Home > Blogs > Ohio politics > Archives > 2008 > October > 14 > Entry
Will campaigning by Bill Clinton help Obama in Ohio?
Democrats are doing kind of a political relay race this week as they campaign around Ohio for presidential candidate Barack Obama.
Obama has been in Toledo since Sunday, Oct. 12, preparing for his debate with Republican John McCain on Wednesday, Oct. 15. Obama will leave Toledo for the debate on Wednesday. Obama also was in Ohio last Thursday, Oct. 9, and Friday, Oct. 10.
Meanwhile, Joe Biden, Obama’s vice presidential running mate, started a two-day Ohio bus trip today, Oct. 14.
On Thursday, former President Bill Clinton will take the baton. Clinton will be in Cleveland for a rally with doors opening at 4 p.m. The event at Strawbridge Avenue, Mall C, Lakeside, Plaza, is open to the public and no tickets are required. An RSVP is recommended to http://oh.barackobama.com/ClevelandClinton.
Permalink | Comments (42) | Post your comment |
Comments
By TRS
October 15, 2008 11:52 PM | Link to this
What happened to capitalism Huber Tucky? pretty simple - Government involvement in Fannie and Freddie. We can see the damage it has done - frankly the jury is still out as to whether this bail out plan is a good idea. I’m unaware of any bailout plans for GM, Boeing and the Chrysler one went back to the 80s. If CEOs ran companies into the ground, nail them. If they were fraudulant, jail them. I have no sympathy for them; but, using that same criteria, you’ll have to throw out half of Congress as well. That being said, if I understand you correctly you want to exxerbate the situation by making sure that you get yours? Kind of a history be damned, who cares what happened the last two times taxes were raised in a recession - give me mine approach?By shaen
October 15, 2008 6:13 PM | Link to this
I have yet to meet, “joe six pack” and, if one does exist, they have probably had way too many six packs to vote for McCain. Palin is a ditz and has a problem with ethics. We have already had a VP that ignored ethics, we do not need another. Palin is in no way shape or form ready for anything but taking care of her knocked up daughter, preparing for the shotgun wedding and going back to Alaska.By shaen
October 15, 2008 6:12 PM | Link to this
I have yet to meet, “joe six pack” and, if one does exist, they have probably had way too many six packs to vote for McCain. Palin is a ditz and has a problem with ethics. We have already had a VP that ignored ethics, we do not need another. Palin is in no way shape or form ready for anything but taking care of her knocked up daughter, preparing for the shotgun wedding and going back to Alaska.By Ethel S.
October 15, 2008 6:00 PM | Link to this
So when Leslie sets out her well researched and intelligent blogs, Obama supporters will criticize the information as “trival.” or she is a “bonehead.” When Sen. Obama gave all those lofty and intellectual type speeches, he walked on water. Sen. Obama even said that words mattered. The Obama supporters also criticize Gov. Palin for talking simply and directly to the people and this country. Everyone has a right to express their viewpoints and some comments might even be “above other people’s pay grade,” but name calling is unnecessary. My family and I are more of the Joe Six Pack types and we get it that Sen. McCain is the Straight Talking Express and we really appreciate it. McCain/Palin in 2008!By shaen
October 15, 2008 5:34 PM | Link to this
Why are republicans such liars?By The Media Ranger
October 15, 2008 3:31 PM | Link to this
And the really funny thing is, I know it’s you, Karl.By The Media Ranger
October 15, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this
I think Leslie, Mary K, and scaredtodeath are all the same person. The same drivel — all day long — is posted all over this site. Multiple personalities? Or just a case of infatuation with that tired old war horse? Whatever, time to get in the car, ladies. Get your therapy now before Barack nationalizes health care.By Luke
October 15, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this
A militarily weaker America? No one has done a better job of that than Bush. Why don’t you just say it Leslie, if anyone disagrees with you the terrorists win - right?By Leslie
October 15, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this
Obama wants to drastically reduce military spending. If you want a militarily weaker America, that tells me you harbor ill will. Obama wants to inhibit domestic energy production. That means a weaker America, militarily and economically. If you want a weaker America, that tells me you harbor ill will. Obama wants to redistribute Americans’ wealth. That is certainly a policy that will weaken America’s economic engine, capitalism. It will diminish freedom. That makes for a weaker America. If you want a weaker America, that tells me you harbor ill will. Obama wants to increase tax on business, let current tax cuts expire and still cut hundred of billions from the military budget. He wants to increase spending to the tune of a trillion dollars. He wants to send hundreds of billions to other countries, money that will never circulate back to the US economy. That weakens America, and you know how I feel about those who want a weaker America. We’ve accomplished what we’ve accomplished over the last 200 years because of personal freedom and responsibility, because of capitalism, and because of moral integrity. Moral integrity went out the window decades ago, followed closely by the idea of personal responsibility. The world community has said good riddence to both and now invite America to join them in pursuit of global socialism. Obama is ready to lead us there and McCain is not. Therefore I will vote for McCain.By Cuckoo
