" but with most of our population in cities it just isn't easy.
If, God forbid, your wife or mother should get breast cancer and die, what should happen? Will the kids just go to orphanages or live on the streets? What test do we give those in need for worthiness? How will we decide whether they're the ones who should receive help?
Look, there's no doubt that the Democrats go further than I would on helping those at the bottom. There's a fine line between too much help, cutting off the development of survival instincts and making people dependent, and not giving enough help, pushing people further toward the bottom.
My own feeling, for now, is that the Democrats will help rebalance society for a time in the direction of restabilizing the middle class. They'll probably overshoot and the Republicans will take power again to rebalance the other way. In the mean time, John McCain and the Republicans just don't answer the basic questions that we're wrestling with. The trickle down theory of economics has never worked as efficiently as they would have liked. The reality of capitalism is that in any large society, left to itself, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. What we have to do is find a way to rebalance that very real effect.
Yes, that's wealth redistribution. We should acknowledge that from the get go. We're a society that does that. Every society that has been at all successful over time has realized that it needs to be done.
If somebody finds a better way then I'm all for looking at it.
Showing posts with label election 2008. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election 2008. Show all posts
10.30.2008
10.29.2008
this man is why progressives-liberals, whatever you wanna call us, exist
Saw this today on Bob Cesca's site. Posted by Elvis. A phenomenal writer-human.
It's the best clip I've seen at highlighting the essence behind Barack Obama's support. As a daughter of Depression-era babies, I say it shines a bright light on what's too frequently been dim of late. This IS the heart of a liberal ...
Read all and watch. It's well worth your time.
[...]
There's no denying these videos can border on the hagiographic, and by now Republicans must be inventing new drinking games for every Obama Video Tearjerker starring some iconic figure from America's troubled past finding Hope and Salvation in the prospect of the Senator's winning this election. And I understand that "Because it's Historic" is not reason enough to support a candidate for president; electing a particularly retarded eggplant would make history, too, but surely there were more legitimate reasons for voting for George W. Bush (POW! ZAP! I've still got it, baby!).
But this video does what no ad or stump speech or vapid, smirking, sarcastic punchline of the McCain campaign's has been able to accomplish [...] It puts a human face, and real Hope, on this long march of ours. It makes it personal, and gives us all a sense of pride and purpose in what we're doing. While their side tears Barack Obama down, and calls names and scrambles for any last shred of humanity in the chum buckets of their anger and vitriol and fear, our side talks about what this man, and his candidacy, mean to us. As people. As Democrats. As Americans.
Their side can roll their eyes and mock these personal stories for their treacle and their tears, but we know it's precisely these moments of humanity that, when taken in aggregate and amplified across this aching country, are the reason we're here, and the reason we'll win.
It's the best clip I've seen at highlighting the essence behind Barack Obama's support. As a daughter of Depression-era babies, I say it shines a bright light on what's too frequently been dim of late. This IS the heart of a liberal ...
Read all and watch. It's well worth your time.
[...]
There's no denying these videos can border on the hagiographic, and by now Republicans must be inventing new drinking games for every Obama Video Tearjerker starring some iconic figure from America's troubled past finding Hope and Salvation in the prospect of the Senator's winning this election. And I understand that "Because it's Historic" is not reason enough to support a candidate for president; electing a particularly retarded eggplant would make history, too, but surely there were more legitimate reasons for voting for George W. Bush (POW! ZAP! I've still got it, baby!).
But this video does what no ad or stump speech or vapid, smirking, sarcastic punchline of the McCain campaign's has been able to accomplish [...] It puts a human face, and real Hope, on this long march of ours. It makes it personal, and gives us all a sense of pride and purpose in what we're doing. While their side tears Barack Obama down, and calls names and scrambles for any last shred of humanity in the chum buckets of their anger and vitriol and fear, our side talks about what this man, and his candidacy, mean to us. As people. As Democrats. As Americans.
Their side can roll their eyes and mock these personal stories for their treacle and their tears, but we know it's precisely these moments of humanity that, when taken in aggregate and amplified across this aching country, are the reason we're here, and the reason we'll win.
sarah palin is a SOCIALIST!
man, when Olbermann is firing on all cylinders, he just rocks ...
i wish i could make my inlaws watch this.
i wish i could make my inlaws watch this.
