“In the fourth quarter if you’re down a little bit you don’t say, ‘Well, OK, I guess it’s over. It was a nice game.’ No! That’s when you dig in and push harder,” said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., stumping for his friend John McCain in eastern Pennsylvania last week. Brownback warned that electing Barack Obama would allow “five people in robes” on an activist U.S. Supreme Court to sidestep the rule of law and find new rights in the Constitution. At the McCain-Palin headquarters in Scranton, the local roots of Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden also came up. “I didn’t know Joe was from Scranton,” Brownback said.
“Neither did we,” answered several listeners in unison.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
35 Comments
“Brownback warned that electing Barack Obama would allow “five people in robes” on an activist U.S. Supreme Court to sidestep the rule of law and find new rights in the Constitution.”
Brownback should know how that works since he supported Bush in packing Conservatives into the court who will “sidestep the rule of law and find new rights in the Constitution”.
Brownback’s real concern is not that they would be ‘activists’ but that they would be liberal activists not conservative activists.
Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
He out and out calls for ‘administrative legislative redistribution of wealth’!!!
He said and elaborated on it.
He is a socialist/communist in pure form.
Congrats Boxlicker, you’ve managed to spam all the boards. Did you earn your cookie today? Thanks to all your spam you’ve done nothing other than prove you don’t know much about the Constitution, the origin of the progressive tax system and what a socialist or communist is. But pointing out that you are ignorant isn’t going to be a surprise to anyone.
Maggot,
And I did it in seconds because of it’s importance for people to see. You’ll find it in the opinion section and news as well and emailed to many.
PS: Not done yet either.
This is proof positive Obama is an out and out socialist/communist, who will damage this country.
This needs to be shouted in Paul Revere fashion across the country.
Boxlock the problem that Obama has is he is intelligent and speaks as such and he assumes that those listening to him are equally intelligent. He uses the term “spreading the wealth” as a figurative term not a literal terms. Not the government dividing the lands and money by a forced division as in the Police coming to your house and itemizing it to spread to those whom do not have a equal share. But by setting up legislation that would encourage that no one has a better provision to success than another.
A good example is the local construction company Coronado (sorry I misspell their name) until the passage of legislation that insisted that Minority companies be considered in all City wide bids for work to be done for the city. Minority owned companies stood little chance of receiving or is considered in the bidding.
Joe the Plumber which in reality he is more a mythical beast than a actual person stands to do better in his business and provide a better employer for his help under Obama than McCain. With the tax breaks for providing health care and employment within the United States. Even if Joe did somehow strike it rich in the plumbing industry. The tax break would bring him in under the $250,000 mark and his taxes would be lower. Under the McCain plan Joe would not make enough to qualify for the Bush tax breaks.
Having twice lived in small rural communities I understood what Obama meant by the people turn to Guns and God. They are the two things that are certain when all else does not and you are insecure in the future.
It is odd though while this nation is doing something that reeks of Socialism with the banks and insurance companies. That Obama is being called a “Socialist” for stating he want to give the common man a break.
Keep spamming boy. It reminds the readers what a nut job you are!
And did I mention how well it’s working?
heheheheh. AAHAHAHHAAHHAAHAHAHAH
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php
The results are simple: Democratic presidents have consistently higher economic growth and consistently lower unemployment than Republican presidents. If you add in a time lag, you get the same result. If you eliminate the best and worst presidents, you get the same result. If you take a look at other economic indicators, you get the same result. There’s just no way around it: Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations.
Skeptics offer two arguments: first, that presidents don’t control the economy; second, that there are too few data points to draw any firm conclusions. Neither argument is convincing. It’s true that presidents don’t control the economy, but they do influence it — as everyone tacitly acknowledges by fighting like crazed banshees over every facet of fiscal policy ever offered up by a president.
The second argument doesn’t hold water either. The dataset that delivers these results now covers more than 50 years, 10 administrations, and half a dozen different measures. That’s a fair amount of data, and the results are awesomely consistent: Democrats do better no matter what you measure, how you measure it, or how you fiddle with the data.
But it turns out there’s more to this. Via Brendan Nyhan, I recently read a paper by Princeton’s Larry Bartels that adds some fascinating details to this picture.
________________________________________
The first thing Bartels did was break down economic performance by income class. The unsurprising result is shown in the chart on the right.
Under Democratic presidents, every income class did well but the poorest did best. The bottom 20% had average pretax income growth of 2.63% per year while the top 5% showed pretax income growth of 2.11% per year.