October 15, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this
“The last 8 years have not been bad for me. I received pay increases and bonuses. I watched people’s salaries become inflated and have been wondering when the bubble was going to burst.” (Leslie) ….more evidence that she works for McCain and is completely out of touch with reality.By Exposing Trolls
October 15, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this
More copy and paste rant from Leslie and Scared to Death and more. The text they are pasting are all over the blogs on all the right wing sites posted by other obsessive neurotics that haven’t given their brains two minutes of fresh air and sunshine since McCain started sliding in the polls. No original thoughts amongst any of them - now I’m convinced they’re paid McCain trolls.By Jim
October 15, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this
Leslie, All you’re doing is rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. Nobody is buying your snake oil.By Leslie
October 15, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this
One has to wonder if there is anything in Obama’s medical records that may shed light on any of this. But while McCain made available to selected press people more than one thousand pages of his medical records, in order to reassure the public about the effects of his age, war injuries, and battle with cancer, Obama hasn’t released a single page. Instead, a sympathetic doctor merely released a 276-word “summary,” claiming he was in excellent health. This came after the Boston Globe reported that the Obama campaign had announced “plans to release his medical records” at the end of May. So much for truth and candor. Obama appears to be vigorous and in good health. But others say that he appears frail and thin. He has admittedly fought a nicotine addiction and been a secret smoker and says he quit illegal drugs when he was 20. In terms of family history, Obama’s mother died at the age of 52 because of ovarian cancer. A one-page summary, of course, has been enough to satisfy the pro-Obama media, despite the broken campaign promise to release the records themselves. If the truth about Obama and his associates is ever going to come out, it will have to come in response to increasing demands for the facts from the American people. The problem is that, as more is known and discovered, more questions emerge.By Jim
October 15, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this
Leslie, So now you play the reverse race card. How many tricks do you have up your sleazy sleeve?By Leslie
October 15, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this
According to Michelle Obama, the fix is already in Like editors the world over used to admonish reporters at deadline: “Your lead is buried down copy”, the lead in African Press International’s (API’s) “Mrs. Obama decides enough is enough” comes well down copy: “My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband’s adoption by his step father.” (Emphasis added). In other words, according to the overzealous, you’re-all-racists wife of candidate for presidency Barack Hussein Obama, the fix is already in. The candidate’s wife treated the Norway-based API as if it was already under the command of a Barack and Michelle-run White House. With an arrogance that can only be described as stunning, Michelle Obama said API would earn an invite to hubby’s upcoming inauguration ceremony when he will be installed as the next President of the United States of America next year, if only they wrote a “good” story. In a good old fashioned hissy fit, Michelle Obama had picked up the phone to accuse API of colluding with American internet bloggers in an effort to bring down her husband, saying she had decided to call API because of what she termed, API’s help to spread rumours created by American bloggers and other racist media outlets in their efforts to damage a black man’s name. She made plain her hopes that the African Media was mature enough to be in the front to give unwavering support to her husband, a man Africans should identify themselves with. “When API told her that our online news media was only replaying what the American Bloggers and other media outlets had discovered through their investigations, Mrs. Obama was angered and she came out loud with the following: “African Press International is supposed to support Africans and (the) African-American view, and she went (on) to state that, “It is strange that API has chosen to support the racists against my husband.” (africanpress, Oct. 15, 2008). “There is no shame in being adopted by a step father. All dirt has been thrown onto my husband’s face and yet he loves this country. My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband’s adoption by his step father, The important thing here is where my husband’s heart is at the moment. I can tell the American people that my husband loves this country