finknottle

Which health care plan is better (and I think they both miss the key issue) is a topic meriting its own debate. I just want to know why Bidens ridicule of the plan as a transfer from the haves to the have nots is supposed to be effective when it also describes Obama's income tax policy. Substitute income tax for health insurance and you have a typical Republican ad.

This just in: Obama unfit for the presidency!!! He's not on linkedin, doesn't post to flicker or youtube, and his facebook entry is maintained by a staffer! And I have it from a reputable source that his cell phone is just a cell phone! That's right, no email. What a loser.

Speaking of interviews, are you at all concerned that Obama - the guy some would have *in* the Presidency and not a heart-beat away - publically said in a debate that he would unilaterally send troops into Pakistan if we had information on the whereabouts of terrorists and the Pakistani government were not cooperating? I'm not raising questions about his actual position, mind you, since most politicians would agree privately. Rather, isn't it troubling that it never occured to him that those sorts of inflammatory statements are simply not said publically? Believe me, the coverage in South Asia at the time was not flattering for the US. Are you not concerned that all to often when he talks, he seems unaware that what he says has a broader audience than the cheering groupies in front of him? Is he not interested in the ramifications beyond voting day, or simply unaware that what a public figure says has an impact beyond the electorate? On current, politically sensitive issues of foreign policy, you can't treat these interview like a voyage of self-discovery. Sometimes the safe canned policy response is appropriate for the candidates.

This flies in the face of your claim that she lacks experience in government!

Fierce words from the Delaware senator in his new road show they call 'Bush 44' http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13433.html Can anyone explain to me how, if you substitute income for health insurance, this doesn't describe Obama?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/posto...9150.htm?page=0

We have got to stop this insane foreign policy! http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/St...ent=strParentID

Nothing disqualifying about taking a partisan position, as long as we all accept the same underlying facts. The poor pay for the tax cuts of the rich only in the sense that there is less money transfered from rich to the poor. They are 'paying' only if you believe they are entitled to that money, not as a decision of policy but as some kind of fundamental right. If a parent gives their children a 10 dollar weekly allowance, loses their job and then lowers it to 5 so that they have some money for themselves, would you say the children are paying for their parents? When the government takes our money, they do not invest it - they spend it. The only money they are 'making' is in the sense that they don't have to borrow that amount and pay interest on it. This is an issue with social security: they take your money, and pay it back later with interest (it is slanted towards the poor - the less you put in, the higher the interest rate they use). The problem is that they did *not* invest your money, so that they can just pass on the interest to you. They have to hope that the economy keeps growing so that they have increased revenues to come up with it. (But in practice, what they really do is use the contributions of today's workers to pay for today's retiree's. This works as long as the number of people working keeps growing - it is a pyramid scheme.) As for whether the middle class having more money to spend helps the economy, I wouldn't disagree. But the optimal level is not obvious. More business means more profits, but when you reduce profits through taxation you remove the incentive to risk your money starting a business. Suppose you had two million dollars. Maybe there is a safe passive investment like bonds that pays you $80,000 a year for it ($50,000 after taxes). Or you could open up a fancy resturarant. There is an 80% chance it will fail and you lose all your money, and a 20% chance it will succeed and pay you $250,000 a year. If you say 'sock it to the rich' and make that $150,000 after taxes, then what is the choice before you? $50,000 a year guaranteed, versus one chance in five of making $150,000. You take the $50,000, and one less business is created. These numbers are made up, but it illustrates how the tax impact the willingness to risk money.

She's turning out to be a more interesting person than I thought - maybe there is more to the heiress than meets the eye: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/p...p_in_south.html My mom never did that with me

What has she done in office that can be construed as being far right? Is it her first veto as governer of a very conservative state, of legislation denying benfifts to same sex couples? Or her decision to raie taxes as a mayor to invest in community facilities? Her views may be on the right, but her record has been refreshingly pragmatic. Your hyperbola is about as belivable as what the Republicans used to say about the Clintons.

Again - I am not delivering an analysis on what an optimal tax policy should be, so there's no reason to be comprehensive. I'm only saying thre is no point in discussing the issue with people whose views as so partisan that they believe absurdities. The original post spoke of the middle class and the poor paying for tax cuts for the rich - that is as far from true as can be. Are income taxes the only taxes? No. But the rich didn't get a cut in their payroll taxes or sales tax, did they? The only other tax worth bringing in to the discussion is the estate tax; and it makes no sense to say that those cuts (which for the record I strongly disapprove of) are 'paid for' by anybody else.