10.28.2008
then there's this: more much ado
McCain Campaign Falsely Claims Obama Described Court's Failure to Redistribute Wealth As "Tragedy"
By Greg Sargent - October 27, 2008, 12:16PM
The McCain campaign's efforts to portray Barack Obama as a closet socialist took a turn into the burlesque today, with the McCain camp falsely claiming that in a seven year old interview, Obama said that it was a "tragedy" that the Supreme Court hadn't redistributed wealth away from hard-working Americans.
The Obama interview in question is being pushed relentlessly today by the wingnuts, who are circulating this audio of it.
The McCain campaign just blasted out a quote from senior economics adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin hammering Obama. In the interview, Holtz-Eakin claimed, "Obama expressed his regret that the Supreme Court hadn't been more 'radical' and described as a 'tragedy' the Court's refusal to take up 'the issues of redistribution of wealth.'"
Holtz-Eakin asserted that this proves that Obama wants to take money "away from people who work for it" and give it to people "Obama believes deserves it." Apparently McCain himself is going to pick up this cudgel on the trail today, too.
But as usual, this latest attack rests on a complete falsehood.
If you look at Obama's full quote -- which you can read right here -- it's very clear that Obama was not directly "regretting" the failure of the court to be "radical." Rather, he was saying that the court's failure to take up redistributive issues proved that it wasn't as "radical" as some have claimed. The "radical" line was clearly a dispassionate claim about the reality of history.
What's more, take a look at the operative part of Obama's quote that includes the "tragedy" line:
One of the I think the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court focused I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that.
READ ON
By Greg Sargent - October 27, 2008, 12:16PM
The McCain campaign's efforts to portray Barack Obama as a closet socialist took a turn into the burlesque today, with the McCain camp falsely claiming that in a seven year old interview, Obama said that it was a "tragedy" that the Supreme Court hadn't redistributed wealth away from hard-working Americans.
The Obama interview in question is being pushed relentlessly today by the wingnuts, who are circulating this audio of it.
The McCain campaign just blasted out a quote from senior economics adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin hammering Obama. In the interview, Holtz-Eakin claimed, "Obama expressed his regret that the Supreme Court hadn't been more 'radical' and described as a 'tragedy' the Court's refusal to take up 'the issues of redistribution of wealth.'"
Holtz-Eakin asserted that this proves that Obama wants to take money "away from people who work for it" and give it to people "Obama believes deserves it." Apparently McCain himself is going to pick up this cudgel on the trail today, too.
But as usual, this latest attack rests on a complete falsehood.
If you look at Obama's full quote -- which you can read right here -- it's very clear that Obama was not directly "regretting" the failure of the court to be "radical." Rather, he was saying that the court's failure to take up redistributive issues proved that it wasn't as "radical" as some have claimed. The "radical" line was clearly a dispassionate claim about the reality of history.
What's more, take a look at the operative part of Obama's quote that includes the "tragedy" line:
One of the I think the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court focused I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that.
READ ON
oh, for cryin' out loud (as my mother used to say)
Well, the nutwings are at it again. Of course, that's no surprise, but lord, this is getting exhausting. So, in an interview from 2001 Obama said the Consititution is flawed (something any first year law student could tell you ... or any first year high school student) and the conspiracy theorists are slobbering over themselves. Claiming this is proof of Obama's radical, ultra-left wing leanings. So, when did they start holding the Constitution with the same regard they hold the Bible? Certainly not during the Bush Administration.
Anyway, I found this today. Clearly he's irritated (and who can blame him), but spot-on:
The Majority of Blog Pundits (and their readers) are Idiots
The American Pundit embedded a YouTube video of Obama saying the Consititution is flawed. OK, even the Founders believed that, but they ratified it anyway. Benjamin Franklin is on the record as having said the document isn’t perfect but it’ll do. I guess it would have had to, wouldn’t it?
Blog pundits are notorious for making much ado about nothing. We’ve heard that Obama is a Muslim, that he “pals around” with terrorists, and that he is a socialist - none of which are true. They are only inferences derived at from half-truths, fear, and irrational thought processes. In the spirit of bi-partisanship, we’ve heard similar urban legends about Sarah Palin.