and his adoption has never changed his love for this country. He was born in Hawaii, yes, and that gives him all the right to be an American citizen even though he was adopted by a foreigner, (emphasis added) says Michelle Obama on telefon (sic) to API.” The person on the other end of the telephone line indicated concern for “the American man Dr. Corsi, who was recently reported to have been arrested in Kenya because there was fear that he might reveal information on Obama when he wanted to hold a press conference in Nairobi. “When API asked Mrs. Obama to comment on why Dr. Corsi was arrested by the Kenyan government and whether she thought Kenya’s Prime Minister Mr. Raila Odinga was involved in Dr. Corsi’s arrest, she got irritated and simply told API not to dig that which will support evil people who are out to stop her husband from getting the presidency. “When asked who she was referring to as the evil people, she stated that she was not going to elaborate much on that but that many conservative white people and even some African Americans were against her husband, but that this group of blacks were simply doing so because of envy. “On Farakhan and his ministry, Mrs. Obama told API that it was unfortunate that Mr. Farrakhan came out the way he did supporting her husband openly before the elections (sic) was over. That was not wholehearted support but one that was calculated to convince the American people that my husband will support the growth of Muslim faith if he became the president, adding ‘even if my husband was able to prove that he is not a Muslim, he will not be believed by those who have come out strongly to destroy his chances of being the next President. Do real people expect someone to deny a religion when 80 percent of his relatives are Muslims?’” Mrs. Obama asked. Meanwhile, there is no doubt that without a single vote having been cast for her husband, that the Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin-dubbed “Michelle, Ma Belle” is already off choosing her gown for his inauguration ball.By Luke
October 15, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this
With all due respect, Scaredtodeath, it’s your type of thought process that the Rove style of campaigning seeks to capitalize on to steer politics away from the issues and towards bigotry; it’s our society’s weakness for the soap opera and conspiracy theories that’s being exploited.By HuberTucky
October 15, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this
Leslie, for a know-it-all you sure don’t know much. You’re really quite dogmatic and fixed in your beliefs (right or wrong) seem to have no room in your cranium for truth or fact. Bottom line is that you are ignorant and in absolute denial about who has been at the helm of the sinking USSA the past 8 years…YOUR Failure-in-Chief. I’m surprised you aren’t blaming this whole economic mess on Clinton and his BJ. Also, you’re a blabbermouth and a blog hog.By mzzzrich
October 15, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this
Check the entire context when looking at Obama’s “my Muslim faith” slip. How can he be a Muslim when the Republicans have accused him of sitting in a Christian church listening to Reverand Wright for 20 year. (I’m not defending the reverand, but I guess he never spoke from the Bible in 20 years. Where’s the footage on those unnewsworthy sermons?)Also, it has been well acknowledged that members of BOTH parties were responsible for our current economic mess, and it will take both parties to get us out of it. Also, are we forgetting about the war? When we look back at how unnecessary it was, yet how much it is costing us DAILY, we must ask ourselves what we could and should be doing with that money!By Jim
October 15, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this
Leslie, Why don’t you do yourself a favor and pick up a copy of today’s New York Times, and actually READ the details of both Obama’s and McCain’s economic plans. It’s there in black and white and is objective in presentation. What you will learn is that McCain’s plan, like Bush’s policies, is geared toward supporting the wealthy and big business in hopes that the wealth will trickle down. I think the middle class of this country is tired of watching CEO’s, lobbyist, bankers, etc, getting richer and richer at their expense. That’s why Barack Obama will be our next President. Your claims of socialism are distorted and misguided.By Change
October 15, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this
Signing a 72 year old man to a 4 year contract doesn’t make much sense.By Leslie
October 15, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this
HuberTucky. The housing bubble was caused by democrats. Pelosi, Dodd, and Barney Frank used racism, intimidation, and threats so that people who could not afford to own house could buy a house, even though they could not afford the house. Barney Frank’s boyfriend made millions. Barney Frank benefitted also. You do know that these 3 are wealthy don’t you? Obama is wealthy also, or did you not no that. I do not support the bailout and never did. The economy will recover faster without government intervention, problem is the democrats intervention into housing caused this problem, so I guess we need government intervention to get out of it. McCain will get the government out of it. Obama will continue to have the government own everything - no free enterprise. If you feel you cannot live free and you need to the government to run your life for you, please feel free to vote for Obama. I am self-sufficient and prefer to think for myself and take responsibility for my actions, therefore, I will vote for McCain.By Leslie
