Polls
Login
RSS Feed: Local News
RSS Feed: Sports
RSS Feed: Voice
| Obama's moving message |
|
|
| Written by Samina Masood, for the Tracy Press | |
| Tuesday, 19 August 2008 | |
|
Barack Obama's campaign success has come because he moves people's hearts as well as their minds. There is a story of a former British prime minister who rose out of nowhere some decades ago and just as quickly receded from public memory. The BBC said of John Majors that, until yesterday, nobody knew who John Majors was; today, the whole world doesn’t know who John Major is. These days, we are in the midst of the opposite in the American political process. Tracy, too, is getting prepared to vote this November in an election that has seen more involvement by everyday people than in many decades. Not only do most Americans know who Sen. Barrack Hussain Obama is, many of them are willing to go out on a limb for him, from retired people living on welfare to the wealthy doling out money and support for such a young candidate. Politics is a very partial business. You either vote for a candidate or you don’t. Politicians come and go. Once you are no longer in the spotlight, you cease to exist, except in the archives or when your date of birth is the answer to a history test an eighth-grader is forced to memorize. Some presidents, however, are remembered long after they are gone. The difference lies in whether you are a presidential candidate versus a public figure who has moved the masses. Obama is much more than a presidential candidate. He is a figure who has touched people’s psyche. He has connected with his audience. A few key figures before him did the same, with President John F. Kennedy being one example. Politicians typically make the same speeches over and over, while historical figures move people at an emotive level. At a time when the whole country has been divided over issues of war and politics, Obama’s message seems to be one that invites those frustrated with the status quo to hope for change. His message has moved those who had slumped into inactive hopelessness into a state of animation where they believe they still have the power to change the course of politics. Hope becomes a precious commodity when prices are rising, young soldiers are dying and the economy is on the brink of a recession. Obama has promised change, and people are counting on it. Some years ago, Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards talked to people in need of help and promised to deliver. The contrast between Kerry and Obama is one of personality. While Kerry appealed to his supporters via their brains, Obama has gone a step further. He has won the hearts of his supporters. He has done at a blanket level what a therapist does for a hopeless and depressed client in the privacy of an office. He has brought the Freudian couch out on the stage and exposed where the pain lies. Pain lies in not having health care, not having enough food on the table, losing a child in war and losing a home to a corporate America in which the underprivileged seem to have little advocacy. Obama has made people feel that he feels their pain, that no matter how bad things are right now, they should not lose hope, that change is possible, that he wants to help. When a candidate shows this amount of empathy, you can rest assured people will respond. And they have responded, with money and the power of the vote. It is that power that will bring Obama to the White House. By my calculation, long after he has left the corridors of power, he will be remembered not just for being the first black president, but for being a force in history who made such a change possible. • Samina Masood is a two-year resident of Tracy and a member of Tracy for Obama.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 1099 Trackback(0)
Comments
(98)
 written by JonnoB , August 20, 2008
I fear the change that an Obama presidency would bring about. He is a very articulate orator but that trait does not make him a good choice for president. I feel he will bow to the socialist pressure of his far left part of the party and bend to pressure from world pressure that is not in the interest of a strong America. I want our president to have an agenda of doing what is best for America and not what is best for the whole world. In spite of our intentions of being good and fair to the world, we must make sure we take care of our own first. His stance against nuclear and more drilling for example tells me he cares less about the energy needs of our country and the possibility of being energy independant than he does about being the whipping boy of the eco-nazis.
 written by mark j , August 20, 2008
Good day to print a letter from another of Barack(the pied piper)Obamas delusional followers. McCain is up on Obama by 5 points in a recent Reuters/Zogby poll. I think people are starting to realize Obama is not the messiah that he seems to think he is. His little slants to the middle on a number of subjects, for example off shore drilling, are a ruse to get him elected. If he gets in I am sure he will go back to his far left roots.
 written by timcase , August 20, 2008
Unfortunately, Samina Masood has fallen prey to Obama's eloquent speaking technique and is blind to who the real Barack Hussein Obama is. Since Obama has NEVER been specific on any points of his agenda, folks get duped by his slick talk.
He preys on peoples hatred for George W Bush which is largely due to the majority of the very left media journalists who very much despise President Bush. They buy the Obama propaganda perpetrated by this same media. Why did Obama associate himself with Jeremiah Wright, one of America's biggest bigots? Why does Obama love the Malcolm X agenda? Why is Obama against America becoming energy dependent? Why does Obama promote a "One World Order"? Why was Obama a paid street agitater under the guise of a street "organizer" for 12 years? Why won't he debate McCain in an open forum agenda? Why is he stalling debating McCain? Could it be Obama is simply an "empty suit" when it comes to foreign policy and real American economics. He may be a smart man, but intelligent in the wrong direction of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Tim MIchael Case  written by Lester1 , August 20, 2008
The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, nothing but abstract empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.
