»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
What Are Obama's Major Accomplishments?
| The Alley |
|
What Are Obama's Major Accomplishments? |
|
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy 
|
I've been looking into this as a topic I'm writing about. So far qualifications are off-limit topics for the Obama campaign, so let's ask them here. So, I ask in all seriousness: 1) WHAT has Obama Accomplished that merits him jumping ahead all the other Democrats into the Presidential nomination? 2) whether you plan to vote for Obama or not, make the case for WHY he should be President. To me this is the core question of the election: what can he point to that would lend himself to being hired as CEO of America? Granted, he is one of the best speakers I've heard since Clinton. Granted he made a great speech at the Democratic convention and that put him on the map. I thought his speech, at the time WAS inspiring, and quite good. Granted he ISN'T Bush! LOL, but of course, we are ALL qualified on that count! I won't ask the same question of McCain, at least in this thread, because he HAS been in office long enough to have a list of accomplishments, so please don't deflect the topic to the 'bad things' McCain has done. p.s. Try to do this mental exercise WITHOUT using links if possible, first. My supposition is that few will be able to do this without researching first. [This message has been edited by threadbear (10-26-2008 09:05 PM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Jeff Feezle - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I read the topic line and took this question seriously, until I read the arbitrary pundit-styled codicils as you answered your own question, to suit yourself. Besides his Senate record of thoughtful cooperation, Barack Obama's major accomplishment is that he brought something positive back to politics. An option-- Hope. A slogan--or the last thing left in the ballot box? McCain's campaign has been imploding daily, so I can't say Barack offers us choice. There's not much choice left. It's hope, or no hope. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Thanks, Serenity: I changed the post considerablly to be more fair without much bias. Your point is well taken. Good idea, and implemented. Jeff |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
um, I noticed that.  I get a little...just a teensy bit passionate sometimes. *chuckle* There's a chinese curse yanno: "May you live in interesting times." (Watch your SPAM for more details!) *laughing* |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: That's an easy one. They're called votes. quote: Because there's only one horse running the race?  More seriously, the answer will ultimately be the same as for the previous questions. If he's elected, it will be because the majority of America wants him to be elected. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Sadly, you are almost right, ron. Gathering the most votes is not a qualification, more like a consensus, but it's the one thing that gets one into the white House. That's also how people, even ones that happened to be hitting .189 or are on the disabled list for the rest of the season or died in an accident in the off-season get into the all-star game....it's all in the votes. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
How much more secure is voting than if one single coin were flipped to determine which would be the president? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant, A single coin flip offers a 50-50 chance. If the actual liklihood of the outcome were in fact 50-50, and you were asking only about probability, I suspect the answer would be none. Since more than half the electorate believes that the probability is more than 50-50, however, I suspect it would not a be a wise step. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Besides, Essorant, one would have to determine which coin to use. Would it be a Lincoln penny, a Roosevelt dime, a Kennedy half-dollar, or what? It would probably takes years for congress to agree which coin to use!  |
||
Larry C
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286United States |
I think it should be the buffalo nickel.  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Threadbear, To answer your first question, winning the Democratic Primary by convincing a sufficient number of Democrats that he could beat a Republican challenger. To answer your second question, I believe he will do things differently than George Bush, and he will, I believe do things differently than John McCain, who has agreed with George Bush more than 90% of the time. He also has a fairly solid background in constitutional law, which McCain does not. He is much further to the right than is my personal preference, but this may be a help in working with the Republicans over the next few election cycles. I think it might be useful for somebody who has skill in working together with others to be in office. He also has a much better grip on his temper than I do, and certainly than Senator McCain has. He doesn't seem to have as many enemies in the senate as does Senator McCain, who seems to have quite a few within his own party. Both men will of course have to deal with the huge breaches in the constitutional protections opened by The Patriot Act and by the extensions of Presidential and executive powers pushed forward by the current administration. No matter who becomes President, the country is in extreme danger of falling into a dictatorship. It is purely a matter of personal opinion that I believe Obama better suited to handle this temptation. I'm not certain even the best meaning executive will be able to avert a constitutional meltdown. From looking at the overall tone of these discussions, everybody, left and right, shares a certain sense of apocalyptic doom that I hope we will all be able to be amused about in four years time. I think that would really be great. That's the best answer, and the straightest one, I can offer you at this point, threadbear. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
