Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!
New Obama Ad Ties Bush-McCain Economy To Iraq War
jedreport.com — This might be Barack Obama's best ad yet -- it manages to make a coherent case against Bush-McCain economics and for Barack Obama's plan to end the war in Iraq and put middle-class families first, all in thirty seconds.
BishkekBuddy- 1094 diggs
- digg it
- marabout40, on 08/13/2008, -11/+44About time he connected those two dots for the broader community.
- Mikecoatl, on 08/13/2008, -7/+2la-la-la-la, connect the dots! LOL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Kl_jMWtiI
FINALLY people may start to get it. We MUST keep McCain OUT of the White House!- themastersb, on 08/15/2008, -0/+2Blocked.
- b0rna, on 08/14/2008, -4/+2However, he does not oppose staying in Iraq.
- motivatedmama, on 08/14/2008, -1/+3He opposes permanent military bases. That speaks volumes.
- sweitx, on 08/14/2008, -0/+0No one is perfect.
- Arkons24, on 08/14/2008, -8/+3Obamanomics - Recession ftw.
- StarlessKnight, on 08/14/2008, -3/+2Depression. Depression. We're already in a recession. You can't insinuate Obama will cause a recession, like that's a threat we need to worry about, when it's already happened under Bush.
- Arkons24, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1I'm insinuating that he will extend the current recession. But yea, he might even make it a recession. Who knows how many crazy stupid energy plans and tax plans he has that will hurt the economy.
- aadyss, on 08/14/2008, -0/+0Ah yes, the old dots game.
- Mikecoatl, on 08/13/2008, -7/+2la-la-la-la, connect the dots! LOL!
- LegendAdds, on 08/13/2008, -53/+6I'm so sick of rich ***** telling me that they have a middle class solution.
Here's a better ***** idea... ANARCHY NOW.
Lets not vote for anyone. Lets ***** steal those billions of dollars and take them for ourselves.
***** BARACK OBAMA
***** GEORGE BUSH
***** JOHN MCCAIN
***** THE US GOVERNMENT
***** THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM
ANARCHY NOW!!!
REVOLUTION NOW!!!!- jerrym123, on 08/13/2008, -4/+10A dose of Lithium may be in your future.
- BishkekBuddy, on 08/13/2008, -3/+1A done of Lithium SHOULD be in your future.... there, I corrected it for you! :-)
- redcolumbine, on 08/13/2008, -3/+9Anarchism is not solipsism. Grow up.
- foofightrs777, on 08/14/2008, -1/+1Revolutions are always great for the economy! There's a solution for ya!
- absurdist, on 08/14/2008, -0/+3When Human Intelligence 2.0 has been released and thoroughly debugged, get back to me on that one. Until then, not so much.
- jerrym123, on 08/13/2008, -4/+10A dose of Lithium may be in your future.
- motivatedmama, on 08/13/2008, -8/+23Funny how politically incorrect it would sound if it had said, "Barack Obama, putting the POOR and middle class first" Not blaming him. It's just sad.
- Arkons24, on 08/14/2008, -3/+5especially since his policies are most likely to affect the poor and middle class first.
- Arkons24, on 08/14/2008, -1/+2I meant negatively by the way.
- fuzzybeard, on 08/14/2008, -0/+8Nothing wrong with being poor; my wife, my kid, and myself have everything we need and a few luxuries besides that. There are things that we'd like to have that we can't afford; but in our reality, it provides incentive to earn them.
As an aside, I spent the summer and early fall a few years ago working a second job as the maintenance man/janitor at a local country club; it was an eye-opening experience, to say the least! The impression that I came away with is that money is nice, but it can be more of a curse.- evilgourmet, on 08/14/2008, -0/+7WHAT?!?!? it's not all little rich kids on DIGG?
I hear ya, money can be a detriment to happiness. Working 12-15 hr days, just to pay the CC bills and overblown mortgages is just stupid. You have to enjoy life. - NidStyles, on 08/14/2008, -0/+4I applaud you. Not everyone in the world see's it that way, but those that do are more enlightened. The greatest mind's of time were poor servants, and broke intellects.
- evilgourmet, on 08/14/2008, -0/+7WHAT?!?!? it's not all little rich kids on DIGG?
- joeanon, on 08/14/2008, -0/+5People who are truly poor, don't take offense to being called poor unless you purposely throw a negative connotation on it. It's like when black people call each other *****. It's not that you can't say retard, it's that you can't refer to actual retarded people, unless you know some of course, in which case you'd notice that retarded people call other people retarded. I can't help but admit it's funny to hear.
Your just stuck in the old politically correct days, which are thankfully ending.
If Obama says I will delver the poor from poverty... .
the poor don't take it as an insult because they are WELL AWARE that the system isn't fair and many of them want some type of assistance.
He could say the lower income brackets, but your just calling a black man of African American heritage instead of just staying black, because you think they might take offense to being called black.
Grow up, the world is not this overly formal politically correct land of conformists and productive discourse shouldn't try to limit dialect by setting aside a class of socially acceptable and non socially acceptable phrases which mean exactly the same thing.
It's NOT how you say something, it's what you say. And too many American's are brainwashed by this 'image is everything culture' and a need to be take in order to protect themselves from what amounts to a vicious segment of the public and media which act as semantic police, jumping all over people's ability to express themselves, while entirely missing the bigger picture of things.
George Bush would get in more trouble calling a special needs kid a tard then he would for starting a war and torturing prisoners because as long as he words his illegal actions well, it's politically correct to torture.
The point is, resist your shallow need to bypass content for the sake of image or political correctness or your contributing to lack of real communication and expression in America. - Nairebis, on 08/14/2008, -0/+4The poor already get a lot of goodies, paid for by the middle class and the rich. Nobody has sympathy for the rich, since they can (usually) afford it, but the middle class is the one that gets constantly screwed. They pay a good proportion of the money, but aren't able to comfortably afford it.
- Arkons24, on 08/14/2008, -3/+5especially since his policies are most likely to affect the poor and middle class first.
- tcbishop12, on 08/13/2008, -8/+38All true statements. Unlike with McCain's ads which are littered with lies and deceptions, FactCheck's got nothing to complain about here. I agree with marabout40, good connection of the dots, readily understandable, sensible. And with motivatedmama - it's a shame we can't speak of the poor without getting dinged by the wingnuts as being "welfare socialist".
Very concise message, very well thought out. Hope to catch it on the Olympics. A sharp poke to McCain without seeming so. Truth without malice is like that.- Arkons24, on 08/14/2008, -13/+2yea, true statements if you ignore the ones that aren't complete *****. Oh wait, that's all of them. Economics ... increasing taxes won't lower the cost of gas. "Excess profits" is a fallacy - no such thing - economic fact.
Where's factcheck.org now?- guyzero, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1Don't need factcheck when we have the US Gov't Accountability Office:
http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GA ...
"For 2008, GAO estimates that Iraq could generate between $73.5 billion and $86.2 billion in total revenues...."
The ad does not make the claim that increasing taxes won't lower the cost of gas. It does claim that Obama would give no more tax breaks to oil companies.
Supply-side economics has been proven to be a joke (where the top 5% get rich from the backs of the bottom 95%) after the last several "fiscal" republican presidents. - motivatedmama, on 08/14/2008, -2/+2Ehem. You were saying?
Who's statement is complete *****? Oh yeah, Arkons24. - Arkons24, on 08/14/2008, -1/+2Revenues are not profits - excess profits are a fallacy. Also, Obama's actual energy plan calls for increasing the taxes on energy companies. That isn't in the ad, you'd have to go actually read something with substance.
The only thing proven to be a joke are your arguments. Supply side economics is no joke and just because short-sighted liberals that want your votes convince you it is doesn't make it is so. - guyzero, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1Maybe the issue is that you didn't bother to watch the ad to see what it actually says. It doesn't say EXCESS PROFITS. It says OIL SURPLUS - which is a budget surplus, which is a fact that is borne out by the GAO report that I linked above. Are you saying the GAO report is a fallacy? Got anything to back that up? This specific issue is about having the Iraq oil surplus contribute to the rebuilding of Iraq (in addition to US tax dollars and US debt) and is not some referendum against the oil companies.
But, I do have a hard time taking issue with the idea of a windfall tax against oil companies, who have turned in all-time world-record revenues and profits quarter on quarter since the Iraq war began. The folks that are receiving the most direct financial benefit from this administration are also getting temporary and now permanent tax breaks and cheap leases while we're accumulating a huge deficit? C'mon...
With regards to supply side economics, I'll provide you with a simple visual aid since basic facts seem to be confusing: http://bethesignal.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/ ...
The idea of cutting taxes without offsetting the budget by making cuts to spending is just mind blowing. We've done the opposite and have cranked up spending (so much for being a "fiscally conservative" administration.)
Saying supply-side economics is "no joke" is actually not a convincing argument. - bentl1, on 08/14/2008, -1/+2My word ... a Digg viewer with a brain, and not a socialist .... how refreshing!