I’ve got no problem with people choosing the candidate they feel best represents their values. Everyone must support someone and if an individual does the research then makes a decision based on solid, provable evidence, they’ve done what is required of a dutiful citizen. But most of what we hear coming from talk radio and the blog pundits is ludicrous and damaging. There is no critical thought that goes into most of it and my fear is that the majority of Americans will cast a vote on election day based on one of the urban myths they read in an e-mail without investigating whether or not there is any truth to it. That certainly is not what the Founders had in mind.
Watch the video yourself and then ask yourself, “What’s the big deal?” Read and view on ...
Anyway, I found this today. Clearly he's irritated (and who can blame him), but spot-on:
The Majority of Blog Pundits (and their readers) are Idiots
The American Pundit embedded a YouTube video of Obama saying the Consititution is flawed. OK, even the Founders believed that, but they ratified it anyway. Benjamin Franklin is on the record as having said the document isn’t perfect but it’ll do. I guess it would have had to, wouldn’t it?
Blog pundits are notorious for making much ado about nothing. We’ve heard that Obama is a Muslim, that he “pals around” with terrorists, and that he is a socialist - none of which are true. They are only inferences derived at from half-truths, fear, and irrational thought processes. In the spirit of bi-partisanship, we’ve heard similar urban legends about Sarah Palin.
I’ve got no problem with people choosing the candidate they feel best represents their values. Everyone must support someone and if an individual does the research then makes a decision based on solid, provable evidence, they’ve done what is required of a dutiful citizen. But most of what we hear coming from talk radio and the blog pundits is ludicrous and damaging. There is no critical thought that goes into most of it and my fear is that the majority of Americans will cast a vote on election day based on one of the urban myths they read in an e-mail without investigating whether or not there is any truth to it. That certainly is not what the Founders had in mind.
Watch the video yourself and then ask yourself, “What’s the big deal?” Read and view on ...
feeding frenzy
Well now. Do they really want to do this? For her?
[...] the GOP is set splinter into a trio of factions: the Palin-philes, the Romney remainders, and those excommunicated from the movement for daring to make a lick of sense at one point.
This is, indeed, a "bloodbath," and for what? A distinctly semi-pro Alaskan governor who's more or less made the charisma-free Tim Pawlenty look like What Could Have Been? Additionally, this sort of line-in-the-sand drawing avoids another obvious truth -- come 2012, someone besides Palin is going to vie for the GOP nomination. Someone like, say, Mitt Romney, who famously earned the backing of the National Review, which called him a "full-spectrum conservative." What happens to Romney, now that he's on the wrong side of the Palin line?
[...] Fitting isn't it, that a McCain loss might precipitate his party coming to resemble the factionalism of the Iraqi misadventure they all cooked up in the first place. Maybe Joe Biden can help them reach some sort of triple-partition solution!
Read on for complete commentary.
[...] the GOP is set splinter into a trio of factions: the Palin-philes, the Romney remainders, and those excommunicated from the movement for daring to make a lick of sense at one point.
This is, indeed, a "bloodbath," and for what? A distinctly semi-pro Alaskan governor who's more or less made the charisma-free Tim Pawlenty look like What Could Have Been? Additionally, this sort of line-in-the-sand drawing avoids another obvious truth -- come 2012, someone besides Palin is going to vie for the GOP nomination. Someone like, say, Mitt Romney, who famously earned the backing of the National Review, which called him a "full-spectrum conservative." What happens to Romney, now that he's on the wrong side of the Palin line?
[...] Fitting isn't it, that a McCain loss might precipitate his party coming to resemble the factionalism of the Iraqi misadventure they all cooked up in the first place. Maybe Joe Biden can help them reach some sort of triple-partition solution!
Read on for complete commentary.
