Obama campaign places seem to have Che Guevara posters up. We all know what that means, senseless murdering in the name of the "glorious" mother Russia.
You can grow wheat, grapes and fruit. The grapes would be valuable if they started to make wine. Growing wheat on a small scale is not that profitable even on a small scale. In the US the yield for wheat is around 30-50 bushels per acre in the Plains states. Even at record prices the earnings per acre are only around $400-$600 per acre. Mississippi wheat producers averaged a record 61 bushels per acre in 2007. But they get more rain and the soil is more fertile. In Washington State the average is 83 bushels per acre.
Good point. After bombing the Afghanis back to the stone age, the real final blow would be to sell them into slavery to Monsanto.
Zibblu: I would like to see hard evidence that skewing tax cuts toward the high income folks is better for the economy. Its interesting. Reagon introduced serious tax cuts, in the relative recent US history. The early 80's saw a recovery from a recession, growth...then we plunged into another recession at the end of the 80's. The 90's saw far better economic growth in the US. It coincided with higher taxes all around than in the 1980's. At the end of the 90's though, we plunged into another recession. In the 2000's we have seen a far more sluggish economy than in the 1990's all around. Taxes were cut significantly off of the 1990's totals. Meanwhile economic growth prior to this recessionary period we are currently facing has been very sluggish compared to the 90's. One thing that has happened is that income disparity has grown significantly. Now I can vouch that it is nice picking up an extra 5% in after tax dollars. But I can't vouch for the fact that my extra 5% is dramatically enhancing overall economic prosperity. Turning it into overall economic growth that is reflected across the board is another story. Take a look at this little gem, when it reflects spreading tax goodies...... Here is a paraphrase from one insider's (Paul O'Neill-then treasury secretary) look into the current administration with regard to its tax cutting polcies that were skewed toward the upper income levels......... This meeting occurred after the first tax cut by the administration and reflected meetings concerning the next tax cut. Hmmm.....so much for theory and what really goes on when policy is being set. I wonder what would happen if tax cuts were driven into the working and middle class and reduced with regard to upper income levels. I can tell you there is no magic automatic surge in the economy when more money flows into the wealthy than into the less wealthy. Wealth comes from productive and profitable production of goods and services. Profitable development of goods and services is independant of how tax reductions are distributed. There is no direct correlation. If there is I'd like for someone to present hard facts.
A lot of the working class are not paying any income taxes due to credits like the earned income credit. The big bite for the working class are social security, excise, property and sales taxes. Even if you reduced income taxes for the working class it wouldn't reduxe income income disparity.
Obama has a long history of people with questionable backgrounds and that scares me about him because it shows that he doesn't have good judgment.
Perhaps Obama has questionable ideas and that's why he gets on well with people of questionable backgrounds.