Republicans were polar opposites. Not only was their overall performance worse than Democrats, but it was wildly tilted toward the well off. The bottom 20% saw pretax income growth of only .6% per year while the top 5% enjoyed pretax income growth of 2.09% per year. (What’s more, the trendline is pretty clear: if the chart were extended to show the really rich — the top 1% and the top .1% — the Republican growth numbers for them would be higher than the Democratic numbers.)
In other words, Republican presidents produce poor economic performance because they’re obsessed with helping the well off. Their focus is on the wealthiest 5%, and the numbers show it. At least 95% of the country does better under Democrats.
________________________________________
But this raises an interesting question: if 95% of the country does better under Democrats, and if economic performance is the most important factor in most presidential elections, then how do Republicans ever get elected? The most common hypothesis — spelled out in detail in last year’s What’s The Matter With Kansas? — is that cultural issues often override economic considerations. But Bartels proposes a surprising alternative explanation illustrated in the two charts below. The top chart shows income growth during non-election years, and it displays the usual characteristics: under Democrats, income growth is strong overall and the poor do a bit better than the well off. Under Republicans, income growth is weak overall and is tilted heavily in favor of the already prosperous.
But now look at the bottom chart. It shows economic performance during election years and it’s a mirror image of the top chart: Republicans produce better overall performance, and they produce especially stupendous performance for the well off. Democrats not only produce poor overall performance, they produce disastrous performance for the well off, who actually have negative income growth.
In other words, voters aren’t necessarily ignoring economic issues in favor of cultural issues. Rather, Republicans produce great economic growth for all income classes in election years, and that’s all that voters remember. They really are voting their pocketbooks.
Bartels doesn’t essay an explanation for this. Do Republican presidents deliberately try to time economic growth spurts — and are Democratic presidents too lame to do the same? Is it just luck? Or is the difference somehow inherent in the different ways that Democrats and Republicans approach the economy (with Democrats typically focusing on employment and Republicans on inflation)? At this point, your guess is as good as anyone’s.
Bottom line: if you’re well off, vote for Republicans. But if you make less than $150,000 a year, Republicans are your friends only one year in four. Caveat emptor.
In 1981 when Reagan took office, Cessna employed 20,000 people. Five years later they employed 3000 people. The Republicans have really worked wonders for the middle class!
Boxlock
Posted October 27, 2008 at 6:31 am …
So increasing the top two tax brackets by 3% each takes us from good ole capitalism to socialism huh?
You have definitely been brainwashed by the Conservative media!
Brownback has such proven expertise on the campaign trail!
Seems boxy is vying with Brownback for the top clown job.
Calling in the heavyweight Brownback, what’s he going to do rally his innumerous followers in Iowa. Hell, those couple thousand quacks already are voting for palin.
But it’ll be good to get brownback out of the state for awhile again.
You have to wonder how far down the B-List or C-List or D-List a town has got to be for the McPalin campaign to send Sam the Sham out as a surrogate.
You can almost hear the phone call –
LOCAL POL: We want to have a rally out here in Hog Bluff County and we need a big name to keynote.
RNC SCHEDULER: Well, I can send you Gingrich.
LOCAL POL: Newt?!
RNC SCHEDULER: No, this’d be Melvin Gingrich, he’s like a second-cousin or something. Or you could book Huckabee.
LOCAL POL: Wow! Mike?
RNC SCHEDULER: No, this would be Evelyn Huckabee, his maiden aunt. Or you could get Brownback.
LOCAL POL: Sam?
RNC SCHEDULER: Yes.
We can’t vote out brownback this time but we can get the purge started with Roberts.
#
mxyzptlk
Posted October 27, 2008 at 8:24 am | Permalink
In 1981 when Reagan took office, Cessna employed 20,000 people. Five years later they employed 3000 people. The Republicans have really worked wonders for the middle class!
=======================
General Dynamics purchased Cessna back then and got rid of the older reciprocating engine models as Cessna was getting its pants sued off.
Boxguy! You are Spamalicious! And no I will not give you my account address so that you may send me millions of dollars from Nigeria.
THIS is what Obama really thinks, in his own words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
Obama is a COMMUNIST!
There is no other word for a man that thinks that the SUPREME COURT should be involved in “Wealth REDISTRIBUTION!”
Calm down there Franklin. Dont forget your nitro pill.
Dems
Look, Obama has a real shot at winning, this time.
However, Obama can only win by being dishonest.
Obama is trying to run as a moderate.
Yet, Obama is a radical.
