Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Leaked McCain Memo: Paint Obama As A Job Killing Machine
huffingtonpost.com — In a McCain campaign "Economic Communications Plan" that was obtained by the Huffington Post, an aide to the Senator lays out several themes, tactics and objectives to not shore up the Arizona Republican's standing on the economy and paint Barack Obama as a "job killing machine."
whatfun- 1482 diggs
- digg it
- glibpaxman, on 08/07/2008, -47/+17wow, its amazing how powerfully evil president obama would be. i suppose for his next act he will kill babies just to make dog food and then solve the nation's gas crisis by converting virgin blood into biofuels. Says Obama, "Thats hot."
- acroyear2, on 08/07/2008, -8/+7That's what I've been saying all these months!
/sniper fire - radiofrequency, on 08/07/2008, -20/+8Well, Obama did vote for infanticide in the IL state senate.
- stagmire, on 08/07/2008, -4/+4I you spent any length of time on the west side of Chicago you'd support infanticide too.
- diggdiggerid, on 08/07/2008, -3/+3what
- DagonNL, on 08/07/2008, -3/+16Might I suggest a *little* more subtlety in your sarcasm.
- Puffles, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3Hate to break it to you, but he's not being sarcastic.
- compdude32, on 08/07/2008, -19/+5Buried as Huffington post Liberal Bias *****.
- FairNUnBalanced, on 08/08/2008, -4/+1reported and buried for well.... hate speech
- acroyear2, on 08/07/2008, -8/+7That's what I've been saying all these months!
- sportsstar67, on 08/07/2008, -93/+62Raising taxes will most certainly kill jobs..Not much to paint there..Huffington Post is a garbage site !!
- soot, on 08/07/2008, -24/+58Barack Obama has proposed over $80 billion dollars in annual tax cuts for middle class workers, home-owners and retirees, a $500 tax credit for more than 150 million workers and ha suggested eliminating the income tax for older taxpayers who make less than $50,000 per year.
So I don't know what you mean when you just say "raising taxes", unless you're referring to his wanting to get rid of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy that John McCain wants to make permanent as part of his economic policy.- reaper527, on 08/07/2008, -25/+28he could be talking about obama's plan to raise social security payments on both you and your employer, raise the AMT, and raising the capital gains tax through the roof.
obama IS a job killer, and his "lower taxes" are pure rhetoric, rather than reality. - stagmire, on 08/07/2008, -14/+14Yeah, he'll raise the capital gains tax to Bill Clinton levels, and we all know how poorly the stick market faired under his watch.
- boredrph, on 08/07/2008, -9/+10Let's say, just for a second, that I actually believe Obama will cut taxes on those people you mentioned... when was the last time you got a good paying job from someone making 50K or less? No... its those evil rich people writing your paychecks... or at least mine.
- stagmire, on 08/07/2008, -8/+14" when was the last time you got a good paying job from someone making 50K or less?"
We have a consumer driven economy. Two people making $50k are going to buy more ***** if they both have more money to spend on durable goods (e.g. refrigerators and *****). A single person making $200k is still only going to need one of the same item. Distributing purchasing power more equitably means more consumers can buy more *****, which means the big companies earn more profit, which means they can expand and hire more people. - aekdbbop, on 08/07/2008, -3/+1190% of businesses are "small businesses". Most of us work for one.. so if they cant afford an tax hike, no one can.
- tkstock, on 08/07/2008, -8/+7Statistics show that the upper 20% of wage-earners spend 50% of all purchases.
Under the Obama plan, a person making $1 million a year will pay $93,000 more in taxes. That money doesn't just sit around collecting 1.5% interest in a savings account. It's invested in other companies which spurs innovation and creates employment.
If you over-tax the wealthy, you're essentially taking that money out of the economy to pay for welfare. You will ultimately put more people on welfare after they lose their jobs, and then more welfare money will be needed. It's a vicious cycle, and Obama is a big proponent of it! - stagmire, on 08/07/2008, -6/+4"Statistics show that the upper 20% of wage-earners spend 50% of all purchases."
The key phrase is "wage earners," meaning people who filed a W-2. People who make their money though capital gains and dividends are not wage earners. No millionaire is a wage earner. - tkstock, on 08/07/2008, -7/+6stagmire, you don't actually know any millionaires, do you? You hate rich people - you think they just sit in their luxury homes drinking martinis and yelling at the maid all day, don't you?
Reality as it exists outside of television is quite different.
Most millionaires ARE wage earners and pay more than their share of taxes already. The Obama promise of increased corporate, payroll, capital gains, and social security taxes will cause a corporate divestiture on an unprecedented scale, which will kill the job market.
But hey, those people that lose their jobs can be assured that welfare will be there for them, thank goodness for our efficient government! - o0joshua0o, on 08/07/2008, -2/+5"Statistics show that the upper 20% of wage-earners spend 50% of all purchases."
Let me get this straight...people who have more money spend more money? That's a revolutionary concept! Maybe if the bottom wage-earners had more money to spend, they'd spend more, too.
"when was the last time you got a good paying job from someone making 50K or less? No... its those evil rich people writing your paychecks... or at least mine."
Most of us are hired by corporations, not individual rich people. - stagmire, on 08/07/2008, -2/+4"Most millionaires ARE wage earners "
Link?
"The Obama promise of increased corporate, payroll... and social security taxes..."
Will only apply to people making more than $200k. Most corporate lawyers make $160k/yr. Only 5th year associates or whatever make more. Most analysts make less, and few make more than 180k. Equity partners in a firm make more, but not in the form of wages.
Where are these wage earners making $19,000/wk? - aekdbbop, on 08/07/2008, -2/+5your wrong http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html
most of us work for a guy that started a business. If he is taxed higher, we all feel it.. - stagmire, on 08/07/2008, -2/+2"most of us work for a guy that started a business."
lol, can you read?
From your link: "About three quarters of all U.S. business firms have no payroll."
Now look at the 2004 figures: 73,235,223 people work in firms with 100 or more employees. 56,477,472 people work in firms with 500 or more employees. 42,855,273 people work in firms with more than 2,500 employees.
In contrast, only 41,839,701 people work in firms employing 1-99 people. - tkstock, on 08/07/2008, -1/+2See, I knew stagmire just didn't know the facts.
The social security tax is on income up to $90K. Above that, you don't pay additional SS tax. Obama wants to eliminate that cap, so anyone making over $90K will now pay that additional tax for EVERY DIME they make over the $90K, despite the fact their social security benefit won't increase.
Capital gains taxes affect all investors, those earning $50K and those earning $5 million. You should read up on it.
"No millionaire is a wage earner."
Link please? - tkstock, on 08/07/2008, -1/+2stagmire,
I think he was making a general statement that most businesses are started by individuals, not that most of us work directly for a business owner. Still, 41,839,701 is not much of a contrast... - stagmire, on 08/07/2008, -0/+3"The social security tax is on income up to $90K. Above that, you don't pay additional SS tax. Obama wants to eliminate that cap,"
Wrong. The cap is currently $97,500. Obama would raise it by $15 -20k. Oh dear.
"Capital gains taxes affect all investors, those earning $50K and those earning $5 million."
But that's not a tax on wages, dummy.
"No millionaire is a wage earner."
"Link please?"
I worked in the two most lucrative industries in the U.S. and don't know any wage earners who made more than $10k/wk, approximately 500k/yr. There might have been some non-equity partners making slightly more. You claim there are wage earners who make more but can't tell me what industry they work in. - tkstock, on 08/07/2008, -1/+3"Workers currently pay Social Security taxes on the first $90,000 of their wages. Some people have suggested that the cap be raised or even eliminated altogether. The result would be the largest tax increase in U.S. history, $541 billion in new taxes over the first five years alone. That tax increase would fall primarily, not on the superrich, but on many upper-middle-class families and small businesses. Many experts believe that such an enormous tax increase would hurt the U.S. economy and cost millions of jobs. Even worse, it would do relatively little to fix Social Security. Studies show that removing the tax cap altogether would extend the solvency of Social Security by only seven years." -socialsecurity.org
"One possible option, for example, is to raise the cap on the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax. If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,500, we could virtually eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall." -Obama, The Quad City Times
"But that's not a tax on wages, dummy."