Thank heaven that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no need of a phony savior.  written by lukeSKYwalker , August 20, 2008
As an 18 year old teen I see all my peers in love with obama, and I try to talk to them about it and found that no one really knows why they like him, they dont know any of his concrete points or stances on any subject that they like, i guess they just like the way he can move a crowd. So I am happy to see this and reassure me that I am making the right choice, as I have always(always meaning mabey 3 years) been a republican. He talks about cutting our military budget when half the world hates us.. I'm young but I dont understand some of the stuff the american public belives because of CNN
 written by Dave Hardesty , August 20, 2008
I have always felt a person's character can often be illuminated by his or her family members and how they are treated by a person of some international importance like Obama.
I don't know the authenticity of the story and am waiting for more but I found this particular article to be interesting. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...Kenya.html Normally most people live lives apart from their relatives and don't really have all that much to do with them in many circumstances. However, assuming the article to be true, to have a half brother living on a dollar a month in a two by three meter shack seems a little odd when compared to the affluence of his older brother. Particularly if that older brother claims to be a good Christian. It would seem a fairly easy task for his older and more affluent brother to easily up that income from $12 per year to at least $1,200 per year. But apparently this has been going on since at least 2006 when they last met and he still lives in abject poverty. So let me ask, Barack Hussein Obama is a man whose hands we are actually considering placing the lives of the Citizens of the US into for safe keeping? Simply Amazing! Dave Hardesty written by Dave Hardesty , August 20, 2008
Senator Obama
Since you claim the mantel of Christianity for yourself, please explain to the world what you believe Christ was saying in the following scriptures. Matthew 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Matthew 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. Dave Hardesty  written by MarkDavis , August 20, 2008
Since several people claim that Obama has not been specific about policy issues, here is his policy book:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf...Change.pdf So do you think his STOP FRAUD act is less or more specific than his idea of CTVCF? Or is strengthening the NNPT more or less specific than his commitment to NATO? written by mark j , August 20, 2008
lukeSKYwalker, Good for you. I have no proof but my hunch is most of the people your age that are voting for the pied piper are doing so because they think its cool. I have news for them, its not cool to blindly vote for someone because you have been deluded by his empty rhetoric. I've said before and this is just my gut feeling, Obama is a DANGER to this country. Keep him and Michelle out of the White House and find a way to get rid of Pelosi and we will be alright.
written by timcase , August 20, 2008
The policy issues Mark Davis refers to is a map to better than 60% possibly 75% tax rate for average middle income families. Read it! It talks about a pay as you go system but the "pay" part is NEVER defined. It is basically a piece of propaganda put forth by a well spoken tried and true Socialist. Karl Marx and Lenin philosophies are in tact in his doctrine or should we call it diatribe. Read it!
Absolutely NO specifics on how to pay for his pie in the sky programs. Written for those who hate capitalism and firmly believe in the redistribution of wealth. Government controlled programs from start to finish. Once again, read it! He talks about bipartisanship like he knows what it is. In fact, he has been one of the most polarizing figures in Congress. He has NEVER sought bipartisanship. Obama is the "real thing". He really does hate the capitalist system. He preys on the uneducated, ignorant folks who do not study the issues. Those who do study the issues and agree with this guy are also capitalist haters and strong believers in the redistribution of wealth. It is obvious in this book. Read it! Tim Michael Case written by timcase , August 20, 2008
To Dave Hardesty:
Thanks for the link to the article on Barack Hussein Obama's half brother. I think of the quote from Matthew he so very humbly used on the interview Saturday night. I guess it does NOT apply to him. This guy wants to be the world's big brother with his "one world order" speech in Germany but just look at the lack of treatment he has given to his very own half brother. Barack Hussein Obama has absolutely no shame. His arrogance is astounding! Thanks Dave, Tim Michael Case written by MarkDavis , August 20, 2008
Here's an actual comparison (free from the TMC propaganda) of the tax changes:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...00950.html In terms of details, how the McCain tax cuts will work while we are mired in a massive budget deficit is very questionable. written by MarkDavis , August 20, 2008
For those who like direct information injections concerning TMC's lies:
 written by timcase , August 20, 2008
To Mark Davis:
You are NOT addressing the Obama pamphlet you so ardently push! written by MarkDavis , August 20, 2008
TMC: I was pushing nothing, but I am now addressing your claim:
The policy issues Mark Davis refers to is a map to better than 60% possibly 75% tax rate for average middle income families. Read it! That claim appears to be absolutely incorrect according to several different sources. Here is another resource (and there are many more): http://www.suntimes.com/news/p...30.article written by Lester1 , August 21, 2008
The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that under Obama's plan middle-income taxpayers would see their after-tax income rise by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. "Those in the top 1 percent would face a $19,000, or 1.5 percent, reduction in after-tax income," the center concluded in an analysis issued this week.