October 15, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this
Maxie55, No fairy tell. Totally true, it is on all the news stations here in Ohio. If you do a little research you will find where Obama made the statement that it is not about the revenue, it is about what is fair. The last 8 years have not been bad for me. I received pay increases and bonuses. I watched people’s salaries become inflated and have been wondering when the bubble was going to burst. The last 2 years have not been great, but I did not blame that on the government until I found out what Pelosi, Dodd, and Barney Frank were doing. Then when I found out that California is overloaded with supporting illegal aliens to the point that hospitals have closed and are continuing to close and California cares and protects those illegals versus there on citizens, yes now I do blame the government. Pelosi, Dodd, Barney Frank who got rich off of there social programs and Obama wants to continue down that path. I want McCain in to ensure that Pelosi, Dodd, and Barney Frank are prosecuted.By Ace
October 15, 2008 7:36 AM | Link to this
Bill Clinton is voting for John McCain, and almost everything he’s said so far has helped McCain, not Obama.By Scaredtodeath
October 15, 2008 6:06 AM | Link to this
This election has me very worried. So many things to consider. I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with. About six months ago, I started thinking ‘where did the money come from for Obama’. I have two kids, and we were middle class, and money was tight. So I started looking into Obama’s life. Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. ‘Barry’ (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan . During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a ‘round the world’ trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia , next Hyderabad in India , three weeks in Karachi , Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate’s family, then off to Africa to visit his father’s family. My question - Where did he get the money for this trip? When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York. It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It’s not cheap! to say the least. Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia , he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000.. a year. Why Chicago ? Why not New York ? He was already living in New York . By ‘chance’ he met Antoin ‘Tony’ Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria , and a real estate developer in Chicago . Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named ‘Entrepreneur of the Decade’ by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association’. About two years after, Obama entered Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law school? More student loans? After Law school, he went back to Chicago . Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented ‘Rezar’ which is Rezko’s firm. Rezko was one of Obama’s first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with ‘seed money’ for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko’s wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama’s new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko. Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama’s boss. She is now Obama’s chief adviser and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz , Iran ! Do we see a pattern here? Or am I going crazy? On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was ‘sacked’ after the press found out he was having regular contacts with ‘Hamas’, which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran . This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama’s visit to Iraq , he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will ‘Take care of things’. Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan ? They are in charge of all those ‘small’ Internet campaign contribution for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East ? And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on ‘This Week’ with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, ‘My Muslim faith’. When questioned, ‘he made a mistake’. Some mistake! All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times -Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008. Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven’t all of our ‘intelligent’ members of the press been reporting this? A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - ‘Beware of the enemy from within’!!! The only way Clinton could help is if he could answer all these questions.By artsymwm
October 15, 2008 4:48 AM | Link to this