Oh, so it matters which pocket you're stealing the money from. Didn't know that. How does that address the $250K argument? You resorting to name-calling tells me your argument is weak.
My uncle is a millionaire, and he still works for the business he started 25 years ago (in the technology industry). He is a millionaire wage-earner. Sorry to disappoint you and prove you wrong. The truth hurts sometimes, but it makes you stronger! - stagmire, on 08/07/2008, -1/+2"One possible option, for example, is to raise the cap on the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax."
Does that sound like he's proposing to "eliminate" the cap to you?
"Oh, so it matters which pocket you're stealing the money from"
Well it certainly does you're talking about wage earners as a distinct category for tax purposes. The capital gains tax only kicks in if the wage earner is actually making additional money off his investments, in which case he still walks away with 85% of the additional money he earned.
"My uncle is a millionaire, and he still works for the business he started 25 years ago (in the technology industry)."
What's your uncle's wage income? If it's greater than $19k/wk from his own company he's doing it wrong. - tkstock, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1"Does that sound like he's proposing to "eliminate" the cap to you?" If you stop the quote there, it doesn't. He does continue to say, however, "If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,500..."
All earnings = no cap. Are you being intentionally obtuse?
Short-term capital gains are taxed at the individual income tax rate. Long-term capital gains are lower.
"What's your uncle's wage income?" Who cares? He's a millionaire, and he's a wage earner. That along disproves your statement. - boredrph, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Actually I believe the cap is now 102K... otherwise the government owes me money from my last paycheck. I'll let you know for sure next paycheck when I cross the that line though. Oh, and stagmire, an extra 15K on that cap would make a huge difference to me. I count a great deal on the last 5 months of the year when I'm not paying that tax... that 300 extra bucks a paycheck goes a long way towards the property taxes I have to pay for my house.
- thatsmyaibo, on 08/08/2008, -2/+3Economists say that in the current economy, Obama's taxes would be the worst thing to do to this country. Taking money away from people who are already hurting and taxing small businesses to the point where they have to either lay people off or close altogether is just a high five to major corporations that pay their employees minimum wage.
- fedja, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1Last I looked, "economists" called McCain a moron.
Secondly, where I live, anyone making over 65k a year pays a flat 50% income tax. Yes, 50%. Or as Eddie Murphy would call it, HALF!!!
Guess what, we like it like it is. The wealthy are still wealthy, and the middle class is fine. And when my employer tells me that they can't up the salaries this year 'cause of income/cost calculations, we work that little bit harder and we up the income. Imagine that, nobody gets laid off.
I'm sick and tired of seeing highschool dropouts parroting FOX "facts" about how it'll destroy the economy. Guess what destroyed your economy, Bush and his cronies did. Now go and vote for another one.
Oh and...
@tkstock
"Who cares? He's a millionaire, and he's a wage earner. That along disproves your statement."
It's "that alone", not "that along". You seem like the type that's going to be making 7 bucks an hour lifting heavy boxes soon, you should be weary of the McCain "plan". - tkstock, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1fedja, oh, you caught me in a typo. Whoopity doo. I guess in Smugland where you live you might be entitled to a cookie. I hope it tastes good.
What economists called McCain a moron? I'd like to see a link there, or some reference to back that up. And if you provide links from DailyKOS or HuffPo, they will be ignored - try providing from a credible source.
If you live in a place where you pay 50% tax and the economists there say McCain is a moron, I'll discredit that based on the source.
"I'm sick and tired of seeing highschool dropouts parroting FOX "facts" about how it'll destroy the economy." Which high school dropouts are you talking about? What Fox "facts" are you talking about? Why is it that people that oppose your viewpoint are suddenly high school dropouts who listen to Fox? It must be the cloud of Smug over where you live that distorts your viewpoint.
I'm a moderate Republican with a bachelors degree in CS and a moderate understanding of macroeconomics. Did you know that in recent years a higher percentage of people entered the middle class from both sides than left it? More poor people AND more rich people entered the middle class than the reverse.
Where do you live that nobody gets laid off? What's the unemployment rate there? From the sound of it, you live in a socialist society. If half my salary went to the government (yes, I make over $65K), I would move.
- reaper527, on 08/07/2008, -25/+28he could be talking about obama's plan to raise social security payments on both you and your employer, raise the AMT, and raising the capital gains tax through the roof.
- edmondburke, on 08/07/2008, -10/+4Don't read it! Go amuse yourself with the venemous McCain Ad Campaign.
- Cuchanu, on 08/07/2008, -16/+20Rich people spend a lot of time and money trying to make Americans believe that somehow if we raise taxes on the rich that the economy will falter.
1st of all: Their taxes are lower now then they have been for a long time and look at what has happened in the meantime: regular people are suffering and the distribution of wealth is the most uneven it's been in years, not to mention the economy is in shambles.
2nd: Rich people will not start laying people off to save money. This is a myth that they would love you to believe. If they thought they could save money by laying people off they would (and have) already done it.
3rd: As far as I know Obama is offering tax breaks for lower and middle class people of $1000/yr. John McCain is offering Oil Company tax breaks of $4 billion a year. Which makes more sense?- sportsstar67, on 08/07/2008, -12/+14Rich people fuel the economy..You think some welfare recipient is going to start a business , hire people and help the economy..people are catching on to Obama, that's why he's slipping...people are now past the "Hey, We're Gong To Elect Our First Black Guy" mentality
- PolishLogic, on 08/07/2008, -9/+121: Considering we operate under a form of capitalism, we'll never see an even distribution of wealth. Those that provide valuable services for a fee will always acquire more money than those who don't.
2: Tell that to General Motors. They obviously didn't get that memo.
3: McCain's plan makes as much sense as Obama's...which isn't saying much. Throw another big tax on oil companies and cutting into their profits, in order to give the public free money, will only result in oil companies raising prices to recoup the loss. Which will come from that free money being given to the public.
It always amazes me that Joe Shmoe would never support the idea of having his taxes raised, say 5%, but would be all for having taxes raise 5% on people who make more than him (and who are already paying a higher tax rate as a result of making a higher income).
Raising taxes always seems like the answer, and wasteful cutting spending is always called a bad idea. It's so odd. - stewdog1, on 08/07/2008, -6/+7"and the distribution of wealth is the most uneven it's been in years,"
Wow. And you live in America? This is a capital society, not a socialist one. - pintomp3, on 08/07/2008, -5/+5still waiting for that trickle down economics to rain down.
- reaper527, on 08/07/2008, -4/+5"1st of all: Their taxes are lower now then they have been for a long time"
the top 1/3 of americans pays 2/3 of the nations taxes. obama would increase that. he would actually for them to pay more than 50% of their income in taxes. to put this into perspective, people would go to work, and earn more money for the government than themselves. that is an unjust policy.
"2nd: Rich people will not start laying people off to save money. This is a myth that they would love you to believe. If they thought they could save money by laying people off they would (and have) already done it."
lets say it costs a manufacturer $50,000 a year to employ someone (wages + taxes). this person than generates $60,000 worth of product for the company.
now lets say the tax rate is increased, and the company has to pay more taxes on this employee (because both the individual AND the corporation pay taxes). lets say it now costs $70,000 for this employee, and he still makes $60,000 worth of product.
the employees pay didn't change (actually, it probably dropped since his personal taxes went up), and the company now is at a loss keeping him. he will be let go, or if he leaves on his own, he won't be replaced (or if he is, he will be replaced with someone being paid less).
"3rd: As far as I know Obama is offering tax breaks for lower and middle class people of $1000/yr. John McCain is offering Oil Company tax breaks of $4 billion a year. Which makes more sense?"
we will see if those tax "breaks" materialize. even if they do, he has already said he will raise everyones social security payments (on both sides, the personal payments and the employer payments), and he will also raise the AMT and capital gains taxes. (aka your 401k will be *****) - doctechnical, on 08/07/2008, -5/+4"1st of all: Their taxes are lower now then they have been for a long time..."