10.27.2008
the lengthy latest list: conservatives & republicans who endorse obama
From Republican Switchers: WHY CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT BARACK OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT --- and why you, and the conservatives you love, should vote for Obama, too
Public Servants:
Colin Powell, Secretary of State under Bush 43
Scott McClellan, Former Press Secretary to President George W. Bush
Douglas Kmiec, Head of the Office of Legal Counsel under Reagan & Bush 41
Charles Fried, Solicitor General of the United States under Reagan
Jackson M. Andrews, Republican Counsel to the U.S. Senate
Susan Eisenhower, Granddaughter of President Eisenhower & President of the Eisenhower Group
Francis Fukuyama, Advisor to President Reagan
Rita Hauser, Former White House intelligence advisor under George W. Bush
Larry Hunter, Former President Reagan Policy Advisor
Bill Ruckelshaus, served in the Nixon and Reagan administrations
Ken Adelman, served in the Ford administration
Lilibet Hagel, Wife of Republican Senator Chuck Hagel
Elected Officials:
Jim Leach, Former Congressman from Iowa
Lincoln Chafee, Former United States Senator from Rhode Island
William Weld, Former Governor of Massachusetts
Arne Carlson, Former Governor of Minnesota
Wayne Gilchrest, Congressman from Maryland
Richard Riordan, Former Mayor of Los Angeles
Lowell Weicker, Former Governor and Senator from Connecticut
Jim Whitaker, Fairbanks, Alaska Mayor
Linwood Holton, Former Governor of Virginia
Columnists and Academics:
Jeffrey Hart, National Review Senior Editor
Andrew Bacevich, Professor of International Relations at Boston University
David Friedman, Economist and son of Milton and Rose Friedman
Christopher Buckley, Son of National Review (NR) founder William F. Buckley & former NR columnist
Andrew Sullivan, Columnist for the Atlantic Monthly
Wick Alison, Former publisher of the National Review
Michael Smerconish, Columnist for the Philadelphia Enquirer
CC Goldwater, Granddaughter of Barry Goldwater
The Latest Endorsements:
38 NEWSPAPERS SWITCH, ENDORSING OBAMA AFTER ENDORSING BUSH IN '04!
From Editor & Publisher: 160 newspapers have endorsed Obama and only 59 have endorsed McCain.
The 160 endorsements include 38 newspapers, such as the conservative Chicago Tribune, which switched from endorsing a Republican in the last presidential election to Barack Obama in this election. (Photo: Shane Vigil)
Think about it--why are so many conservatives and newspapers switching? They know Obama is the best candidate for a better country and a better world!
**i'd also semi-add Peggy Noonan, David Brooks and half-way acknowledge George Will ... though they haven't endorsed Obama, they've, on occasion walked to the edge.
10.24.2008
10.23.2008
10.19.2008
hell ya!
there. he said it all. the only thing i might've added would be a little bit of name calling glued to a long string of four letter words. but that's why he's the public servant and i'm not. grace and politeness are not characteristics i'm able to possess when pissed off.
10.18.2008
the simplest explanation
Today on Hardball, crazy Uncle Pat [Pat Buchanan] was at it again. Blathering on about that unforgivable crime of Obama's--having associated professionally w/ Bill Ayers. Actually, I appreciate having him on MSNBC so I don't have to listen to the Limbaugh-Coulter-Hannity-Beck-O'Reilly-Malkin, socialist-conspiracy theorists who spew their no-longer-fringe paranoia. I get just enough right-wing ranting to stay informed by watching Pat's Cliff's Notes.
But, I'm flabbergasted [not really] that he doesn't hold the same degree of outrage regarding Palin, her abuse of power charge--you know, the one she keeps lying about--her close association w/ the Alaskan Independence Party, McCain's friendship w/ G. Gordon Liddy, Singlaub and the US Council for World Freedom. But the Right is quite deft at dismissing w/contortionist skill those associations.
It's curious the Left has no sustained interest in that game. I like to think it's because we have more moral grounding, but admittedly, I'm partial. It's probably just that we know we're not gonna sway any nutwings with that argument. They couldn't care less about just equivalencies.
But, this obsessive, tireless Ayers thing is making me pace, throw kitchen utensils and mutter furiously to myself. In other words, I'm in a constant state of pissed-off-ness--and becoming miserable to myself.
This thing keeps getting repeated and repeated--incorrectly. So, I'm pleading, dear reader [no matter how few of you there are] to pass along a message to all your hater friends and relatives.
But, I'm flabbergasted [not really] that he doesn't hold the same degree of outrage regarding Palin, her abuse of power charge--you know, the one she keeps lying about--her close association w/ the Alaskan Independence Party, McCain's friendship w/ G. Gordon Liddy, Singlaub and the US Council for World Freedom. But the Right is quite deft at dismissing w/contortionist skill those associations.
It's curious the Left has no sustained interest in that game. I like to think it's because we have more moral grounding, but admittedly, I'm partial. It's probably just that we know we're not gonna sway any nutwings with that argument. They couldn't care less about just equivalencies.
