Ok, Ok, why is this under "Lurid Crime Tales" and what does it have to do with the Politics of the War on Terror?
1. Obama really has committed lurid crimes by repeatedly lying to the U.S. population about who and what he is. FWIW, I think there is now at least an arguable case of Civil Violations of the Federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq. Obama has formed an association to perpetrate various economic and personal injuries [DONATIONS OBTAINED UNDER FALSE PRETENSES], and is employed by, or associated with, the enterprise. And, he is engaged in racketeering activity, in that he (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341) used the U.S. mail to perpetrate fraud and used wire, radio, or television communication in interstate commerce to perpetrate fraud.
2. The guy is a radical socialist who is bent on assuming the office of U.S. CIC to inflict massive damage on the governmental infrastructure of this country; with the resultant effect (probably intentional, to at least some degree) of aiding and assisting the islamofascist radicals who have been at war with this country since at least 1979.
I'm listening to Fox, on which an Obama spokeshole is claiming that the McCain campaign "didn't vet Joe the Plumber."
They must be terrified.
[Late morning update]
Jeff Medcalf visualizes the vetting process in comments:
McCain Rep: Excuse me, sir, but I need to ask you a few questions.
Joe the Plumber:: Why? Are you the police?
MR: No, sir, I'm with the McCain campaign. I need to ask you a few questions, on the off chance that you are playing football in your front yard when Senator Obama decides to make an unscheduled stop to try to talk you into voting for him.
JTP: Oh, that's not a problem: I won't be voting for him, anyway, because I'm afraid he would raise my taxes.
MR: That's not the point, sir. The point is, if he were to stop by and ask for your vote, you might ask him questions.
JTP: So?
MR: He might answer them.
JTP: So?
MR: If he answers a question that he isn't expecting, and without a TelePrompTer to fall back on, he might accidentally tell the truth. And that could embarrass him. And that means that you need to be vetted just in case.
JTP: (dumbfounded look)
MR: So I have this twenty page form for you to fill out, listing your background, education, financial details, professional affiliations, friends, family, voting history, embarrassing incidents from elementary school. You know, standard stuff.
JTP: (slams door)
Posted by: Mike ||
10/17/2008 12:08 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I am Joe the Plumber. The previous small business I worked for would make $250k in 3-4 months. Many small businesses out here will surpass $250k/year and this is in low price po-dunk flyover land, nevermind having a business with 3+ full time plumber emergency call-price income would be.
JTP has a tax leign, so you want to raise his taxes? - huh?
To scoff Joe is to scoff me and the millions of others who want to work and succeed. And its not just what may be considered blue collar labor but also software development, website design, local book publishers, privately owned resteraunts and franchises, and so on. I fully intend to make more than $250k/year with the new business. obama smirks and giggles at the serious allegation of voter fraud then ridicules and belittles me via Joe well then KMA - come vet me you sorry media SOB's I dare ya. Come meet the object of your critique who has started a family, bought an overpriced house, starting a business, and volunteers on average 15 hours a month to fighting fire (no pay).
I too am Joe the Plumber - I don't make 250K a year - nor do I think Obama will set the mark at 250K. Probably more likely 50K or 75K with all the spending he's going to have to do.
I also feel intensely insulted by the media and Obama's goons going through Joe's life with a fine tooth comb while completely ignoring a real liar and terrorist in Bill Ayers and his wife not to mention Obama's own history and lack of experience and his other 'associates'.
In this election we are choosing between Joe the Plumber and Bill the Bomber.
I'll pick Joe the Plumber over Bill the Bomber any day.
#4
They scoff at the Joe's of America at their own peril and they damn well know it. Their Obamesseiah let his big Ivy League yap override his Chicago southside arss. I hope he keeps talking, and talking, and talking, and his party cadre continue to scott at the Joe's.
#7
Let's also keep in mind if JOE is working in Salt Lake City or Nevada or New York where costs of living are different - is the Oboma going to taking that into consideration? Also, by Obama's perspective - how many folks does it take to make up a small business? Devil in the details & for every well intention two unintended consequences.
#8
i am reminded of a conversation i had with my mom in '94 when she was whining that her income tax bill had gone up...
i said "wow.. you should be happy"
she said "Why"
"well, you voted for Clinton and he said he was only going to raise taxes on 'the rich'"
"(perplexed)What does that have to do with anything?"
"Well, looks like you are rich... thought that would make you happy."
needless to say she wasn't happy...
