The Obama thread

Before I posted it I pondered if NPT would find humor in it or be offended. I thought you would find it mildly comical. I apologize for it not striking your funny bone.


Will Obama dump Biden for Clinton? That is the talk among my states top Democratic fund raisers for Obama.

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) said on NBC’s “Today” show: “Our tax plan would take that tax cut of another $130 billion that John [McCain] wants to give to people making over $250,000 next year, not let it go forward and give it to the middle class — the very people who desperately need it to stay in their homes, to buy food, to take care of the gas, to fill up their tank, to be able to go out and buy a toaster, to employ people.”


Toasters?

 

There is no chance of that. The only way Clinton would end up on the ticket is if Obama or Biden were to drop dead.

I can think of no bigger sign of weakness than changing your VP pick. It will never happen.

 

Could you imagine the flip flop allegations?

 

I know our big fund raisers are talking about it. I did several Google search and there is no mentioning it. It must just be talks from the big dogs Democrats of South Carolina. It's no news. But it would be a momentum swing.

 

Sheesh guys! Thanks.

 

I thought all the talk about Obama flipping back to Clinton stemmed from one of Biden's comments he made recently to a huge crowd of people. I even saw it on CNN and was stunned. He basically told a crowd of people that Clinton should have been the VP pick because she was more qualified than himself to be VP and probably more qualified than even Obama to be President. He sounded apologetic to the crowd that they got stuck with him instead of Clinton. Ouch.

Either he really needs to work on his delivery or he was a dumbass and should have kept his mouth shut......

 

Dingdingding, we have a winner, Johnny.

Biden, Mr. "He's clean, and articulate" when referring to Obama early on in the campaign:

-isn't exactly known for the stoic self-control of his mouth.

 

Maybe they should not let him do any interviews and only read the same speech. Easier like that.He was chosen to be an asset to the country. Not for political reasons. Obama has integrity

 

I like Biden. He may have loose political lips but he has enormous experience and wisdom with many political issues.

Biden released tax records. He is one of the least affluent members of congress. By an enormous long shot. Riding the train on days commuting to congress puts him in touch with those who are being hit the hardest by the recession.

How many of you didn't get tax rebates from the govt this year on the bailout program? If you didn't get it means you had significantly more income than the vast majority of the population. You may not be rich...but imagine how many are struggling with the recession.

Losses of jobs, higher costs. Those are the folks taking the brunt of the problems from a recession primarily created by excesses from the financial industry.

Look, when I was earning ZERO....I pulled every dollar I could from savings and borrowed. When I earned in healthy six figures of income/year--I could blow money, reinvest it, etc. If the gov hit me w/ the equivalent of 5% extra taxes I could afford it. It did ZERO to hamper my drive for earning/investing/ sweat equity investing to make more money. When I was actively brokering commercial real estate in the 1980's and 1990's and I knew large numbers of the about 1,000 colleagues/competitors who were doing the same....not one of the active good/successful brokers/agents worked any less because they were being hit by an effective marginal tax rate of roughly 50% (state and fed taxes). Not one. NOT ONE.

In fact for virtually all of those 1,000 colleagues and competitors each one shared every transaction w/ at least 1 partner. That meant you were sharing income 50/50--Then roughly the brokerage firms took 50% of every transaction...so you received about 25% on the full value of a transaction. If you hit highest taxable rates the marginal taxes were about 50%. Basically you were working for about $0.12-0.15 on the full value of a transaction. I can't remember a single strong broker walking out because of disincentives. NOT ONE. Makes you question the reasoning behind these theories that suggest their is a disincentive for high taxes.

The theory of marginal tax rates serving as a disincentive is a bogus theory. It sounds great from a political talk concept. It doesn't work that way.

The highest period of profit making/productivity/growth in wealth in recent times occurred during the 1990's when the highest marginal tax rate on individual incomes was roughly 39% to 50% (depending on state taxes).

Yeah.....if the US moved to dramatically higher tax rates than those it would drive earners out of the US to nations with lower tax rates.

I want to go back to a period when I worked w/ about and competed against about 1,000 high or potentially high earners or those striving to become a high earner. Not one of them used the higher tax rates as a disincentive to achieve high earnings.

Meanwhile, if people lose their jobs.....Biden hit the nail on the head....Low income earners lose their jobs first. They are the ones that won't be able to afford their homes, put food on the table buy gas and buy toasters.