- Arkons24, on 08/14/2008, -1/+1Actually, the funny thing about those oil companies is they didn't have record profits, they had record revenue. Profit is the ratio between capital expenditure and revenue and it didn't change at all. What can you infer from that information ? Well, that the markets are working just as they are supposed to. See the increase in revenue is due to the fact that the price of oil has gone up. Why has oil gone up? Because demand for it is increasing at a time when the immediate supply is in serious question. All in all, the price of extracting oil has gone up. How do you bring the price of oil back down when extraction has gone up so high? Well first the speculators drive up the cost of oil because they think oil will become more scarce in the future (which it has). Then companies start pumping all that additional revenue into capital so that they can more efficiently extract the oil that the market is demanding. As the process for extracting oil becomes more efficient due to increased capital expenditure that high prices allowed for, the price of oil comes down ... profit stays the same while capital expenditure and revenue will go down to match the price of oil which is now much more readily available in the market.
You should stop arguing with your emotions and actually make some arguments based on reality rather than your mistaken assumptions about it. Man, you know the problem with liberals? They just know too damn much that ain't ***** true.
The oil "surplus" ... I could give two ***** about. It isn't anything more than a budget surplus which is what you would expect when they have so little capital to supply with that surplus. It'll go down over time and its existence is irrelevant. Also, I was referring to Obama's plan to tax the "excess" profits of oil companies ... which is just complete nonsense. The demand for oil is very inelastic and the tax will end up being on us.
Oh and the fact that you are using a political cartoon to try and backup your regurgitated statement is pretty sad. - guyzero, on 08/15/2008, -1/+1This discussion was about what is being said in the advertisement, but even your invented arguement/discussion that had little to do with what I said is incorrect: oil companies have made huge profits these past several (16?) quarters, even after their capex expenditures. It's common knowledge and undeniable so I find it odd that you made this claim.
Just google oil company record profits and dozens of news stories from NYTimes, Reuters, CBS, NBC, etc etc saying exactly that about multiple oil companies over the past 3-4 years. Even in 2005, they were saying that they were running out of exploration investment opportunities: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8646744/ and that was when it was $60/barrel ...
Investment during growth and good profit years has been the standard cycle for energy companies forever -- they are not doing anything new and special this time.
Anyway, good luck with that whole I - Arkons24, on 08/15/2008, -1/+1You're an idiot. You clearly didn't even read my post. You're wrong ... dead wrong. But I guess ignorance is bliss in this case.
- guyzero, on 08/15/2008, -1/+1Ha, you didn't provide a single source to back up your parroted blogosphere BS talking points, while I refuted all of that nonsense with reliable sources and plain old common sense, and now you are gonna cry about it. Pathetic.
Can you find a single quarterly earning report since 2005 that proves your claim that there have not been increased oil company NET profits (even after capex - which end up providing long term tax benefit anyhow, exploration, etc. but before stock buybacks and dividends)? You can even look at energy services companies (Halliburton, Schlumberger, etc) along with producers. Good hunting. - Arkons24, on 08/16/2008, -1/+1None of your sources are creditable and even worse you have no clue about anything economics. Net profits are the exact same thing I said before just a number rather than a ratio. When discussing profits in any objective matter the only thing that matters is the ratio. I don't have to go look at the reports because I've already seen them and they support exactly what I've described. Go learn something, then come back and talk to me.
- guyzero, on 08/16/2008, -1/+1So you've got nothing but wanna keep on crying about it. Thought so. I realize you aren't even parroting talking points, this is just some ***** you've made up. The idea that ratios of revenue:profit make it all OK is not economics, it is ignorant drivel from a teenager on the internet. Unfortunately, all you've provided here is ***** and tears.
- Arkons24, on 08/17/2008, -1/+1Economics is ***** I've made up? rofl. You're delusional. Keep telling yourself whatever lies you need to hold onto that myopic perspective of yours.
- guyzero, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1Don't need factcheck when we have the US Gov't Accountability Office:
- Arkons24, on 08/14/2008, -13/+2yea, true statements if you ignore the ones that aren't complete *****. Oh wait, that's all of them. Economics ... increasing taxes won't lower the cost of gas. "Excess profits" is a fallacy - no such thing - economic fact.
- BishkekBuddy, on 08/13/2008, -7/+32Gotta tell you - when Obama speaks about "the middle class," I think he's talking about ME and giving me respect and dignity. You see, I hardly qualify as "middle class" since I make under 15K a year and don't have a pot of retirement funds waiting for me. I would truly hope that everyone feels as though he's talking about them - everyone, that is, except those who have 10 houses, a private jet... you get the picture.
And one more comment about "words" that are chosen. I've always had less money than anyone else around - mostly due to the fact that if I ever had anything extra, I could always find someone who needed it more than I did.... Except one time. Back in the 70's, husband left me and wasn't sending support for the two kids. I had to apply for welfare to feed my kids. The application asked how much cash I had on me. $3.51... How much did I have in the bank? $12.38. I gave the application to the woman, she looked at me and then, horrified, looked at me and said "but you're destitute!" I was SO angry and insulted!! I wasn't "destitute"!! I had $15.81!!
Sometimes, MOST times, you can ignore reality and simply give people dignity.- motivatedmama, on 08/13/2008, -2/+9tcbishop (as usual) summed it up better than I ever could. I'm with ya Bishkek. This year will be the first in 19 years that I have not been signed up for one program or another (sometimes all of them!) Though no one ever called me destitute, as with you, it wouldn't have mattered if they had. I had the necessities of life and my kids and found that when you've been as low as you can go, forever after, the smallest blessing is appreciated. After that any extra is just that, extra. That sense of gratitude I would not trade for all the money in the world.
- ouzome, on 08/14/2008, -8/+5Well, you two don't pay any income taxes anyways, so what are you crying about? Wasn't this topic about putting the higher classes (middle class) first? That's not about you, but you'll still be paying no income taxes regardless of who is President.
- FutureGuy, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1well said. you are richer in many ways then most with private jets.
- mmijatov, on 08/14/2008, -6/+31Obama could've dished it out a lot harder, but I commend him for keeping it clean.
- Arkons24, on 08/14/2008, -6/+2dishing out ***** is so easy, he probably could have dished it out harder without any of you calling him on it.
- RoroCo, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1Just wait until later in the year. These adds are just testing the waters right now since 90 percent of America is not paying attention to the presidential race yet. Once the conventions happen, that is when you will start seeing the real ads.
- byronm, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1Obama's motto is to keep it real. In case you didn't notice his ending lines in most McCain commercials are "typical DC politics" or along those lines. Obama wants to answer to the threats but doesn't want to fall back to titt for tatt attacks. Answer the question at hand and throw it back at your opponent for barking up the wrong tree.
The *BEST* add i saw was the recent one about jobs, taxes and energy. It showed how going green creates jobs for the same workers, same employees and same factories and it nearly brought a tear to my eye because it was blatantly obvious but 100% the truth. Its not a moving commercial at all, but it was a commercial that moved me because it wasn't the same old ***** if you know what i mean.
- byronm, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1Obama's motto is to keep it real. In case you didn't notice his ending lines in most McCain commercials are "typical DC politics" or along those lines. Obama wants to answer to the threats but doesn't want to fall back to titt for tatt attacks. Answer the question at hand and throw it back at your opponent for barking up the wrong tree.
- OfNumbers, on 08/14/2008, -20/+4Jedreport / Jedreport/ Openleft.
- scoottie, on 08/14/2008, -16/+5i like the news about pelosi going on vacation rather than having a vote on drilling to pad her pockets more than this story
http://digg.com/environment/Hot_air_and_gas_from_t ...- Drogoganor, on 08/14/2008, -1/+5I love your butthurt spam.
- scoottie, on 08/14/2008, -6/+1good for you
here is something to read on obama
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/us/politics/06bu ... - scoottie, on 08/14/2008, -6/+12 sides to every story but i guess you wouoldnt know that you lemming
- scoottie, on 08/14/2008, -6/+1good for you
- motivatedmama, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1Why vote on a fallacy? I wouldn't dignify them with a response either.
Crawl back under your rock. Obama is gonna be your prez whether you like it or not. - KiminCA, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1Do you also like the news that it looks like the Republican elected officials will oppose a bipartisan compromise solution that could be past into law?
It seems we can always count on most of our GOP elected officials to obstruct any common sense legislation, while handing all of their power to our current Imperial President. (Are you also happy the GOP threw Article I of our Constitution into the trashcan? If you are, we disagree, because I am MAD. Our ancestors fought to rid us of a King, now we have these jerks giving us one--albeit at least he can only serve 2 terms-- simply by throwing away their own Congressional power with both hands).
- Drogoganor, on 08/14/2008, -1/+5I love your butthurt spam.
- xBarium, on 08/14/2008, -6/+4As a member of the middle class, I'm glad to hear he's putting me first but methinks taking preference is the mistake. Hopefully no one latches on to it and ignores everything else. Oh wait this is an Obama ad.....................here we go
- KiminCA, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1The middle class is the driving force of this economy and we have been ignored (and abused) for decades now. The American Dream is failing all around us. Yes, the middle class and our American Dream should be made secure -- this is the right thing to do, for our Country, for our future and for each one of us.
- obamaistheman, on 08/19/2008, -0/+0Wait a second...
What middle class? Do we still have a middle class in this country?
I think what we're talking about when we're "saving the middle class" really means saving this country's economy. The problem is that we haven't been very competitive lately. Jobs that used to be middle class jobs have gone away. Drum roll please... the future of the middle class is in clean energy: wind, solar, etc. Saving the planet is great, but we also have an opportunity to save the middle class with the only new industry around that will creat middle class jobs.