Posted by: Abu do you love ||
10/17/2008 19:38 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Did you get spanked a lot as a child, Abu do you love? ;-)
#1
The mainstreaming of pomo thinking has been largely a stealth project, something Americans do without committing overt acts of academia. We thought we were trying to clear away the cobwebs of shoddy analysis and elite hypocrisy, but all along we were bringing the tools of critical thinking to the masses. Go into any bar in the country, and you'll find somebody unpacking the assumptions in someone else's text.
#1
RIAN > RUSSIAN ANAYLSYS EXPECT OBAMA TO BECOME PRESIDENT [next US], due to Obama in their analysis winning all three POTUS debates + general elex trend + US Financial Crisis [protractive, Bush WOT-induced]. RUSSIANS > MCCAIN = BUSH, thusly few Amer Voters desire to see another GOP = BUSH in the White House come Jan 2009???
The following is a blog entry written on Aug. 30, 2008, by Army Specialist Stephen Fortunato, who was killed Tuesday in Afghanistan when the vehicle he was riding in was blown by up an improvised explosive device. This entry was forwarded to the Globe by his mother, Elizabeth "Betty" Crawford.
If I may
I'd like to say something....Just to get it out there so it is clear.
To all the pampered and protected Americans who feel it is their duty to inform me that I am not fighting for their freedom, and that i am a pawn in Bush's agenda of greed and oil acquisition: Noted, and [expletive deleted] You.
I am not a robot. i am not blind or ignorant to the state of the world or the implications of the "war on terrorism." i know that our leaders have made mistakes in the handling of a very sensitive situation, but do not for one second think that you can make me lose faith in what we, meaning America's sons, daughters, fathers, and mothers in uniform are doing.
I am doing my part in fighting a very real enemy of the United States, i.e. Taliban, Al Qaida, and various other radical sects of Islam that have declared war on our way of life. Unless you believe the events of 9/11 were the result of a government conspiracy, which by the way would make you a MORON, there is no reasonable argument you can make against there being a true and dangerous threat that needs to be dealt with. i don't care if there are corporations leaching off the war effort to make money, and i don't care if you don't think our freedom within America's borders is actually at stake. i just want to kill those who would harm my family and friends. it is that simple. Even if this is just a war for profit or to assert America's power, so what? Someone has to be on top and I want it to be us. There's nothing wrong with wishing prosperity for your side.
I am a proud American. i believe that my country allows me to live my life more or less however i want to, and believe me, i have seen what the alternative of that looks like. i also believe that our big scary government does way more than it has to to help complete [expletive deleted]-ups get back on their feet, a stark comparison to places where leaders just line their own pockets with gold while allowing the people who gave them their power and privilage to starve. I have chosen my corner. I back my country, and am proud to defend it against aggressors. Also, if you dare accuse us of being inhumane, or overly aggressive because we have rolled into someone else's country and blown some [expletive deleted] up and shot some people, let me remind you of just how inhumane we COULD be in defending ourselves. Let me remind you that we have a warhead that drops multiple bomblets from the stratosphere which upon impact, would turn all the sand in Iraq to glass, an d reduce every living thing there to dust. Do we use it? No. Instead we use the most humane weapon ever devised: the American soldier. We send our bravest (and perhaps admitably craziest) men and women into enemy territory, into harms way, to root out those whom we are after and do our best to leave innocent lives unscathed.
...One last thing...a proposal. i know it has been stated time and time again but i just think it is worthy of reiteration. If you find yourself completely disgusted with the way America is being ran, and how we handle things on the global stage, you can leave. Isn't that amazing? No one will stop you! If you are an anarchist, there are places you can go where there is no government to tell you anything. That's right...you are left solely to your own devices and you can handle the men who show up at your door with AKs in any way that you see fit. Just don't try good old American debate tactics on them because you will most likely end up bound and blind-folded, to have your head chopped off on the internet so your parents can see it. However if you insist on staying here and taking advantage of privilages such as free speach and WIC, keep the counter-productive [expletive deleted] to a minimum while the grown ups figure out how t o handle this god-awful mess in the middle east.
#3
Very well said. We owe Specialist Fortunato to hold up our end of the deal he gave his life for. Y'all go out and vote for the warmonger on November 4th, so that his comrades aren't forced home before they finish the job. ;-)
#4
already did. And i feel better about that decision every day.