Well Threadbear, Barach Obama's history in the Illinois Senate, shows his many accomplishments in a very short period. I have to wonder what he can and will do, and think it's worth that risk. I think most people, or I would certainly hope so by now anyway, will have done their homework on his track record, and feel comfortable in what he has to offer. Besides "hope," which incidentally is 100% accurate, he offers a new, fresher approach to politics because of his youth, his education, and experience in the Senate, which is extensive. His lack of enemies is a bonus, and his temperment and demeanor as displayed is what you expect in a person of authority, or a commander-in-chief. Judging by the change in his hair color lately I would say he is getting lots of advise on this campaign trail and will continue to be smart enough to listen to it, and take from it all what is needed to make Americans stand proud and tall, and feel secure once more. One only has to research the number of bills he was instrumental in getting passed to see where his passion is – with the people. Obama's work on legislation of the death penalty in Illinois, and how it is doled out was a major accomplishment. He was in favor of only issuing the death penalty in the most heinous of crimes. This accomplishment was the difference between life and death. He was instrumental in having minors not prosecuted as adults in certain crimes as well. He also favors stricter gun control, (which is my personal favorite,) and has worked toward passing some great gun control legislation, and regulations for gun-bearing citizens. He sponsored a bill while serving in Statehouse that made health care available to approximately 150,000 people that included over 70,000 children – so if is not an accomplishment I don't know what is. He has often said, he will give "you" exactly what he would give his own children as far as health care and education, and I do believe him. A 5,000 cheque to get health care just won't cut it trust me. He too was a "Maverick" with some fancy foot work in finance reform during 1998. It prohibited lawmakers from soliciting funds for campaigns while on state property, nor could they accept any gifts from contractors, lobbyists or any other politically interested parties. It changed history in Illinois, since up to that point it was known as a pay/play political state I think, but correct me if I am wrong. He was instrumental in getting young offenders re-trained and back into the work force, as well as job training for those below the poverty line, and that bill was a huge success. Because of a bill he had passed, drivers now have to wear seat belts – how good it that? He started a bill which I don’t think is yet passed that would require utilities to purchase part of their energy from renewable sources. Hope that one passes soon. So let's see he has been responsible for bills passed in the state of Illinois for managing the environment, health care reform, assisting those impoverished, or incarcerated, shaking up ethics, shining a light on civil rights, not to mention his extensive work on immigration. That is one heck of a resume. He’s ma man, and he has the votes to prove he is more than just a pretty face, or a good speaker. Not to take away from the track record of John McCain, because not only is it impressive, it is very "American," but right now I think people are scared, and going to put their money on some big "change." Are they ready for what they wish for? Hard to say, but I would bet this is the start of a very interesting period in our history. Now don't ask me why I like him okay, I could write you a book on that, as I have since he ran for Senator. I know one thing he has handled his campaign with complete integrity, but then I knew he would. Sharon leaves swiftly out the side door, wearing her "Americanuck" t-shirt, just missing Balladeer's cream pie. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Secure? I'm not sure how security pertains. Do you mean how much better? I'm not sure voting is necessarily about getting the best man for the job. I'm quite sure it can't be about the probability of being "right," since mankind has a very long history of being collectively wrong about a great many things. I think majority rule in general, and voting in particular, is much more about people getting what they deserve. And, yea, these days that can be a scary thought. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Unfortunately, the United States population neither elects the President nor directly nominates the candidate either, since the state election party decides whether to cast all their votes for one candidate. As long as the electoral college is in place, the popular vote will not ever elect a President. Not only that, the electoral college is a winner take all proposition, and a very slim voting victory (not even a majority is needed) results in all electorial votes from that state going to one party or the other. So, essentially, the OTHER party's votes within a state DO NOT COUNT AT ALL! For the above reasons, winning huge population states such as California, New York, Michigan, far outshines the middle states. If you look at the last election, the Dem's only won the far north Midwest, 3 states on the West Coast, and most of the states on the upper north east. The Republicans won all the rest. Weird, but it is possible to win 12 states thru electorial vote and still win the national election. As a matter of fact, Gore only won 20 states in the 2000 election, while Bush won 30, but according to some Dems, the vote is still in dispute. Gore actually WON the popular vote, but lost the election with 50,999,000 votes vs. 50,456,000. In 2004, Bush won 31 states, Kerry 19 states, and Bush carried the popular vote by 3 million. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
OBAMA 2001 TALKING ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT radio interview WBEZ Chicago TRANSCRIPT: MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago. OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. ~THE CLINCHER FOR ME WAS:~ And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that. ---------------------------- In case you missed it, Obama in this interview CRITICIZES the Supreme Court for NOT OVERSTEPPING ITS CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS! Yikes, Barak! The most liberal court in modern history and it didn't go far enough? didn't break enough Constitutional liberties. He also calls himself a law professor in this interview. He was not. He was a guest lecturer, non-tenured, paid by appearance by the University of Chicago. Big difference. Typical politician puffery and they all do it. If you get a chance, do a search on the term: 'negative liberties' and what it really means. He claims the Consitution is a charter of negative liberties. |
||
|
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