- Evilblobs, on 08/14/2008, -16/+7Obama, fighting nobly for the helpless proletariat...
...while big corporations continue to provide around half of his campaign funding- smashhell, on 08/14/2008, -1/+5And big corporates doesn't provide funding for McCain ??? LOL ! McCain IS a puppet for the big corporates. All of his policies said so ! While many Obama's policy are against big corporate control.
- Evilblobs, on 08/14/2008, -6/+2When did i say they didnt fund McCain? You ignorant ObamaTard, you give the rest of Obama's supporters an even worse name. Your ignorance and stupidity also translate really well in your 5th grade level dissertation on the 'awsomeness of Obama's anti corporate control!'
- KiminCA, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1The middle class is not the proletariat. Indeed, Stalin sent most of the middle class (that he did not starve first) to Siberia, or just murdered them. Perhaps you should google search kulaks. The middle class is the bourgeousie. If you want to make a crack about the French Revolution, or claim that our morality is kitschy, I would probably disagree with your opinion, but at least your word choice would be accurate.
- smashhell, on 08/14/2008, -1/+5And big corporates doesn't provide funding for McCain ??? LOL ! McCain IS a puppet for the big corporates. All of his policies said so ! While many Obama's policy are against big corporate control.
- sangjmoon, on 08/14/2008, -13/+7The Iraq War didn't hurt the economy. Those who know the economic effects of war on the USA know that the detrimental effect of war is its pressure on increasing inflation as a result of military spending driving overall government spending too high a percentage of the GDP as the Vietnam War did. Surprisingly, the Iraq War spending, as a percentage of GDP, is far lower than that of the Vietnam War. What Bush actually did along with the lefties in congress which did hurt the economy significantly was to subsidize ethanol and put in place quotas for ethanol usage. This created an artificially high demand for corn which in turn decreased supply of other food crops resulting in worldwide steep increases in food prices.
- Arkons24, on 08/14/2008, -4/+2True. Also far lower in human cost as well and a much higher potential return for our investment. But we'll keep that secret because we don't want to offend the sensitive bleeding hearts on this board.
Also, increased government spending can have the benefit of increasing economic prosperity through something known as the multiplier effect. For each dollar the government spends that amount could be multiplied many times which results in an increase in net aggregate demand and a healthier economy overall. This can be countered but if you look at real world results, like WW2, you'll see the immense benefits this can have to a lagging economy. Of course, it isn't guaranteed and depends on a number of factors but dismissing increased government spending as only negative is hogwash. Everyone is concerned about rising government debt but we have to see through what we've started otherwise it has no benefit to anyone.- sangjmoon, on 08/14/2008, -2/+2We actually have to be very worried about increased government spending. The greatest threat to the USA isn't the Iraq War. The greatest threat to the USA is the upcoming economic armageddon as the bulk of the baby boomers retire and drive government spending through the roof via Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. This will drive inflation much higher than the bad times after the Vietnam War. The pressure on the money pool will be so great that either the Fed will be unable to control it, or the Fed will be forced to cause a massive economic slowdown in order to control inflation, or worst case is both. What needs to be done but is considered as the third rail by both parties is to decrease government spending drastically in Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid in order to buffer the baby boomer shock. If our government continues to ignore this economic tsunami heading our way, it will make the current combination of oil prices being high and the subprime market crunch look like the good old days.
- Arkons24, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1It isn't as big a deal as some are making it out to believe. It is true that social security isn't sustainable and we will find out within the next decade how unsustainable it is without huge increases in our budget deficit year after year. However, inflation you have to remember is only really a fact in the short term. Inflation can only affect our economy when uncertainty can be a factor - once again in the short term. Over the long term price levels adjust to inflation and since real values can't be affected by inflation there isn't really a cause for worry. The risk here is that it could set off such a large uncertainty that we face a period of hyper-inflation that would lead to very serious consequences like you suggest. My opinion is that this is very unlikely to happen and the fed is likely working on a solution that doesn't involve scrapping the entire system - though I think it should be scrapped anyway. The fact is that once the costs start rolling in, we will have a long time to be able to implement anything that needs to be done. Even if the deficit increases dramatically it would take years of that sort of uncertainty with inflation over 20% to really even start thinking about worrying about hyperinflation and real economic messes that could result. Sure it won't be good, but it's far from the doom and gloom scenario predicted by so many chicken littles.
Also keep in mind that it's more likely we are facing a deflation right now than an inflation thanks to the elimination of trillions of dollars in the sub prime mortgage fiasco (thanks FDR et, al.). A lot of real savvy economists are calling for a huge deflationary period and readjustment of the entire market. Totally the opposite scenario of the one you speak of. So maybe if both happen they will just even out? My money is on neither are as extreme as people make em out to be.
- organicmajority, on 08/14/2008, -1/+4Arkons... Sensitive bleeding hearts? Have you lost anyone to this war? Since you seem to understand the value of life so well, how much is it worth?
You fail to mention that along with the so called multiplier effect, when you add government regulation and the printing of money out of thin air you are giving the power to the government to shape and essentially control the economy. Coupled with the new powers of the fed you entering into a completely "planned economy" scenario which is code for socialism. They will determine which banks live and which ones die, the multiplier effect will continue to grow the "security/police" state apparatus.
Your reference to the so called benefits that WWII brought to a lagging economy fail to make mention that it was the creation of a federal reserve in 1913 which allowed for the creation of a financial collapse which created an economic environment friendly to the idea of war.
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson, Letter 1802 to Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin- Arkons24, on 08/14/2008, -2/+1Give me a break. Increased government expenditures due to a war have nothing to do with the creation of a centrally planned economy. Things that would point to that would be increasing social programs and bureaucracy. You've been reading too many Ron Paulesque conspiracy theory craziness. Based on your use of it you don't really have any idea what the multiplier effect actually is. The fed doesn't determine what banks live and which die, the banks determine that.
Also the printing of money out of thin air isn't exactly the case we are looking at. We are actually faced with the substantial problem of deflation currently thanks to the elimination of trillions in the sub prime mortgage fiasco. We definitely aren't increasing the money supply by enough to even counter act that, so get off your high horse. - organicmajority, on 08/14/2008, -1/+1"Increased government expenditures due to a war have nothing to do with creation of a centrally planned economy". Your dead wrong on that. A state of war is exactly what is needed to restructure the state. We are seeing the largest restructuring and centralization of federal power both financially and militarily. The Homeland Security related sector is now by far the fastest growing sector within the government. If it was not for the state of war this sector COULD NOT grow like it is now growing. This growth extends down to every town in america where the government is training ma and pa kettle to combat bioterroism or profile terrorists etc... In five years just DHS spending alone has increased 200 percent. Give me a break!
"You've been reading to many Ron Paulesque conspiracy theory craziness." Thanks for the name calling. To me you sound like one of those strong on contemporary intellectual nonsense and very weak on history. You have the views that are useful to a controlling elite which I am sure you have convinced yourself do not exist. Both of which Pareto's law and scale-free network distributions prove exist. In fact these laws even provide an acurate view of the true structure both in terms of knowledge, wealth, and power.
"Based on your use of it you don't really have any idea what the multipler effect actually is." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplier_effect ... I think based on my DHS and Homeland Security example above I do understand it. I think you have a limited view of how the multiplier effect can be used for social engineering a population.
"The fed doesn't determine what banks live and which die, the banks determine that." Oh really, is that what the folks at Bear Sterns would say? By definition, because they control the amount of money in circulation, they control everything, although perhaps not always with the greatest precision. With the newly expanded powers of the FED I can only see this control increasing.
By the way, you didn't answer my question.... how much is life worth? - gatparker, on 08/14/2008, -1/+1The FED owns us. People don't seem to get it. The #1 rule for a free country has been broken.
But.. hey.. Obama = change. - Arkons24, on 08/14/2008, -2/+1organicminority your arguments sound copy pasted right off some cooky conspiracy theory board that wants to elect Ron Paul .... I didn't call you a name though. I think you are right to be concerned though. I'm concerned about increasing government budgets as well but I don't buy your multiplier effect as applied to social engineering with the DHS. But these are all emotional arguments that I don't really take part in. I do see what you are saying about the multiplier effect and how you've applied it socially. I don't agree but I get it in theory.
Anyway I don't do emotional arguing. Whether or not the fed is correct in its inception or not is not an argument for me. That's an argument for people with far more background in economics than I do. I'm not qualified to make that kind of determination. Some economists say the fed does a great job of stabilizing the economy, others say it magnifies swings in the economy. /shrug. I haven't heard any theories about how it caused the great depression. If you pointed me to an argument for it I would certainly read it if it was authored by someone with a background appropriate for that sort of claim.
Economically a life is worth whatever your charging for it. My life is worth a lot more than most organizations are willing to pay. The U.S. armed forces apparently give a good price for a lot of people ... but that was their choice. Of course it isn't actually your life but it is risking your life so you have to be willing to give that up if it comes due. I've got family and friends in Iraq, none have been casualties so far but I would say the same thing if they were. They made their choices of free will. - organicmajority, on 08/15/2008, -0/+1How is this for a reputable spokesman? The wiki article referenced below provides the needed references.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milton Freedman: Nobel Laureate in economics says:
"In Monetary History of the United States, he argues that the Great Depression was caused by monetary contraction, which was the consequence of poor policymaking by the Federal reserve and the continuous crises in the banking system."