Which is like a wife-beater saying "Honey, I haven't beat on you nearly as much this year as I did last year! Why are you complaining?"
"...and look at what has happened in the meantime:"
Congress has been spending like a bunch of drunken sailors. Again. Look at the amount of tax revenue that rolled in AFTER Reagan's tax cuts.
"...regular people are suffering and the distribution of wealth is the most uneven it's been in years..."
Cry me a river, Robin Hood.
"...not to mention the economy is in shambles."
Perhaps because the government is doing so much "gathering and sharing", as Tolkien so aptly put it? "They seem to do a lot more gathering than sharing".
Redistribution of wealth via taxes is different from outright theft in only one regard: because the lawmakers are doing it, it's legal. - Cuchanu, on 08/07/2008, -1/+5Just about every person to comment above assumes things that I'm not saying. I am not for re-distribution of wealth. But the fact is that rich people and corporations benefit from the way the system is set up a lot more than the working person. I think it's only fair that they pay for that privilege, yes that means paying a higher percentage.
@reaper527
There are those circumstances but I don't think it is common enough to make repealing Bush's tax breaks not worth it. I agree about his middle class tax breaks, I won't hold my breath. That goes with a lot of what the candidates do which is essentially buying votes.
@stewdog1
I am aware that we are have a capitalist system. But our wealth distribution is on par with Africa, Guatemala, Brazil and other countries where it is widely known that the government is ran by the rich. Northern Europe has a 1-3 to a 1-6 distribution (meaning the top 10% have 3 to 6 times more wealth than the bottom 10%.) so being capitalist doesn't mean wealth has to be incredibly uneven.
There is no statistic that can make me believe that it is necessary for the top 1% of Americans to own 40% of the wealth in our country. It's greed and if you are religious that is a sin. Even if you aren't religious it's not a good character trait so why are you guys defending it? - stagmire, on 08/07/2008, -2/+5"the top 1/3 of americans pays 2/3 of the nations taxes."
Wrong. The top 1/3 of WAGE EARNERS pay 2/3 of the nation's taxes. This excludes people who make their money through capital gains and dividends. Essentially, it means that our tax burden is carried by a disproportionate number of lawyers and doctors, not i-bankers and high rollers like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. - pintomp3, on 08/07/2008, -1/+2@reaper527
the top 10% pay 65% of all taxes, but own 71% of all the wealth. - compdude32, on 08/07/2008, -2/+11st of all: Their taxes are lower now then they have been for a long time and look at what has happened in the meantime: regular people are suffering and the distribution of wealth is the most uneven it's been in years, not to mention the economy is in shambles.
There are more factors the economy than just the amount the rich are contributing.
2nd: Rich people will not start laying people off to save money. This is a myth that they would love you to believe. If they thought they could save money by laying people off they would (and have) already done it.
So you saying no company will or ever has laid people off?
3rd: As far as I know Obama is offering tax breaks for lower and middle class people of $1000/yr. John McCain is offering Oil Company tax breaks of $4 billion a year. Which makes more sense?
Tax breaks are a good thing, when they are across the board, giving a tax break to just one class screws the economy. - o0joshua0o, on 08/07/2008, -0/+3Everyone keeps forgetting...Robin Hood was a hero.
- Cuchanu, on 08/07/2008, -1/+2@compdude
Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but what I was saying is they will not lay off people in large numbers. Obviously there could be some layoffs, but I don't think it would be worse than what's happening right now WITH the Bush tax cuts in place. And the second point I was making clearly states "If they thought they could save money by laying people off they would (AND HAVE) already done it", meaning if repealing the Bush tax cuts would cost somebody their job, they probably have already lost it (or are about to) because of the ***** economy or something else. - PolishLogic, on 08/07/2008, -3/+4@Cuchanu
Again, tell that to General Motors. They're in the middle of a slash and burn, while trying to get profitable again. So now after they achieve profitability, and you come along and tell them they must pay more in taxes, which in turn cuts into that profitability, what do you think they're going to do? They'll reduce yet again. - Cuchanu, on 08/07/2008, -1/+2@PolishLogic
General Motors is different than most companies and they have a lot of things to worry about; higher taxes obviously wouldn't benefit them. But their problems are so numerous that just the thought of trying to figure out how to solve it makes my head hurt. They are in worse shape than just about any company in the country so I would call that an extreme example that your average company doesn't fit into.
I am not so much for higher corporate taxes as I am for higher individual taxes. The thing with GM or any other corporation for that matter is that despite the mess they are in the people running the company are still rich.
In the end corporations are nothing but the people running them. - stagmire, on 08/07/2008, -1/+3"Again, tell that to General Motors. They're in the middle of a slash and burn, while trying to get profitable again. "
GM is not making any profits and is therefore not going to pay any corporate taxes, you moron. If anything they will take huge write-offs on their losses as well as whatever interest they are paying on their corporate debt. And if GM did turn a profit next year their board of directors could probably be sued into oblivion if they did anything that made those profits taxable (e.g. they don't re-invest them or they decide to pay a dividend or some stupid *****). - doctechnical, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2@o0joshua: Indeed he is a hero to me at least - because the "rich" he was stealing from was a tyrannical government.
Too many people look over that definition of "rich", alas. - ultar6, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1@polishlogic
GM is a bad example to cite. GM is doing poorly because middle-class Americans can't afford to buy their products. GM is doing poorly because they focused heavily on large vehicles that American's are no longer willing to buy. GM is doing poorly because they didn't change their focus to smaller vehicles that cost less and burn less fuel. They're in this predicament because they didn't have the foresight to predict what consumers would be buying. Sure they're a casualty of this economy, but they did it largely to themselves. To claim that they will be victimized once they actually start earning a profit is ridiculous. To claim they'll just lay off more people once the start making a profit and must pay taxes is ludicrous - they will hire more people in order to increase production in the segments that hold the most promise.
Your entire argument is predicated on the idea that the wealthy drive the economy and that tax breaks for them will result in money moving down to those who make less. Why hasn't this been the case, considering that the Bush tax cuts have been in place for seven years? The price of oil is part of it, but the escalating price of oil has been a factor only for the past 9-10 months.
I'd say that the actions of the wealthy may very well have put us in the position we are now in. There are those who've taken advantage of the oil market with speculation that drives up costs. The mortgage industry has put the country into a huge hole. The war in Iraq is costing the government more than Americans can afford and putting the country into serious debt. These factors must lead many to question the financial stability of the country as a whole - the financial stability of individuals and of the federal government. The dollar has weakened because of these factors, so goods shipped from overseas cost us more. - compdude32, on 08/08/2008, -0/+0@Cuchanu
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
Yea companies never lay people off to maintain profit margin. It just never happens. I mean I guess in your world all companies are operating at the minimum amount employees already so they have no place to cut.
So if that is the case then you cut too much into the profit margin then the company closes and everyone loses their jobs, but I guess you can't count that as a lay off because the company closed.
Fact is corporations need to answer to their stockholders, if they don't reach their profit expectations then the stock holders will demand something be done. Quickest way to bring the profit margin back up is by eliminating jobs. And seeing as most businesses don't run with an absolute bear minimum of employee's like you seem to think, they will cut jobs, maybe even close some of their poorer performing locations, leaving all those people unemployed as well.
And I just love how someone shows you one example and you simply dismiss it as if it isn't happening. - Cuchanu, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1@compdude32
When did I say that companies never lay people off? At first I said something that was vague, so that's my fault. The second time it was pretty clear.
I didn't dismiss any 'example' if you are referring to PolishLogic's about GM. I just don't think that taking the worst case scenario adds much to the argument (not to mention a couple of other people spelled it out pretty well). And if you are talking about some 'example' that you gave I must have missed it, because what you said was opinion, which is not the same as example.