Obama is very bad for the country, but Obama will be even worse for the Democrat Party.
Many who vote for Obama will be very upset with him, very soon, should Obama win.
Brownback is spot on.
The socialistic notion that people who lawfully earn their own income should not be allowed to keep that income is an attempt to side step the rule of law.
The symbol of law is a blindfolded woman holding a scale. The ruling is determined by the law and the law itself, NOT by a judge who tries to decipher what is fair according to cosmic justice.
The judge should be blind in regards to what he WANTS to happen regarding the verdict.
Bringing it back to taxes: If a billionaire lawfully earned a billion dollars while a pauper lawfully earned his poverty, that is the rule of law. Taking those earnings from the billionaire is government sanctioned stealing. Private Property be damned. Removing lawful earnings by governmental edict from the billionaire and giving it to the pauper is not what the Colonialist fought a revolution for.
Let just have noone pay taxes! That will fix everything! *Rolling eyes*
“RFL
Posted October 27, 2008 at 2:19 pm | Permalink
Brownback is spot on.
The socialistic notion that people who lawfully earn their own income should not be allowed to keep that income is an attempt to side step the rule of law.
The symbol of law is a blindfolded woman holding a scale. The ruling is determined by the law and the law itself, NOT by a judge who tries to decipher what is fair according to cosmic justice.
The judge should be blind in regards to what he WANTS to happen regarding the verdict.
Bringing it back to taxes: If a billionaire lawfully earned a billion dollars while a pauper lawfully earned his poverty, that is the rule of law. Taking those earnings from the billionaire is government sanctioned stealing. Private Property be damned. Removing lawful earnings by governmental edict from the billionaire and giving it to the pauper is not what the Colonialist fought a revolution for.”
The law also says that said billionaire has to currently pay taxes on those earnings (35% on amounts earned over $357K)
Obama has proposed changing that tax level to 39.5%.
How can the current tax structure be legal and not socialist if the increase is only 4.5% at the highest bracket?
BTW, that billionaire does get to vote too.
brian,
Are you saying that the difference between Obama’s economic plan and that of Bush plan only amounts to 4.5%? That is not at all the message that Obama is trying to push.
Based on Obama’s relentless criticism of Bush (and explictly defining McCain as the same), The Bush economic plan requires a complete overhaul.
If the only thing that marks a difference between Obama’s economic philosophy and Bush’s is 4.5%, then Obama doesn’t offer much in the area of change then now does he?
What we can look at is what they have said to get votes. Obama and Biden fundamentally believes that rich people have a patriotic duty to vote for them so that they (the federal government) can charitably take and redistribute their earnings for them. Obama Biden have discussed at length what their philosophy is.
The fact that you point to a marginal increase of only 4.5% is case in point for how weak the argument that they are going to radically change ANYTHING for the country. If Bush was truly wrong as they say, then the tax rate hike for rich should be much higher then 4.5%.
Which is right? The rhetoric that Bush was all wrong? or that the tax leves during Bush was generally right except the tax for the rich needs a little nudging in the upwards direction to fix all the ails our economy?
If Bush was completely wrong, then a 4.5% tax hike is not going to cut it. The REAL tax increase will be much higher if Obama really believes what Obama says.
brian_nuevo posted October 27, 2008 at 3:22 pm
The law also says that said billionaire has to currently pay taxes on those earnings (35% on amounts earned over $357K)
Obama has proposed changing that tax level to 39.5%.
How can the current tax structure be legal and not socialist if the increase is only 4.5% at the highest bracket?
——————
It’s defined in the dictionary issued to the right-wing-nuts.
35% on > $375k = acceptable, legal democracy.
39.5% on > $375k = unacceptable, illegal SOCIALISM!
brian,
Don’t strain yourself too hard trying to reconcile the difference between Obama’s rhetoric and what he has actually proposed on his economic plan that he is using simply to get elected.
However, believe what you like.
Believe that Bush’s economic plan was a disaster since it did not tax the rich heavily enough.
Believe that a marginal 4.5% increase in the tax rate for the rich is the cure for this economy.
I could go on and on about this….and no doubt a President Obama will provide plenty of breaches of logic due to his political savvy in swee sounding but unharmonic double speak.
But hey, it’s got brian convinced, huh?
If all Obama wants to do is raise the taxes a wee little bit on the Rich from the Bush levels, then Bush was not far off. Even worse, Obama’s wee little tax increase for the rich isn’t going to help the middle class one bit!
It don’t work both ways.