According to The Economist, Friedman "was the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century…possibly of all of it".[2] Former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan stated, "There are very few people over the generations who have ideas that are sufficiently original to materially alter the direction of civilization. Milton is one of those very few people."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Freedman left out an analysis of the social structure, personalities and motivations of the individuals behind the creation of the federal reserve. Most people can't comprehend their financial genius. They were the definition of evil genius. A great video to check out is the following: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560 ... although it is over 3 hours it explains the forces behind the federal resever well. You will have to set aside some time and do the research.
I am a Ron Paul supporter. I was a state delegate in support of him. I don't copy and paste arguments, everything I have said has been composed in haste. The arguments might look similar to what others have written, that is because the truth is what it is. I feel like I am casting pearls before swine. This is my last post. I have no interest in saying anything else unless you watch the video posted and look into the links that I posted. It might also be a good idea to google "Pareto law" and "scale-free networks", but I am thinking you wont spend the time to make the connections with my previous posts and that this is all just a big waste of time.
If you as lazy as your joke "organicminority" I am imagining I am probably writing into a void. - Arkons24, on 08/15/2008, -1/+1I like Milton Friedman. The organicminority thing wasn't a joke just a mistake. I'll take a look at the video. I watched a couple minutes and already found a couple things that are wrong though so, I'll probably take most of it with a grain of salt.
- organicmajority, on 08/15/2008, -0/+1"I like Milton Friedman" ... you are trying to diminish the fact that this Nobel prize winner reinforces what I said, that the depression was caused by the federal reserve. You wanted a source and I provided one and you respond with "I like Milton Friedman"
"I watched a couple of minutes and already found a couple of things that are wrong though so, I'll probably take most of it with a grain of salt". .... History is a vast subject and there are bound to be "things" which can be cherry picked to weaken a particular view point. When building a view of history it has to be remembered that the history is written by those who have won the wars (the wars I reference are not the wars that the common man has fought in i.e. WWI, WWII). Given the fact that you were unaware of Friendman's work or any of the other information I provided ... I will take you criticism of the video with a "grain of salt" as it seems to reference .... "nothing". I find the vagueness of your response offensive. - Arkons24, on 08/16/2008, -1/+1I don't follow every economist that I like so religiously that I would be aware of every single opinion they have on every single subject. I'll take a look at Friedman's opinion on the fed when I have time .... I don't right now and haven't yet. I won't cherry pick jack ***** but there was one thing said in the first minute and a half that goes against a fundamental understanding of economics.
I wrote the post quickly because I am a busy person and didn't have time to type out a lengthy response nor watch the video ... I still haven't. Busy busy busy.
I find your arrogance and your general point of view offensive but then again I don't give a ***** about you and I would venture a guess that you feel similarly. Moreover, since your mind is effectively closed until Ron Paul gives you another talking point to research there isn't really much point in talking to you. I probably would have been willing to chat more if you hadn't acted like such a jackass throughout this entire thread but ... w/e. Seeya on whatever next thread we come across each other in. - organicmajority, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1Any arrogance you detected was not arrogance, but rather anger and distain. Your cold reference to the calculation of the loss of life as being some kind of acceptable investment is what set the original mood.
You said: "True. Also far lower in human cost as well and a much higher potential return for our investment. But we'll keep that secret because we don't want to offend the sensitive bleeding hearts on this board."
The notion that somehow you are part of the elite who will benefit from the investment of lives is laughable ("our investment"). You are nothing more than an animal on their farm. However it is useful for you to believe and be made to believe otherwise. I just found your original comment sickening and unfortunately very representative of a small segment of the population who has been tricked into thinking because they have a modest portfolio, a home, or just see themselves as better off than most that they are somehow connected and part of the ruling elite class in this country, or that the ruling elite class gives a ***** about them (it is laughable). My only conclusion is that the view stems from somekind of selfishness and fear. If you find war and killing such a great investment why don't you offer yourself up for the sacrifice instead of sucking off the lives of others?
Instead of harping on the comment you originally made and perhaps calling you a name and running off I offered up infomation and evidence that I thought might awaken you (now or in the future).
You said, "since your mind is effectively closed until Ron Paul gives you another talking point to research there isn't really much point in talking to you". .... common man that is your sorry attempt (slipped into your last post) to try to say I don't think for myself, that is kindergarten level bs. My foundation was set long before I encountered Ron Paul. And just like all the rest of your replys which were empty, so is this one. You didn't respond directly to one thing I posted in this series of posts, nothing. "one thing said in the first minute and a half that goes against a fundamental understanding of economics". What the hell am I suppose to do with that?
I hope at some point you will rethink your view about the value of life. I often feel that people value the lives of others in the same manner in which they value their own. I took the time to write because of your original comment. I recognized thought patterns I have seen before, both in many others I have met and in myself when I was younger, more selfish and did not have a larger view of the world. (I am not taking a shot at you with the last sentence, I am stating my opinion). - Arkons24, on 08/17/2008, -1/+1There just isn't much that I can argue about at this point. I disagree with your criticism of the fed but I am not really well versed enough in that particular conspiracy theory to be able to offer up any sort of substantial refutation. Sorry to disappoint you. I'm interested in it however and I'm guessing that I may find some truth to it despite the fact that I am certain that the perspective is flawed from a more basic misunderstanding of bottom to top relationships.
I wasn't directly trying to correlate human lives with investment, however I see how easily my words could have been misconstrued despite my intentions. Regardless, though I wouldn't have directly correlated that observation out of tact, I might as well now because I've already been blamed for doing so. In order to send humans to their death objectively you must be able to quantify the value of such sacrifice. To do otherwise would be inefficient and therefore an even worse use of that life.
These beliefs have nothing to do with any delusions of harboring connections with the ruling elite. I do find the Ron Paul movement interesting however as the frothing mania it induces is so typical of extreme leftism that I wouldn't expect it from a group that seems to have accepted a basic understanding of economics into their cult rhetoric. - organicmajority, on 08/17/2008, -1/+1Your right, I am wrong.
- Arkons24, on 08/14/2008, -2/+1Give me a break. Increased government expenditures due to a war have nothing to do with the creation of a centrally planned economy. Things that would point to that would be increasing social programs and bureaucracy. You've been reading too many Ron Paulesque conspiracy theory craziness. Based on your use of it you don't really have any idea what the multiplier effect actually is. The fed doesn't determine what banks live and which die, the banks determine that.
- Syrisgone, on 08/14/2008, -2/+2The war has no effect on our economy?
Try this one. This is all theoretical, so bear with me. The President needs 1 billion dollars that he would like to spend in Iraq. He goes to the Federal Reserve and they print up they money and send him on his way. This new money printed out of thin air drives inflation up, weakens the value of the dollar, and puts us in debt to the Federal Reserve all in 1 easy step.
So how does this multi-trillion dollar war not effect our economy again?- Arkons24, on 08/14/2008, -1/+1Because our price level adjusts for inflation. Economics teaches us that inflation has no real effects on the economy. That isn't completely true because inflation can increase uncertainty and increase certain costs. However, low and stable inflation is hardly anything to get up in arms over. I am talking 20% for a good amount of time or a round of hyperinflation would be something to worry about.
- KiminCA, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1Sending billions of dollars overseas and getting no benefit in return didn't hurt? Really? I disagree with your unsupported and unsubstantiated --by my own common sense and eyes-- statement.
- Arkons24, on 08/14/2008, -4/+2True. Also far lower in human cost as well and a much higher potential return for our investment. But we'll keep that secret because we don't want to offend the sensitive bleeding hearts on this board.
- cutlerite, on 08/14/2008, -7/+7is there a different link to the add? like a youtube link?
- wyldraven, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Barack_Obama_Boo ...
- lamiaconfitor, on 08/14/2008, -5/+9Back from vacation, and coming out swinging.
- morepowerr, on 08/14/2008, -10/+1 No ***** there just know seeing that. Dumb they must have been on the really small bus.
I still have my cash on McCain to win thou. I think Big oil has already bought him this election. And the truly sad thing is they did it with all the money they gouged from the US people.- Arkons24, on 08/14/2008, -1/+2How's it feel to have completely no idea what the hell you are talking about? Just try reading anything about what economics tells you about price gouging. Please. I want to know how oil companies have so much extra money from "gouging" people.
- Arkons24, on 08/14/2008, -1/+2How's it feel to have completely no idea what the hell you are talking about? Just try reading anything about what economics tells you about price gouging. Please. I want to know how oil companies have so much extra money from "gouging" people.
- Arkons24, on 08/14/2008, -17/+11Gonna go ahead a bury this as inaccurate.
Obama tax increases won't help the economy - especially not during a recession. Increased government spending can at least, in theory, promote economic improvement. The fallacy that oil companies have 'excess profits' is particularly hilarious to anyone with even a basic understanding of a balance sheet.
Obama once again proving that you don't have to know jack ***** about economics to run on the democratic ticket - just the biggest emotional following.- metaliq, on 08/14/2008, -1/+2'excess profits'?
You really don't understand the point being made here?
Sure, literally speaking, no profit can really be excess, because it's profit.