Yes, Clinton will help Obama’s campaign. McCain is hurting his own campaign. The last few weeks have been basically McCain with shifting direction, a disorganized and fractured campaign staff and using hate filled commercials to attack Obama. They have not worked. Obama, on the other hand, has stuck to topic and appears to show leadership. When McCain’s own brother attacks the McCain campaign, there is a problem. When Palin is being regulated to chosen cloistered interviews, there is a problem. When, key conservatives start jumping ship, there is a problem. The McCain campaign is very disorganized and splintered. They don’t appear to have positive leadership. And, that is a bad sign when our country has not had a good leader in 8+ years.By HuberTucky
October 15, 2008 3:31 AM | Link to this
Jimmy, Leslie & TRS — You guys are such a bunch of boneheads! I guess it’s socialism if the wealth is spread among the people, but not when hundreds or billions or over a trillion is doled out to corporate failures of AIG and GM and Boeing and Chrysler and Wall Street ad the Banksters and the failed CEOs who’ve driven their companies into the ditch, huh Jimmy? Yeah, I guess it’s NOT welfare or socialsim when corporations get it. You obviously don’t realize that THIS is true socialism and actually USSR-style communism to use public money for private business. Yeah, privatize profit and make the losses public. Wonder what ever happened to laissez-faire capitalism and the survival of the fittest in your world? You three truly speak from a position of pure ignorance and you really know nothing. And now you’ll all vote for McFailin’…Buwaaaahh hahahahahahaha!By Maxie55
October 15, 2008 1:52 AM | Link to this
That’s a nice fairy tale Leslie. Did you make that up yourself? It is certainly nothing Obama has said, nor advocates.And TRS , you can quote all the facts and blame Democrats & “liberals” all you want. When it comes down to the simple facts, in the last 8 years, things have gone to hell and under whose watch? Bush and the conservatives! Bush without a doubt has to be the worst President this country has ever seen. It’s pretty bad when you can go on you tube, and watch the various Bush “Blooper” videos and think My god, This guy is our President?By Luke
October 15, 2008 12:29 AM | Link to this
To the point of this blog, I agree Ralph. The Clintons will do us all a favor by staying out of this election, and perhaps politics in general.By TRS
October 15, 2008 12:26 AM | Link to this
Middle Class - I’m all for narrowing the income gaps; however, I don’t want to do it by lowering the standard as income redistribution does - I’d prefer that we raise others up. Much of your job growth issues have occured within the last year because of the housing bubble bursting which takes us back to Leslie’s comments. I never said anything about it being the fault of the poor and lazy - those are your words. I do believe some liberal policies and bureuracies are keeping folks poor - education unions for one. We would agree that some folks unduly enriched themselves; but, does that mean we now penalize all for that? For those who broke the law or were unethical, there will be criminal and civil litigation and hopefully they relieve them of some of their unearned wealth taken from companies, stockholders and employees. We are in a transitional time and it seems many want to throw away the free enterprise system now that its hit a majo bump in the road. While I do not approve of the greed and corruption seen it it, it is no better when buracracies and other government entities are propped up. Change is needed but the change Obama brings seems to be a “change back” - back to the policies of Hoover and Carter. Want to see the result of the economic policies Obama is proposing - look to Michigan as a model. Job losses over 300,000, unemployment of 7.2% and a population decline, not to mention Detroit which is an absolute mess due to liberal economic and social policies. We always see these arguments about how bad Reaganomics were yet they run counter to history. Reagan did have to sign off on some taxes increases but not because his tax cuts were bad; rather, because the Democratically controlled Congress refused to cut spending. Had he not been there to temper them, it could have been much worse. The Clinton surplus occurred in large part as a result of the peace dividend from the Reagan policies which eventually led to the defeat of communism - it had little to do with his needless tax increases. Hmmm, seems to me he promised the middle class in his campaign (sound familiar?). Further, I see no argument which counters the historical facts that raising taxes in challenging economic times did anything but drive the economy deeper into rececession (and the depression of the 30s) and slowed recovery. That is a historical economic fact. As for socialism, I didn’t refer to that, but isn’t that what “spreading the wealth around” all about? Didn’t Marx say “from each according to his ability to each according to his need?” Nice thought but as it turned out it didn’t work. Finally, perhaps the most intellectually lazy of all the arguments here is the “hate” post. Explain to me what difference in economic philosophies have to do with hate? This old “Bush/Rove” silliness is exactly that. There is no more hateful people than some on the left wing blogs - people who thought Tony Snow’s passing, leaving a wife and 3 young children (see the daily Kos), was a good thing. The vast majority of Republicans, like the vast majority of Democrats, don’t “hate” - we just disagree. The minute we realize that, then whoever is elected may stand a chance of bringing us together; but, why would anyone want to come together with someone who thinks as Adase3 when it lacks reason and is in and of itself hateful.By ralph