written by Lester1 , August 21, 2008
I find these numbers from the Washington post very suspicious and doubtful. The posts seems to have forgotten the social security tax increase that obama wants. I wonder what the tax increase will be to pay for the health care for all the illegals?
written by mark j , August 21, 2008
Considering that many of the statistics, figures, comparisons, etc. that are presented on these forums are taken from far left news organizations I would say look at them with a leery eye. The Daily Kos, New York Times, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Move On.Org, are all far left, and I mean FAR LEFT, news outlets. I actually consider George Soros to be an anarchist right along with Obamas buddy the Reverend Wright.
written by MarkDavis , August 21, 2008
MJ: Having nothing factual to argue concerning, well, facts or policy, you resign yourself to shooting the messenger? Hardly the high road. I have to admit that Obama's desire to move politics out of this vicious gutter is laudable.
written by Dave Hardesty , August 21, 2008
MarkDavis
I can't say that I agree with you on your "factual" information here Mark. The source of information and how that information is presented, when considering it’s validity, is also very important. In looking at the "direct information" you have posted, and assuming it to be factual, the McCain tax policy actually looks better than what Obama is proposing. Why do I say this when 60% of the taxpayers won't receive as much of a tax cut? For one reason, even though 60% of the taxpayers won't received much of a tax cut, the people receiving the majority of the tax cut are the people who pay the majority of the taxes, from a quantitative perspective. The way your “factual direct information” is presented is intentionally misleading and is an argumentative term I label “magic with numbers.” I say this because the information presented intentionally draws the reader into an incorrect assumption about taxes, where they come from and who actually pays them. In examining the US economy one needs to be aware of who it is that provides the jobs for the remainder of the workers in our economy. Is it the 60% of the tax payers or is it those in the top 1.1% tax bracket? written by Dave Hardesty , August 21, 2008
I believe if you crunch the numbers you will find it's the top 1.1%, and those down to those in the $111K to $160K income bracket, who are supporting the majority of the tax funding in this nation. In other words, while they are the minority of taxpayers, they pay the majority of overall taxes that fund our government.
By the chart you have presented it seems to me Obama is simply pandering to the numbers of people in order to get elected and not how to properly finance and run this country. This is the old “tax the rich because they can afford it” ploy that many people buy into without thinking it all the way through. This is not to say that there isn't waste and fat that needs to be trimmed out of the Federal budget but that’s a completely different issue here. The chart does loosely indicate where the money comes from, aside from datum intentionally left out for a politically motivated public mindset steering effect. A better chart, one that you will never see from Obama and probably no other politician, would be the actual dollars that each income group actually pays into the Fed as income tax. I’ll try to find one but doubt one actually exists in publication. Now to the meat of the question to illustrate why I favor McCain’s tax policy versus Obama’s. Who supplies the preponderance of jobs for people to earn living wages to pay written by Dave Hardesty , August 21, 2008
their taxes? Is it the 60% of the American Taxpayers illustrated in the chart you provided? Or is it that 1.1% and slightly below income bracket, those down to the $111K to $160K range, that creates the jobs to employ the remaining Americans so they can pay their taxes?
The answers to these questions are very important and necessary to understand if you are considering the financial health of our nation. To me the object of financing our nation and thus providing governmental services to our citizens, which has to be paid from somewhere, is to make a more favorable business climate to enable those businesses to employ more and more people. This provides income that is spent, stimulates our economy and creates more tax dollars, via sales and income tax, that can be used to pay for government services to improve the lives of all Americans. I cannot recall one business that runs successfully if there isn't capitol provided by those who most of us consider to be wealthy to make it run. Cut into that wealth, with higher income taxes and barriers to business, and these people either close those businesses or move them to a third world nation to take advantage of a cheaper labor force, less barriers to business, in the form of lower taxes and less mandated labor health and safety laws. As a result we put 60% of American taxpayers out of work, the economy sags, finances for our government disappears and the services provided those 60% of American taxpayers disappears because of a lack of funding. Not a good thing. written by Dave Hardesty , August 21, 2008
Lower income classes of people typically do not create jobs for our people. It's the higher income classes of people who do this and it is this financial road map that has made America a great nation, instead of a poor third world nation where the esthetic and social differences between the poor and the rich are much greater than here in the US.