You had asked when this discussion started that we not the use links, but I think the reason people tend to use reputable links is to actually show truthful facts, like this for instance, as Obama is not big on political "puffary" really from what I have seen or read. New York Times - The Long Run Teaching Law, Testing Ideas, Obama Stood Slightly Apart You are right however, anything can happen after Tuesday, and we will have to learn to adjust to whatever that is once again. Popularity does not always mean votes, that is a fact indeed. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
There will be a lot of adjusting to do, Sharon. There is really not a lot more to be said. No one is going to be influenced one way or another. No republican is going to be able to convince a democrat the danger of Obama and no democrat is apparently going to be able to get over their dislike for Bush to care. All of the warning signs are there to see. For those who refuse to look or recognize them, then you get what you deserve. Unfortunately the rest of us will get it, too. When unemployment shoots sky high, when companies start moving overseas to avoid the increases in corporate taxes adding even further to the unemployment figures, when prices of products rise to offset the extra costs of doing business, when your take-home pay is a lot less to take home and you realize the "middle class exception" to taxes increases was a phallacy, when the thrill of having someone "fresh and new" in the White House is tarnished by the realization he has no experience and no idea what he's doing, then maybe, just maybe, you will wonder if you made the right decision. Just don't cry that you didn't see the signs. They are all there. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Obama has no accomplishments, major or otherwise that commends him to be the next Commandor in Chief. None whatsover. What he does have is an amazing talent for slick rhetoric in which he usually says nothing of substance. His true agenda came through when he was talking off the cuff to Joe the Plumber, one of those rare moments when we actually got a glimpse of his true agenda. And now the tape today that surfaced from 2001 where he was talking about the redistribution of wealth and economic justice in reference to the civil rights movement...I couldn't believe what I was hearing. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Threadbear, I heard the tape of the Obama interview played on the radio. If you can find it, you owe it to yourself to listen to it. You have in this case an example of how oral and written communication can give widely different understandings from the same text. As poets we ought all of us to know about this. Apparently as political animals, it's really all too easy to read what he expect. The oral text is very different than the transcribed text, not in the words, but in the meaning the listener walks away with. Or perhaps it's as simple as the two of us hearing things differently. In this case, though, I think not. "Congress shall make No Law to Abridge Freedom of Speech" is an example of a Negative Liberty, if I understand the man's point correctly, and it is phrased that way because it is wants to make the point that Freedom of Speech is the natural state of affairs, and that a specific action must be taken to damage it by the government or people in power. The Founders wanted to frame the liberties as Natural States of Man. The same is true about the Right to Bear Arms in a militia. Though we may argue about the circumstances under which such liberties may be exercised today, the basic right is one the Founders felt to be a Natural Right, and one which was inherent to being a citizen of American. The Founders put a lot of the Bill of Rights in these terms. Unless I am badly mistaken, this is what Obama was talking about. While you may believe that Obama was being wrong in calling himself Professor, if he held a college teaching post that generally is the courtesy title extended. He was also editor of The Harvard Law Review; and, as such, many colleges would have been pleased to have him on staff. Except, of course, Harvard and perhaps a few of the other Ivy league schools who are, unfortunately, not Harvard. If you believe Obama guilty of Hubris, it is probably better that you err on the side of reality in your account of his abilities, otherwise — should the man win — you will have no other explanation than magic or witchcraft. You are already on a side of the aisle where that explanation is resorted to far too often, if I remember accurately Reverend Robertson claimed something of the sort when Katrina hit New Orleans. I hope all is well. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Nice answers, Ron and Bob. One is pragmatic, the other is gut feeling. In the end, all we really have is our logic and gut feeling when it comes to predicting exactly HOW a person will actually perform. I mean, who would have thought initially that GW would have let pass so many spending bills? It just didn't fit the conservative image. Another good reply, by Mysteria, although they are all good laws, nothing there is really earth-shaking, at least to me. They seem to reinforce humanitarian laws, which is a good thing, especially in murder-ridden Chicago lately. It did, however, look rather similar to the Democratic Underground flyer being passed around. Mike: I'm not going to predict some great and horrible tragedy IF Obama wins. Vegas now puts the odds at 5-1 FOR Obama. It's a done deal now barring some international tragic incident. Better get used to it: Obama/Biden will be our next Presidential Team. My prediction will be 8 pt voting spread, by Obama. Bob, I did hear the tape. I also heard a slick politician glossing over very liberal concepts hoping that the public will be impressed by the rhetoric without knowing the substance. Unfortunately, some of us DO know what he was referring to. That's why the McCain election camp - is so riled up about it. It will just go over the voter's heads. It's the kind of answer that only political junkies will know what the h*ll he meant. He was indicating how he thought reparations wouldn't be enough for civil rights adjustments; how the Constitution shouldn't stymie far-thinking ideas by their legal constraits. And he brought up that idea again: wealth redistribution. Those are vote killers for him. Negative freedoms are code-words for certain Marxist beliefs. I only bring this up because it has been a topic of conversation lately. Government granted freedoms (as opposed to God-granted freedoms) is another hallmark of Socialism. It would take much more to be a Socialist, to be sure. But to hear both of these ideas put together in one speech kind of shoots Obama's ducks