Most of us remember that when Hillary Clinton's health-care plan failed in 1994 the GOP Contract With America provoked millions of Angry White Men to vote out the Democrat Congress for the first time since Ike was President. Had the '96 Republicans run a strong candidate instead of giving a LifeTime Achievement Award to old warhorse Bob Dole, Bill Clinton's Monica affaire & subsequent impeachment might've never come to pass.

Now John McCain is the New Angry White Man -- he himself spoke about & stoked Anger several times in last nite's debate -- & ironically it looks like the New Old WarHorse's Days of Rage will result in the Democrats taking over & reforming America's broken health-care system. McCain's angriest utterance was perhaps the final nail in his campaign coffin, as reported by the Los Angeles Times:

In a race in which millions of dollars have been spent for the votes of American women, McCain managed in a two-question segment to mock laws protecting a woman's right to sue for being paid less than a man, and the notion that late-term abortions should be allowed in cases where a mother's health is threatened.

"That's the extreme pro-abortion position -- quote, health," McCain said.


An Angry White Man's cavalier dismissal of women who work as hard at the same job as men but are paid less, and women whose well-being & health are threatened as "extreme" would be target practice for Sarah Palin were she not also stuck on the same ticket. Thirty years of Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush governance have proven the GOP is the party of Abortion as well as Amnesty & Adventurism.

We can see for ourselves at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la...ct16,0,2228433.story

What I found amazing was the comment before that where McSame stated he would perform no litmus test on Judicial nominees to see where he stood on Roe V. Wade. Did this not send shivers down the conservative spine? I don't think that Roe V. Wade is the test that the GOP is looking for anyway. I think they want Justices who will swing an election if needed as in 2000. I think they would lose millions of votes if the abortion issue was resolved & is in their best interest to leave it alone.

a reply to the heading--

Obama is an angry younger [half] black man -- who is able to handle himself with much more calmness than Jesse Jackson because of his training!! -- [but has even more Socialistic ideas than Jackson]

Obama is a black Robinhood.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. No Name:
Obama is a black Robinhood.

I fear you may be correct sir... take from the rich, give to the poor, and forget the middle.

Much like his friend on the right (not correct, but right) side of the ticket. There is no reprieve for the working and middle class.

Our politicians, in this day and age, are the most corrupt bunch that has ever served. Until someone actually addresses corruption and government spending it is going to be the same ol' same ol'

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. No Name:
Obama is a black Robinhood.

I'm not rich, therefore, bring on the goods baby!

quote:

Originally posted by BowlingInArizona:

quote:

I fear you may be correct sir... take from the rich, give to the poor, and forget the middle.

There's an easy solution to that fear. Eliminate the middle class.

Mexico done that many years ago. It doesnt work to good.

Do you think anybody really knows how to fix our country right now?

Perhaps I do, but I am not running. One might think of Wendell Berry as having some solutions. If one reads GK Chesterton solutions would become clearer. Francis Bradley locally made much sense, but alas, he is gone also. My solutions would be to create a benevolent monarchy and hope for the best. Otherwise we continue to muddle through. "It's a Republic, if we can keep it." B. Franklin.

righto! Is that good enough grammer?

quote:

Originally posted by BowlingInArizona:

quote:

Mexico done that many years ago. It doesnt work to good.

That's basically my point. Well, with better grammar and spelling, it would be my point.

I know I'm leaving the middle class on a downward path, and I see many of my friends and neighbors making the journey with me.

I wonder how folks will feel when his "spreading the wealth" policy goes into effect and he sees those making over $250,000 aren't spreading the wealth far enough, or fast enough and he decides to move down his target on taxing the rich to those making $100,000 or even lower. He hasn't set a lower limit on how far this tax increase will go if he feels the need is greater.

The problem with the slippery slope is that it's wholly based on fear and presumptions.
I'll argue in the alternative to try to show my point.
When President Bush came on the scene, one of his big ideas was to do faith based initiatives. It didn't take off, but bear with me. Using the slippery slope method, opponents could have argued and some surely did that the next step was to give directly to churches and not church based charity. Then, who knows, he might try to remove the establishment clause and make Christianity the state religion.