But the problem here is record profits when our economy is so jacked. Record profits every quarter, despite lower gas use? Economic rules of supply and demand don't apply to monopolized corporations, if you haven't noticed.- Arkons24, on 08/14/2008, -2/+1Profit is defined differently than you think it is. Keep in mind that the higher revenue that oil companies made is proportional to the increase in the price of oil. They are also taxed at a 40% rate on that revenue. And yes, supply and demand do apply to everyone and everything.
Also, they are far from a monopoly. You should read a little about economics before you start trying to postulate that you know so many damn things that aren't true. - metaliq, on 08/14/2008, -1/+2Far from monopoly?
Hell, tightly knit oligopolies are essentially monopolies.
If one group of corporations works together keeping prices high, how is that not like a monopoly?
And tell me about how I don't understand profits?
The higher revenue that oil companies make is proportional to the increase in the price of oil?
Why is this price increasing?
The idea that we are running low on oil is what drives the prices up, not the cost of the oil.
If the cost of oil increased and the profit for the companies remained the same, then yes--- I would attribute that directly to the rise in cost. But how is it fair that they make MORE money per gallon now than when it was cheaper?
Profits are profits. They have been selling less oil but making more money.
This means that they make more money per gallon than before.
So this inflation of gas prices is not an economic response. The oil companies are tied to many many things and this is directly reflected in that.
And I have read a little on economics.
But I don't know everything.
So set me straight.
And I expect a thorough refutation. Seeing as you accused me of postulating, you must know the factual truth. So enlighten me. - Arkons24, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1For it to be a monopoly they would have to face a completely inelastic demand curve - and you be the only one. It doesn't fit either criteria. Mono = one. Olig = few. Oligopolies cannot be monopolies.
The assumptions you are making are based more on emotion than anything else and this is how people like Obama/McCain exploit your vote for their own benefit.
The price of oil is increasing because of a number of reasons. Increased demands due to China and India at a time when speculators are questioning the immediate future supply of oil. There haven't been any large oil fields found in over a decade - that has everyone concerned. We aren't in any danger of running out of oil but people are afraid that we won't be able to produce enough to go around because, and this is EXTREMELY important, the cost of extracting it is growing exponentially everyday we go by without finding a huge field.
What does this mean for profits? Profits is the ratio of a company's revenues to their capital expenditure. Exxon Mobile profits went up by some number, I forget how much and I don't want to go look it up, but their capital expenditure went up by the exact same amount. In other words their profit stayed the same while both their expenditure and revenue went up. What can we infer from this? The cost of getting oil out of the ground is growing at a ratio equal to the amount companies are able to sell oil for. This means the market is working. Now, the reason "excess profits" is a myth has been explained because your interpretation of profits was incorrect but now let me tell you why what you mean "excess revenue" is also not an appropriate term.
The cost of oil is going up to extract at the same time the price of oil is going up on the world market. So what are oil companies doing with all their revenue? Some goes back to share holders and the rest is reinvested into capital to increase the efficiency of extracting oil. As they continue to increase the amount of capital they have to increase their efficiency the price of oil will go down because its become less expensive to extract, keeping their profit margin stable. At this point their profit ratio will increase in the very short term until the price of oil drops to reflect the greater availability on the market due to increased capital expenditure that was allowed by the increase in the price of oil. Do you see how the market fixes itself? The price of oil goes up because these companies have to sink more money into capital in order to keep production where it needs to be. Our society is saying to the market that we need more oil than they can produce so the price of oil goes up, giving the company larger revenues to sink into capital so that efficiency can increase and they can bring more oil to the market.
Now, use the above information to guess what the effect of an Obama energy tax would have. If you said the tax on their revenue will just reduce the amount they put back into capital ... not to mention since the demand curve for oil is fairly inelastic most of the cost of this tax will be passed on to the consumer rather than the actual company anyway. In other words, no one wins.
- Arkons24, on 08/14/2008, -2/+1Profit is defined differently than you think it is. Keep in mind that the higher revenue that oil companies made is proportional to the increase in the price of oil. They are also taxed at a 40% rate on that revenue. And yes, supply and demand do apply to everyone and everything.
- KiminCA, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1I have a basic understanding of a balance sheet -- and record profits on any balance sheet are still record profits.
I also am well aware how big oil (and other companies) exaggerate their costs of production both to pay less to royalty holders (whose wells they operate), and in taxes.
Do try again-- and next time try to disagree without insulting others. We need to try and be civil to have a civil society.
- metaliq, on 08/14/2008, -1/+2'excess profits'?
- Drogoganor, on 08/14/2008, -6/+14Remember when Clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed?
- Arkons24, on 08/14/2008, -7/+5I remember when the economy was already booming and Clinton raised taxes and it had little effect. It certainly didn't help the economy, so where are you trying to go with this?
- Drogoganor, on 08/14/2008, -3/+5Actually Clinton extended taxes that Bush Sr put in place.
- Arkons24, on 08/14/2008, -3/+4Bill Clinton actually had his own tax increases. Not sure where you're getting the Bush Sr. taxes were extended. Only thing I know about that is that republicans voted hard against attempts to get the Bush increases extended and won in 1992. If you can provide proof of your claims then I'll take a look. But Clinton had very large tax increases of his own as well.
Regardless, you still can't refute anything I said but the simple fact is that taxes don't help the economy. There's no way to spin it so that it does. They just don't. End of story. No argument. Proven fact. Good night.
- FamousAnus, on 08/14/2008, -1/+4Remember when JFK cut taxes to stimulate the economy?
I actually liked Clinton, but he was fortunate enough to be president during an unusual boom period...and the previous recession technically began during the end of his presidency. Irrational exuberance doesn't last forever.- sodoh, on 08/14/2008, -1/+0recession didn't start at the end of his presidency.He left office with the USA books in the black. Even it it was true a good president would of been able to mitigate it somewhat.
I am afraid the complete clusterfuk of the US Economy is on the shoulders of one president, and it isn't Clinton. - FamousAnus, on 08/15/2008, -0/+1How about no.
"Using the stock market as a benchmark, a recession began in March 2000 when the NASDAQ crashed following the collapse of the Dot-com bubble." (source below)
As a software engineer at that time, my personal recession started while Clinton was in office - and I say this as a guy who generally liked Clinton.
The other link I am attaching is from the Motely Fool, dated September 22, 2000. It tells exactly how the recession is going to begin. Believe me...people "in the know" were being affected by it long before Bush took office. Either that, or we have some great psychics in this country.
You can try to classify when it started at almost any time - but try to do that without thinking about politics. It seems like everyone's decisions about when to say it began are affected by their political leanings...they don't have the intellectual honesty to move beyond that.
Check:
http://recession.org/history
http://www.fool.com/news/foth/2000/foth000922.htm
Heck...***** started in August of 2000 due to all of the technology companies that were tanking. How could that possibly be happening in the robust economy under Clinton? (source: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.***** ...
- sodoh, on 08/14/2008, -1/+0recession didn't start at the end of his presidency.He left office with the USA books in the black. Even it it was true a good president would of been able to mitigate it somewhat.
- Arkons24, on 08/14/2008, -7/+5I remember when the economy was already booming and Clinton raised taxes and it had little effect. It certainly didn't help the economy, so where are you trying to go with this?
- melfster, on 08/14/2008, -4/+11McCain actually said that raising taxes was not off the table. I would not be surprised if taxes go up for average person under McCain.
- smashhell, on 08/14/2008, -2/+7But see, the difference here is that Obama is raising taxes for schools and medicare and such. McCain is gonna raise taxes for War and Terror on other nations ............ I see who I'm going with.
- Mightbiteyou, on 08/14/2008, -1/+1Taxes need to be raised to stop deficit spending and inflation. Any candidate who has "improvement" programs is a danger to this country. Its time to stop spending and start paying the bills
Also your state taxes pay for schools and Obama also has his own plans on where we are sending troops.
- Mightbiteyou, on 08/14/2008, -1/+1Taxes need to be raised to stop deficit spending and inflation. Any candidate who has "improvement" programs is a danger to this country. Its time to stop spending and start paying the bills
- smashhell, on 08/14/2008, -2/+7But see, the difference here is that Obama is raising taxes for schools and medicare and such. McCain is gonna raise taxes for War and Terror on other nations ............ I see who I'm going with.
- ashwinmudigonda, on 08/14/2008, -6/+6If only they had a snippet of Grampa McCain saying eco..enoco...ecomony....I am sorry. I'm not sure about economy
- wonky73, on 08/14/2008, -10/+6YEAh not thinking is great.. It's wonderful being diggedditard and having other people tell me what opinions to have. Obama is God Mcain is devil.. HUURRRAAHH!!!
- Drogoganor, on 08/14/2008, -2/+6Hilarious that you think that's what people are trying to do here.
Man up, nancy.
- Drogoganor, on 08/14/2008, -2/+6Hilarious that you think that's what people are trying to do here.
- wonky73, on 08/14/2008, -13/+8You have spoken against the unthinking will of the diggedditards you shall be silenced by force as the LGO (Lord God Obama's) safety forces rampage through the streets killing those who don't comply.
If you love freedom HATE THE LEFT- Drogoganor, on 08/14/2008, -2/+6"If you love freedom HATE THE LEFT"
I don't think hatred ever freed anyone.