out of the water when refuting that he doesn't at least harbor SOME Government-First Socialist beliefs. That yoke will be the hardest obstacle to overcome, I believe, in the election: even harder to overcome than race will. Many thanks to y'all for the sharp-witted answers. Well done! Jeff |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Threadbear, I don't buy the Marxist stuff. I know you would like me to buy the Marxist stuff, but I don't. First of all, I am a lot further Left than Obama and I am not Marxist. Second, Marxism is a method of thinking. Third, there's not a Republican in the world that isn't in favor of redistribution of wealth so long as it's on their own terms and it is upward. The past eight years have involved a massive redistribution of wealth upward, much of it at the expense of those with less wealth. I suggest that allowing the banks and credit companies more leeway in their interest rates and fees alone has caused a lot of redistribution upward. Tightening of bankruptcy laws at the same time is another example. Loosening of environmental regulation on heavy metals and other pollutants may have saved industries the cost of clean-up, which might have been substantive, but the cost to the health of the public has not yet been determined. Odds are it won't be cheap. Republicans are in favor of this sort of wealth redistribution, if we are to judge by their voting records. They are at war with the middle class and the poor, while at the same time being the first to croak "Class warfare!" at the least sign of upset from the left. At this particular point in history they have managed to revoke the laws which forbid the use of the U.S. army against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil to enforce the law under federal authority. When forced to repeal this legislation, President Bush issued one of his famous signing statements which said essentially, "Maybe I'm signing this, but I don't really mean it." The recent bank bail-out measures were voted upon under threat of the declaration — reported by congressmen in their speeches before the house — that if they didn't vote for the bail-out martial law would be declared. It is not simply money that is being re-distributed upward here. It is power as well. I have said elsewhere and I will say again here that we are looking at a quarrel between two different views of America here, neither of which should win. One is the Welfare State. The other is The Security State. Right now were are dangerously close to living in a Security State, which governs by repression and by concentration of wealth and power upwards. People generally know about the stifling of initiative that comes from The Welfare State. I don't advocate that, but then we aren't in danger of that right now either. Worrying about the Yoke of Government at this point, however, seems funny to me at a point when we've allowed so many of our protections to be blandly given away to the government over the past eight years. When the government is able to listen in to our phone-calls pretty much at will under the pretense of National Security, even our most private phone calls. When troops may be used for law enforcement duties within the country that were illegal eight years ago, and where the President can say that he's revoked that law and then sign a statement saying he doesn't really mean that. And still have those troops assigned where they were before with orders unchanged. Where agents of the government can board buses and demand to see everybody's papers. I can remember a time when you could travel in the United States without having to carry a picture I.D. — certainly if you did so by bus. After the most massive give-away of liberties that I can think of in world history, the Right is now worried what will happen when the center comes to power. This government and this Republican party is so far to the right that a Republican Lite like Obama actually looks like a dangerous Left wing radical. This Republican party actually believes its own propaganda and can't identify somebody that pretty much everybody in the rest of the world can identify as middle of the road. This Republican Party looks on the spectrum of Politics as a bird with one wing and only half a body. It's right hand doesn't believe it has a left hand. It has declared war upon half its own body politic. Having pursued policies in this fashion except for an eight year hiatus for Bill Clinton since 1980, it is very worried about what might happen if the power shifts more toward the center. I am still worried whether anybody will have the courage to give up the potential power that the Republicans have been busy gathering since 1980, and the civil liberties that have been eroding since that time may be very difficult to re-acquire. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"They are at was with the middle class and poor"..what incredible malarky that is, Bob, and I'm sure you know it. Of course I suppose that if being at was with the poor means trying to get them to get out and work for a living instead of sitting home while the government checks and food stamps keep rolling in, I suppose you are right. If being at was with them means being against the "distribution of wealth" Obama favors which takes money from the wage-earners and gives it to the non-wage earners, I suppose you are right again. when we've allowed so many of our protections to be blandly given away to the government over the past eight years. If my count is correct, that's the 14th time you have used "the past eight years". Sure, I keep track. What else do I have to do with my life? I'm interested in seeing what the record you set will be.Speaking of these "protections" we have given away, I think it's time for another cartoon from those Aussies, who don't really know much about American politics....  |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Well, Bob, one flaw with your whole argument on redistribution of wealth to the wealthy: there is none. If they are taxed at a lower tax rate, then they get to KEEP WHAT THEY ALREADY EARNED. Why is it that the farther left people are, the harder it is for them to understand that this was THEIR MONEY to begin with. How can you say: 'redistribute' money that is already theirs and never left their bank account BACK to the wealthy?? If you want to talk about 'sliding tax' brackets, that is a different story. The government did not to prop up those huge CEO salaries. It was each companies Board of Director's fault that they paid rockstar salaries for short term CEO's. By the way, if you DO believe that keeping more of their own money is redistribution of wealth back to the wealthy, then, sorry to say, you are advocating a Marxist philosophy, and a pretty basic one at that. Jeff |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