Of course, none of this would happen, because it's not a logical conclusion based on the statements set forth by the candidate. The premise of your argument is that the proposed tax increases (1)will not be enough after all is said and done(2)further tax increases will be preferred over cost cuts or not enacting policies** (3)that the President has full control over policy, even with a Dem. majority, these people have to go home and run again (4)that any candidate is going to campaign with a "floor" that would assume their plan is going to fail as is.

The Obama tax plan is based on simple numbers. The vast majority of Americans make less than $250k/yr., and very few would argue that this isn't wealthy or at least lower Upper-class. If the number gets much lower there will be a tax revolt of sorts and the Democratic Congress would be shooed out in 2 yrs. before they know it on that issue alone.


**Obama and Biden have volunteered programs they would be willing to put on the back burner until the economy recovers.

NOTES:
-All taxes, regressive or not "spread the wealth."
-The original income tax ONLY applied to the wealthiest Americans, that's how they got public support and enough states to ratify.

quote:

Originally posted by Eric Stratton:
...
-The original income tax ONLY applied to the wealthiest Americans, that's how they got public support and enough states to ratify.

That's what is scary! Obamas proposal is history repeating itself. Likewise, Obama is hoping to get public support to vote him into office. He knows the American voters are gullible enough to think "it won't effect me. I'm not rich". If they believe 95% will get a tax cut, they will believe anything.

I'll grant that it may be history repeating itself, but I don't think it's necessarily scary.

The original income tax helped fund all those socialistic policies and regulations like workplace safety regulations, meat inspection, the national parks system, and later on in our history, a standing army, clean air/water, and social security.

I agree that the 95% thing is problematic for the Obama campaign in a number of ways.
-They keep going back and forth whether it's "95% of Americans" and "95% of working Americans." The difference may be small, but it's significant at a rhetorical level.
-Something like 40% of earners pay no income tax as is, although that includes the significant "negative tax rate" for the bottom earners that cancel out the small "positive tax rate" for those at the top of the bottom 40%.
-He needs to be more up front on what cost cuts will defray the costs of new programs in conjunction with going back to 1990's tax levels. Some of what he's proposed has not stood up to independent analysis.

Personally, I have no problem with somewhat higher marginal rates when income hits a certain level such as $250k/yr. The real issue is whether the individual thinks some level of health care is a right versus a privilege. If it is a right, then ensuring universal coverage is a collective action problem that requires it. If it's not considered a right, then the argument is pretty much dead right there.

I think that if most people stood behind the "veil of ignorance" they would come to the conclusion that some form of basic medical care should be considered a right.

quote:

Originally posted by Eric Stratton:
I'll grant that it may be history repeating itself, but I don't think it's necessarily scary.

The original income tax helped fund all those socialistic policies and regulations like workplace safety regulations, meat inspection, the national parks system, and later on in our history, a standing army, clean air/water, and social security.

I agree that the 95% thing is problematic for the Obama campaign in a number of ways.
-They keep going back and forth whether it's "95% of Americans" and "95% of working Americans." The difference may be small, but it's significant at a rhetorical level.
-Something like 40% of earners pay no income tax as is, although that includes the significant "negative tax rate" for the bottom earners that cancel out the small "positive tax rate" for those at the top of the bottom 40%.
-He needs to be more up front on what cost cuts will defray the costs of new programs in conjunction with going back to 1990's tax levels. Some of what he's proposed has not stood up to independent analysis.

Personally, I have no problem with somewhat higher marginal rates when income hits a certain level such as $250k/yr. The real issue is whether the individual thinks some level of health care is a right versus a privilege. If it is a right, then ensuring universal coverage is a collective action problem that requires it. If it's not considered a right, then the argument is pretty much dead right there.

I think that if most people stood behind the "veil of ignorance" they would come to the conclusion that some form of basic medical care should be considered a right.

We already have basic medical care for the down and out...its called medicaid. We have local county hospitals paid for by the taxpayers but free to those who are down and out, as well as illegal aliens.