Lastly, look at some of the gross US retail spending over the last few months during which the federal rebates hit. Remember they hit the majority of the US tax paying population but not the minority that make higher incomes.

The rebates fueled additional spending that helped inch up GDP figures. That was coming from the bottom up...not the impact of the trickle down.

I'd think hard about that.

btw: when it comes to dropping VP candidates. I believe it was 1972 when McGovern on the dem side first picked Sen. Thomas Eagleton as a VP candidate. Vetting wasn't thorough. Eagleton had had prior emotional issues that resulted in significant depression and treatment. He was dropped. I think McGovern then picked Sargent Shriver as his VP.

Nixon crushed McGovern in that election. A short while later Nixon was impeached and left the Presidency in utter disgrace.

 

Personally I don't think I'd ever vote for Biden, but I do like his ability to say what's on his mind.

 

IIRC, sometime after the primaries but I believe before the conventions I heard one political commentator say something like....."The parties now have 2 candidates who generally represent the 2 dominant political philosophies....now we will see what will happen"

Some years ago I was very very middle of the road. I liked certain liberal philosophies about helping those that are more disadvantaged....and I liked the conservative philosophy of fiscally prudent business/govt. that limited such actions and expenses in responsible ways.

Over the last 20 years or so...I've felt like the Conservative philosophy has moved to damn fiscal prudence, just cut taxes, and let any business do anything it wants. Meanwhile there have been few big "liberal spending programs" initiated by dems since the 1960's.

I don't see that business perspective working. In the meantime I think we are loaded with debt and are wrong headed on a lot of perspectives.

And not that it is directly attributable to dems or reps...but we are currently paying about $1/gallon of gas in "taxes" to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, (Norway --I don't mind) and the other producers/exporters of oil. Money is flowing out of the country on top of bad debt and an economy that isn't generating winner businesses.

Anyways that orients me more to the dem side than the rep side than I used to be.

But....there are 2 major sides (and other sides) and lots of opinions and time to play it out in the election. We will see what happens.

 

In rare endorsement, NOW backs Obama-Biden-

The National Organization for Women -- citing Obama's commitment to reproductive justice, pay equity, ending violence against women (Hi, Biden), and keeping marauding crackpots off the Supreme Court -- has endorsed the Obama-Biden ticket, and yes, this is actually news. NOW has not endorsed a presidential candidate in the general election since 1984, and no, that had nothing to do with Geraldine Ferraro.

According to NOW president Kim Gandy -- who talked to Broadsheet late Tuesday about the group's decision -- NOW endorsed Walter Mondale in the primary, back "when he was still fighting it out with Gary Hart and Alan Cranston." (NOW also endorsed Carol Moseley-Braun in 2003 and Shirley Chisholm in 1972 in their respective primaries, but no one endorsable made it to the general election in either race. NOW endorsed Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primary.)

 

What's this? A post with valid content that is not riddled with name calling, hate and derisive accusations? Good job, Pizzaman!

This is news is predictable based upons SP's Christian views as well as her position on abortion and birth control. NOW really seems to be narrowing their platform.

SP is certainly a successful woman with many admirable qualities. Why would NOW not like that? It could also be that SP relies heavily on her husband, Todd for help in raising their family. Nah, it's gotta be those pesky views on God and family.

Again, good post Pizzaman!

 

Would those include being a liar and hypocrite?

 

We've had this conversation, Jazz, but if you're asking, I'd have to say NOW "wouldn't like that" because they aren't snowed by McCain's attempt to pander, and they feel Palin stands in direct opposition to some of the most fundamental things fought for by the women's movement - say, in her wishing to make abortion illegal even in cases of a woman being raped, or the victim of incest (as Governor of the State with the highest per capita incidence of rape and sexual assault); or her agreement with McCain on opposing equal pay for equal work, and so forth.

 

she does not represent women issues. she is as much about issues that women are concerned about as clarence thomas is concerned about African Americans. why do pugs think women are stupid?
she charged women for their rape kit

 

As we have discussed, I'm not worried about that becoming a law at all.

Is this the McCain position that you are unhappy with?

Source

You must have an opinion on the supreme court as well.

 

OK, but that wasn't your question, right? You were asking why would NOW have a problem with her, and that is a key reason why. She stands in opposition to something fundamental to the women's movement, embedded in history. It isn't surprising to me at all, given her stance on abortion and rape victims, for instance, NOW would stand in opposition to her candidacy.