You still aren't sourcing your funny Aussie cartoons, Mike, even though I've asked you to. Even though Ron should probably be asking you to, unless I misunderstand copyright even more than I do already. I would also like to see some more of this guy's work, because he's funny. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Hey, Bob, or Ron, or whomever knows: SHOULD we source graphics or quotes? Sure don't want to get into copyright infringement, although someone would have to prove a profit motive to win a lawsuit, I believe. -------------------------------- Also wanted to address Bob's subtopic of the loss of civil liberties. I am an unabashed Independent, leaning toward Libertarian. I have a few more conservative views than liberal ones, but I do cross fields at times, and that makes me a political pariah. So when I write opinion, it will assuredly take into account both viewpoints since I look at both constantly and am not sold on the Party System anyway. People have talked about the failures of government, but I think the BIGGEST one is overreach by Government, and the Two-Party System. The government is not God, and I am sure I could live just fine, thank you, without their involvement in my life. Fix my roads is about all i ask of them! LOL (or expect) Now, the real point (after that meandering, sorry.) You bemoan our civil liberties loss, but it WAS and IS necessary. Times change. Been to Europe lately? Their security system is tremendously more stringent than ours, and has been for many a moon. We just had some catching up to do. Believe me, if another jerk committed another 9-11 you would be in line with millions bemoaning the lack of airport security (which still ain't up to snuff, according to several media outlets who have tested it with their own reporters carrying banned objects.) If the wireless wiretaps were REALLY an issue, don't you think the Huffington Post or KOS or whomever, would be trumpeting the horrible examples? Sure they would. But they've been few and very far between. The last abuse I heard of in the news was nearly a year ago. Government has two functions, as far as I am concerned and ONLY two: 1) provide freedom within the country 2) provide a national defense. State govt has an obligation for local schools and roads. That's it. Everything else is nonconstitutional and nonbinding, even the Income Tax which is nowhere in the Bill of Rights or Constitution. It's a voluntary tax, with penalties. If you can figure that one out, please let me know! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Threadbear, You can afford a house, I cannot. The money that you should be paying in taxes to support our mutual enterprise is returned in large part to you because you can afford to buy the house. You may in fact be paying less money than I am on a monthly basis but because my costs are higher I must live in a more run down, more dangerous part of the city, where the grocery costs are higher and where my children's education will be poorer. I may in fact be working more hours per week than you do to earn my money. Your lifestyle is subsidized by the government to help it maintain a level of luxury. My lifestyle is or may be subsidized by the government to prevent me from being a potentially large drain on the economy in case I lose my job. The larger the corporate entity either of us work for, the more likely it will have some sort of governmental support, for example, an auto maker or a petrochemical company or a defense industry of some sort, especially in wartime. It's possible that these industries or companies will get in trouble, but the larger they get the easier it is for them to bend governmental policy in their direction. The more money you or I have, the more easily we can afford to have people who will make sure that our annual tax bite is minimal. Given what V.P. Cheney makes in total per year, do you really think he pays anything like the full bite on it? Do you think there are a lot of folks percentage-wise in that bracket who do? In the case of drug research, how much of the drug research do you think is actually original drug research funded by the companies exclusively and how much of it is funded by government grants to university scientists working at University affiliated and hospital affiliated labs, paid for by you and me? What do you call the Government allowing the drug companies to set their own prices in dealing with the new elder care drug benefits when in the VA drug companies must bid for the right to sell those drugs to the government at the best possible prices? That sounds like corporate welfare to me Threadbear. Your dough supporting the lifestyles of the rich and infamous. When I have to fill out my income taxes, there aren't a lot of deductions I can take. The more money I have, the more deductions are possible. At the bottom of the heap, there's only the standard deduction, and a lot of people don't know enough to know they can often do better to itemize. The government takes advantage of those folks because it can. Toward the top of the heap, the government spent years paying people not to grow things. Man those folks had it rough. They sure earned every penny they didn't make. But enough of this for now. Nonsense it was their money. They had the power to make sure the tax code got written the way it was, and they did it. There's nothing righteous about it. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