(i'll make a deal w/ all the Obama Drama Llamas out there -- you're free to bash Bush all you want. In return, i reserve the right to quote selections from my treasured book of Soviet-era Russian jokes daily until they ship me to Siberia!)
#5
How wonderful for a grieving Mother to share this with the rest of the world... Thank you Betty.
and-
What TW said, and this morning my ballot went in the mail.
[W]e are passing from the Age of Physics to the Age of Biology. It is not quite the case that nothing is happening in physics, but certainly there is nothing like the excitement of the early 20th century. Physics seems, in fact, to have got itself into a cul-de-sac, obsessing over theories so mathematically abstruse that nobody even knows how to test them.
The life sciences, by contrast, are blooming, with major new results coming in all the time from genetics, zoology, demography, biochemistry, neuroscience, psychometrics, and other hot disciplines. The physics building may be hushed and dark while its inhabitants mentally wrestle with 26-dimensional manifolds, but over at biology the joint is jumpin.
Whether it will go on jumpin may depend on the result of Novembers election. There is a widespread feeling in the human sciences particularly in genetics, population genetics, evolutionary biology, and neurophysiology that the next five to ten years will see some sensational discoveries. Unfortunately those discoveries will have metaphysical implications more disturbing than were those of quantum mechanics. Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Pauli, and Dirac may have seriously upset our ideas about matter and energy, but at least they left our psyches and our political principles intact.
Those items may not remain intact much longer. The conceptual revolution among human-sciences researchers has in fact already taken place. This is not widely understood because (a) news outlets are very reluctant to report it, (b) powerful political forces have an interest in suppressing it, and (c) researchers prefer getting on quietly with their work to having their windows broken by mobs of angry protestors.
Most people still think of human-science controversies in terms of nature/nurture. As a matter of real scientific dispute, that is all long gone. Nature/nurture arguments were at the heart of the sociobiology wars that roiled the human sciences through the last third of the 20th century. (The 2000 book Defenders of Truth, by the Finnish sociologist of science Ullica Segerstråle gives a full and so far as I can judge, very fair account.) The dust of battle has pretty much settled now, in science departments if not in the popular press, and nature is the clear victor. Name any universal characteristic of human nature, including cognitive and personality characteristics. Of all the observed variation in that characteristic, about half is caused by genetic differences. You may say that is only a half victory; but it is a complete shattering of the nurturist absolutism that ruled in the human sciences 40 years ago, and that is still the approved dogma in polite society, including polite political society, today.
While those sociobiology wars were going on while E.O. Wilson was having a jug of ice water dumped over his head at an AAAS symposium by people shouting Racist Wilson you cant hide, we charge you with genocide! (1978); while Art Jensen looked set fair to be kicked out of the AAAS altogether following agitation by Margaret Mead et al. because of his 1969 paper on group differences in I.Q.; while Stephen Jay Gould was assuring his readers that Human equality is a contingent fact of history (1985) and Richard Lewontin was celebrating the funeral of reductionism (1983); while Charles Murray was being profiled in the New York Times Magazine as Americas most dangerous conservative (1994) while all that was happening, research results were steadily trickling in, building up the water pressure behind the nurturist dam.
That dam now has more cracks than the surface of Europa and water is spraying out all over. The only thing that could stop a complete collapse would be the power of government
Which might be forthcoming in the event of an Obama victory. The younger generation of human-sciences enthusiasts trend conservative/libertarian, and Obama has them worried. For a glimpse of the kind of discussions that their fears generate, read through the recent thread on Gene Expression here. Samples:
[Sarah] Palin is the most libertarian candidate to run since the Reagan administration were fighting to hold territory, not to take it. We just need to hold off the left till genomics can come through. Were going to be knocking off sacred cow after sacred cow in the next decade or so
The Democrats do not want the genetic discoveries to lead to widespread knowledge about the truth about human differences. The Democrats are really more anti-Darwinian than the fundamentalist Christians who deny the origin of species
We need to step very carefully as we as going up against the official state religion, namely PC, and until we reach critical mass well be convicted in the media and go straight to the gulag rather than be afforded the benefit of a [S]copes trial. [J]ust think of how many fedguv bureaucrats and NGOs owe their livelihoods to the axiom of equality an Obama administration will passionately go after the heretics.
The Lefts restraints on science do not get publicized. Wheres the big research for IQ genes? Wheres the funding for that? Wheres the big research program for psychometrics? The Left strangled that very thoroughly.
