On Palin revs up Republicans for McCain
Posted on September 4 at 4:57 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
If you're referring to the federal gas tax, it goes into a fund to finance road projects. Right now the fund has a $3.4 billion shortfall.
Keep in mind that money spent on roads doesn't just keep us safer (lots of bridges that need work right now). It reduces wear and tear on vehicles, thus saving drivers money. And it generates jobs. The federal transportation department estimates that every $1 billion in highway spending creates 34,779 jobs.
McCain has proposed a gas tax holiday. I understand the reason why, but I don't see how we can do that. Didn't we just see a bridge collapse with tragic consequences in Minnesota? Cutting money that goes to highways may save a few pennies at the pumps and give consumers a small amount of relief, but putting people's lives in danger by cutting costs that should be spent on unsafe roads and bridges is too high a price to pay.
On Palin revs up Republicans for McCain
Posted on September 4 at 3:59 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
How will Obama reduce the deficit? Well, for one thing, we can stop paying out at least some of the $100 billion or so a year that goes straight to Iraq. He'll stop giving all those tax breaks to oil companies that made record profits but still wanted more money from the taxpayers. And currently we allow companies that are U.S. based but have overseas operations to pay zero tax dollars on the revenue they make overseas as long as they don't transfer that revenue back into the United States. Obama has promised to cut that tax break (although yes, to give tax breaks to companies that move overseas operations back here to encourage them to bring jobs back home). I'd be happy to try to do something to try to bring jobs home rather than making it easy and far too attractive tax-wise to outsource them.
I understand that people are increduous, but frankly, I'm stymied at that attitude. The last time I felt prosperous and as if our spending was under control was pre-George Bush. I don't see McCain offering any solutions that make sense to me (more tax breaks for the rich? Sure, I'll see if I have anything left in my pockets to give them).
But then...I'm assuming that most people here are extremely happy with the way things have been going for the past 8 years, since most of you seem to want more of the same. Go for it. It's your right to vote that way, but I've had more than enough of this stuff. More of the same is not for me, and I don't see McCain offering anything different. I like the man, I respect him, but the policies he favors that seem far too similar to what we already have right now? Not so much.
On Palin revs up Republicans for McCain
Posted on September 4 at 1:33 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
This discussion has me confused. I'm not from Janesville (I'm from Wisconsin) but I'm assuming most people commenting here are from the area.
I was raised blue collar with both parents working in factories and later I was a union steward at my job until I left to have children. These days, with my dad gone and my mother retired, my brother is the only union worker left. But because we were union workers and the republicans have always tried to break up the unions to make it harder for us to negotiate for better wages and health care and because the republican plan has long been to concentrate on giving money and perks to corporations (with the assumption that those corps will, out of the...um...goodness of their hearts, pass that money and those benefits on to the workers), we've always been democrats. Well, okay, that's not the only reason but it's a major one. I guess the companies we worked for didn't buy into the whole "sharing" idea, so we felt we'd be better off throwing our lot in with the people who would at least fight to get a better wage for us and who wouldn't try to get rid of the unions who fought for us.
I would have thought that Janesville was a union town, but it's clear that there are more republicans commenting here than democrats. Have things changed? Fewer union workers? Something I'm just not getting? Or, are most of the people commenting here white collar upscale types?
Seriously, I'm curious. I'll admit that I'm no longer blue collar (self-employed now, so no union for me), but I'm still blue collar at heart and I have to wonder why someone would throw their support to that "throw the money and tax breaks at the rich" policy that seems to have really hurt ordinary people these past 8 years.
Of course, I do understand that jobs and money are not the only issues at stake here, so I may be way off base.
Posted on February 20 at 8:31 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
>Barack Obama was originally named “Baraka.” It is not an African name. It's an Arabic word meaning “blessed” and comes directly from the Koran.
Actually, Barack is rooted in both Arabic and Swahili. Swahili borrows a great number of words Arabic, and it's clear that Bara(c)k is one of them.
But...what is your point exactly? That our names define who we are? (So...someone named Moses is, therefore, a better Christian than someone named George? Get real).
Let's be honest. You're trying to present yourself as knowledgable, but you're simply being offensive in your religious intolerance. (By your account, we would have to dump our numbering system, because our numbers are, after all, "Arabic" numerals).
No point in giving you even more of a forum. I'm out of here.
Posted on February 20 at 8:08 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
>Michelle Obama is now proud of her country.
She was referring to the political process (which frankly, I think a lot of us haven't been very proud of in recent years). Let's not pretend that justice has prevailed over the years. It hasn't, and that, of course, is why we need change and a strong leader to help us strive for better things.