Even those citizens at the poverty level in the US are wealthy beyond imagination when compared to someone like Obama's half brother living on $1.00 per month in a third world African Nation. Obama's plan is nothing more than redistribution of wealth, which by definition is nothing more than socialism. Along those lines, I am interested if anyone can show me a nation that successfully is running without serious financial problems under socialism. I doubt you or anyone else can show me a successful model of working socialism. But I will say something for Obama. He’s got charisma. Oodles of it. But I am wondering how charisma without any serious logical and workable plans is going to benefit our nation? I can recall several histories where nations and people’s collapsed and failed because people were blinded by charisma and am seriously concerned that my nation may very well be doing the very same thing today. Running our nation is not like running a beauty pageant where people select the winners based on their charm, grace and poise. But that certainly seems to be the way we are written by Dave Hardesty , August 21, 2008
headed today and that does concern me, not for myself but for those who will inherit this country long after I am dead and gone.
Dave Hardesty written by Lester1 , August 21, 2008
nobamas TAX plan
Tax his land, Tax his bed, Tax the table At which he's fed. Tax his tractor, tax his mule, Teach him taxes are the rule. Tax his cow, Tax his goat, Tax his pants, Tax his coat. Tax his ties, Tax his shirt, Tax his work, Tax his dirt. Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink, Tax him if he Tries to think. Tax his cigars, Tax his beers, If he cries, then Tax his tears. Tax his car, Tax his gas, Find other ways To tax his ass Tax all he has then let him know that you won't be done till he has no dough. When he screams and hollers, Then tax him some more, Tax him till he's good and sore. Then tax his coffin, Tax his grave, Tax the sod in which he's laid. Put these words upon his tomb, "Taxes drove me to my doom..." When he's gone, Do not relax, Its time to apply The inheritance tax. Dave, very well said. written by Dave Hardesty , August 21, 2008
Ok, I am getting tired and my mind starts to wander.
"Obama's moving message?" Is this because it's all motion and nothing of substance as in continually moving around and shifting positions? I was down in SF recently and happened by the ole shell and pea game. Very interesting game to watch. There is always some chump in the crowd that thinks he can beat this game, which is why I suppose it remains so popular after centuries of use. What I really like is listening to the banter going around. Of course all of that banter is simply to distract the player. Is it here? Is it there? Where exactly is it? Does it make any real difference? Not to the winner. But it sure makes a difference to the looser now doesn't it? Pay attention folks, the real shell and pea game is only getting started and we won't really find out the results until November. Dave Hardesty written by MarkDavis , August 21, 2008
DH: Certainly, there are some worthy questions in there, but your assertion concerning socialism is purely argumentative. Progressive income tax structures are based on the realization that lower income tax payers can afford to pay less of their income proportionally. Also, the claim concerning higher income tax payers creating jobs neglects the equally compelling economics of consumption that would be provided by cuts to lower economic strata.
Finally, one of the most neglected realizations is that family income has not increased since the 1970s except among the highest income bracket. When this happens it results in social instability that can lead to protectionism and interfere with economic development. Only education and technological change are capable of changing that effect, and they come at a cost. Progressive taxation is an effective way to fund that.  written by shurban , August 22, 2008
I'm afraid I have papers to grade and lesson plans to make. However, one must see that the writer of this article was vacuous in giving us any substantive reason why we should vote for Obama. It's an entire fluff piece. Mussolini was very beloved by the Italians at the begininng of his career and promised change! My I suggest a good read to understand what I am driving at is, "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg. Truly this is a cult of personality.
 written by Ian Stewart , August 22, 2008
I think the most important point about the Obama campaign that historians will record is his consultants' effective leveraging of the Internet. Previous presidential campaigns used the Internet as a channel for disseminating propaganda and collecting donations, sure, but Obama is the first to use it for movement-building. In addition, his charisma allows him to tap into some of the same sensibilities that propel the culture surrounding celebrity gossip. Witness how he's apparently already selected a running mate, but is holding back the announcement to build anticipation. If you're a young Obama fan, you're hankering to find out what he's thinking, what the topic of his next speech will be, what position will he adopt on issue X? The important question is, how will he maintain such a dynamic movement once he's installed in the decidedly static office of the presidency?
In a way, the political sphere in general has become a more erudite version of celebrity culture. It's not necessarily about the issues directly affecting American society, but what issues the important political figures choose to focus on. Call me cynical, but I'm far more interested in finding out whether or not Lindsay Lohan is really a lesbian. written by MarkDavis , August 22, 2008
For SH: I read a bit of JG's book every now and then while standing in Barnes and Noble (actually I did just an hour ago). But what I love most is how conservative intellectuals shred it for being ridiculously bad:
http://amconmag.com/article/2008/jan/28/00028/ Some nice quotes: The idea that liberals suffer from a “totalitarian temptation” is in any case without merit. To begin with, far from discerning liberalism’s telos, Goldberg does not even describe it correctly. Liberal Fascism completes Goldberg’s transformation from chipper humorist into humorless ideologue It does not speak well of Goldberg that, by his own admission, he wrote his first book not to enlighten but to exact revenge. written by lukeSKYwalker , August 22, 2008
ha back and forth... well bottom line I am an air force scholarship winner, thus I want and am passionate about the air force, and obamas polices (that I am not sure on cause it seems to change sometimes) scares me. I understand the situation we are in and I know it is a lose-lose situation but we can lose ALOT more one way then the other. I think of it more as damage control, which candidate will cause less damage?