Either Bush was truly destroying this economy by undertaxing the rich resulting in the middle class getting poorer….
Or.
4.5% tax rate hike for the rich is spitting in the wind.
Which is it?
RFL posted October 27, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Believe that Bush’s economic plan was a disaster since it did not tax the rich heavily enough.
—————-
“There’s one big difference between me and the others – I won’t take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy.” [McCain campaign commercial, January 2000]
“I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.” [McCain Senate floor statement, May 21, 2001]
“But when you look at the percentage of the tax cuts that – as the previous tax cuts – that go to the wealthiest Americans, you will find that the bulk of it, again, goes to wealthiest Americans.” [NBC’s “Today,” Jan. 7, 2003]
“RFL” defies logic with –
“Either Bush was truly destroying this economy by undertaxing the rich resulting in the middle class getting poorer….
Or.
4.5% tax rate hike for the rich is spitting in the wind.”
So that’s the “either/or,” huh?
This, as with so many CON arguments, is about as logical as, say:
“Either fuzzy animals like tigers can be man-eaters”
Or.
“Sharks are man-eaters without a fleck of fuzz!
You can’t have it both ways, after all.”
Fact is, (The Big) Dick Cheney capsulized the Shrub Administration’s economic philosophy when he declared “Deficits don’t matter.”
But deficits do, albeit not in political campaigns if you can gin up the base with fear of terr’ism and gay marriage.
And then… in a real stunning admission… you admit a 4.5% tax increase is a “spit in the wind.”
Especially since that spit-in-the-wind measly 4.5% return to the tax rate pre Shrub post-9/11 tax cuts, doesn’t even kick in until you’ve already earned $250,000. (Remember that, if “Joe the Plumber” worked a 40 hour week, 50 weeks a year, he’d only be affected by Obama’s tax
increasereturn to pre-9/11 marginal rates if he were charging $1,250 per hour to fix your toilet float.)What I don’t understand is how so may stuck-in-the-middle-class CONs are so willing to sign up for the Republic Party’s “No Billionaire Left Behind” tax policy.
That the moment someone earns $250,000 they’re automatically gonna take the rest of the year off because their taxes might be bumped 4.5%.
Is this the “American Work Ethic” all you CONs claim to worship?
I remember reading, a long time ago (obviously) that Michael Jordon fulfilled his entire year’s FICA contribution before the singer got to “By the dawn’s early light…” of the first game of a new year.
I dunno about you, “RFL,” but with a couple of exceptions, I’ve had FICA deducted from my pay check the whole year ’round.
And the other part of CON illogic is how naive you guys seem to be about just how much wealth is concentrated in the top 3% of the American population. And your “spit-in-the-wind” 4.5% bump in the marginal tax rate, after the first $250,000 (which, as I figure, would get Michael Jordan to “…that star-spangled banner yet….”), actually generates an awful lot of ways to cut taxes for middle-class citizens.
And it will.
In order for a business to show $250,000 NET profit on which the tax would occur, how much does Joe the Plumber’s business have to GROSS?
How ’bout a guess Franklin? Regular? HLP? Mad Max? Nathaniel?
There is no way to tell, silly mixed up alphabet person.
#
mxyzptlk
Posted October 27, 2008 at 5:07 pm | Permalink
In order for a business to show $250,000 NET profit on which the tax would occur, how much does Joe the Plumber’s business have to GROSS?
How ’bout a guess Franklin? Regular? HLP? Mad Max? Nathaniel?
———————-
Depends
- on number of employees
- equipment depreciation
- Credits
- etc.
also depends on what type of business, Sub S, C, limited liability, lot of variables, stock investors…
probably a few million gross for Joe the plumber to net a 250,000 profit.
An entertainer usually has less overhead than the average business person in proportion, unless they have a really lousy manager.
And, of course, the horrific SOCIALIST!!!! spit-in-the-wind marginal tax rate bump of 4.5% percent only kicks in after you’ve already been taxed at the current (and, I guess, sacred) rate of the Republic Party and George WMD Bush up to your first $250,000.00.
Somehow I think the Bolsheviks wouldn’t be impressed.
Thank you Regular. I agree that overall, it would be a million $ gross AT A MINIMUM to generate 250,000 taxable dollars. At that, said business would be doing great generating a 25% profit rate.
Just thought that this whole tax business needed to be put in perspective.
The tax is on PROFIT not Gross. Joe the Plumber’s salary would be part of the business expense as an owner OR a worker.
Also, Joe the Plumber could take NON TAXABLE distributions if his business was incorporated.