Also, I thought the comment that implied that she should be proud that a black woman actually could attend an Ivy League college was rather racist and offensive. She's a highly intelligent woman and she got into college on her own merits. (And for the record, the first black woman graduated from Harvard Law School more than 50 years ago. I think it's time we stopped asking black women to kiss the earth in gratitude for the honor. If you can get into Princeton or Harvard, you've got a good head on your shoulders, and you're most likely the kind of person who can make a differnce in the world. End of story).
Posted on February 20 at 7:06 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Thank you, copperguy, for your wise words about religious bigotry. Even though Obama is a Christian and has never been a Muslim (a fact that has been checked over and over by such publications as Newsweek, The Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Sun Times), you're right that we shouldn't be judging any of the candidates (or each other) on faith.
I'm not quite sure what all the bigots are suggesting, anyway. What nefarious thing do they think he is going to do? Why don't they check the facts? The truth is that Obama has been right under our noses for a long time.
1. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School (prior to attending Harvard, he directed community organizing projects in low income communities in New York and Chicago. In 1992, he directed Illinois Project VOTE!, a state-wide voter registration and education campaign).
2. After graduating, he turned down higher paying jobs to practice civil rights law in Chicago
3. He served in the Illinois State Senate from 1996-2004 and in the U.S. Senate from 2005 until now (in other words he's been in elective office for over ten years).
4. While in the Illinois Senate, he was responsible for passing legislation that requires the police to tape interrogations and confessions, a move that required Obama to win over reluctant parties from both sides of the aisle (winning in the House, in the Senate 35-0 and getting the governor to sign off on it). Illinois became the first state to require videotaping.
5. He played a major role in passing Illinois' earned-income tax credit to help the poor (the first earned-income tax credit for the state). He also was instrumental in passing the ethics and campaign finance law in 25 years (which makes Illinois one of the top states in regards to campaign finance disclosure).
6. In 1997, The Independent Voters of Illinois awarded him Best Freshman Legislator Award
7. In 1998, The Better Health Care and Illinois Primary Health Care Association awarded Obama the Outstanding Legislator Award.
8. He has been a senior lecturer on Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School since 1993 (currently on leave of absence, of course).
9. In the U.S. Senate he worked with Russ Feingold to co-author, introduce and pass major ethics reform (which, in part requires lawmakers to disclose the names of lobbyists who "bundle" contributions for them).
10. He's a member of numerous Senate committees, including the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and is Chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs.
What more do you want to know?
On Obama visit adds heat to hot news season
Posted on February 19 at 3:08 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Oh, and Clinton never did acknowledge or give a byline to her ghostwriter, Barbara Feinman, for the book IT TAKES A VILLAGE.
On Obama visit adds heat to hot news season
Posted on February 18 at 7:13 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Also, after researching further, the part of the speech in question was a section where Obama was discussing how words matter. He referenced Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech and "All men are created equal" and included some of Deval Patrick's phrases. Patrick has encouraged him to use his words. Under these circumstances, the Clinton accusation is patently ridiculous. She herself has lifted phrases from others (her "I see an America..." where the phrase is repeated over and over has been used by others, including Jimmy Carter long before Hillary used it).
Also, for the record, as Obama points out, and as I'm sure you know, he has authored two books. If you haven't read them, I highly recommend them.
On Obama visit adds heat to hot news season
Posted on February 18 at 6:55 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I should have said Deval Patrick in my last post, not just Deval (typing too fast). Also, in the spirit of disclosing my source, that information was from a Washington Post article.
Page 1 of 2 | Next
On Palin revs up Republicans for McCain
Posted on September 4 at 5:20 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
why the fuss, I'm not sure what reports you've been looking at, but The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center (which is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution in Washington) issued a detailed report last month on just this topic. They found that under Obama's plan, 90 percent of middle-income households would get a tax cut averaging $1,000. Under McCain's plan, 65 percent would get a tax cut - at an average of $300.
People making more than $600,000 (not the $60,000 you mentioned), which is the top 1% of taxpayers (the very richest people), would most likely pay more in taxes under Obama's plan. Under McCain's plan, that top 1% (again, the richest people) would pay less.
I don't know how many people here make more than $600,000, but I'm not one of them. I'll take the $1,000 tax cut under Obama's plan.
Under our current tax system, a report by the GAO (which is the Government Accountability Office in charge of checking up in the government to make sure things are running as they should) issued a new report recently. Their conclusion was that "even with thousands of pages of tax laws, two-thirds of all large U.S.- and foreign-controlled business operating in the U.S. managed to pay no (zero) federal income tax on a combined $2.5 trillion in sales from 1998 to 2005."
That's just not right. We need to rectify that.