October 15, 2008 12:22 AM | Link to this
No it will not help the informed voter.Will Clinton say how qualified Obama is, and how much he likes him. Clintons nose will start to grow right after he tells that lie.By Luke
October 15, 2008 12:12 AM | Link to this
Some stats to consider: the US is 32nd in the world in infant mortality, 9th in adult literacy, 12th in student reading, 37th in healthcare quality, and 1st in CEO to worker pay (531 to 1, 2nd is Brazil which is 57 to 1). Keynesian economic theory failed long ago. Why McCain (and some of the posters on this blog) don’t recognize that is beyond me.By Luke
October 15, 2008 12:03 AM | Link to this
Share the wealth? You mean share the debt. This is corporate, CEO welfare. Once the value of “our” new assets rebound, be certain they will be quickly privatized.By jimmie
October 14, 2008 11:39 PM | Link to this
“Spread the Wealth” = codespeak for Socialism.By adase3
October 14, 2008 8:49 PM | Link to this
The republicans have nothing to offer me. And, McCain has shown his inability to lead because of his fractured and disorganized campaign. Also, the hate filled rhetoric of Palin has proved once again that the republican party cannot be trusted at all. She also is an extremist evangelical. Most christians do not accept her radical beliefs. McCain’s closeness to Bush signifies that McCain will continue the failure management of Bush. He is using Rove in his campaign. That shows that he is in bed with the neocons. We Americans are faced with a crisis. We have a foreign policy disaster. And, an economy in the toilet. I do not need some old decrepit Bush clone and some religious bigoted nutcase being in charge. Our country need true leadership. Obama is the type of leader that can pull us together and repair the damage caused by Bush and the neocons. And you know, if you republicans didn’t hate so much, perhaps McCain would do better in the polls.By John McSame
October 14, 2008 6:28 PM | Link to this
www.plainmcsame.orgBy Middle Class
October 14, 2008 6:14 PM | Link to this
“While most small businesses do earn below the 250K threshhold, the ones that earn over them generate the vast majority of new jobs.” (TRS) The past eight years have given us more earners making more than $250k than ever and yet somehow we have less jobs, which results in more earners making less than $40k. “They prefer to stand there with their emotional arguments of “stick it to the rich guy” and “give out some of his money”.” (TRS) Conservatives prefer to stand there with their emotional arguments of “don’t vote for the socialist” or “It’s the fault of the poor/lazy”. “While sometimes that rich guy is a CEO, oftentimes it is a successful plumber or other occupation where someone has put their capital on the line and worked hard.” (TRS) It makes me wonder - of the 5% that won’t see a tax increase, what is the ratio of CEOs vs plumbers? While you would like to paint those deserving of a break as lazy, out-of-work illegals, there are far more who have put their capital on the line, worked hard and lost. Tahnks to the last several years, getting rich in this country has become less “working hard” and more “who you know”.By More copy and paste
October 14, 2008 5:54 PM | Link to this
Once it became clear that his tax-slicing and spree-spending (done in collaboration with Congress) was creating monster deficits, Reagan signed tax increases — eight times. Reaganomics was a disaster that Reagan himself started reversing, though he still left behind a pile of debt. The next president, Republican George H.W. Bush, worked on the pile, courageously raising taxes. His party’s free-lunchers tore him to pieces. Democrat Bill Clinton further hiked taxes, and also at a high political price. But by the time Clinton left office, America was sitting pretty with a handsome surplus. Then came George W. Bush, candy man extraordinaire. Big tax cuts and big spending were back — and with them deficits that will leave America in awful fiscal shape for the baby boomers’ retirement. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 lowered the top tax rate from 50 percent to 28 percent — but it raised taxes on capital gains by treating them as ordinary income. For high-earners, this had the effect of boosting the capital-gains tax to 28 percent (the same rate Obama proposes) from an effective rate of 20 percent. In addition to providing new revenues, the higher capital-gains tax was seen as a fair compromise. If the rich were enjoying a big break on income taxes, they shouldn’t also need a special deal on their stock-market profits. The younger Bush does not care about such niceties. He cut rich people’s tax rates and pushed the capital-gains rate down to 15 percent. That’s why the earnings of many teachers, police officers and secretaries are now taxed at far higher rates than the millions investors make in the stock market. Reagan’s biggest tax increase was on the working stiffs. We speak of the jump in the Social Security payroll tax.By TRS
October 14, 2008 5:48 PM | Link to this
