WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

ican711nm wrote:

Advocate wrote:
Ican, the constitution doesn't mention a uniform income tax.

Nor does it mention a non-uniform income tax. But it does mention: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." I think that means under the laws of our country, the legal privileges and the legal immunities of each citizen are equal. So if I'm privileged to not pay more only 15% of my income on income taxes and am immune from paying more than 15%, then every other citizen should be equally privileged and immune. ARE YOU HIGH ON SOMETHING. THIS IS GIBBERISH!

The IT has always been based on ability to pay -- that is what graduated rates do.

No it hasn't always been based on the ability to pay. It has always been based on what will net politicians the most votes at a given time. Initially, the income tax only taxed a tiny minority of citizens. That enabled politicians to persuade most voters that they were all going to remain immune to the income tax. Once sucked in, the majority of the voters started paying income tax to finance wealth transfers from those who had the fewest votes to those who had the most votes. AT ONE TIME OLD MAN ROCKEFELLER REALIZED 32 CENTS OF EVERY DOLLAR SPENT IN COMMERCE. THIS HURT THE COUNTRY AND IS THE REASON THAT, THROUGH GRADUATED RATES AND THE ESTATE TAX, ETC., THE ROBBER BARRONS WERE CURBED. I GUESS YOU WANT A RETURN OF THIS.

Moreover, the rich have wildly disparate income and wealth, and should be soaked.

Why should the rich be soaked? They provide the economic opportunities to support ourselves that the rest of us depend on. Furthermore, it's the rich who finance the developments of that which makes all our lives easier than they would otherwise be. Soak the rich and we soak ourselves. Also, most of the rich started out poor. So while getting rich they enabled many others to do likewise. THAT IS TRICKLE DOWN, WHICH DOESN'T WORK. MOST NEW JOBS COME FROM SMALL BUSINESS, AND NOT FROM THE VERY RICH (LIKE THE WALMART HEIRS). GATES BUILT HIS BUSINESS BEFORE HE WAS SUPER RICH. THE MELLONS AND THE WALMART HEIRS ARE CONTENT TO CLIP COUPONS.

Perhaps you would prefer that the USA be more like Brazil and Mexico, where a small number of families control everything, and vast majority of people are essentially serfs. BTW, we already have a plutocracy, which is getting much worse under Bush.

In Mexico, the rich continue to stifle others from improving their economic status by preventing others from competing with them. They do this by controlling who invests what, when and where. We don't do that in the USA. That's one of the reasons why we have grown faster than the other nations of the world whose governments control who invests what, when and where. Communist nations control investment like that and as a result are among the poorest nations. Only their elites prosper. YOUR COMMENTS ARE MOSTLY WRONG AND BEG THE POINT THAT OUR PLUTOCRACY IS GROWING.

Bush's tax-cut dollars went overwhelmingly to the rich. Paris Hilton and Teresa Heinz are very appreciative.

In total dollars, of course they did, since they paid way more dollars than the rest of us. But Less than 30% of tax payers currently pay 95% of the income taxes. Less than 5% currently pay 50% of the income taxes. If everyone paid the same %, say 10%, of their gross income to income taxes, those whose annual gross income was $1 billion, $1 million, or $1 thousand would pay annually, respectively, $100 million, $100 thousand, or $100. What's unfair about that?

HERE IS AN EXAMPLE: A FMAILY MAKING 20 K CAN BARELY GET BY, AND WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PAY 20% IN TAXES. A PERSON MAKING A MILLION WOULD NOT BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED IF HE HAD TO PAY 200K. HE WOULD STILL BE LIVING LIKE A KING.

0 Replies

The senate race is a tossup.

http://www.slate.com/id/2148600/?nav=tap3

0 Replies

Quote:

· Administration accused of cynical ploy to win votes
· Bush adviser denies he called supporters 'nuts'

A former senior presidential aide has accused the Bush administration of using evangelical Christians to win votes but then privately ridiculing them once in office. The allegations by David Kuo, the former deputy director of the White House office of faith-based initiatives, come at a devastating time, when the administration is counting on born-again Christians to vote in sufficient numbers to save the Republicans' hold on Congress in the November elections.

Aide says White House mocked evangelicals

0 Replies

Everybody on the Left rubs their hands with glee and nobody smells a rat that all this 'stuff' comes out in the 30 days or so before the election. And of course the mainstream media is more than eager to feature real or made up GOP dirty laundry while burying anything negative re the Democrats on literal or figurative inside pages below the fold if they air it at all.