I understand what you are trying to say and don't disagree with what you are saying, since it's a pretty simple bit of economics; but it's not relevant to what I said and certainly doesn't prove me wrong.
You should re-read my previous response to you.
- IdigObama, on 08/07/2008, -16/+8Please don't try to educate yourself on the matter.
Just keep your head up your ass and vote for McSame.
We don't really need change,it's a hoax! Everything is just fine!
Keep telling yourself this over and over and over if McSame gets elected!- PolishLogic, on 08/07/2008, -12/+17Yes, because Obama will have us all ***** gold, and piss daisies and kittens if he's elected.
People really think that empty suit offers something radically different, regardless of his actions showing different. Amazing. - Albear89, on 08/07/2008, -8/+7@ PolishLogic - finally someone who gets it.
- tkstock, on 08/07/2008, -1/+7Polish, doing those things you mention will hurt an awful lot - I bet the kittens won't like it either!
- compdude32, on 08/07/2008, -3/+6Change for the sake of being able to say change rarely ever ends well.
- PolishLogic, on 08/07/2008, -12/+17Yes, because Obama will have us all ***** gold, and piss daisies and kittens if he's elected.
- Jexie, on 08/07/2008, -6/+36Wow Americans are very brainwashed when it comes to taxes. Where do you all think the trillions are going to come from to pay off your war and national debt? Everyone whines when it's time to raise taxes but nobody puts two brain cells together to figure out spending money you don't have put you in this situation to begin with.
- altgeeky1, on 08/07/2008, -3/+5SOME Americans WANT huge piles of Federal Debt. The bank has to make money, right?
It's destructive, and just demonstrates just how BADLY these people want to "crush the Washington culture". As a side benefit, homes are a BARGAIN now... just be like McCain, and own TWELVE of them!
History has proven that all it takes to turn a nation really ugly is to crush it's economy, mislead it's people, and find an enemy (ooo! more war profits!). Just wait. Israel's losing patience with the US, and is bound to attack Iran if McCain can convince them that Obama will leave them hanging, or something. - EricAnderton, on 08/07/2008, -1/+3But, but, surely we can keep electing presidents, senators and representatives that will defer that debt until I'm safely collecting on Social Security, right?
- theskillwithin, on 08/07/2008, -6/+10Oboma wants to raise taxes to increase spending, not to decrease it... I don't know how you could miss that.
- altgeeky1, on 08/07/2008, -3/+5SOME Americans WANT huge piles of Federal Debt. The bank has to make money, right?
- altgeeky1, on 08/07/2008, -2/+12NOT raising taxes weakens the dollar and bloats the national debt.
I for one do NOT welcome our governments new credit card overlords.
With all the outsourcing and multinational, WIPO, World Bank connections of Republicans... they might as well drop their fake patriotism, _register_ as "foreign lobbyists", and point their passport at a tax haven condo in Dubai or Surinam. Let the rest of us in the USA rebuild our infrastructure and compete again... our votes are not distorted by our offshore 401Ks.
(Yeah yeah, here comes the usual rebuttal about "cutting taxes works IF there's a fiscal conservative in charge"... which is pretty uselessly theoretical as anarchism, pure Communism or pure Capitalism none of which exists. Also comes the charge that Bush 2 is not a "fiscal conservative", which is a rehash of discounting conservative comments about Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1... all of whom have excuses for submitting and signing budgets that drove deficits up to the benefit of nation lenders.).- SailingAlien, on 08/07/2008, -2/+8How about cutting spending instead of increasing taxes? Won't that have the same effect in addition to not harming people for wanting to get ahead?
- altgeeky1, on 08/07/2008, -2/+1Your question is idealistic but not realistic... see original post about so-called fiscal conservatives.
You're never going to see change in a 2-party system. You're never going to see a 3rd or 4th party under the Electoral College.
We'll have multi-party progress when people from both parties accept that the electoral collage outlived it's usefulness YEARS ago (like, Emancipation before the Jim Crow laws, or Voting Rights Act). Subdividing votes based on geography is a cover for racism, and that's why the electoral college sticks around. - rroeserr, on 08/07/2008, -0/+4Haven't you ever realized that the House of Reps. - which controls the budget has been dominated by the Democrats for years - literary decades - and then during the greatest expansion of American wealth ever there was a republican congress?
- PolishLogic, on 08/07/2008, -1/+4@altgeeky1
Not realistic? Have you seen what ***** the federal government wastes money on?
- DagonNL, on 08/07/2008, -10/+10Hey yet another paid pentagon/republican/fox shill raking in the blood money.
Do you sleep soundly at night, sportsstar67, knowing you are a collaborating traitor?- doctechnical, on 08/07/2008, -9/+6I love how the Left cries out for tolerance and diversity - unless you disagree with them. Then you're a "collaborating traitor".
- edyang, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1According to DagonNL and his ilk, anyone who disagrees with him is a traitor.
Free speech only applies when it agrees with him.
- HenryFatass, on 08/07/2008, -3/+6And cutting taxes while raising spending would do what to jobs?
- altgeeky1, on 08/07/2008, -2/+3... it drives this thing called "inflation", which is effectively a pay cut for everyone, but mostly those who work for paychecks (as opposed to those who make a buck speculating on all this nonsense).
- dcmjzero, on 08/07/2008, -8/+11reaganomics is a proven failure. read up on it.
- roddack, on 08/07/2008, -7/+7So is socialism.........
- SammyJr, on 08/07/2008, -2/+7Yeah, roddack, tell that to the Western Europeans who enjoy a much higher standard of living then we do.
- Cuchanu, on 08/07/2008, -1/+5I don't think a mix of Socialism and Capitalism would fail, there are plenty of countries successfully doing it right now. In fact I'm confident that our world cannot sustain an completely capitalist society indefinitely.
- doctechnical, on 08/08/2008, -3/+2@SammyJr: "Yeah, roddack, tell that to the Western Europeans who enjoy a much higher standard of living then we do."
Let the U.S. leave NATO and see how long that lasts. Keeping a standing military that protects Europe ain't cheap. - edyang, on 08/08/2008, -2/+2@doc: you said it. The US strategy is that peace is good for capitalism, which is good for our self interests and coincidentally for capitalist partner nations. The price for that peace is our military.
The same libs and nations hating on our military are the same cowards that come crying and crawling on their knees demanding that the US do more in times of crisis.
If Russia turned back to their USSR ways and hit up Europe, who do you think they'll turn to for a third time in less than 100 years? If North Korea invaded the South and threatened Japan, who do you think they'll turn to?
- loutang82, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2well..giving everyone a couple hundred didn't really seem to help, now did it?
- tkstock, on 08/08/2008, -2/+2We aren't in a recession - it may have helped more then we realize... :)
- ramiro, on 08/07/2008, -7/+6HuffPOS is not a garbage site - you can still find good stuff to be recycled in a garbage site.
HuffPOS is a SEPTIC TANK. - TruthExposed, on 08/07/2008, -3/+4I can't believe I just dug you up bingo, but then again I never got hired by a poor or middle class person.
Every job ultimately comes from a rich person - it is the rich who create the big corporations that hire and maintain the middle class. It it the rich, middle class, and those corporations that fund the government and allow govt workers to me middle class persons.
If Obama was serious about tax relief, he would end the income tax cut the budget by allowing local governments to once again take over basic services like education - they did it better and for less $ anyway. - Drax0n, on 08/08/2008, -1/+4Yea and staying in Iraq for 100 years will help the economy and the deficit right?
Your digg posting rights have been removed until you can be less of a retard.
- soot, on 08/07/2008, -24/+58Barack Obama has proposed over $80 billion dollars in annual tax cuts for middle class workers, home-owners and retirees, a $500 tax credit for more than 150 million workers and ha suggested eliminating the income tax for older taxpayers who make less than $50,000 per year.
- soot, on 08/07/2008, -14/+62There's that constructive campaign we hear so much about!
- whiterice0, on 08/07/2008, -20/+6Don't believe anything you read on the Huffpo. It's slanted, biased, left-wingnut garbage.