By the way, as a writer, I want my work to be cited with credit given to me for having written it and to the publication in which it appeared for having published it. If I allow it to appear without the citation, I may be in danger of losing control of it, I believe. There's also the matter of moral responsibility of making sure that you are not taking credit for somebody else's work, and that somebody else's work gets the credit it deserves when you use it. I think that is at least as important as the money issues involves. Then there are the potential money issues involved. It is intellectual property. If you take somebody else's property without permission, what's that boil down to? That's my take on the matter. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I did list the source, Bob. It's here.... /pip/Forum6/HTML/001743-2.html |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Thanks, Mike, I appreciate that. I do enjoy the cartoons and I think Mr. Ramirez's wit is biting and worthy. Thank you for bringing him up. I'll be looking for his stuff on my own. All my best, Bob Kaven |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Man, I'll be honest with you, Bob, on your last post. It gave me a headache, bigtime. It went everywhere at once, and nowhere in particular (humming Chuck Berry's 'No Particular Place to Go.) This is not a cricitism; i just need some summary statement. You kept saying 'you', and I didn't really know if you meant me, or some other 2nd person anonymous. Just about all your assumptions about me were incorrect, if that was the gist. The company I worked for was very heavily regulated, with both state and federally mandated tax rates. Our beloved government totally illegally even went so far as to break up my company into smaller entities and the country is much worse off and farther behind in years in technology because of it. (that's a different story for another day) Your statements that they didn't earn the money they made is, in my opinion, is not very accurate. To say all the big companies don't earn their money, or should be disparaged or envied into some sort of private guilt is really reaching into some kind of extended hyperbole based on a false premise. "Nonsense, it was their money." you wrote. Wait a minute, they earned it! Even with your premise, they will earn 100% of their money thru sale of goods or services UNTIL the government decides WHICH percentage (hi,low,moderate) to deduct from their gross profits. It simply becomes a shell-game of what number they chose. Irregardless, unless you are accusing all companies of overcharging, they earned the gross monetary amount. I can't even begin to tell you how hard I had to work, how many jobs I had to work simultaneously, or refused government assistance when I could have taken a free check. I was 40 before I bought my first new car, and it was a Saturn. Still have it! LOL There's a great verse from the Charlie Daniels Band that has sort of been my personal motto: "I ain't asking nobody for nothing If I can't get it on my own. If you don't like the way I'm livin' You just leave this long-haired country boy alone." Guess what I am saying is: please don't make the false assumption that everyone (or even 'most') rich people didn't earn their money. Yeah, I have my own business, but 99% of the people wouldn't have worked half as hard to get there or put in the hours. I'm not a big fan of the word 'fair' when it comes to 'fair shares.' What's fair to someone who envies my wealth asking for their 'fair share' of it is far different than what 'fair share' means to me - who knows what it took to get there in b,s,& tears. If you make the argument: but their NEED is greater! Be careful, that's the chief tenet of Marxist philosophy. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." -Karl Marx or as Wikipedia interprets the above statement: "every person should contribute to society to the best of their ability and consume from society in proportion to their needs, regardless of how much they have contributed." Nothing would annoy me more, seriously, than some able bodied person, not working, coming up to me and telling me I didn't pay enough, and they want their fair share of my income! You see, to me, THAT would be theft. I couldn't even write the word: GRR with enough R's! Do you understand where I'm coming from, Bob? Much obliged for your thoughts, ThreadBear |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
threadbear, I hear you. quote: Many Americans are contributing to that mentality by allowing those able bodied adults to still live at home at the age of 30+ to play video games. So we have some on top of the hill who are playing benefactor to those I've affectionately nicknamed "the people under the stairs." My daughter calls them losers, she's 20 and having a hard time finding a date/boyfriend that's working and trying to make his own way too. She says so many young men are perfectly happy still living at home, taking money from mom and dad to take out a date!! I wonder if this could be a factor in why so many Americans are having a tough time making it if they are still raising their adult children, and possibly their grandchildren, too. I don't know. I'm sure there are exceptions because it is tough to make it, but while I was in college, most of my fellow students still lived at home. At least they were trying to better themselves, but some resented "having to be in class" because their parents made them come or they'd take away their car. These students were 2O+ years old! |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
I hate to be such a stickler for honesty, but isn't ACORN the same as this? Here are a group of people advocating that we, the working, should BUY HOUSES for the poor! When will it stop?! When every last dime has been removed from the corporation and tax payers pocket? It used to be Affirmative Action was used to find jobs. Heck, now folks just openly DEMAND that you pay for their lifestyle. Has anyone contemplated the effect that the huge Hispanic contingent could have if THEY demand Affirmative-Action for their group? It could, and probably WILL happen, soon. Now you have people demanding a tax rebate when they don't pay any taxes, health care free, and housing that they can't pay for. If that's not Marxist philosophy, I don't what it is then. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Matthew 25:40 |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
John 12:8 Jesus: You always have the poor with you. saying there will be poor, always. It's a fact of life. We can't legislate this fact of life away. We can help them, but we can't fix the poor. We also can't help them if they don't seek their own way out either. The line between 'enabling someone detrimentily' and 'helping someone' is a thin one. Some people say it's too much others say it's too little. Helping is still helping, and the amount of the help shouldn't be dictated by ANY government. Jeff [This message has been edited by threadbear (10-30-2008 03:16 PM).] |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Just so you know, Jeff, I didn't say a word. It's not me you're arguing with, it's Jesus who spoke the words in Matthew 25:40 So erase my name in your post and type in Jesus instead. I wonder what His response might be... Matthew 6:1-4 1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. [This message has been edited by JenniferMaxwell (10-30-2008 02:38 PM).] |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
