As you said, Biz, do you think any of this action has to do with the perception that others will perceive the buyout will keep AIG's ass out of the fire, thus the buy-up has less to do with "Bush" than buyers tapping a likely buy-trend? I only ask, because the nationalization on display as of yesterday runs counter to everything about this administration's policy of the last 8 years. Kind of a "Dammmmmmmn, godda do it" over a brilliant move. Oh, and did I mention, Repetition works for Letterman, so what the hell. Thank you - enjoy the veal. Tip your waiters.
What's the matter with you, Mia? Can't you just be a bit more neighborly? Right now the bottom 33% income level pays ZERO income taxes. The bottom 50% only pay 3.1%. The top 1% pays 36.9% of the federal income tax. I just can't believe that there are people that think that the rich are not paying their fair share. Nah, they know it's not fair, they just want their handout.
I thought you were against 'big government' and items that raise taxes, yet here you appear to be for it. Which one is it?
Thanks for the source, Biz, something I hadn't seen and I will take a look. I'm going with what I've otherwise seen over the President's tenure, typified by what seemed to me to be a rather anemic response to the looming crisis, and that, very late in the game. This seems right, to me: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/01/business/fi-paulson1 Bush's commitment to any real reform was too colored by an ideological predisposition, in my opinion. In a word, he held stubbornly to a stand, despite the very real crisis blooming under his feet. It's a profound character flaw of his; I'd say the same mindset is at work here, as has been at work in foreign policy, and it runs the lengths of the man's time as President.
Just when you think thinks can't become more humerous this rumor surfaces: Is Joe Biden planning to step down from the vice-presidential slot ... On or about October 5th, Biden will excuse himself from the ticket, ... and be replaced by Hillary.
Is Palin going to step down from the vice-presidential slot ... I think she will be pushed out very soon as it seems her PR show is over and now it is just a lot of looking stupid. I think Biden wants to get an office in the White House and won't step down and I think Hillary has her eyes set on the number one spot and will try again in 2012.
I don't understand why you have to listen to, or watch 3rd party over dramatizations, when you can just listen to the real thing ? Read his platform, check out his history, go to the website and see what he really stands for. Why don't you just go to the source ? are you really going to base your opinion based on what someone else say's without ever actually seeing and reading everything for yourself. Seems strange since you can just go to the source and get the information first hand. If edited You Tube videos from a 3rd party source is how you "learn" then you are just looking for an excuse....if that is the case no need for all the tools, and drama..just don't vote for him.
In the context of this sub-discussion, I found this article interesting; except: This is where I was getting at as well: The article goes on to say it isn't a shift in ideology, but a "recognition of reality." I don't see the difference. One either believes one's ideology is correct, and stays by it, or one changes one's ideology in the act of changing tactics. Anyway, food for thought. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26800103
I recieved this email this morning. Enjoy! > A little pertinent humor: > > Right to the point and one of the big differences between Democrat and > Republican outlook. > > I was talking to a friend of mine's little girl, and she said she wanted to > be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing > there, so I asked her, 'If you were President what would be the first thing > you would do?' > > She replied, 'I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.' > > 'Wow - what a worthy goal!' I told her. 'You don't have to wait until you're > President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow, pull weeds, and > sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then, I'll take you over to the grocery > store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use > toward food or a new house.' > > She thought that over for a few moments because she's only 6 years old. And > while her Mom glared at me, the young child looked me straight in the eye > and asked, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you > can just pay him the $50?' > > And I said, 'Welcome to the Republican Party.' Her folks still aren't > talking to me.
Did you check this video? lol i can not agree with you on use of 3rd party information. we are not familiar and educated about every aspect of govt. also what they themselves say might not be true. I always consider the prejudices of the 3rd party in mind when i make my derision. Sometimes you might also see legitimate and intresting ideas that you did not think about. i love videos that show the candidate saying or doing what they deny. I video is a good form of communication also.
Funny, as fiction can always be. The GOP has long abandoned the classical liberalism of Barry Goldwater, and merely supplanted adventurism driven by one particular ideology for adventurism driven by another ideology.
Did the homeless person get offered the $50? If he didn't the email makes no sense. Will someone pay a little girl they know $50 for a good cause? Very likely. Will they offer or allow some homeless man/woman who possibly smells, they don't know, are possibly fearful of the same $50? EXTREMELY doubtful.. Shameful email IMHO, but I know that wont stop a select few from eating it up. ---Where some see laziness, I see the other end of the spectrum, the fact that most will not give the homeless person a chance. Good to see hatred and bigotry disguised though, real warming to the heart. Are their lazy homeless people? Of course there are, we had to kick my wife's brother out of our house for that very reason. It does not equate to them all being lazy, or the email not being disguised such as it is.
This is not true. There is a serious flaw. Those percentages are based on gross income. They are not paying 36.9% tax out of their paychecks, it adds up to 36.9% of the tax table, because they make more. If I make $100 and you make $10, I am obviously going to pay more in taxes because I have more to tax. It doesn't mean i pay a higher percentage necessarily. (Although a single male without children will) But facts from the General Accounting Office show us that 68% of large corporations in the U.S. and foreign companies doing business in the U.S. paid no Federal Income tax through 2005 because of tax breaks, and of them 25% showed profits of at least $50 million, or $250 million in assets..EACH ! Not only is everyone not paying their fair share, but some are not paying anything. No one is picking on people for being successful, but I am picking on those that have skated. Tax breaks should be over for everyone except families with children, for education, and homeowners. (1 home) until we pull out of this mess. Everyone should pay the same percentage out of their income if it's $25,000 a year or $250,000. No exceptions on personal income tax. I am so sick of trickle down economics, and I am tired of them continuously insulting my intelligence with it. If you want to give GM a break for building a new environmentally friendly hybrid in Detroit to stimulate the Midwest economy, and also help produce cars that will help the average consumer, and be good for the environment and save gas...then I'm all for it..but if you want to Exxon a break so that they can build a few off shore oil platforms...you are screwing Americans. Gm is struggling, Exxon has posted 6 quarters of record profits never seen before in the history of American business.