But, this obsessive, tireless Ayers thing is making me pace, throw kitchen utensils and mutter furiously to myself. In other words, I'm in a constant state of pissed-off-ness--and becoming miserable to myself.
This thing keeps getting repeated and repeated--incorrectly. So, I'm pleading, dear reader [no matter how few of you there are] to pass along a message to all your hater friends and relatives.
For crazy Uncle Pat and followers, the Ayers argument--distilled from Faux News, Palin multitudes and right wing talk-radio--hinges on two issues: (1) that Ayers hasn't said he was "sorry" and (2) Obama's career was "launched" in unrepentant Ayers' living room.
To the issue of repentance ... from Wikipedia
Statements made in 2001
Chicago Magazine reported that "just before the September 11th attacks," Richard Elrod, a city lawyer injured in the Weathermen's Chicago "Days of Rage," received an apology from Ayers and Dohrn for their part in the violence. "[T]hey were remorseful," Elrod says. "They said, 'We're sorry that things turned out this way.'"[19]
Much of the controversy about Ayers during the decade since 2000 stems from an interview he gave to The New York Times on the occasion of the memoir's publication.[20] The reporter quoted him as saying "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough", and, when asked if he would "do it all again," as saying "I don't want to discount the possibility."[15] Ayers has not denied the quotes, but he protested the interviewer's characterizations in a Letter to the Editor published September 15, 2001: "This is not a question of being misunderstood or 'taken out of context', but of deliberate distortion."[21]
In the ensuing years, Ayers has repeatedly avowed that when he said he had "no regrets" and that "we didn't do enough" he was speaking only in reference to his efforts to stop the United States from waging the Vietnam War, efforts which he has described as ". . . inadequate [as] the war dragged on for a decade."[22] Ayers has maintained that the two statements were not intended to imply a wish they had set more bombs.[22][23]
The interviewer also quoted some of Ayers' own criticism of Weatherman in the foreword to the memoir, whereby Ayers reacts to having watched Emile de Antonio's 1976 documentary film about Weatherman, Underground: "[Ayers] was 'embarrassed by the arrogance, the solipsism, the absolute certainty that we and we alone knew the way. The rigidity and the narcissism.' "[15] "We weren't terrorists," Ayers told an interviewer for the Chicago Tribune in 2001. "The reason we weren't terrorists is because we did not commit random acts of terror against people. Terrorism was what was being practiced in the countryside of Vietnam by the United States."[3]
In a letter to the editor in the Chicago Tribune, Ayers wrote, "I condemn all forms of terrorism — individual, group and official". He also condemned the September 11 terrorist attacks in that letter. "Today we are witnessing crimes against humanity on our own shores on an unthinkable scale, and I fear that we may soon see more innocent people in other parts of the world dying in response."[24]
Views on his past expressed since 2001
Ayers was asked in a January 2004 interview, "How do you feel about what you did? Would you do it again under similar circumstances?" He replied:[25] "I've thought about this a lot. Being almost 60, it's impossible to not have lots and lots of regrets about lots and lots of things, but the question of did we do something that was horrendous, awful? ... I don't think so. I think what we did was to respond to a situation that was unconscionable."
On September 9, 2008, journalist Jake Tapper reported on the comic strip in Bill Ayers's blog explaining the soundbite: "The one thing I don't regret is opposing the war in Vietnam with every ounce of my being.... When I say, 'We didn't do enough,' a lot of people rush to think, 'That must mean, "We didn't bomb enough shit."' But that's not the point at all. It's not a tactical statement, it's an obvious political and ethical statement. In this context, 'we' means 'everyone.'"[26][27]
Sounds like repentance to me, how 'bout you?
To the second issue of "launching" Obama's career in Ayers' living room [which, of course means they must be blood-brothers.] Nutwings drool and shoot their load over the idea this meeting was some sort of dark, plotting social-radical cabal. I mean, *gasp* what could they have said to one another? Oh, I know!
Ayers: "Hey Barack! I just had the most brilliant idea! Why don't we come up with a plot to turn this immoral, redneck country we all hate into an elitist, socialist nation ... or we'll start blowing things up! Kinda like I used to!"
or
Ayers, again: "Hey, I know [to nameless other socialists in attendance], let's get Obama to run for president and seize the reins of power! He'll do it! He'll do anything! ...we command him!"