I am in no way condoning the GOP's real sins and misdeeds and negatives, but it is frustrating when the reporting of sins and misdeeds and negatives is so one sided. If by some chance the GOP pulls it out of the fire in November, it will speak to the American people's ability to see through all that after all.

Just my opinion.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Everybody on the Left rubs their hands with glee and nobody smells a rat that all this 'stuff' comes out in the 30 days or so before the election. And of course the mainstream media is more than eager to feature real or made up GOP dirty laundry while burying anything negative re the Democrats on literal or figurative inside pages below the fold if they air it at all.

It has been published origianally on Beliefnet.

Might well be that's only made up by David Kuo because he is now a Contributing Editor of Beliefnet.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Everybody on the Left rubs their hands with glee and nobody smells a rat that all this 'stuff' comes out in the 30 days or so before the election. And of course the mainstream media is more than eager to feature real or made up GOP dirty laundry while burying anything negative re the Democrats on literal or figurative inside pages below the fold if they air it at all.

It has been published origianally on Beliefnet.

Might well be that's only made up by David Kuo because he is now a Contributing Editor of Beliefnet.

I know quite well that it has been reported. It showed up on Drudge too. But with no confirmation or verification, this "aide" is freely quoted as if the White House is regularly and intentionally smearing evangelical Christians. What's the truth? Was there one discussion of the marginal and lunatic Christian fringe that nobody denies exists? For instance that Baptist group from Kansas that is showing up to protest at funerals that just about everybody considers to be reprehensible?

But the media is more than eager to try to weaken the GOP's conservative religious base by making it look like the GOP is mocking all evangelical Christians. There are numerous sources they could also use as rebuttal but they don't bother do they? And that kind of dishonest reporting is also reprehensible.

0 Replies

I've long said that Republicans are terrible campaigners when it comes to rapid response to unethical attacks and misrepresentations.

But at least one GOP congressman in North Carolina is fighting back at distortions of his record. See HERE

0 Replies

And here's a whole different perspective on it.

It appears that the conventional wisdom is that if the GOP holds on to either the House or Senate it will be by a marginal number of seats - say three or four. Now who is better off? The Democrats wityh a GOP house majority with a marginal number of seats? Or the GOP with a Speaker Nancy Pelosi trying to run the House with a bare majority? That could actually be interesting.

More opinion on that:

October 13, 2006
The Election, The Spin and The Expectations Game
Posted by JOHN MCINTYRE

One consequence of the Foley scandal is that election expectations have skyrocketed for Democrats. Last week in Roll Call Stuart Rothenberg wrote: "The national atmospherics don't merely favor Democrats; they set the stage for a blowout of cosmic proportions next month." This week the National Journal's Charlie Cook writes: "The fact that the situation has turned grim for the GOP can hardly be disputed......for Republicans to salvage their majorities in the House and Senate, quite a bit would have to change"

After Speaker Hastert's press conference one week ago David Shuster reported to Chris Mathews:

Every Republican that we spoke to today said this has almost guaranteed that the Republicans are not going to keep control of Congress.
If this is anything like Shuster's reporting on Karl Rove's imminent indictment in the Plamegate scandal, perhaps Republicans are a lock to hold onto Congress. But that is another story.

George Will got into the act as well:

If after the Foley episode -- a maraschino cherry atop the Democrats' delectable sundae of Republican miseries -- the Democrats cannot gain (the House), they should go into another line of work.
Howard Fineman added:

If the Democrats can't take the Hill now, they deserve to go the way of the Whigs.
So what happens if we wake up Wednesday morning after the election and the Democrats have failed to take either chamber on Capitol Hill? Given the expectations that have been hyped these last two weeks (and really the entire year), it is not going to be hard for Republicans and President Bush to claim an enormous victory.

The reality will not be quite that black and white, of course. In many ways the absolute worst thing for the GOP (not necessarily President Bush) would be to hold Democratic gains in the House to 13 seats and go into the next Congress with a totally unmanageable four-vote majority. It can credibly be argued they would be better off for so many different reasons to lose 17 seats and give Nancy Pelosi the unenviable chore of managing a four-seat majority.