Luke Walker written by Dave Hardesty , August 22, 2008
MarkDavis
"Finally, one of the most neglected realizations is that family income has not increased since the 1970s except among the highest income bracket. When this happens it results in social instability that can lead to protectionism and interfere with economic development. Only education and technological change are capable of changing that effect, and they come at a cost. Progressive taxation is an effective way to fund that." I respectfully disagree. I started my family in the early 70s, worked my way through the ranks, put myself through higher education on my own dime, and have dramatically increased my income over the years. Furthermore I know hundreds of other people who have done the same. Now if you sit around all day watching Captain Kangaroo playing solitaire till dawn with a deck of 51 then I suppose you are correct in your statement.  The point is that it takes drive and perseverance to succeed and if you are waiting for a free hand out from social services to give you all of these things you will be waiting for your entire life. And sorry, I never accepted the idea of progressive taxsation in a society that claims that all men are created equal and should be treated as such. Taxing the rich more than you tax anyone else isn't progressive, it's a redistribution of the wealth to those who have not worked for it and that is socialism. Sorry. Dave Hardesty written by JonnoB , August 22, 2008
Like many others, I started off after high school as a minimum wage barely able to eat person. I worked two jobs and put myself through college and later, through graduate school. During that same time, I got married and started a family. I did not get any favors from the government although I probably qualified. I did not believe that I should be handed anything and realized early on that hard work is what would get me to where I am today. I knew that my dream of playing in the NFL and making a big check was just not in the genetic cards for me so I worked on things I could change... my ability to mentally contribute to society through education and later, as an engineer building things that makes peoples lives and businesses run better.
There is nothing that is preventing anyone else from doing what I did. All the while, I paid a tenth of my income to my church as a tithe. That was a measly couple of bucks back then, but I continue to do the same today which is significant. I actually contribute a significantly larger portion of my income to other charities now because I can afford to. If the government taxed me less, I could do even more. Now, I have to ask the socialist leaning individuals... why should my hard work and personal gain as a result of that hard work be taxed at a greater percentage? A flat tax across the board makes sense as I would contribute more as I make more. I know some people are in situations beyond their control financially, but in most cases people have become too dependant on outside help. I worked 2 jobs and went to school fulltime while raising a small family. If others are not putting forth the same effort to advance themselves then they are to blame, not me and I think it is unfair to ask one part of society to pick up the bill for those who are unwilling to contribute back through education and hard work. written by JonnoB , August 22, 2008 I have my own business now and am always looking to hire people. Those who are at the free lunch counter should be learning something so that I can hire them. written by Dave Hardesty , August 22, 2008
JonnoB
Good for you. I am proud of you if no one else is. You are the American Dream and I congratulate you on taking command of your life and being successful with it. I wouldn't tax you more because you were successful any more than I would tax anyone more because they were not successful. To be fair a tax should be equally applied to all. Thanks for your input and I hope to meet you someday. Dave Hardesty written by mark j , August 22, 2008
JonnoB, I couldn't agree more. People should not be punished for being successful. I always thought a flat tax was the right way to go. A lot of liberals can't do math. 15% of $30,000 = $4500, 15% 0f $300,000 = $45,000. The higher income is going to pay a higher tax by the dollar. Why should someones tax rate go to 35 - 40% just because they make more? That has always been ridiculous.
Here's the other thing that many liberals seem to forget. The more you make the more you probably have to lose in bad times. If you are self employed and business is slow you take the massive losses that can occur. It's all about risk verse reward. Also, people that earn higher incomes usually have higher bills. It's all relevant. Like a friend off mine says "it's just more zero's"  written by Thinker , August 23, 2008
SO 95% of all of us agree! It is clear who is all talk (Pied Piper) and who is action. Look at how Georgia was handled. Look at how NObama is changing now on energy crisis, on Iraq (extending his pull out schedule)- etc etc. C'mon man-- where's the leadership? In Senate--give me ONE HINT of leadership. I'm %$#@ TIRED OF POLITICAL DOUBLE SPEAK.... McCain says it like it is, and doesn't care about political opion. He's PROVEN to be a man of vision! An American hero-noone disputes that.
written by Thinker , August 23, 2008
Oh, and Lukeskywalker- cool name. Keep America safe with that AF. It's good that all in your age group are not conformists and realize that soundbytes and gospel revivals don't make a leader. ----YOur dad must be proud, or is that another episode?