- Drogoganor, on 08/14/2008, -2/+6"If you love freedom HATE THE LEFT"
- samimnot, on 08/14/2008, -5/+10Every time I see a McCain Ad....I just see a senile elderly person, losing whats left of his dignity by saying "na na na na naaaaaaaa"
Just the opposite with Sen. Obama....I get what I feel is a truthful and informative perspective. Without all the "gutter politics".- bentl1, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1You're kidding .... aren't you? Does the word gullible have meaning to you? Neither of these "guys" are winners, but at least McCain isn't a documented crook that despises all white people and has a wife that has stated she hates America, and that very possibly may be a sleeper agent for Muslim extremists. He refused to wear the American flag pin because of his distaste for America. He has a life-long proven history of hating whites and was enrolled in schools that taught hate as their primary mission. He stated that wants ten-dollar a gallon gas .... just like Europe ... he is only concerned it rose too quickly, giving people a reason to complain. He tells children that America is a bad place to live (as caught on camera a few days ago) This is not supposition, this is just the facts And you feel he's being truthful? At least with McCain, he's not a coward that won't state who or what he really is.
- jehanr, on 08/14/2008, -2/+14It's great how they put the sources on the ad
- smashhell, on 08/14/2008, -3/+7Why is there still arguments here, I don't get it !
Why would any sane person vote for McCain. He who is a War addict, who is an illiterate that almost failed from school, who is too old to know anything about technology, who have no knowledge in the economy, who have no experience or contribution to the country aside fighting a war, who act on a failed policy same as Bush, who have unlimited ties to big corporates, and who is evil.
Are there that many ignorant people in this world ? I don't get it !- burny97236, on 08/14/2008, -0/+7No sane person would vote for McCain. Unfortunately we all know there a lot of people in this country that aren't sane. My mother and sister being one of them. They feel that Obama only says what people want to hear (ah ok) so they will vote for McCain. It's too bad McCain can't speak at all otherwise they might get the same opinion from him.
- CrazyZ, on 08/14/2008, -6/+3Because Obama only says what people want to hear....... He's full of ***** just like McCain is.
- sodoh, on 08/14/2008, -0/+2If you believe the polls then 49% are not sane.
- smashhell, on 08/15/2008, -0/+1What about the other 51% ? =/
- Nairebis, on 08/14/2008, -1/+2Simple -- same reason that people voted for Bush the second time. People voted for Bush because they didn't like Kerry.
People will vote for McCain if they perceive Obama as worse. I don't think McCain has much vision to run on, so it's a question of whether Obama's lack of experience, promises of spending huge money on new government programs, flip/flops on certain issues, and/or his "gee whiz!" personality will sink him.
November will be interesting... - joeanon, on 08/14/2008, -1/+4With electronic voting they might not even need the public's vote.
- burny97236, on 08/14/2008, -0/+7No sane person would vote for McCain. Unfortunately we all know there a lot of people in this country that aren't sane. My mother and sister being one of them. They feel that Obama only says what people want to hear (ah ok) so they will vote for McCain. It's too bad McCain can't speak at all otherwise they might get the same opinion from him.
- akirashimablue, on 08/14/2008, -2/+10Dignity and respect for making an attack ad with facts instead of baseless accusations. he respects America's intelligence because it is not an attempted character assassination like was perpetrated in the John Kerry "Wind Surfing" Ad or the race baiting in the case of Harold Ford Jr. feature the fear inducing imagery of a black man going after white women. He is a polite well-spoken gentlemen, but fear was used as an attack path with no substance, but in both cases the attack had an effect. The effect was that in both cases the ads took the electorates mind off the issues and focused on the person in order to chip away at the image while never addressing the message. Keep this election on the issues and I will remain a happy voter. I am looking at you McCain Camp.
- locitman, on 08/14/2008, -5/+2as a member of the upper class, obama can suck the sweat off my balls before he gets more money from me to give to the failures in this country.
- samimnot, on 08/14/2008, -1/+8I must of missed it....which part of your comment was "upper class"?
- metaliq, on 08/14/2008, -0/+5The part where he wanted to keep his money to himself.
I mean, isn't that the definition of patriotism? - joeanon, on 08/14/2008, -0/+5Haha.. It doesn't matter if you pay, we can take your land, your cars, the money right out of your bank accounts.
It's YOUR fault the dollar has fallen in value. Carter said don't import a drop of foreign oil.. and what did you do. The GOP has been screwing up since Nixon it's just been straight dowhill.
Reagan cut alternative fuel tax incentives, he gave record tax breaks to the rich and destabilized the economy and wealth gap, he wasted billions on Star Wars, the Space Shuttle (which is being retired for modernized Apollo style launch systems which are cheaper and safer),
lowered educational spending.
Your just a half wit who thinks money means your intelligent when you've probably inherited wealth right from the start.
Pay up rich boy your GOP strategies have failed and left your nation running in the red. So, we need to cut the budget AND tax you to have any hope of turning the USS debt machine around.
Or what ? Keep sucking foreign oil through a straw because you keep spending your money on the GOP, sorry, that's your bad investment. Now it's time to try something other than an oil based economy of high consumption and underfunded education.
The democrats are the ONLY leaders in modern history to run a surplus. The GOP has raised federal spending 45% since Carter and the Dems only raised it 4%. National health saves Americans over 1 trillion dollars a year. A new energy policy can redirect wealth and jobs to America and probably even more importantly offer real national security instead of periodic wars with oil producing nations.
If we had simply not cut renewable tax incentives set after the 1970's Oil Embargo, we'd have the most advanced renewable energy infrastructure on the planet by now.
So .. what up.
Why are rich people so dumb ?
Letting their dollar decline so their oil stocks go up ? I don't get it.
Just because your rich, why do you want to drive the economy into debt and likely doom. Don't you want to just keep being rich. ?
If so, you have to remember you're nothing without the US and your land and everything you own can be taken for the right reasons if we have to, but there is no other place on earth where you, the wealthy, can live so securely and conveniently. So, I say.. shut up... or leave
And, remember to pay your taxes before you go... bitches- motivatedmama, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1Copied and pasted. This will make my husbands day!
- Gev1982, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1^Thank you for making sense. This member of the "Upper-Class" is an obvious idiot.
- KiminCA, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1Spoken like an American who has no idea how blessed he, or she is to live in this Country.
I hope those like you are few and far between.
Personally, I feel I owe something for the blessing of being born here and I owe something to those who come after me. I most definitely owe the future generations of Americans anything I can do to save the American Dream.
- organicmajority, on 08/14/2008, -5/+9Ron Paul has been saying this stuff since the first day he became a candidate, and he is the only candidate of EITHER party to continually make these statements connecting the future of the economy to our foreign policy both since the beginning of the war and throughout the debates. Both candidate Obama and McCain are manufactured candidates. Obama's whole career has been manufactured, and any notion of McCain popularity has been manufactured.
If I was a Barak Obama supporter I would feel rediculous that he is only declaring this connection openly now. Of course he can't declare this relationship to loud or make it a central aspect of his platform because he still thinks we should engage pakistan, supports the war in afghanistan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlz09h9RwPQ at 1:54). If you deny this you deny reality. And in my opinion if you think he will actually withdraw troops I think you are very wrong. The democrats were given congress to do this back in 2006 and where did it go, no where. Both sides are controlled. How can anyone who considers themselves a supporter of democrats feel anything but shame over the way they have totally gone along with the administration? The candidates that are actually good for the people will be destroyed in the press and media, the candidates friendly to the elite establishments views will be praised. All of the dangerous candidates to the establishment have already been removed and the elite agenda will continue no matter who is elected. It may have a different face or race, your pet social issue may receive more attention, you may feel like you have won, but at least at the national level we all have already lost. - shdwfthsun, on 08/14/2008, -10/+6Notice how Obama doesn't mention the budget deficit once. He doesn't attack Mccain right there where it should hurt him the most, because he knows that would make him a hypocrite, seeing as how his own budget plan isn't even balanced. Yet, the truth stands as true as ever--that while Mccain thinks he could solve our deficit by dumping even more dollars into Iraq and still cutting taxes, Obama thinks he could do it by moving all our money out of Iraq and redistributing it to other middle eastern countries while still paying for more government control over our lives than ever before. They are equally bad.
- springboks, on 08/14/2008, -0/+3You're right, Obama is playing some pretty clean politics, he could take McCains ankles off but isn't doing so. It's more a fact driven ad, rather than the "He's the biggest celebrity on earth" crap we had earlier
- snotrokit, on 08/14/2008, -0/+2McCain has little to do with the deficit. That is the smirking chimp's baby.
- shdwfthsun, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1I'm not blaming him for the deficit. Did you comprehend the post at all? I'm saying he can't trash Mccain the way he should because even he doesn't have a sound plan to fix it. He's just hoping that you assume he'll fix the economy by connecting two dots but not the whole picture.
- KiminCA, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1Actually, the costs of war -- and our perpetual war footing-- are what have us in our current budgetary mess. Add to that our current President's decision to double the size of our federal bureaucracy, and our debt could only mount.
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few."
Those words were spoken by James Madison, one of our very good Presidents and the drafter of our Constitution.
- JMellissa, on 08/14/2008, -3/+8I believe that IS the truth. I thought that way before Obama started running for office.