I am not arguing for supply side economics or that the taxes on the wealthy should be cut etc. The point that I am making is simply that any reasonable discussion of the subject, and an attempt to find the right level of taxation to promote job creation, economic mobility, and reward from risk, as well as fund the government, cannot occur if one starts with absurd assumptions like the idea that the rich are getting a tax cut being paid for by the middle class and the poor. For all practical purposes, the top 20% of wage earners pay *all* the income tax in this country. The rest make no contribution beyond payroll-type taxes, which are flat rate that everybody pays. The question is how much of their income should the top 20% be providing. You can cut their taxes till the cows come home, and their contribution is still carrying the rest of the country. [i agree with Greenspans view that spending must be cut under McCain's plan. But I'd also say that Obama's policy will be disasterous, since he will be dramatically increasing social spending and entitlements. Unlike war funding, these are things that never go away. Once you say seniors making less than 50k should no longer pay no taxes, *no* politician can come in later and reverse it. Unlike the rich, *nobody* is ever going to come into office and raise taxes on the poor. Funding for schools, same thing. It's a one-way street.]

Your argument would carry a little weight if it were remotely correct. The top 1% contributes 1/3 of income tax revenue. The top 5% contributes just over half. The top 10% pays 2/3, and the top 20% pays 78%. 40% of households pay no income tax at all, and actually receive a net amount back due to tax credits. The numbers are what they are - giving a tax cut to the top 5% doesn't reverse the flow of money to the poor and middle class, they will still be paying the bulk of the income taxes and paying out far more than they take in. It just lessens their contribution. The top 5% are still carrying the rest of the country.

I assume you are refering to Obama and the suppression of his thesis on relations with Russia, as well as his wifes thesis on African-Americans at Princeton. I think it's a bit of a stretch.

ABC commentators have used 10.

I meant the aftermath. Lots of new countries in central asia running around with nukes, trying to figure out who to be friends with. It was a heady time for anyone interested in national security and foreign affairs.

Should we accept the wiki interpretation of the term used in the ABC interview as self-evident to anybody paying attention, or the ten different interpretations given by ABC commentators in the past? http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSF..._bush_doctr.asp

Why aren't we asking what the Obama doctrine is? Oh, that's right - there isn't one. He will bring security and heal the earth's woes through dialog and the transcendence of politics. Details TBA.

Well, the Obamites are raising the alarm at the prospect of McCain/Palin honoring the treaty, so we have to presume he would respond differently.

No NATO combat units are stationed in Poland, for the reasons you cite. I suspect the Poles would not last long at all - at least the Georgian troops were hardened and in more difficult terrain. As to the issue of borders, do you think it was a mistake to invite West Germany, Turkey and Greece into NATO when it was formed? Should we have drawn the line at France?

Kinda like how having Belgium and the Netherlands in the way dissuaded the Germans from going around the fortrified French border. Twice. I'm sure Belarus would never let the Russians transit - they are fiercely independent. And an excuse to occupy Ukraine is the last thing on Putins mind.

Maybe the fall of the Soviet Union and the Gulf War?

I prefer the Obama doctrine, where if we agree to accept a country into NATO and agree to the mutual defense of all of its members... we get to say 'screw this, you're on your own' if Russia attacks.

True, but interesting for another reason. It coincidentally highlights (and this is in no way a criticism of the posters contribution) a problem with the Democratic worldview: they look at France and a few other Western European countries and draw sweeping conclusions about the world. It is as myopic as those Republicans who think the world ends at our borders. The democratic mantra is that Obama is the overwhelming favorite around the world; and it's true, he is the sentimental favorite. But not overwhelming. Likewise the public opinion of the US has deteriorated around the world during the Bush administration in areas such as the Mid East and Europe, but not that much overall. But the Democrats err in thinking that Bush and the Republicans are vilified, precisely because they err in thinking that the world is Western Europe. India seems to prefer McCain in a disinterested sort of way by a slight margin. That's about a quarter of the world. China and the far east seems pretty indifferent. Now we are at about two thirds. Eastern Europe is much more supportive of the Republicans, despite broad disapproval of the Iraq war. Russia's motives are purely political. Africa seems enthusiastic about Obama, but the mid-East seems indifferent. (I don't have a sense of what South America thinks.) IMO if Obama wins, most of the world thinks 'that's neat,' shrugs and moves on. Western Europe has a celebratory honeymoon that lasts about six months before they find some new American outrage to protest.

So let me see if I have this straight. The campaign that screamed racism when Clinton described it as a fairy tale is suddenly indignant because Obama's use of a common phrase is being painted as a sexist attack? Welcome to the world of what-goes-round-comes-round. Enjoy your stay.