 written by k.l.vosburg , August 23, 2008
Well, unfortunetly when the saber rattling and the draft is reinstated "Luke" won't be doing much of the flying...
written by MarkDavis , August 23, 2008
DH: If you disagree with:
Finally, one of the most neglected realizations is that family income has not increased since the 1970s except among the highest income bracket. Then you are incorrect according to all economists. I'll leave it up to you to discover the facts. written by Thinker , August 23, 2008
Hey KLV- who knows? With the mighty bear starting antoehr cold war maybe we need a crazed US and its new Nukes?!? Boom! Solves that problem....next!?! Whose Next! Screw with US!!!
 written by Ziggy , August 23, 2008 I AGREE WITH Navy Dad....OBAMA INSPIRES ME ... TO VOTE FOR MCCAIN ! ......NOWAYOBAMA  written by Dale Cose , August 23, 2008 written by MarkDavis , August 22, 2008 Disputing your incorrect claim... Alan Reynolds, David Henderson, Charles Hooper are some economists that say Mr. Hardesty is correct "... In a 2004 article in Nation, Paul Krugman wrote: "According to estimates by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez—confirmed by data from the Congressional Budget Office—between 1973 and 2000 the average real income of the bottom 90 percent of American taxpayers actually fell by 7 percent." (Reynolds, p. 3  But Reynolds shows that Krugman's statement is wrong for two reasons. First, CBO estimates go back only to 1979. Second, the CBO data show that between 1979 and 2000, average after-tax income in each quintile (fifth) of the household income distribution rose. For the lowest quintile, it rose from $13,500 to $14,600 [all numbers in this sentence are in 2003 dollars]; for the second-lowest quintile, it rose from $27,300 to $30,900; for the middle quintile, it rose from $38,900 to $44,800; for the second-highest quintile, it rose from $50,900 to $63,600; and for the top quintile, it rose from $89,700 to $138,500. So for Krugman's claim (CBO reference aside) to hold true, average income in the bottom 90 percent would have had to have fallen drastically between 1973 and 1979, to more than offset the later increase. Reynolds uses U.S. Census data to show that no such thing happened." written by Dale Cose , August 23, 2008 cont. "...Reynolds continues by telling of a 2004 story in the Washington Post titled, "The Vanishing Middle-Class Job." The Post article pointed out that in 1967, nearly a quarter (22.3 percent) of households made between $35,000 and $49,999 in inflation-adjusted terms, but that that share was down to 15 percent by 2003. Reynolds notes that the same article showed that the percentage of U.S. households with a real income higher than $50,000 rose from 24.9 percent in 1967 to 44.1 percent in 2003. Moreover, the percentage with income lower than $35,000 fell from 52.8 percent to 40.9 percent. In other words, the "middle class" was shrinking because people were moving out of the Post's statically defined middle class into a higher income class. Comments Reynolds: "The article could have been more aptly titled, 'The Vanishing Lower-Class Job.'" But because Reynolds shows elsewhere that higher-income households tend to have more than one worker, one can't simply equate households and jobs. Therefore, the article would have been even more aptly titled, "America's Families are Getting Wealthier." written by Dale Cose , August 23, 2008 cont. "...The Nov. 13 Wall Street Journal editorial "Movin' On Up" reports on a recent U.S. Treasury study of income tax returns from 1996 and 2005. The study tracks what happened to tax filers 25 years of age and up during this 10-year period. Controlling for inflation, nearly 58 percent of the poorest income group in 1996 moved to a higher income group by 2005. Twenty-six percent of them achieved middle or upper-middle class income, and over 5 percent made it into the highest income group. Over the decade, the inflation-adjusted median income of all tax filers rose by 24 percent. As such, it refutes Dobbs-Edwards-Huckabee claims about stagnant incomes. In fact, only one income group experienced a decline in real income. That was the richest one percent, who saw an income drop of nearly 26 percent over the 10-year period. The editors explain that these people might have been rich for a few years, had some capital gains, or could not stand up to the competition with new entrepreneurs and wealth creators." written by Dale Cose , August 23, 2008 cont. "The U.S. Treasury study confirms previous studies dating back to the 1960s, concluding, "The basic finding of this analysis is that relative income mobility is approximately the same in the last 10 years as it was in the previous decade." As such, it points to a uniquely American feature: Just because you know where a person ended up in life doesn't mean you can be sure about where he started. Most of today's higher income and wealthy did not start out that way. What about claims of a disappearing middle class? Let's do some detective work. Controlling for inflation, in 1967, 8 percent of households had an annual income of $75,000 and up; in 2003, more than 26 percent did. In 1967, 17 percent of households had a $50,000 to $75,000 income; in 2003, it was 18 percent. In 1967, 22 percent of households were in the $35,000 to $50,000 income group; by 2003, it had fallen to 15 percent. During the same period, the $15,000 to $35,000 category fell from 31 percent to 25 percent, and the under $15,000 category fell from 21 percent to 16 percent. The only reasonable conclusion from this evidence is that if the middle class is disappearing, it's doing so by swelling the ranks of the upper classes..." written by Dale Cose , August 23, 2008 written by MarkDavis , August 21, 2008 written by Dale Cose , August 23, 2008 Leaving out increased rates of: homes- ownership cars per family families with air-conditioning white goods purchased (large appliances) brown goods purchased (electronics) education written by k.l.vosburg , August 23, 2008
Exactly Thinker; Given your scenario young "Sky" Walker won't have to do much flying.