I am also convinced that the GWBush folks were complicit in the 9/11 attacks.
I have no proof but it smells to high heaven and I'm no dummy. - CrazyZ, on 08/14/2008, -10/+8Yeah, Obama is going to end the war in Iraq. Didn't the Democrats promise that very thing if they got control of Congress? What's their approval rating?
- KiminCA, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1A lot higher than the lockstepping, rubber stamping GOP (with some sterling exceptions, like Senator Hagel). How do you feel about the GOP throwing Article I of our Constitution into the trashcan to make our current President the first Imperial President, who has hardly any check or balance upon his power? That one truly angered me-- but then, I'm one of those people who actually respect our American institutions and our founding documents. I want a President who keeps his oath to respect and obey our Constitution. There is only one candidate I trust to do that-- Senator Barack Obama.
- CrazyZ, on 08/18/2008, -1/+1FISA, nuff said.
- KiminCA, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1The FISA Courts have existed in our Country for decades now. I am not a proponent of such a secret Court, but Senator Obama had nothing to do with the creation of such a secret Court.
The FISA Amendment that passed into law was much better-- though not excellent-- than the one fillibustered in December. I respect Senator Obama for not simply ducking this vote -- which he could have done, Senator McCain certainly did.
This was a no-win vote for Senator Obama, and the legislation, itself, smells like a Rovian operation.
If you single issue vote on this issue, that is your right. Yet, you might want to ask yourself exactly what Senator McCain will do with his Imperial Presidency, because I don't think we can trust him-- since he now thinks torture is fine and dandy so long as it is "only" the CIA we turn into torturers -- to give this power back. Should Senator McCain be elected, we can hope Congress impeaches HIS Imperial Presidency and go through all that entails for our Country, our economy and our national security.
Personally, I would prefer we elect Senator Obama, whom even Russ Feingold (D-WI) says will fix the FISA mess when he is President.
All that I ask is that you think on November 4, 2008-- think about which candidate will be better for our Country and our Country's future.
If we don't think, or we allow ourselves to be diverted by one issue, we can all drown in the same boat built out of the Republican mantras that put too many of us to sleep.
Our problems are too complex, in my humble opinion, to simply look at one issue -- and an issue which looks like it was deliberately manufactured by the GOP to BE an issue-- and say "'nuff said."
- KiminCA, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1A lot higher than the lockstepping, rubber stamping GOP (with some sterling exceptions, like Senator Hagel). How do you feel about the GOP throwing Article I of our Constitution into the trashcan to make our current President the first Imperial President, who has hardly any check or balance upon his power? That one truly angered me-- but then, I'm one of those people who actually respect our American institutions and our founding documents. I want a President who keeps his oath to respect and obey our Constitution. There is only one candidate I trust to do that-- Senator Barack Obama.
- yellowcakewalk, on 08/14/2008, -6/+5Sorry, I fail to see a distinct difference between Obama's war mongering policies and those of Bush. Maybe it's a matter of degree. Can someone please tell me if Obama has promised to remove all bases from Iraq? Bring home ALL of the troops? Does Obama happen to have one Mr. Zbig Brz and one mister Dennis Ross on his staff? Does he threaten to attack Pakistan, promise to EXPAND the occupation of Afghanistan, promise to leave tens of thousands of troops in Iraq. Someone please convince me that Obama is some kind of anti-war candidate.
- motivatedmama, on 08/14/2008, -0/+2
Q. Someone said it took Lincoln a long time to find the right general to fight the Civil War.
A. Oh wow, come on, no, I don't think we're going to buy that. One of the things that I find really objectionable is the tendency for this administration to blame the military for the failures in Iraq, which we've been seeing increasingly. The military has performed its task. The problem has been the civilian leadership. This is also why I object when the president says we should not micromanage the war. The question is not me being interested in telling Gen. Petraeus how to do his job. The question is, is the commander in chief willing to define a mission in which the military can succeed? And that is a civilian job. Defining the mission for the military. This president has failed to define an achievable mission. It is now up to Congress to define a mission. So as I said in these meetings (in Iowa), my first task if I were commander in chief would be to call the Joint Chiefs together and not tell them how to do their job, but I would tell them your job is to begin a phased deployment. Because the mission I'm defining is one in which we are withdrawing in a gradual fashion, that we are helping to train Iraqi forces and that we're going to initiate diplomacy as a more important tool at this point than the surge in order to achieve our goals.
Q. And nothing would talk you out of that at this point?
A. If the Iraqi government suddenly completely transformed itself and the (Shiite) and the Sunni came together and said we're ready to arrive at a peace deal and all we need is the U.S. to sign off on it, of course I would be supportive of that. That's fantasy land. That's not going to happen. And if that did happen, then there'd be no reason for us to have 150,000 troops there. If we have a coherent government in Iraq, we can wipe out the al-Qaeda Mesopotamia, we can knock them out in pretty short order.
Q. What would you do with the huge embassy that we've built?
A. Well, that raises a whole other set of questions.
Q. And the (military) bases.
A. I've been very clear we should not have permanent bases in Iraq.
Q. Would you leave the embassy?
A. We have to have an embassy, absolutely. Now the fact that we built this Xanadu in the middle of Baghdad, I would question the wisdom of that.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008 ...
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article= ... - bentl1, on 08/14/2008, -2/+1Your best anti-war candidate is Osama Bin Laden .... he'd love to stop the war in Iraq. Then he could have a base of operations to plan a new 9/11 .... Over 20,000 dead Al Queda soldiers in Iraq alone ... most of them from other countries. The U.S. military has almost wiped them out, so you want to give them time to regroup? We've killed almost all of their top leaders, wiped out almost all of their training camps, created a new democratic, if somewhat shaky, government .... even the local populace is now killing Islamic extremists without prompting .... Osama Obama is betting on the old phrase: a sucker is born every minute. Only the gullible would vote for this racist crook. The only thing I've ever heard him say that wasn't a lie, was that he guaranteed higher taxes. Every vote for Obama, is a vote against everything that is best in America ..... everything in his past proves it. I'd have more respect, if he just stood in front of the camera and said the things he really meant .... but, then no one save moveon.org and Alex Baldwin, would touch him. Racist socialists don't poll very well.
And every day, even the most gullible are realizing who and what he is ... that's why the polls for him are dropping .... down over 15 points and still headed south ..... wait till the video of his wife is released, where tells how much she despises "whitey" ... that's sure win over those "undecided" voters. I'll say it once more: Racist socialists don't poll very well. - KiminCA, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1Senator Obama is not an anti-war candidate. He is an anti- unnecessary war candidate, an anti-war of choice candidate. He is a candidate who will use every tool at his power to prevent a war.
There is no such video, either. You have been spun by the nasty smear machine probably run by G. Gordon Liddy, or one of his equally fascist believing followers.
You might want to check out this website:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/notape
Or if you prefer to simply bear false witness, I suppose I cannot stop you. I do hope you think about how that serves the interest of our Country, though, before you do it again, once you have checked that site.
- motivatedmama, on 08/14/2008, -0/+2
- roddack, on 08/14/2008, -1/+6Sure the Federal Reserve has absolutely nothing to do with our current economic situation.......
Ya know with out fiat money the war wouldn't be happening.......- malibusurf, on 08/14/2008, -0/+2in 2003 war was begining...
CHIEF:we need more money! we need more money!
FED:hmmmm... i know we can just PRINT more money!
CHIEF: ALL IRAQI BASE ARE BELONG TO US.
FED: OH SHI our money is worthless
BANKS: the economy is slowing, you printed too much money HOLYSHII ARGHhh
FED: Raise interest rates!
TAXPAYER: i cant pay back my loans!
BANKS: OHNO we just packaged loans made of 90% poop with 10% gold
TAXPAYER: i lost my house!
BANKS: OHSHI
FED: print more money we gotta buy the banks!
CHIEF: ALL YOUR ALL OUR BELONG TO US.
- malibusurf, on 08/14/2008, -0/+2in 2003 war was begining...
- a_madman, on 08/14/2008, -1/+8"Ad Ties Bush-McCain Economy To Iraq War"
Well, duh. *rolls eyes* - TaLoNxNL, on 08/14/2008, -3/+3Mccain and Obama are calling for millitary actions against Russia.
America tried to take over Ossetia via Georgia, the new superpower Russia stopped the American Reich, and now the US is pissed....Boohoo, grow up and get your oil somewhere else...- motivatedmama, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1Don't compare the two. McCain pushes for new cold war while bashing Obama for being too soft. Puhleeze!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/13/candidates. ...
- motivatedmama, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1Don't compare the two. McCain pushes for new cold war while bashing Obama for being too soft. Puhleeze!
- Intrusionv2, on 08/14/2008, -1/+3I'm an Obama supporter, but the "Giving Iraq a 79 billion surplus" part is unnecessary. It makes it sound as if Iraq should be punished because the U.S. economy sucks and theirs is rising. Sure, they should start paying more with their own money, but the U.S. should also leave.
- mogebier, on 08/14/2008, -5/+2Everyone seems to forget that the President is not in charge of the money.
Congress is.
Congress is run by the Democrats right now.
Hello??
So, it can't all be Bush's fault.
It's always amusing when the Lefties forget this small fact.- greenvortex, on 08/14/2008, -1/+4The War in Iraq is the biggest drain on our economy and it wasn't Congress' idea. They were duped by Bush's lies.