#8
You'll never persuade by being rude, Todd dear. And please embed your links so your readers can just click through. It's very easy. The site owner, Mr. Pruitt, very thoughtfully provided a cheat sheet just below the box where one types in one's comments. Really -- even I can do it, so there's no excuse for someone with your superior trained intelligence.
#11
Mike N. Just because you make fun of a candidate doesn't necessarily mean you vote against him. I voted for Bush (the first time)but I've made fun of him plenty of times, cause he's unintentionally funny a lot. So too is McCain--what can I say?
But yes, I HAVE decided to go with Obama this time. I make less than 250K a year, and I don't mind giving him a shot. I don't think he'll ruin the nation quite as the scare tactics would have you believe. Plus--and this is subjective--but some of my values have changed in terms of abortion (I see it now as nobody's business but a woman's in consultation with her doctor), and imposing of Christian values on our government. I lean toward Republicans in terms of gun control, but I can't have it all my way, so I have to pick a side.
#12
There's more from a fiscal point of view (in addition to the social conservative stuff above), but I bet no one here gives a damn why I am voting the way I'm voting, so we'll leave it at that.
I voted for Bush Ah, trying to make that connection. If you surfed here long enough you'd find there's not a whole lot of love for George here. No BDS, but certainly no love and some serious opinions on some of his major actions [re: immigration, bailout, Justice Department carryovers, etc]. So, no mutual identification there.
I make less than 250K a year Oops, that old class warfare meme. I doubt most of the regulars here make something in or around a quarter of that. I for one make less. If you didn't get the message, its the Democrats who are now the Party of the Rich(c), just check the donation records at sources like Opensecrets.org.
...some of my values have changed in terms of abortion (I see it now as nobody's business but a woman's in consultation with her doctor)
My problem with Roe vs Wade is that the Judiciary overstepped its authority and the restraints of the 10th Amendment. Through a house of cards of rationalization they pull 'privacy' through a series of various precedents to arrive at their desired outcome. The state of New York already has law on the books to kick in place if Roe is overturned. I have no problem with that because that is where the authority properly resides. Compare the Civil Rights Act passed in the legislative branch with the decree issued by the court. No one questions the former, but the latter has created an ever greater untenable situation of SCOTUS nominations and reduced the entire judicial nomination process to a destructive element within the government process.
..and imposing of Christian values on our government. Again the evil Christianists meme. For the last hundred years the Christians that have put civil in to civilization. The Socialist morality has given us in the same time frame a 100 million dead in the 20th Century and they're still not satisfied.
We know how you're going to vote. You have an expectation on how most of us are going to. So, why did you bother in the first place other than astroturfing? [rhetorical question].
#16
Todd, despite the fact that you make less than $250K, if you don't think the amount, in aggregate, that you pay in taxes is not going to go up under an Obama + dem congress administration, then you are kidding yourself. That said, I understand the desire to give the other team a shot, since, on the domestic front, the current team has failed so miserably. But again, I don't think you are going to get what you hope you are going to get.
#17
OK Besoeker, just cause you asked, and I'll keep this short.
In terms of fiscal stuff, I do think Obama's plan will cut more taxes for more Americans (including me). McCain is not directly disputing this--all he's saying is that EVERYBODY's taxes should be lower. I don't believe a standard tax rate for all incomes is "fair". I don't think there should be tax breaks for companies pulling down record profits (like oil companies)--simply doesn't make sense to me. I don't think increasing taxes on the wealthier and reducing taxes on the less wealthy makes you COMMUNIST--that's a term used to just strike fear into voters. It's more reasonable to call it socialism, but even that is a huge stretch. Wealthy people would not stop being wealthy because of slightly higher taxes, or lose the incentive to make more money--they'll still make more money, so the basics of our capitalist society will still be intact.
Why tax ANYONE more? Sadly, someone gotta pay for the goverment (starting with that horrible $700 billion bailout). There also needs to be better oversight in general--so we don't face the same lame greed-induced economic meltdowns. This costs money. McCain says he'll cut everyone's taxes. It sounds great; I just don't think it is feasible. Obama has a more workable plan (even if it doesn't fit Republican ideals).
I like Obama's healthcare plan better--and no it's not "evil" after reading the details-I find it more pragmatic, and possibly the only one of the two plans that will maintain employer-provided healthcare.