Although one should be commended on a scholarship and congradulations and good luck are in order. I refer you back to then (Sec. of Defense) Robert MacNamara's (popularized during the Johnson Administration), M.A.D. [Mutual Assured Destruction] and thouights of "another Cold War" or teasing the Bear, as highly unlikely -no matter who's president. written by k.l.vosburg , August 24, 2008
Thinker; Here's another scenario for you: Let's say the Obama ticket wins and the president is assassinated...? Would Biden be a bad logical
choice as Pres;? 'Thinking inside the triangle' but, outside the box while tickeling, the bear?  written by Navy Dad , August 25, 2008
Wonderful news, Obama & Biden '08 = McCain/ Romney will be the next President and Vice-President. Thanks for the pick Barack.
written by Thinker , August 25, 2008
Or Liberman? LKV: Biden has not shown leadership has he, what has he done in all his years? He was against Gulf War I--which means he wanted to leave Sadaam in Kuwait; and he wanted to separate Iraq into three countries...further, he was caught plageising, so he had to drop out of a previous Presidental race as a result. He said he would like to join McCain on his ticket as well..but now will lie and say how bad McCain is. He said he would not accept the VP position either. Why is it that we can't find TRUE LEADERS and reelect such shady characters!?! OMG Imagine him being a President! I am IN SHOCK! WOW!
written by lukeSKYwalker , August 25, 2008
Well now that I am all moved into san jose I would rather not be drafted... moving is no fun lol. however I dont believe with todays "on the scene press" that will show anything to get a great rating, will stop us from ever using nukes again. I would not call it a stretch if even we were "nuked", the rest of the american public would not support another Hiroshima, I remember in fourth grade having to make paper cranes for that dying asian girl...
anyway I do not know much of bidden, and I think NObama should have chosen someone with more experience, but i heard something about how he is a good pick in some swing states...  written by margy , August 25, 2008
JonnoB,
First of all, good for you for working hard and building your business and paying back to the community with taxes. If you are so against people "free loading" then let's get rid of the following: 1) The "free loading" kids who get an education off of your taxes and the teachers who free load salaries off of our taxes 2) The "free loading" public servies and public service employees who live off of your taxes 3) The "free loading" social security where the elderly, disabled, widows and orphans "free load" off of your taxes. Maybe those people dying off will lift some of your burden huh? 4) The "free loading" senetors and congressmen who live in mansions built with your taxes. 5) The "free loading" courts and employees of the courts who live off of your taxes. The list goes on and on. We can't pick and chose certain people who we think are "free loading" when in reality there are a lot more than the people who are on welfare or medicare who would be defined as "free loaders" of our taxes. Furthermore we can't sit and complain about the system of taxation and services when we use the services and facilities such as the "labor force educated with taz dollars""highways roads" "courts" "police and fire" "lawmakers paid by taxes". If we are going to get rid of "free loading" then we can't pick and chose and complain. In that case we should privatize everything based on donations or sales to pay for these services and staff. written by margy , August 25, 2008
A Day in the life of a True Conservative!
Joe Conservative wakes up in the morning and goes to the bathroom. He flushes his toilet and brushes his teeth, mindful that each flush & brush costs him about 43 cents to his privatized water provider. His wacky, liberal neighbor keeps badgering the company to disclose how clean and safe their water is, but no one ever finds out. Just to be safe, Joe Conservative boils his drinking water. Joe steps outside and coughs–the pollution is especially bad today, but the smokiest cars are the cheapest ones, so everyone buys ‘em. Joe Conservative checks to make sure he has enough toll money for the 3 different private roads he must drive to work. There is no public transportation, so traffic is backed up and his 10 mile commute takes an hour written by margy , August 25, 2008
A Day in the life of a True Conservative CONTINUED!