Right on Leslie - its not just plumbers. While most small businesses do earn below the 250K threshhold, the ones that earn over them generate the vast majority of new jobs. Democrats and liberals have a fundamental lack of understanding of how the economy works. They prefer to stand there with their emotional arguments of “stick it to the rich guy” and “give out some of his money”. While sometimes that rich guy is a CEO, oftentimes it is a successful plumber or other occupation where someone has put their capital on the line and worked hard. Democrats do want to penalize hard work by spreading the wealth around. Another thing they don’t understand is history. The two times the “spread the wealth” attitude prevailed was during the great depression and the stagflation of the 70s. Democrats are smart enough to know that but power means more to them and they will entrench a failed policy so they can maintain their power rather than doing what works. Now, thats real moral leadership, eh?By TRS
October 14, 2008 5:48 PM | Link to this
Right on Leslie - its not just plumbers. While most small businesses do earn below the 250K threshhold, the ones that earn over them generate the vast majority of new jobs. Democrats and liberals have a fundamental lack of understanding of how the economy works. They prefer to stand there with their emotional arguments of “stick it to the rich guy” and “give out some of his money”. While sometimes that rich guy is a CEO, oftentimes it is a successful plumber or other occupation where someone has put their capital on the line and worked hard. Democrats do want to penalize hard work by spreading the wealth around. Another thing they don’t understand is history. The two times the “spread the wealth” attitude prevailed was during the great depression and the stagflation of the 70s. Democrats are smart enough to know that but power means more to them and they will entrench a failed policy so they can maintain their power rather than doing what works. Now, thats real moral leadership, eh?By TRS
October 14, 2008 5:47 PM | Link to this
Right on Leslie - its not just plumbers. While most small businesses do earn below the 250K threshhold, the ones that earn over them generate the vast majority of new jobs. Democrats and liberals have a fundamental lack of understanding of how the economy works. They prefer to stand there with their emotional arguments of “stick it to the rich guy” and “give out some of his money”. While sometimes that rich guy is a CEO, oftentimes it is a successful plumber or other occupation where someone has put their capital on the line and worked hard. Democrats do want to penalize hard work by spreading the wealth around. Another thing they don’t understand is history. The two times the “spread the wealth” attitude prevailed was during the great depression and the stagflation of the 70s. Democrats are smart enough to know that but power means more to them and they will entrench a failed policy so they can maintain their power rather than doing what works. Now, thats real moral leadership, eh?By dems can copy and paste too
October 14, 2008 5:42 PM | Link to this
Currently the income gap is the widest it has been since 1928 right before the Great Depression. Under the Obama plan, the Bush tax cuts for those in the middle class will actually be extended and actually offer a further cut while the Bush tax cuts for those in the top income bracket (the top 1% of earners) would expire. Those same folks, the top 1%, will also see a rise in terms of capital gains. Taxes for the middle and lower class, or the consumer class, will decrease — putting more discretionary funds in-pocket. Those in the highest tax bracket will be asked to endure a slight increase in rates (no higher than they were under Clinton) in order to make up the revenue lost in giving the middle class cuts. The argument here is that more Americans will have money to spend and will increase the dividend yields on stocks because the stock index will rise due to rising corporate sales and profits. This, Obama argues, is the best way to incentivize investing — make it more profitable than the current conditions.By Leslie
October 14, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this
“Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed “more and more for fulfilling the American dream.” “It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too,” Obama responded. “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” Plumbers of the country, unite! Forget about the work and effort you put into building up a business or the scummy work that you do that many of us don’t know or don’t want to do. If you have succeeded, you should be willing to give up more of what you earn to help those who haven’t had the great good luck that you have had to be a successful plumber. Remember how Obama is going to give 95% of all of us a tax cut even though over 30% of the population doesn’t pay taxes? He might call it a tax credit, but what he’s really doing is his vision of “spreading the wealth around.” It sounds a lot like Huey Long’s 1935 plan to “Share the Wealth.” And when he finds that he can’t tax the top 5% of the population to gain enough wealth to spread to the 95% of the rest of us, do you really think that he’ll stop with that 5%? Remember…This is the guy who said in the ABC debate during the primary season that his approach to raising tax on capital gains is not based on whether it would provide more revenue but on his idea of what is fair