That's cool, Jennifer, but I won't even presume to know what Jesus would say to me. That would be blasphemy, pure and simple. But I do know what my priest would say: you tried, Jeff, to make a difference. That's all anyone can ask of people with the power to help. It's high time the Left got off their high horse about the 'Rich.' That's what my post was all about. The well-off aren't the demons Liberals profess they are in EVERY speech I hear nowadays. It's sickening, wrong, and totally ignores their silent charity. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Obama gave a speech in Florida last night and, after the speech, some members of the audience were asked questions. When one black lady was asked why she was for Obama, she said, very happily, that she wouldn't have to pay mortgage payments or car payments any more. This was broadcast on tv!!! Hopefully a lot of people saw it..... |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Oh Mike.. like if a lot of people saw it, then that would make it true...sigh, and with some careful editing...who knows? I bought that with the same grain of salt I...nevermind. But wow, a two-for-one deal with one grain of salt. That should help the economy! But speaking of salt? I came upon your mention of that accidentally... since we're painting such a great big canvas with such broadstrokes--all this scripture quoting stirred a little tempest in my little pot head. (  )If we refuse to follow the lead of our legacy from our founding fathers regarding seperation of church and state--can we just get rid of the word "taxes" and call it "tithing"?  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
wow...the thing is broadcast for all to see and you suggest editing. I'm amazed at the lengths people will go to in order to not believe what they see. Ok, I give and you win. This liberal press, which is so one-sided toward Obama the entire country is aware of it, takes interviews and go into the back room, edit them, and then go out and release them for public viewing, detrimental to Obama. The only thing you show with such a comment, serenity gal, is that reason and logic have no place in this election. Facts are unimportant and people are so close-minded that even news reports are doctored if they portray something a particular side doesn't want to believe. Go Obama. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Threadbear, I don't know you. I didn't know you actually had a house. I didn't know you had a business. Further, you don't know me. While I don't have a house now, I have had and will probably have one again. I could as well have turned the examples around, and probably should have to avoid the chance of stepping on toes, which was not my intention. You are apparently making assumptions about how I feel about the rich and their charity or lack of it. I know rich folks who are charitable and deft enough about it so that most other folks know nothing about it. Most of them have very little complaint to make about the poor and less fortunate because their viewpoint is more complex about the economic and social situation. Usually they're pretty modest about how hard they've worked as well, even though I know how difficult things have been for them on occasion. Usually they love the work they do. At least the folks that I know. They're about evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, by the way. I'm not a Christian, but all these folks whether they are Christian or not seem to do naturally what the Christians call Bearing Witness to something kind and decent in human nature. This doesn't mean they aren't human and can't be jerks on occasion; I'm not talking about saints. I have limited sympathy for the rich because they're rich in the same way that the poor have no inherent nobility because of their poverty. But to the poor I have an additional obligation. While the poor may always be with us, I suspect that Jesus didn't mean that since they would always be there, you were free to treat them however you wanted. Or even that treating them with other than respect all right. In this country, we are lucky enough to be able to say we have government programs that can be something of a help in our individual efforts to help the poor and the disadvantaged. I can't say how well you are doing in your individual efforts to help the poor. I won't ask you. I won't talk about my own. But I can say that our governmental efforts to help the poor are beset with quarrels that our charity is too great at a time when children and single mothers and disable folks and people who are out of work are going to bed hungry, and cannot pay for medical care and cannot pay for medication. We know from studies of poverty that the number of people who require government help varies with the state of the economy, but we still persist in blaming the people who are out of work or ill or children or disabled for the situations that we know will tend to improve as the economy improves. This assumption makes us feel better for not helping them out, it makes us feel self-righteous. This is very unattractive. Do I have anything against the rich? Not actually. I do have considerable against those who got rich and forgot what it was like to be poor. I think that those who think they did it by themselves probably got their educations from somebody else's schools and drove to their jobs on somebody else's highways, and attended colleges where many of the places weren't paid for by tax dollars, and used bridges that were privately built, and used computers and phones that weren't in part paid for by federal defense financing and didn't use drugs paid for in part by people who got science grants from Federal programs and whose research that was federally funded, and didn't eat food that was safe by federal standards and weren't using electricity that didn't come from Federal dam and rural electrification projects. Many of these people live in places where life wouldn't be possible without government subsidy of water projects. We haven't even gotten into the military, mind you. And when these projects aren't funded properly, sometimes big things go wrong. The people who make the most money are the ones who frequently draw the most on these resources, public resources. There is nothing wrong with that. The pretense that it was all done by one's self, however, is an illusion, and a damaging one at that. To be rich is, as the chinese say, glorious. To lose perspective, however, not so much. This has nothing to do with Marx, it has to do with remaining a part of society as a person among people. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I didn't say it was edited, Mike. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, I didn’t see it - have you got a link? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