Basically I think what makes our country great is that we take what's best in different systems (be it capitalism, socialism or whatever else)and apply them (sure, we won't call it socialism cause we'll throw up) in order to create the best overall system to keep us prosperous and the global leader we are. We have the ability to continually morph our government to best fit our nation's needs as a whole. That's what separates us from places like China--and not the fact that they are "Commy Evil" and we're not. We shouldn't turn captitalism or any other system into a religion--that's when we get inflexible and hurt ourselves in the long run.
OK I'll bite that the Democrats are "new" the party of the rich (even if I don't REALLY buy it). Even if so, if they are the party of the rich who don't mind paying more taxes to support the less wealthy, I've got no problem with that.
#20
No one should support the less wealthy. Each should support himself. When a nation operates in a "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" mode, only the apparatchiks and the nomenklatura benefit. We end up in a situation where everyone pretends to work, and the government pretends to pay us. The whole politics of envy is based on the expectation of equivalence of outcome as opposed to equivalence of opportunity. It becomes increasingly evident that outcomes will not be equivalent on a level playing field because people are not all equivalently capable.
#21
I am not condoning "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", or pure socialism. It is not black and white in my opinion(no pun intended). There is a grey area. The incentive for the more capable to make more needs to be maintained. A bit more taxes doesn't ruin the system or put everyone on a level playing field. My concern is just for maintaining a minimum playing field that ensures, for example, that equivalence of opportunity for those who may not have the opportunity. I don't think we're at a point where everyone has an opportunity--be it due to lack of health care or a proper education, that affects entire communities. This requires funding, which requires increased taxes on some.
#24
#23 yes, and no tax at all is complete incentive. What's your point? Is THAT your presidential plan? Posted by Todd
Yes, and that is pretty much what we had it prior to the beloved FDR (who would still be president were he alive today). Only the wealthy paid income taxes. The difference then was, those that didn't pay taxes didn't get gummit cheese free money via the socialist IRS "Earned Income Tax Credit." The give-away programs started with FDR. Vote for the Messiah and you'll be headed 'back to the future.' Just my 2 cents worth, while I've still got it and it hasn't been..... spread around.
There goes your entire argument. You like the fact that the wealthy paid and the non-wealthy didn't? Thanks for being way more extreme than I would have ever suggested that I am.
I am more fair than you are. Almost everyone needs to bear the burden of supporting the government, not just rich people--my only change would be to what degree.
#28
Grenter, It was a conclusion based on what was said. Just because I say I'm right, it makes me smug?
And really, why do you have to have the mild insult, Besoeker? Sure I can look up tax payers before FDR, but what is the point? I already accepted that perhaps only the wealthy paid taxes. I was including that in my argument.
#32
I plan to do a write in for Scalia. I would very much like to see McCain win just to see the reaction of astroturfers posing as registered Republicans who have reluctantly decided to vote for the Marxist.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
10/17/2008 17:33 Comments ||
Top||
#33
At $250,000 gross at a 30% profit margin gives me $75,000 net. That gives me 3 employees at $25,000 (minus tat income for mandated health insurance and taxes) which is shipping, books, and phone. Now, each percentage point of tax = $2,500 of money I do not have to put into the business for replacables, maintenence, and growth. That eliminates one employee - so I would have myself and one other having to work 8 hour days in order to take, fill, and ship those orders and make little money for the effort.
Giving me $3000 to hire another employee still sets me back $22,000 EOY.
Its insulting. It is a governor switch on business growth.
#34
And if the rich, however that is defined, make more money then fine - people have to build their cars and planes, cook for them at fancy restaurants, clean their houses, sail their yachts, etc. People make a living off of the rich. People with money like to make the money work by buying stock, starting new businesses which hire people. People with money take trips and buy food and gas which the government makes a cut with various taxes.
Cut the middleman - Congress - because when they get going they spend that money on stupid shit like prison museums, woodstock museums, bailing out their lobbyists, pander to constituants. Congress has already proven itself unable to resist the blank check, pelosi wants more money already after the wildly unpopular bailout (arguable necessary).
#35
Do you find it impossible to believe that people can change their mind? Not everyone is stuck to one view their entire lives. And there you go again with the scare-tactics--"Marxist". The problem is that people hear the same thing over and over again and convince themselves it's true.
#37
OK I'm done for the day. I agree with most of your second post swksvolF. In regards to your first post, I'm confused--it seems you are talking less about taxes and more about that it would be impossible to make any profit regardless.