Holding the Senate has higher strategic value for Republicans, even if it comes with Vice President Cheney voting to break a 50-50 tie. However, in the bigger historical picture losing 4 or 5 Senate seats is hard to spin as good news for the GOP given early expectations in this cycle. Democrats are defending six states they won with 51% or less in 2000, including Florida and Nebraska - both winnable races for the GOP if they had just fielded their best candidates. The same can be said of North Dakota, which in total gave the GOP seven states they should have been able to make very competitive this election. Instead Republicans are stuck hoping that Menendez's ethical lapses in New Jersey will keep them from being totally shut out.

Now to be fair elections don't occur in vacuums and the relatively poor job approval numbers for President Bush, voter frustration over the mess in Iraq along with the 6-yr midterm trends in favor of the out party are rather powerful forces working for the Democrats. And at the end of the day strategizing Senate cycles into the future is only of so much value because of the tendency of the real world to intrude. September 11, 2001 is a perfect example.

It can argued both ways which party benefits more from winning control of the Senate or the House in 2006, but what really can't be disputed is given the expectations and hype that have preceded this election is that a failure of the Democrats to capture at least one chamber in the next Congress will be seen as a partial victory for President Bush. And if that were to happen that would make him in effect 4 for 4 in elections since 2000, something his critics should ponder.
SOURCE

0 Replies

re my previous resonse

I don't now much about it,, I must confess. I only got their (Beliefnet's) press release - as well as other media, I suppose.

One of their main contributors is Elliott Abrams, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs. And David Kuno, their Contributing Editor, had indeed, according to all informations, been a Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

What's the truth? Was there one discussion of the marginal and lunatic Christian fringe that nobody denies exists? For instance that Baptist group from Kansas that is showing up to protest at funerals that just about everybody considers to be reprehensible?

More questions you lack all urge to answer yourself? If you are doubtful, why dont you just go check? Let me guess - because it would turn out that your questions are easily answered with "no's". And then you wouldnt be able to use them to shrug off the story anymore.

For fact's sake - details, I know - according to the man, who was indeed, as Walter noted, Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, it was not just the one discussion, and it was not just about that Baptist group from Kansas:

Quote:

"National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as ridiculous, out of control, and just plain goofy," Mr Kuo wrote

Link

But hey, I'm going to start doing this too. It must make life much easier. Foxfyre: "Iraqi troops have defused a planned terrorist attack by Sunnis on a European target". Nimh (not bothering to actually look into it himself): "But how do you know the attack was even considered seriously? Perhaps it was just a smear attempt by a rival group. How do we know it's not just pro-Iranian Shi'ites trying to set the Sunnis up? Has anyone actually seen this plan? Who knows whether it isn't just a PR thing of the Iraq army to impress the Americans. Who can tell for sure that those Iraqi troops even existed?"

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
What's the truth? Was there one discussion of the marginal and lunatic Christian fringe that nobody denies exists? For instance that Baptist group from Kansas that is showing up to protest at funerals that just about everybody considers to be reprehensible?

More questions you lack all urge to answer yourself? If you are doubtful, why dont you just go check? Let me guess - because it would turn out that your questions are easily answered with "no's". And then you wouldnt be able to use them to shrug off the story anymore.

For fact's sake - details, I know - according to the man, who was indeed, as Walter noted, Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, it was not just the one discussion, and it was not just about that Baptist group from Kansas:

Quote:
"National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as ridiculous, out of control, and just plain goofy," Mr Kuo wrote

Link

But hey, I'm going to start doing this too. It must make life much easier. Foxfyre: "Iraqi troops have defused a planned terrorist attack by Sunnis on a European target". Nimh (not bothering to actually look into it himself): "But how do you know the attack was even considered seriously? Perhaps it was just a smear attempt by a rival group. How do we know it's not just pro-Iranian Shi'ites trying to set the Sunnis up? Has anyone actually seen this plan? Who knows whether it isn't just a PR thing of the Iraq army to impress the Americans. Who can tell for sure that those Iraqi troops even existed?"

I'm less gullible than some, I guess, Nimh. I am misquoted, misrepresented, and mischaracterized frequently enough right here on A2K that I have no problem whatsoever believing that the media does the same to others for their own purposes. I believe many, if not most, in the mainstream media these days will cherry pick quotes and present them as 'fact' when if put into context, they would give a much different impression. And I have no problem whatsoever believing that the media will skip hundreds of people who would relate a story one way just to find the one or two people wiling to say something that can be presented as much more salacious or damning.