- mogebier, on 08/14/2008, -3/+1There you are wrong. The ENTIRE World that is involved in the Coalition looked at the evidence and came to the same conclusion.
INCLUDING the Congress. The War had to be voted on, and it was and it passed. The funding had to be voted on, and it was and it passed.
You should learn a little about how the government works before spewing out the Lefty lies you have been taught in school. - theboyjlowe, on 08/14/2008, -1/+2amen to that
- mogebier, on 08/14/2008, -3/+1There you are wrong. The ENTIRE World that is involved in the Coalition looked at the evidence and came to the same conclusion.
- KiminCA, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1Uh, it was Senator Graham who pushed for banking deregulation that got us into this current housing mess-- and he is a Republican.
It was most of the GOP elected officials who threw Article I of our Constitution into the toilet to give our President Imperial Powers and the GOP House Reps. that WALKED OUT rather than stand up for the House's right to oversea the Executive Branch of Government.
Hmmm, now again, who should I blame? Oh, I remember--
I blame the so-called conservatives
who threw Article I of our Constitution into the toilet,
who think outside independent ethics review of Congress is "liberal"
who doubled the size of our federal bureaucracy
who doubled the size of our national debt
and who believe in nation-building (and incompetent nation-building at that).
I don't think any of the above is conservative, but since most of the GOP has turned good, plain, clear English words on their heads, I will not argue the semantics with you. If believing in our Constitution, our institution, a small federal bureaucracy, small and efficient government and a rational non-nation building foreign policy is liberal to you-- so be it, I am a liberal.
- greenvortex, on 08/14/2008, -1/+4The War in Iraq is the biggest drain on our economy and it wasn't Congress' idea. They were duped by Bush's lies.
- datastorageguy, on 08/14/2008, -3/+2lol @ Bush-McCain economy....
Cool aid drinkers... - Lamadave222, on 08/14/2008, -2/+0We want a stable friendly country in the Middle East, the only resource the Iraqi's have to fuel their economy is oil, ergo their $79 billion dollars should be applied to their country's needs. I don't see the problem. Is there corruption, sure, is it any worse than say...Robert Mugabe...probably not, life goes on but without a murderous moron at Iraq's helm. Obama is a Marxist-Leninist, believes in redistribution of wealth to solve the problems of the poor..(see Jesus on this one Barack if you actually have a Bible) believes that the answer to every problem is more government intervention, The Demokrats are running against W because they think it paints McCain as a clone...of course the Demokrat controlled Congress is even lest respected than W....we would love to hear something other than platitudes from the candidates. Lets ask Bernie Sanders what he thinks the country should do....adopt the Internationale as our anthem perhaps? Obama for the middle class, until he's against them.
- KiminCA, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1You like those Republican mantras don't you? Those don't work for any longer.
I just cannot find a way to believe a President -- and his picked successor-- who nation-builds, doubles our national debt, doubles the size of our federal bureaucracy, and trampled all over our Constitution is the good guy. If you can, good for you.
I'm for Senator Obama -- who actually has some ideas how to fix the messes in which we find ourselves and who gives us REAL PLANS and policies, not just mantras.
- KiminCA, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1You like those Republican mantras don't you? Those don't work for any longer.
- lakersdominate, on 08/14/2008, -0/+3Is this McCain's better future? Glorified Aristocracy? Yeah, corporate windfall taxes would just cripple them.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN124946 ... - snotrokit, on 08/14/2008, -0/+2They need to use lots of pictures, crayon drawings, and sesame street characters for most Americans to get it though.
- theboyjlowe, on 08/14/2008, -2/+0 A good ad? I saw one about energy from him and it showed a bunch of windmills and ethanol tanks. Yeah that will really lower gas prices. Big oil aint the problem it is the democrats in congress that won't let us raise our own oil production and refine it. If we did that we would have a long term solution to the energy problem. Also, Nuclear Power plants seem to be out of the question at this point, but It would be very smart to use them. They would produce so much more energy than all of the coal mines combined. They are also very safe. Just look at France their country is run off of them and we haven't seen a thing happen to their power plants.
visit my blog http://www.whybarackisajoke.blogspot.com- AeroBallistic, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1Every single one of your blog entries is what is wrong with America right now. I particularly have an issue with your entry about Obama wanting American students to learn Spanish. What is so wrong about that?? Is it because we're American and EVERYONE should speak English? PLENTY of other countries REQUIRE their students to learn English. It's required to PASS. And it's not about being embarrassed, it's about being a better country. Many immigrants are too poor to learn how to speak English, and here we are driving our expensive cars and living in nice houses wondering WHY OH GOD WHY DO WE HAVE TO LEARN ANOTHER LANGUAGE?? Because we can afford to, but we're just too god damn lazy and selfish to do it.
- motivatedmama, on 08/14/2008, -0/+2Offshore drilling is a joke. Educate yourself and post something intelligent on that turd of a blog.
Science Friday on the Realities of Offshore Drilling. Worth the 17 minutes I assure you.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ...
We have the ability to go to the moon and now Mars, we can create alternatives.
- tumbler360, on 08/14/2008, -0/+4Obama's compaign continues to set a standard for others to follow. I can't praise him enough for keeping the his ads grounded in facts. I'm hopeful that his campaign will pave the way for a higher caliber of debate for future elections.
- Arteen, on 08/14/2008, -2/+0I liked Obama's ads a lot more when they used to focus on him instead of just attacking the opponent. It seems like he is starting to veer more towards mainstream politics as we get closer to November.
- richirwin, on 08/14/2008, -0/+2Bush + McCain = Obama win.
- bender240, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1Waitaminute, I thought the political left fought hard to prevent the Bush administration from taking oil revenues from Iraq...? Isn't the fact that the USA is letting Iraq keep its resources a sign that they aren't evil war-profiteering SOB's?
- gatparker, on 08/14/2008, -0/+0Good *****: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgcBNKjdxlg
- bentl1, on 08/14/2008, -3/+2Your best anti-war candidate is Osama Bin Laden .... he'd love to stop the war in Iraq. Then he could have a base of operations to plan a new 9/11 .... Over 20,000 dead Al Queda soldiers in Iraq alone ... most of them from other countries. The U.S. military has almost wiped them out, so you want to give them time to regroup? We've killed almost all of their top leaders, wiped out almost all of their training camps, created a new democratic, if somewhat shaky, government .... even the local populace is now killing Islamic extremists without prompting .... Osama Obama is betting on the old phrase: a sucker is born every minute. Only the gullible would vote for this racist crook. The only thing I've ever heard him say that wasn't a lie, was that he guaranteed higher taxes. Every vote for Obama, is a vote against everything that is best in America ..... everything in his past proves it. I'd have more respect, if he just stood in front of the camera and said the things he really meant .... but, then no one save moveon.org and Alex Baldwin, would touch him. Racist socialists don't poll very well.
And every day, even the most gullible are realizing who and what he is ... that's why the polls for him are dropping .... down over 15 points and still headed south ..... wait till the video of his wife is released, where tells how much she despises "whitey" ... that's sure win over those "undecided" voters. I'll say it once more: Racist socialists don't poll very well .... no matter how much they lie, the truth catches up with them.- KiminCA, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1Actually, if you did a little research, you would find that the giant GNAT hiding in his cave in Pakistan, actually wanted us to invade and occupy Iraq and he wants us to stay occupying that Country after the Iraqis ask us to leave (which they are doing right now).
- guyzero, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1So you've got nothing but wanna keep on crying about it. Thought so.
- Arkons24, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1Whatever let's you sleep at night kid. Go learn to read and come get back in touch so I can teach you some more reality. Until then enjoy your ignorance with a side of stupid. Facts always beat emotions.
- Arkons24, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1I just disagree with your overall perspective of us being 'sheep' or whatever you want to say. It isn't an objective position and I don't feel that it stands up to scrutiny. I spent enough time around Ron Paul maniacs and after having my life and well-being threatened, despite being a supporter, just because I disagreed with Paul on the WTO, NAFTA and Globalization. I have quite a negative view on the Ron Paul movement at this point and I really don't put much stock in the conspiracy theories that seem to swirl around discussions involving his supporters regardless of his support of those theories or not. But that's fine if you want to. There is truth to some of these things however I believe it to be far less sinister then you would have me believe.
Also I believe that if we as a society send men to their deaths that sell them then we should measure their price in order to objectively use them. The emotional argument of the cost of a human life not being quantifiable is a waste of time and doesn't get you anywhere when as a society you decide to send humans to war to risk their lives. Sorry if that sounds callous but its true and the cost of human lives is quantified everyday by this country. - obamaistheman, on 08/19/2008, -0/+0Wait a second...
What middle class? Do we still have a middle class in this country?
I think what we're talking about when we're "saving the middle class" really means saving this country's economy. The problem is that we haven't been very competitive lately. Jobs that used to be middle class jobs have gone to other countries. Drum roll please... the future of the middle class is in clean energy: wind, solar, etc. For al you right wingers who doubt this from a business perspective or say it's just left wing propaganda, please see oil man T.Boone Pickens' www.pickensplan.org. Saving the planet IS great, but we also have an opportunity to save the middle class with the only new industry around that will creat middle class jobs.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is 