Obviously, I'm being glib, but the point is this: first, Obama's career was launched plenty well on his own, thank you. He'd already been president of the Harvard Law Review [where he'd developed coalitions b/w conservatives and liberals] and a professor at the University of Chicago.
Second, this was a "coffee," or rather "meet the candidate" event where Ayers introduced Obama to other politicos in his bid for the Illinois State Senate. Who was more connected and established with conservatives AND liberals on the scene in Chicago at that time? Ayers. This is what's called "networking," folks. We've all had to suffer those kinds of meetings before, right?
Finally, that coffee took place in 1995 ... long before 9/11 after which the country developed a rabid hyper-vigilance against anyone quietly working for social and educational justice, who had the word "terrorist" attached to his distant past yet who appeared "rehabilitated." I'm sure, at the time, it was easier to look beyond such things--if Obama even knew then--as it may have been for most of us. We homo-sapiens tend to evaluate people by what/whom we think we see standing before us in the immediate moment. Including, I'm only guessing, the very political Pat Buchanan--especially if that former, rehabilitated terrorist standing before him was on the far right instead of the left. Who was it that said the simplest explanation is usually closest to the truth?
And, oh ya, how about this--wasn't there a famous dude from oh, say, 2,000 years ago who embraced anyone--thieves, prostitutes, murderers, anyone--as long as they were repentent, wanting to better themselves and build a more humane, compassionate society? How is it the Christian right, time and time again overlooks the most important lessons of Christianity.
10.16.2008
the final debate and small business taxes
email text from Mike Bullis--a primo friend, former small business owner and past Republican candidate for the Oregeon state congress--who frankly has a better handle on the economy than almost anyone else I know:
I think McCain did better in this final debate than the other two debates at several things.
- He interpreted Obama's answers to the audience.
- He clearly differentiated himself from Bush.
- He showed emotion that felt a bit more authentic.
Those were the broad themes. The problem is that he's had the Republican nomination locked up since April and this is likely too little to late. He just came up with the "change" theme in September. What the hell was he doing for the five months prior to that? He talks the right words but Obama actually has plans to describe what he's going to do and has had them for over a year.
McCain made the argument for not redistributing wealth. This country is, like all taxing economies, about redistributing wealth. When we cut taxes for people with wealth in 2001 we redistributed wealth in effect. We said that people with money could keep theirs and the revenue would be made up by more jobs and a better economy. What actually happened is that people who had money did invest some of it but they also kept lots and when all was said and done, we ran up an additional five trillion dollars in debt because the economy didn't grow enough to make up for those reduced taxes.
It's sort of like what Willy Sutton said about why he robbed banks. He said it was because that was where the money was. This country has experimented with lowering taxes on high income people for thirty years and what has happened is that the middle income folks are losing purchasing power. They're the ones who buy the goods and if they're buying less the economy is going to tank. We tried to borrow our way out of it as families, as businesses, Etc. That too is coming home to roost.
Every economy down through history has struggled about what to do with the reality that money breeds money. Or, in the vernacular, "The rich get richer." I think what we're in now is a rebalancing act but doubt that we're somehow going to hurt the engine of job creation for small business. The truth is, for those of us who have been in small business, we pay very few taxes. This country is a wonderful place for small businesses and will continue to be. As far as the Joe Plumber thing was concerned tonight, I saw that clip. He could write off his investment in the plumbing business he wants to buy and so really, he doesn't know much about taxes and needs a better accountant/tax adviser.
I was pleased to see McCain be more like the old McCain, but, I think it's to little too late and frankly, so much of it has been contrived in the last two months, it doesn't feel real to me. Yes, McCain is real, but, he lost his way in this campaign some time ago and hasn't found his way back at a personal level. Tonight he came closer than any other time but....Not enough.
9.28.2008
mccain's healthcare plan: $3.6 trillion tax increase and a shove into the open market---w/out a paddle
Huffington Post: "not every voter wants to hear about "insurance exchanges" and "risk pooling" at this stage of the game. But they should know that McCain's plan threatens a very large change in the treatment of heretofore untaxed benefits, a large decline in employer coverage, and a subsidy that starts out too low and grows at about a third the rate it needs to in order to keep up with the costs families face today."
more
more
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