And the fact that these little 'damning' tidbits are coming out at this particular time a few weeks before the election makes me even more suspcious of intentional public baiting.

So if you have problems with me not swallowing hook line and sinker what you automatically accept as gospel, that's your problem. I have no problem with my own position on that.

0 Replies

Before Judge Ellen Huvelle, Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio pleaded guilty to conspiracy and making false statements. A month ago, in a plea agreement with prosecutors, Ney admitted that he accepted tens of thousands of dollars in illegal gifts and other largesse that included nights of casino gambling in London and a lavish golf junket to Scotland. In return, Ney acknowledged, he used his legislative clout to do favors for Abramoff and for a Syrian businessman nicknamed the "Fat Man."

What was not expected at Friday's hearing was Ney's disclosure that he intended to remain in Congress for now. The announcement appeared to surprise and infuriate House Republican leaders, who are trying to tamp down other scandals that are threatening to damage the party in next month's congressional elections.

0 Replies

My father is an evangelical Christian who thinks for himself. This puts him at odds with most of the rest of his church.

He is part of the "Consistant pro-life movement" which is trying to reduce the amount of abortions as well as end capital punishment, fight poverty and stop war. (This is opposed to the non-consistant pro-life which is happy accepting the taking of life once it leaves the womb).

He worked hard to stop the dissemination of partisan political literature in the church. The stuff coming from "Focus on the Family" and others should be shocking to anyone as it manipulates people of faith into taking biblically questionable political stances.

But last week in the bulletin was a prayer request that the "politicians of life" would maintain control of the house. Needless to say, this put my father who is against torture, against war, and pro-compassion, in a difficult position. I suggested dueling prayer requests , but my father has a sincere faith that doesn't want the church politicized on either side and he is unwilling to fight fire with fire.

Conservative Christianity has long been an instrument of people who think violence is the solution to many problems, oppose diversity of cultures, want to make our society less understanding of the poor, and think that forgiveness is a sign of weakness.

But there are people who are trying to change this from within.

I think they are putting new wine in old wineskins.

0 Replies

Ney also entered guilty pleas according to the Justice Department. The man has been a trainwreck for his district, which is a poor district bordering his native West Virginia. He was the clown who decided that french fries served in the Congressional cafeterias should be renamed "freedom fries."

Ney has withdrawn from the November race, even if he refuses to leave his seat now. This leaves him free to transfer the nearly half a million dollars in campaign contributions which currently remain to his legal defense fund. He has already spent more than $300,000, much of it from campaign funds spent in 2005. He claims not have have spent any campaign funds since January. His donations plummeted, and he has raised less than $100,000 since January. One wonders how the Republicans intend to fund the 18th District race now.

0 Replies

It is amusing to see Hastert and other Republicans angered that Ney won't quit immediately. After all, many Republicans did the same things that Ney did, albeit to a lesser extent and, perhaps, more artfully. For instance, Boehner took all kinds of trips and payments, flippantly explaining that various groups enjoyed his speeches.

0 Replies

I think this could be a bombshell relative to the mid-term election.

ETHICS
Losing the Faith

"More than five years after President Bush created the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives," David Kuo, the former special assistant to President Bush on faith-based issues, is "going public with an insider's tell-all account that portrays an office used almost exclusively to win political points." Kuo is a "self-described conservative Christian" who has worked with former Sen. Jack Kemp (R-NY), prominent conservative activist Bill Bennett, and former Attorney General John Ashcroft. In his book "Tempting Faith," Kuo accuses Karl Rove and others in the Bush administration of "cynically hijacking the faith-based initiatives idea for electoral gain," ignoring issues such as poverty, and limiting faith-based grants to organizations that are "politically friendly to the administration." Rove's office, according to Kuo, referred to evangelicals as "boorish," "nuts," "ridiculous," "out of control," and "just plain 'goofy.'" The revelations come as right-wing politicians "worry that angry evangelicals may stay home from the polls" because of the House leadership's mishandling of the Foley scandal. Kuo's new book reveals a conservative agenda which values crass politics over the "values" agenda. As E.J. Dionne writes, the current political climate presents a "national opportunity to break free from empty, politically driven rhetoric that has nothing to do with strengthening families and everything to do with electoral advantage."