On the way, he drops his 12 year old daughter off at the clothing factory she works at. Paying for kids to go to private school until they’re 18 is a luxury, and Joe needs the extra income coming in. Times are hard and there’re no social safety nets. He gets to work 5 minutes late and misses the call for Christian prayer, and is immediately docked by his employer. He is not feeling well today, but has no health insurance, since neither his employer nor his government provide it, and paying for it himself is really expensive, since he has a precondition. He just hopes for the best written by margy , August 25, 2008
A Day in a life of a True conservative
Joe’s workday is 12 hours long, because there is no regulation over working hours, and Joe will lose his job if he complains or unionizes. Today is an especially bad day. Joe’s manager demands that he work until midnight, a 16 hour day. Joe does, knowing that he’ll lose his job if he does not. Finally, after midnight, Joe gets to pick up his daughter and go home. His daughter shows him the deep cut she got on the industrial sewing machine today. Joe is outraged and asks why she doesn’t have metal mesh gloves or other protection. She says the company will not provide it and she’ll have to pay for it out of her own pocket. Joe looks at the wound and decides they’ll use an over the counter disinfectant and bandages until it heals. She’ll have a scar, but getting stitches at the emergency room is expensive. written by margy , August 25, 2008
A Day In The Life of Joe Conservative CONTINUED!
His daughter also complains that the manager made suggestive overtures towards her. Joe counsels her to be a “good girl” and not rock the boat, or she’ll get fired and they’ll be out the income. His daughter says she can’t wait until she’s 18 so she can vote for change or go to the Iraq War. They get home and there’s a message from his elderly father who can’t afford to pay his medical or heating bills. Joe can hear him coughing and shivering. Joe turns on the radio and the top story is a proposal in Congress to raise the voting age to 25. A rare liberal opinionator states that it’s an attempt to keep power out of the hands of working class Americans. The conservative host immediately quashes him, calling him “a utopian idealist,” and agreeing that people aren’t mature enough to make good choices until they’re at least 25. Joe chuckles at the wine-swilling, cheese eating liberal egghead and thinks, “Thank God I live in America where I have freedom !" written by MarkDavis , August 26, 2008
Dale: It's certainly worth debating, but most resources do dispute that claim, including the US Bureau of Labor:
http://www.workinglife.org/wik...1964-2004) Here's the general economic history summed up in the San Diego Herald Tribune: Many economists say the nation may be returning to a period like 1973 to 1996, when inflation-adjusted wages stagnated or rose glacially. That era was a reversal from the golden years of 1947 to 1973, when wages marched steadily upward. written by MarkDavis , August 26, 2008
Dale: Note also that your one reference is only referring to the decade from 1995-2006, which was a period of particularly high wage growth (see graphic). Your other discussion of Krugman's claims also refer to whether or not more people slipped into poverty or not, not whether the average real wage has been stagnant!
written by Dale Cose , August 26, 2008 Joe Conservative here, 'Nutball' lib 'margy' finding little satisfaction or happiness in her liberal life attempts to spread her misery through a fractured parable of mindless liberal fantasy. "wacky, liberal neighbor keeps badgering the company to disclose how clean and safe their water is, but no one ever finds out" because lib neighbor was too "the pollution is especially bad today" and we sure don't want to compare it to the 1970's because to vehicles today are incredibly clean exhaust. After failing to make a dent with that thrust nutball margy backs ethanol production without realizing it creates more smog and takes more product to produce the same amount of energy. "There is no public transportation," because of the prohibitive implementation costs mixed with lack of patrons. "traffic is backed up and his 10 mile commute takes an hour" so Joe decides to carpool, get a motorcycle and a get a bicycle for additional commute choices. "He is not feeling well today, but has no health insurance, since neither his employer nor his government provide it" and have never but is self-relient and knows that any health care provider receiving government funds will be required to treat him if he feels the need for treatment. Nutball margy swells her " wine-swilling, cheese eating liberal" head writing some of the dumbest comments on record. written by MarkDavis , August 26, 2008
I'm just glad that catalytic converters and unleaded gas was mandated every time I pull up behind a 70s or earlier car and choke, regardless of which nutbag is speaking :-)
written by margy , August 26, 2008
A Day In The Life Of Joe Republican : By John Gray
Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised. All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. written by margy , August 26, 2008
A Day In The Life Of Joe Republican :By John Gray
Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor. Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune. written by margy , August 26, 2008
A Day In The Life Of Joe Republican : By John Gray
Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time. Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republican’s would still be sitting in the dark) written by margy , August 26, 2008
A Day In The Life Of Joe Republican : By John Gray
He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home. He turns on a radio talk show, the host’s keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn’t tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, “We don’t need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I’m a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have”. written by Dale Cose , August 26, 2008 "Joe Republican chose parties wisely. Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) - 1972 - Richard Nixon - Republican Air Pollution Control Act - 1955 - Dwight D Eisenhower - Republican EPA - 1970 - Richard Nixon - Republican Pure Food and Drug Act - 1906 - T |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