It wasn't on the internet, Grinch. It was on the local news. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Karen, no, you didn't. You said "and with some careful editing...who knows?", which leaves enough wiggle room to be able to say you didn't say it was edited. When I said I hope a lot of people saw it, I didn't mean that a lot of people seeing it would make it true. What I meant was that I hope a lot of people could see exactly what some poor and blacks feel that Obama is promising them by his "spreading the wealth" comments and what they expect if he is elected. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, What network of the local liberal news? Might that have been the local Fox affiliate of the Liberal news channels, Mike. It's not like you watch a wide spectrum of local Liberal news sources, is it? Perhaps PBS? Or CSPAN? CNBC? BBC? ABC? CBS? How many of these guys do you pay attention to on a regular basis? And if it were such a great story, perhaps there's another channel that's running follow up? If you could find such a thing, it'd be really fascinating to see what your idea of balanced news is. Oh, By the way, the idiot who had the effigy of Sarah Palin up here in Hollywood was pretty much in the news for days, and deputies took it down. Apparently they thought it was simply too much of an incitement and they were generally disgusted with the guy. I can hardly wait to hear how you manage to account for the negative press the idiot got from the "Liberal media." Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, just as you told Tbear how he really doesn't know that much about you, let me make it as equally clear you don't know that much about my private life, either. For example, you have no idea what I watch on television and to claim it is "not like me" to watch mainstream news programs is making an assumption with no basis in fact. While it is true I watch fox news to get realistic political coverage, fox doesn't carry our local news as the mainstream stations do and perhaps you may not find it that hard to believe that I like to know what's happening locally, too. I actually watch every news station you mentioned in your testy reply, even if you find that shocking to learn. For the record, in case it ever comes up, I also watch American Idol, dancing with the Stars and Boston Legal. As far as my idea of "balanced news", it was simply a taped segment of a question asked a lady at the rally. That's it, as simple as that. Try to turn it into what you want, or build any conspiracy around it you may, but it remains a 10 second clip presented on the news and nothing more. It's encouraging to learn that your press was "generally disgusted" with the idiot and the Palin hanging in effigy. That's really big of them to show such emotion. Would they also have been "generally disgusted" if it had been a dummy of Obama or would it have been front page news, lead-in to every news program,spawning editorials of the evil right-wingers and the despicable tactics they use, and playing the race card. Would they have opined that it could have been a republican-endorsed action, and would the occupant of the house have his entire history gone over with a fine-tooth comb - you know, employment records, financial records, tax returns. medical history, interviews with neighbors, family members, and old high school teachers - sort of like all of the things they have done with Joe the plumber? I mentioned the action here and you are the only person to reference it, probably because you live in the area. How many of our upstanding democrats or Obama-supporters here would have posted and shown outrage if it had been a hanging Obama? The answer would be ALL. But it was only Sarah Palin. so let's disregard it here, allow the local media there to be "generally disgusted" and forget the whole thing. The police there said they can't report it as a "hate crime" because hate crimes only deal with minorities. So...hate the white or the woman, hang them with a noose from your house and you are home free in that wonderful state. As far as OUR wonderful local news coverage, it barely got a mention....not surprising to anyone here. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
"wiggle room"??? *smiling serenely* I knew a room like that once. It was covered in plastic, vinyl, and rubber...  My implication was, and I certainly should have been clearer, was that I took that moment with a grain of salt because, in living up to my Karenoid name, I thought it was staged. I also thought the previous moment of decency by McCain was staged, but this one did come off a bit better, I admit. My first thought when I saw that, was "Let's Make a Deal"...I figured she'd been paid. Forgive my cynicism regarding tv. And yeah, my cynicism swings both ways. I don't think it was "sandbagging" to ask Joe Biden the Marxist question--but I thought he handled that okay. If you are watching folks on tv? KNOW that they are wearing make-up. Every thing you see is orchestrated. Call me Karenoid, but y'ever notice that you very seldom see three red shirts in a row in the audience? (That's cause it is BAD TV.) And yes, even "Oprah" asks her audience attendees to refrain from wearing white. Bad for the lighting. If I can admit that twenty thou for two weeks of McMakeup is money wisely spent? It's 'cause the man did not look ALIVE. it's tv. tv. and my ellipses..."for future editing" was meant precisely as that. Sound bytes, buzz words, all nasty nasty politics, put together in snarky little pundit clips that do indeed make me laugh sometimes, but I consider them as entertainment, and NOT NEWS. And I don't care if anyone's pom poms are blue or red. It's carefully crafted visually misleading malarkey. And that clip didn't get airplay, because it is embarrassing (and a fatuous backfire) when the obvious ploy doesn't work. The only way that could have been more obvious was if the woman was fanning herself with hundred dollar bills in front of Monty Hall. JMHO I could be wrong. It's been known to happen. But in the meantime, allow me to have my say without taking it as personal injury, or some disloyalty to friendship or even country. Let my opinion stand. It's just my opinion based on observation. It is not a personal attack on anyone. PEACE |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