NOT THE FIRST INSIDER CRITICISM: Kuo has criticized the administration's handling of faith-based programs before. In 2005, Kuo described the "minimal senior White House commitment to the faith-based agenda" during his time in the administration. Kuo bemoaned the lack of focus on poverty. "[The White House] never really wanted the 'poor people stuff,'" he wrote. Kuo was at one time the consummate right-wing insider. Keith Olbermann reported last night that during his stint at Jack Kemp's think tank, Empower America, "[Kuo] and his team taught more than 600 candidates how to run for office -- by blaming President Clinton for the nation's sad state of affairs at the time." John DiIulio, the head of the faith-based program until Aug. 2001, also spoke out against the administration's penchant for politics over policy. "What you've got is everything -- and I mean everything -- being run by the political arm," DiIulio said. "It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis." DiIulio, like Kuo, endeared himself to conservatives by attacking Clinton. "During the Clinton impeachment drama, he beat the drum for Clinton's removal from office and decried the failure to do so as a signal of the 'paganization' of American political culture."

--AmericanProgressAction

0 Replies

This smacks of criminality.

USING EVANGELICALS FOR POLITICAL GAIN: In his book, Kuo says officials in Karl Rove's office "knew 'the nuts' were politically invaluable, but that was the extent of their usefulness." Staff members complained "politically involved Christians were 'annoying,' 'tiresome' or 'boorish.'" "National Christian leaders," Kuo writes, "received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous' and 'out of control.'" The White House did more than belittle evangelical leaders behind their backs. According to Kuo, White House political affairs director Ken Mehlman "knowingly participated in a scheme to use the [faith-based] office, and taxpayer funds, to mount ostensibly nonpartisan events that were, in reality, designed with the intent of mobilizing religious voters in 20 targeted races." "t can't come from the campaigns," Mehlman said. "That would make it look too political. It needs to come from the congressional offices. We'll take care of that by having our guys call the office [of faith-based initiatives] to request the visit." The revelations could hit conservatives where it hurts -- in the ballot box. Conservative Christian voters "were beginning to feel that they had been used," Newsweek's Howard Fineman said last night. "That was before this book came out, and I can tell you a lot of those same people...are going look at this new book and say 'Aha,' this is what we thought all along."

--AmericanProgressAction

0 Replies

Tony Snow accuses Kuo of being a Judas of the highest order. The problem with this is that there is no proof there was a Judas, but Kuo is a real person.

Washington, DC (APE) - "Just get me a F---ing Faith-Based thing. Got it?!?" said chief presidential adviser Karl Rove to Bush aide Don Willet in 2001, according to the new book, Tempting Faith, by David Kuo. The book is scheduled to be released in print on Monday, but quotations from advanced copies have the White House screaming about Democratic political machinations, three weeks before the elections.

Kuo, a fundamentalist conservative Republican who was a former insider with the administration's largely unfunded Faith Based Initiatives, also claims that the Bush administration regularly referred to its evangelical supporters as "goofy" and "nuts". He also offered evidence that rumors of the administration's use of code words and phrases as well as visual symbolism, to placate its base during public appearances were in fact true.
The White House early this morning went on the offensive at a press conference with Press Secretary Tony Snow. Snow described charges set forth in the book as "bordering upon blasphemous", and accused Kuo of being a "Judas of the highest order".

"To accuse this president of such a cynical lack of faith ought to be a mortal sin," stated Snow. "With the coming elections, only three weeks away, I can honestly say that this entire administration has been praying together almost daily."

The White House angrily denied charges that it routinely manipulated images for religious symbolism

"I personally admire President Bush for his ability to turn the other cheek, during these times of adversity," continued Snow. "He in fact had predicted that this turn of events would occur, with his ultimate betrayal. He wants to assure everyone, however, that despite the outcome of the election in November, his administration will rise again in the hearts and minds of true believers in America."

Conservative religious activist James Dobson, who was cited in the book, was contacted for comment. A spokesperson for Mr. Dobson stated that the Reverend had made a decision to "wash his hands of the entire incident".

0 Replies

Quote:

"I personally admire President Bush for his ability to turn the other cheek, during these times of adversity," continued Snow. "He in fact had predicted that this turn of events would occur, with his ultimate betrayal. He wants to assure everyone, however, that despite the outcome of the election in November, his administration will rise again in the hearts and minds of true believers in America."

This is the most bizarre statement from an administration spokesperson I think I have ever seen.

0 Replies

I missed that...

Bush as a Christ figure... who knew!

0 Replies

WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know