Yes, to both - Palin aped McCain's statement on the matter, saying it would invoke lawsuits, and yes, the Ledbetter decision was a poor decision.

The argument that it will invoke lawsuits is specious, to me. It appeals to the general sentiment against our litigious society, and hatred for lawyers, generally ("difference between a dead dog and a dead lawyer in the middle of the road? Skid marks."), but ignores the fact that in our society, this is how you resolve grievances - by appeal to law, and the court system. In other words, McCain and Palin say they're for equal pay for equal work "in theory," but would remove the means to enforce it, so their rhetoric is empty.

As I've said before - who among us, in a corporate environment, for instance, can say it is de rigueur that "equivalent workers" know each other's comparative compensation within 6 months, much less, ever?

McCain/Palin's position statement on equal pay is empty, on the face of it, and this is another reason why NOW would have a problem.

As to Ledbetter, from my read of the decision, the Court didn't decide this on constitutional grounds, but purely procedural grounds, from the reliance by all parties on the relevant statute of limitations subsection of Title VII law.

Quite simple, really: Ledbetter relies on Title VII, which contains a Statute of Limitations of 180 days. By reliance on the provision (contained in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e), Ledbetter had no recourse, since this is the law as written. I am certain that had the relevant subsection (the 180 day SOL) not been in place, or another subsection (such as that provision contained in the Bill McCain opposed) been in place, the Court would have ruled differently.

As it is, McCain voted against changing that provision, Palin supports him in his opposition to the change, and both therefore fall on the sword of truth v. pablum on this issue.

 

Obama One of Leading Recipients of Fannie/Freddie Political Contributions. Top 3 are democrats. Number 2 spot is

Obama = $126,349 and has only been in congress a little over two years. John McCain has been in congress over 20 years and has received barely $20,000 in contributions.

It's pretty obvious who's fault the failure of these types of investment banks is. Its democrats like Barrack Obama and a democratic congress, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, etc., that created these banks to make mortgages available to people who could not afford them, including and specifically those that could not even pay them back.

It's pretty clear where the mortgage crisis emanates from and its equally clear that Obama intends to continue down that same path giving away the wealth in America to his friends, himself, and those that do not contribute to the common good.

While we are all busy blaming Bush for fannie and freddies collapse lets just take a look at some of the Clinton staff that went on to work for these banks.

Franklin Raines, Whitehouse Budget Director, Ran Fannie and took home 50 million dollars.
Jaime Gorlick, Clinton Justice Dept Official, worked for Fannie and took home 26 million dollars.
Jim Johnson, Democrat on Obama's VP Search Committee has also hauled in millions from his Fannie May job.

Meanwhile, Obamas campaign speeches and ads attack McCain and Republican policy with regard to the economy and blame them for the current financial turmoil.

As it now turns out, it was not Republicans, George Bush, or John McCain, but rather Democrats, Clinton staffers, and Obama - who turned up at the head of the line to collect money from Fannie and Freddie, even as they were in the midst of their collapse. In just over 2 years Obama managed to suck up 6 times the campaign contributions as John McCain did in over 20 years from Fannie and Freddie... Its more and more apparent who is to blame for the mess than ever. Yet those Democrats most responsible, continue to lie through their teeth to the American public about the truth.

With this knowledge, what else will Obama destroy? What kind of change is he really for? Seems to me that Obama is for more of the same. More of making himself and his friends rich off hard working blue collar conservative Americans.

Talk about an ass clown... What a shit bag.

 

You are "certain" the court would have ruled differently? Well, thank you, your honor. A bit presumptuous but I understand the point that you are making.

Well then, what do you or NOW propose as the correct statute of limitations? That is now the question.

Times have changed. Every corporation that I have worked for has stated salary ranges for each title as well as semi annual performance reviews put in place to prevent pay discrimination. Of course these are new policies put in place over the past fifteen years.

Should the retiring employee that has worked for company X for 30 years be allowed to sue for back pay dating back to the start of their employment when clearly businesses have made huge strides in balancing the scales? No. That is the purpose of the Statute of Limitations.

I am not a lawyer, but is the current law not strict enough?

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-epa.html

I do not see the McCain/Palin position as supporting wage discrimination in any way.