Obama talks about cutting taxes for 95% of Americans? Since when did 95% of Americans pay fed taxes in the first place? More like 60%. If he meant 95% of taxpayers - that's different - but that's not whate he said - nuance. You can raise a few taxes on those who already pay more than 50% of the tax burden - it's retarded but he can certainly do it. Next, he has not mentioned cutting spending - in fact the inverse is true if he's going to let Pelosi run her games plus the health care crap -- no, I don't believe in universal health care - I'm in the U.S. mil active duty - I can tell you how socialist health care works -- it would be okay if everyone was between the ages of 17-47, few smoked and all were basically within their height and weight standards - HOWEVER - I can't imagine providing it for smokers, alcoholics and all the obese pigs I see in the country. Plus, all the malpractice insurance for every sue happy p.o.s. lawyer and client looking to make a buck - no tort reform means unaffordable health care. I.E. - why the fuck does my chiropractor have to have almost 100K of malpractice insurance to work?? Horse shit. That's partly why his patients are paying $30.00 a pop.
If Obama's going to cut & run on Iraq and Afghanistan both he will still not be able to pay for all this crap -- Hawaii state health care just tanked this week too, btw.
Taxing corporations does not work - that tax gets thrown on to the consumer - CORPORATIONS ARE GENERALY MADE UP OF HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE - not the old bald white guy from the simpsons steepling his fingers together and saying excellent smithers - you libz understand that? You over tax corps and they will start laying labor off in order to maintain the profit margin for share holders - business 101. Or, they will go overseas. The oil companies make a lot of cash - and rightfully so -- supply meet demand. India & china are both ramping up their economies - of course oil is going to cost more. We haven't built a new refinery in over 30 yrs, we haven't really tried nuke and we should've started drilling when Reagan was in office. 50% of our elected leaders are fucking brain dead. If you tax a small business owner like swks was saying they will end up laying an employee off to maintain the profit margin and viability of the company. It is about the profit.
I don't make 250K but I don't want another man's money because one of my fellow American schleps was too stupid to live within their means. Yes, that's right, I said it - doesn't take a fucking genius to figure out a budget or man w/the willpower of Jack Lalane to not buy shit you cannot afford. This also the fault of some Americans buying homes they don't rate, the congressmen pressuring banks to give out loans to otherwise un-suitable candidates and the idiots that took the loans - a pox on all their houses, yes, I'm mean & no, I don't fucking care who has a problem w/that. The gov't needs to adhere to the constitution and then basically stay the fuck out of the way.
Lastly, I love it when people who don't pay any income taxes get to vote on the rights and property of those of us who do. We fought a war over No taxation without representation I feel that the converse is also true. You don't pay federal tax, you don't rate a vote on the prospect of raising my taxes to pay for your ass.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/17/2008 19:33 Comments ||
Top||
#40
Well said, BH6. This Todd individual is dreaming if he thinks he can make the "wealthy" pay more in tax. Given the convoluted tax code we have there will always be loopholes for the wealthy who can afford the expensive legal advice about how and where to place one's money.
Obama knows this extremely well; one of his top advisers, Penny Pritzker, is the primary heiress of a huge family fortune that expanded tremendously in exactly that way. IIRC, they had some 4-500 interlocking business and family trusts incorporated in various Caribbean tax havens that were so tightly tied that even the IRS couldn't untangle the skein. When they sued the Pritzkers they ended up settling for pennies on the dollar because the Pritzkers brought more and better legal talent to bear than the USG did.
Obama has no intention of doing anything to help anyone but Obama and his coterie of cronies. That said, whoever gets elected is going to inherit a sullen, very angry country that is probably closer to civil war than at any time since 1865. It will be almost impossible for the next president to succeed. I suspect the Secret Service may have a tough job just keeping him alive.
#41
Apology accepted, Todd. One leaerns by getting caught at mistakes.
You're wrong about rich people, though. They have more than enough money, so generally they work hard because they enjoy it. But if their taxes go up significantly, many of them decide it's not worth the risk of another heart attack to put in the extra work... or retire. There are an awful lot of baby boomers approaching retirement age, and the senior vice president types are are just deciding on the timing. Granted, that would open up opportunities for advancement for managers all the way down the food chain, but eg. Mr. Wife is already working 70-hour weeks -- as are all his peers -- due to chronic understaffing at his Fortune 500 company, so I don't know that he would accept a promotion which would require even longer hours. Net effect over all: fewer rich people dollars available for taxation, even at higher rates, equal fewer tax dollars collected.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
I'm listening to Fox, on which an Obama spokeshole is claiming that the McCain campaign "didn't vet Joe the Plumber."