- sponeil, on 08/07/2008, -1/+6For that matter, don't believe any comments you read on Digg. It's slanted, biased garbage (doesn't matter which side it's on).
- bleachxfan911, on 08/07/2008, -5/+5Pretty much, it's so liberal it drives me nuts.
- whiterice0, on 08/07/2008, -20/+6Don't believe anything you read on the Huffpo. It's slanted, biased, left-wingnut garbage.
- Cuchanu, on 08/07/2008, -25/+59Admittedly I don't know much about Obama's economic advisers. But I know enough about McCain's to know I don't want him anywhere near the white house. You can thank his people for the lending and oil deregulation that has done our country wonders.
- DagonNL, on 08/07/2008, -3/+9Ohhhow are the McSame shills being paid by the negative diggs these days?
Careful guys, that kind of work might end you in prison one day. Better hide the paper trail while you can. - tkstock, on 08/07/2008, -10/+2"Admittedly I don't know much about Obama's economic advisers."
Judging by his economic plan, I would recommend you get to know them better.- Cuchanu, on 08/07/2008, -3/+4I'm familiar enough with his plans...not the people advising him. It can't be worse than McCain's economic plans (on everything for that matter) and the infamous people responsible for them.
- tkstock, on 08/07/2008, -5/+2"It can't be worse than McCain's economic plans..."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
- DagonNL, on 08/07/2008, -3/+9Ohhhow are the McSame shills being paid by the negative diggs these days?
- PolishLogic, on 08/07/2008, -21/+73Well, at least they did the responsible thing and posted the copy of the memo to show it's legitimate....oh wait....
- goofygarber, on 08/07/2008, -5/+26Indeed. If it was somewhere else (a large newspaper, more respected website etc), I might take it at face value but I consider Huff about one notch above a personal blog.
Don't get me wrong, I'm an Obama supporter and I think that everyone has the right to be the "media", but Huffington is not exactly king of reliability.- PolishLogic, on 08/07/2008, -8/+19"one notch above a personal blog"
You give HuffPo too much credit.
:)
- PolishLogic, on 08/07/2008, -8/+19"one notch above a personal blog"
- neveroddoreven, on 08/07/2008, -5/+6I have obtained a memo detailing Obama's plan to socialize America you seriously have to be kidding. How is this remotely credible or listed as "news"
- goofygarber, on 08/07/2008, -5/+26Indeed. If it was somewhere else (a large newspaper, more respected website etc), I might take it at face value but I consider Huff about one notch above a personal blog.
- cartersmate35, on 08/07/2008, -27/+20It is the same old story that has always come toward the end of political campaigns...the Republicans will win no matter how many DESTRUCTIVE comments and LIES they can come up with.
Why don't we just REPORT the facts, and STOP THE MEDIA from reporting day after day, such childish brandishing of put downs and such?
Because Americans have become aggressive piranhas, ready to feed on ANYTHING that is being attacked by ANYONE.
Wise up, America! The world is intelligent, and as long as we act like spoiled brats, they will NEVER respect us. Start living the life of BUILDING AMERICA back to its original position of being ADMIRED, instead of being food for destruction by wielding swords and threats!- bluekross, on 08/07/2008, -8/+2LEAVE REPUBLICANS ALONE!!!
/whine - radiofrequency, on 08/07/2008, -7/+10Um, the ones slinging unsubstantiated mud in this campaign are the Huffington Post.
- Fanon, on 08/07/2008, -8/+5Who cares what the world thinks of us? I sure as hell don't, and I hope the majority of the nation doesn't. We should care what betters us as a nation, not what country XYZ thinks of us.
- zacharytelschow, on 08/07/2008, -7/+3The cold hard facts would be absolutely debilitating to the Obama campaign. All he has is hope, change, and emotional appeal.
- elfprince13, on 08/07/2008, -3/+3people will take you more seriously if you don't use arbitrary capitalization, and make a cohesive argument instead of sounding like you're on your favorite soapbox.
- RainNIU, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1I'm paying more attention to you, because you sound angry.
- bluekross, on 08/07/2008, -8/+2LEAVE REPUBLICANS ALONE!!!
- mtb167, on 08/07/2008, -16/+6I didn't even read the article yet, but I'll probably not vote for McCain based on this headline.
- postaldave, on 08/07/2008, -5/+3typical. do you even know you are being controlled by the media?
- Albear89, on 08/07/2008, -6/+2That's cuz your an idiot.
- shaftscaliber, on 08/07/2008, -1/+3*you're
- akchrs, on 08/07/2008, -7/+4my vote for McCain will cancel out your vote. So why even bother showing up.
- doctechnical, on 08/07/2008, -3/+2And remember, Democrats vote on Wednesday, Republicans on Tuesday.
- zombies187, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1You're right. You shouldn't.
- jjmelch, on 08/07/2008, -2/+1You just can not be that stupid!! Even if they put such a memo out. What's the big deal? It is ***** TRUE!
- JAB6, on 08/07/2008, -14/+27I am bothered by the cynicism of pretending to be a friend of the working person when you aren't. McCain voted against raising the minimum wage, against making it possible for the Lillie Ledbetters of the working world to sue for equal pay, and he voted for George Bush's policies over 90% of the time. I read the other day that in the last year the richest ten percent of U.S. working people had a $60,000 rise in income. The other ninety percent? Just over $400, and that in the face of the worst inflation in 27 years. McCain was a part of all that with his 90% support Bush votes. Now to claim to be on the side of the working person--to me that is just cynical. I wish each candidate would just give his policies and let people decide.
- radiofrequency, on 08/07/2008, -8/+7Raising the minimum wage does not make for a wealthier country. Whenever the minimum wage is raised the majority of Americans (that is those whose salaries are not set by law) get poorer - not richer - because their own salaries stay stagnant.
- DagonNL, on 08/07/2008, -4/+5A big big world with dozens of countries do damn well with a humane minimum wage.
The sellout politicians keeping the minimum wage low are morally equivalent to the asshats in Iran keeping women veiled.
Bastard bureaucrats keeping a whole demographic layer as slaves. - radiofrequency, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1"Bastard bureaucrats keeping a whole demographic layer as slaves."
That or people in minimum wage jobs can get a higher-paying one. There's plenty of them around. - cheezintern, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3Very true, and most people will never realize it until ten years from now when they are making 60k/year flipping burgers at McDonald's, yet are still chronically poor because 60k wont buy *****.
- Speaf, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2The concept of minimum wage hurting the poor is simple. Given most liberals skepticism of corporations and the rich, one would think that they would understand it even more clearly. When executives have to raise the minimum wage of their workers they do not say 'oh, let's just let the company profits fall' or 'oh, I will take a paycut so this minimum wage can go through.' They raise the prices of their goods or services to compensate. Take a grocery store for example -- most employees would probably make minimum wage when starting there. When the cost of labor goes up, the cost of the goods at the grocery store goes up. Since the grocery store generally sells vitals, the buying power of the people making minimum wage is unchanged. The horrible part is that people who were making a modest bonus over minimum wage are now making minimum wage, so their buying power is reduced. The rich are not affected so much by the modest increase in prices. Thus, the poor are hurt the most.
The only place where raising the minimum wage increases the buying power of the poor is for buying foreign goods, because the minimum wage likely did not increase at the same time in the foreign country. So the buying power of the poor increases for cheap crap from China, whereas most of the essentials like food, shelter, and healthcare must be provided locally where prices are increasing to match wage increases. All in all, minimum wage increases are neutral for the poorest, greatly hurtful for the just-above-poorest, and a minor inconvenience for the rich.
- DagonNL, on 08/07/2008, -4/+5A big big world with dozens of countries do damn well with a humane minimum wage.
- jjmelch, on 08/07/2008, -4/+3By the way, the top 10% of American workers paid almost 71% of the income tax. Maybe they deserve the breaks.
- jeffbw, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1And maybe they just have all the money. Duh.
- doctechnical, on 08/07/2008, -3/+6"I read the other day that in the last year the richest ten percent of U.S. working people had a $60,000 rise in income. The other ninety percent? Just over $400..."
You might want to read this link, it explains in simple terms the fallacy of that line of thinking:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/802372/post ...
And there should be NO minumum wage, all it does is raise inflation. Obama's plan to annually raise the minimum wage as the inflation index rises is utter lunacy. The good news: Everyone makes at least $100/hr. The bad news: A loaf of bread is $50.- jeffbw, on 08/07/2008, -5/+3Minimum wage does NOT raise inflation; that's an old Heritage myth and has never been proved. To the contrary, actual studies have shown that places with higher miniumum wages have much healthier economies, which certainly makes sense if you know anything about economics.
- doctechnical, on 08/08/2008, -2/+3I know this about economics: If the cost to make a widget includes the cost of payroll, and payroll cost increases, I must increase the price of the widget or take a loss. If my widgets are a part of a Foobar, then the company that makes Foobars must increase the price of Foobars or take a lost. Lather, rinse, repeat. Point out the fallacy of this argument, please.
"...actual studies have shown that places with higher miniumum wages have much healthier economies..."
I stubbed my toe during a full moon. Ergo, full moons cause toe-stubbing.
Please. - rz8472, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Oh come on, the Free Republic is even more biased than the Huffington Post. I've seen discussion boards on there where parents are trying to boycott Disney over purported advocacy of 'witchcraft'.
- IMJGaltstill, on 08/08/2008, -2/+4Riddle me this Batman. Where does the government think the constitution says they should be setting any wage rates?
- radiofrequency, on 08/07/2008, -8/+7Raising the minimum wage does not make for a wealthier country. Whenever the minimum wage is raised the majority of Americans (that is those whose salaries are not set by law) get poorer - not richer - because their own salaries stay stagnant.
- vexingmodstwo, on 08/07/2008, -34/+23In other words: Tell the truth about the communist bastard.
- Lomstradamus, on 08/08/2008, -4/+2***** Vextard!!
- vexingmodstwo, on 08/07/2008, -38/+23In other words: Tell the truth about the communist bastard.
- acroyear2, on 08/07/2008, -7/+14Not communism! That's worst den turrists!
Dey took our jerbs!
- acroyear2, on 08/07/2008, -7/+14Not communism! That's worst den turrists!
- DeviantDragon, on 08/07/2008, -15/+54I don't see what's so unusual about one politician painting their rival as someone who eliminates jobs and hurts the economy. It's not as if the memo said to paint Obama as a wife-beating polygamist who eats babies.
- infiniphunk, on 08/07/2008, -5/+18Let's not give him any ideas, okay?
- bluekross, on 08/07/2008, -9/+17Yes, but when the Republicans do such things they are the white devil.
- Albear89, on 08/07/2008, -7/+4He does eat babies. Huffiington Post reported it. It's gotta be true if it;[s from Fox or Huffington.
- davewashere, on 08/07/2008, -8/+4That last part sounds pretty clever. Did you work for the Bush campaign in 2000 or 2004?
- PopcornDave, on 08/07/2008, -4/+4No kidding. It's politics and Huffington is passing this off as news. I expect better of them than the "Ooooh look, McCain's calling Obama names again" kind of stuff.
Disagree on policy, fine. Complain about playground insults, meh.- Sumtin2Say, on 08/07/2008, -0/+3Pass off playground insults as a campaign, meh. Don't need HuffPo to see the ads on TV.
- jjmelch, on 08/07/2008, -0/+3How did you find out? Oh hell, we have to cover this up..
- SiL3ncer, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1The unusual thing is he is not running on real issues, like the economy or energy cost. This is a distraction from what he should be focusing on.
- edyang, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1It's not like they said to paint Obama as under the mentorship of a racist reverend who hates America and thinks we deserved 9/11, or in the fellowship of terrorist Bill Ayers, or....ooops!
- acroyear2, on 08/07/2008, -20/+12Why does John McCain support torture now?
- acroyear2, on 08/07/2008, -4/+7What? I thought the maverick was pro-torture now?
- acroyear2, on 08/07/2008, -9/+12There are serious issues at stake in this election, and serious differences between the candidates. And we will argue about them, as we should. But it should remain an argument among friends; each of us struggling to hear our conscience, and heed its demands; each of us, despite our differences, united in our great cause, and respectful of the goodness in each other... except for those *****, muslims, libs, and anyone anti-torture.
/waterboarding- Whitehat51, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Are you serious? Or are you making fun of McCain? Either way, that's messed up. If you support torture, you're supporting the idea of inflicting unbelievable pain upon people just so that they can give information about terrorists to the US government for this war that is inherently unwinnable (don't even get me started on how there will always be terrorists out there, no matter how much you try to kill them). Or maybe you support discriminating against people just because of their sexuality. First of all, you can't tell people how to live their lives; if it does no harm to anybody (and I'm not talking about religious harm, because religion cannot influence government policy), it can't be restricted. It's the same as racism against blacks. Hating muslims is religious hatred. If you christians haven't learned your lesson about that by now, I doubt there's anything that can help you. Let me just name a few atrocities to refresh your memory of what happens when people allow the government to endorse religious hatred: The Holocaust (6 million jews and over 30 million others died), The Spanish Inquisition (everyone who didn't practice christianity was tortured and killed, both of which are practices that are forbidden by christian law), and the Crusades (millions of muslims and jews were killed because the Pope wanted more power and to take back the city of Jerusalem, and he promised any christian that would go to war against the muslims and jews a place in heaven, which is directly the opposite of what their savior taught and is a sin in itself).
I think I've ranted enough. Either way, McCain's dirty politics are not even surprising anymore.
- Whitehat51, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Are you serious? Or are you making fun of McCain? Either way, that's messed up. If you support torture, you're supporting the idea of inflicting unbelievable pain upon people just so that they can give information about terrorists to the US government for this war that is inherently unwinnable (don't even get me started on how there will always be terrorists out there, no matter how much you try to kill them). Or maybe you support discriminating against people just because of their sexuality. First of all, you can't tell people how to live their lives; if it does no harm to anybody (and I'm not talking about religious harm, because religion cannot influence government policy), it can't be restricted. It's the same as racism against blacks. Hating muslims is religious hatred. If you christians haven't learned your lesson about that by now, I doubt there's anything that can help you. Let me just name a few atrocities to refresh your memory of what happens when people allow the government to endorse religious hatred: The Holocaust (6 million jews and over 30 million others died), The Spanish Inquisition (everyone who didn't practice christianity was tortured and killed, both of which are practices that are forbidden by christian law), and the Crusades (millions of muslims and jews were killed because the Pope wanted more power and to take back the city of Jerusalem, and he promised any christian that would go to war against the muslims and jews a place in heaven, which is directly the opposite of what their savior taught and is a sin in itself).
- vexingmodstwo, on 08/07/2008, -15/+19I'm shocked this made the front page so quickly... :|
- bluekross, on 08/07/2008, -11/+16It's huffington *****, man.
- vexingmodstwo, on 08/07/2008, -4/+12The straight face smiley was meant to convey sarcasm. I'm not really shocked... ;-)
- bluekross, on 08/07/2008, -11/+16It's huffington *****, man.
- JK1150, on 08/07/2008, -37/+40buried as huffpo spam. only 100 diggs and it's on the front page??
also, I don't think mccain's camp leaks things to the huffington post.- ramiro, on 08/07/2008, -6/+4Digg is either gamed or wired to favor this kind of Leftist Bullcorn.
- IMJGaltstill, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3Adshare revenue?
- DeFex, on 08/07/2008, -2/+15I think the jobs were already killed, im not sure who could possibly be responsible for that though.
- wisefool9, on 08/07/2008, -1/+3How about the Republican dipsh*ts who've more or less been in charge for the last eight years?
- jeffbw, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2Nice. Democrats give us huge employment gains and balanced budgets while Rethugs give us massive debt and job losses, and yet some people continue to buy into this idiocy.
- iizh, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1How about our wonderful Democratic Congress?
- jorichter, on 08/07/2008, -6/+28How does the McCain camp leak so much negative *****? And still do so well in the Polls?
- Psi57, on 08/07/2008, -10/+11Most Americans are borderline retarded.
- Bamont, on 08/07/2008, -4/+8And that includes Americans who think the Huffington Post is a credible news outlet.
- wm2010russ, on 08/07/2008, -2/+3because most of it is true, and thats how politics works. its been getting people elected for hundreds of years now.
- glibpaxman, on 08/07/2008, -3/+7because about 35% of the country will vote R regardless of circumstance or personality. Jesus(D) could be running against Satan(R) and Jesus would still only get 65% of the vote.... and then the media would crucify him for not winning in a landslide.
- fedja, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Last time Jesus ran the country, the budget was shot, there was war, desperation, and the world hated the US. I'd vote for Satan(R).
- Psi57, on 08/07/2008, -10/+11Most Americans are borderline retarded.
- chrissku, on 08/07/2008, -15/+28...even though George Bush is the one who has been in charge of the economy (yes the same economy that is failing us) for the last 8 years. John McCain's little brother.
Please don't vote for the wrinkly whited haired dude.- ChildeRoland420, on 08/07/2008, -5/+1Who the hell appointed him in charge of the economy? What exactly did he do to it? Please, I want to know.
- chrissku, on 08/07/2008, -1/+61. Well lets start with the 3 BILLION DOLLARS a week we are spending to fund Bush's illegal war in Iraq?
2. How about Bush LOWERING the taxes of big oil companies. Last time I checked Exxon was making $58,000 dollars a SECOND. Hmmmm.....I don't know....maybe they can afford to pay more into taxes????? - fedja, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2No way, taxes are a librul thing. No more taxes, inertia is working out just fine.
- chrissku, on 08/07/2008, -1/+61. Well lets start with the 3 BILLION DOLLARS a week we are spending to fund Bush's illegal war in Iraq?
- ScottMitchell, on 08/08/2008, -2/+3The President is the executor of the laws laid out by the Legislative branch and the commander in chief of the army. Nowhere in the Constitution does it describe any economic duties for the President. Don't forget, it's Congress that controls the nation's purse strings.
- chrissku, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1The President ALWAYS gets final say on the budget that Congress passes. The President does have a responsibility to look out for the nations economic interests with the same vigor as he or she would the nations Armed Forces.
- ScottMitchell, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1chrissku: The President can veto a Congressional budget, sure, but Congress can override his veto if there's sufficient Congressional support.
In any event, it's incorrect to say that the President has a huge impact on the economy. His impact is less than the whole of the Legislative branch, and their impact is dwarfed by you and me and everyone else who goes to work, buys stuff, pays people for goods or services, etc.
- ChildeRoland420, on 08/07/2008, -5/+1Who the hell appointed him in charge of the economy? What exactly did he do to it? Please, I want to know.
- Shidell, on 08/07/2008, -32/+21Huffington Post does not belong on Digg.
Please stop posting and digging this political garbage. I for one am sick of seeing extreme leftist and rightist spin trash. This does not contribute to Digg nor the political understanding in America, all it does is cloud the understanding of platforms and creates bias.- shipwreck58, on 08/07/2008, -6/+9No, People who do not believe in the right of Free Speech should avoid something that embodies free speech, like thiese threads. Otherwise your brain might hurt to much. Oh wait, strike that, you are a compasionate conservative, both are contradictory things.
- Shidell, on 08/07/2008, -5/+3Free speech is fine.
But listening to complete bias is just filth, much like the American political system in general. So why are we subjecting ourselves to this drivel daily? - SupremeBeing, on 08/07/2008, -1/+9It's free speech as long as you agree with it, right?
- Shidell, on 08/07/2008, -5/+3Free speech is fine.
- webergolf, on 08/07/2008, -4/+6At least it's better than possibly having Rush Limbaugh pop up on here daily
- wisefool9, on 08/07/2008, -1/+6Jeez, if you don't like it, don't read it. How hard is that?
- shipwreck58, on 08/07/2008, -6/+9No, People who do not believe in the right of Free Speech should avoid something that embodies free speech, like thiese threads. Otherwise your brain might hurt to much. Oh wait, strike that, you are a compasionate conservative, both are contradictory things.
- cowleyad, on 08/07/2008, -27/+24Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. These anti-McCain Diggs are getting REALLY old.... Digg, get off Obama's nuts for a second so we can talk about REAL news.
- dcmjzero, on 08/07/2008, -3/+8so we should just repeal minimum wages? are you serious?
- dcmjzero, on 08/07/2008, -3/+9minimum wages keep low income people from being exploited. the same people who are against minimum wage laws are against immigration enforcement and for the same reasons.
and off subject (replying to you): digg is a user driven site. if these articles are here, it is because people voted for them. if you don't like them, then you don't like digg... and you must be some kind of masochist to keep coming back.- aikimann, on 08/07/2008, -6/+3Funny, I'm against minimum wage laws AND illegal immigration. Huh, go figure.
- Sumtin2Say, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0The easy solution would be not to give them anything to work with. But the TV ads keep coming out. Don't need HuffPo to interpret that they are character attacks. Let's talk about REAL news indeed.
- jeffbw, on 08/07/2008, -0/+3That's standard 1970s Heritage Foundation ***** and certainly all the evidence is to the contrary. Minimum wage laws merely do a tiny bit to even out the rich-poor imbalance; they do absolutely nothing to drive up product prices, and they actually increase employment numbers (because they make the economy healthier in general; more money changing hands more frequently). This has actually been studied, so get your facts straight.
- spamcrusher, on 08/07/2008, -5/+22One politician working hard to paint another political opponent as a negative person? Color me shocked!
- SupremeBeing, on 08/07/2008, -3/+3You mentioned the word color when talking about this presidential race, you must be a racist.
- fedja, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1You call yourself SupremeBeing and comment on racism.
- akchrs, on 08/07/2008, -25/+11Obama will be a job killing machine. A republican will take 1 billion dollars and build infrastructure that will employ thousands. A liberal will give 1 billion dollars to 1 university professor to study be vomit.
- SammyJr, on 08/07/2008, -1/+4No, the Republican will take 1 trillion dollars and spend it blowing up third world countries and killing American soldiers.
- diggdiggerid, on 08/07/2008, -14/+5Jobs didn't exist tens of thousands of years ago and humanity survived just fine. Get yourself a pack of seeds and a shovel, seriously.
- spamcrusher, on 08/07/2008, -0/+12Yes because life was so much better thousands of years ago.
- stagmire, on 08/07/2008, -2/+4I know you're being sarcastic, but labor has actually been an important issue ever since we settled into agricultural communities. The pyramids were a massive government employment scheme used by the Egyptians to give farmers something to do while during the months when the Nile valley was flooded. Kind of a pre-modern version of Americorps.
- buddywlkr3, on 08/07/2008, -23/+15Picturing Obama as a job killing machine should be easy enough. With his plans to raise taxes on corporations, windfall profits taxes, taxes on Capital Gains, and mammoth Government programs, the recipe for a giant depression (not recession) is there in the making. If all the Obama worshippers want to drink the Kool Aid and experience life like their grandparents in the 1930's, let them be aware that it will be a hard price to pay for following without thinking.
- AndrewMoyer, on 08/07/2008, -2/+5When people try to credit Clinton for the great times in the late 90s, naysayers comment that it was just the effects of former presidents Bush and Reagan policies finally materializing...
If this has any merit to it whatsoever, it should then be fair to say that any bad we experience (like your predicted depression) could also be attributed to the policies of past presidents (i.e. current president Bush).
I mean, lets face it... everybody in government over the last 8 years has had a hand in getting to where we are now, so it's not entirely the president's fault, but McSame is not going to improve matters by staying the course anywhere. It's not fair to blame the path of destruction left by "W" on what Obama *might* do when he's president, especially when our only other option now is to let the destruction occur unhindered.
I'd much rather Big Welfare, Big Quality of Life, and Big Peace steal my nation's treasure than Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Guns * ANY * DAY *.- vexingmodstwo, on 08/07/2008, -2/+4Umm.. yeah.... No.
- SupremeBeing, on 08/07/2008, -2/+4Go welfare! Such a wonderful and non abused government program. There is such little abuse of welfare we should make it bigger. Maybe we could raise the taxes on the rich to 75% and give a majority of it to the poor who haven't tried to do anything to contribute to society to earn it, then give a little to the middle class to get their votes too. That sounds like the perfect welfare state too me.
- johndavidjack, on 08/07/2008, -3/+1Oh...my...God...
Seems to me Big Government is a-okay for you when they give you handouts, but any other government intervention is wrong?
Seriously, come on... - AndrewMoyer, on 08/08/2008, -0/+0Just to be clear, I do not support the corruption or abuse of any government program.
Welfare is ESSENTIAL for those who cannot provide for themselves. This is a major point in "The Wealth of Nations", the basis for our capitalist society, that is conveniently forgotten by conservatives today. Sure, the abuse needs to be curbed... but if you don't prop up the lowest of the lower class, they stand no chance to become productive members of society and it leads you to humanitarian catastrophe.
You want to talk about government handouts...? Just look at the energy companies, the telecommunications industry, the financial industry, and the arms industry. There was once a time when corporations were not viewed as important or powerful as individuals in the eye of the government, but it's apathetic people who only care for themselves that have put us in this pickle.
- DreKor, on 08/07/2008, -2/+3You want to see a magic trick?
If your administration spends the country into the ground and pisses people off, your party won't get elected the next time around, but you will have implemented anything and everything you wanted. Then, when the angry public elects the other party, they won't have money to spend on the programs they want and will have to spend their time balancing the budget. Once the budget is balanced for the next election cycle, you can paint them as not doing anything constructive with their time in office and get your guy elected again and you magically have money to spend again.- wm2010russ, on 08/07/2008, -2/+1let me stop you from the beginning by just answering "no," and "thank you."
- AndrewMoyer, on 08/08/2008, -0/+0That's the yin and yang of the two party system. Depressing.
- AndrewMoyer, on 08/07/2008, -2/+5When people try to credit Clinton for the great times in the late 90s, naysayers comment that it was just the effects of former presidents Bush and Reagan policies finally materializing...
- iloveliberals, on 08/07/2008, -7/+16Universal Healthcare will be an incredible federal jobs creation program.
- thatsmyaibo, on 08/08/2008, -1/+5We don't need more federal jobs. We need smaller government and more small business owners. Get back to me when you can explain how we are going to cover 300 million people with health care. Stats show it would cost every American citizen $2,500 a year.
- ScottMitchell, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1Just $2,500! That's not bad, seeing as many people (perhaps with a copay from their employer) pay that much or more already.
- thatsmyaibo, on 08/08/2008, -1/+4@Scott
But we get better coverage than most. I pay roughly 1700 on health care a year, but I get what I pay for. I don't want to be paying for lower quality health care and compete with the other 9 million people in Los Angeles to get treated. - fedja, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1Let's see... every other developed country can do it. I figure since the US is, and I quote, "the greatest country in the world", it should be doable.
If there's enough money to kill people, there's enough money to heal people. - thatsmyaibo, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2@fedja
You are forgetting that the countries that pull off universal health care don't have 300 million people. Our population is too big to cover everyone equally. They just need to make health care more affordable.
- Sharky35, on 08/08/2008, -1/+4It'll be a better redistribution of wealth.
- thatsmyaibo, on 08/08/2008, -1/+5We don't need more federal jobs. We need smaller government and more small business owners. Get back to me when you can explain how we are going to cover 300 million people with health care. Stats show it would cost every American citizen $2,500 a year.
- MattL920, on 08/07/2008, -6/+14"Draw the parallel with the same kind of bold leadership that McCain demonstrated in pushing the surge strategy that allowed us to win in Iraq."
Oh, we won in Iraq? Awesome, I hadn't read the news in the last hour, must have just happened. In that case McCain must be the visionary they say. He has my vote!
Wait, I just checked CNN, there's no mention of us winning in Iraq. I guess we haven't yet. His advisers must be as confused as he is. Is Alzheimer's contagious? - fromaworld, on 08/07/2008, -19/+16What's wrong with the memo? Does the truth hurt the Huffington Post? Obama is a job killing machine.
Increasing minimum wage = unemployment. You can already see if from teen unemployment being up 10% because of the recent increase in the minimum wage.- stagmire, on 08/07/2008, -2/+5OK, I'll vote for McCain so that I can have more opportunities to make less than minimum wage.
- vexingmodstwo, on 08/07/2008, -4/+8If you don't have the skills necessary to make more than minimum wage, your problem is not the government, dude.
- stagmire, on 08/07/2008, -6/+3But if I can't get a minimum wage job under Obama, my problem IS with the government?
Explain. - vexingmodstwo, on 08/07/2008, -3/+4Nope.
- stagmire, on 08/07/2008, -5/+2Ok then thanks for agreeing with me that it shouldn't really matter what the ***** Obama does with minimum wage.
- vexingmodstwo, on 08/07/2008, -3/+7Wrong, stag. Increasing minimum wage will increase unemployment. There's a direct correlation.
- stagmire, on 08/07/2008, -4/+2You yourself just admitted that those people are only unemployable because they're lazy pieces of *****. Why are you so hung up on creating jobs for deadbeats?
To borrow a phrase, if you're seriously concerned about being able to get that job at Taco Bell, your problem is not the government, dude. - SupremeBeing, on 08/07/2008, -2/+5@stagmire
Ok, it's simple. If you have no skills to offer that would increase your value to society above that of minimum wage, which do you do? A: Go get the skills you need to earn more money. B: Piss and moan and stick your hand out for the government.
As for how it is a politician's fault you can't get a job if minimum wage is higher: Well, in business you are attempting to make money. Hard concept, right? Now you take a handfull of workers that earned minimum wage and raise that minimum wage, what happens? Profits go down. in cases of small mom and pop operations, this loss of profit actually makes the business lose money. The shop has a choice. Let go of some of the workers or face bankruptcy. Hence, causing higher unemployment.
Was that hard? - stagmire, on 08/07/2008, -2/+3" A: Go get the skills you need to earn more money. B: Piss and moan and stick your hand out for the government."
So how does abolishing minimum wage affect that equation?
" in cases of small mom and pop operations, this loss of profit actually makes the business lose money. The shop has a choice. Let go of some of the workers or face bankruptcy."
Except that mom and pop's big retail chain competitors have to pay the same minimum wage, so the winner is ultimately going to be the one who can achieve more efficient economies of scale. And that's going to be case no matter whether the government or the free market sets the floor for hourly wages. If mom and pop can't sell at a price that keeps them afloat, it's because they offer nothing of value (e.g. convenience). - vexingmodstwo, on 08/07/2008, -3/+4What? No I didn't. I said if you can't make more than a minimum wage job you have bigger problems than the government. Meaning you need to acquire skills to make more than minimum wage.
And none of that changes the fact that if you raise the minimum wage, you inherently cause fewer job positions and raise unemployment. - stagmire, on 08/07/2008, -1/+2"I said if you can't make more than a minimum wage job you have bigger problems than the government."
Exactly. If president Obama says minimum wage is $7/hr, and you don't already have skills that make you worth employing at that rate and are thereby effectively priced out of the labor market, your problem is not President Obama.
You want to ensure that any old dumbass high school dropout can get a job. In other words, you're rewarding failure. I think those people should stay in school and not be massive *****. - SupremeBeing, on 08/07/2008, -1/+2Where did we start talking about abolishing minimum wage? Did I miss something?
Yes, mom and pop's larger corporate competitors can pay those same minimum wages. But you forget that the larger corporation's overhead cost is a lot less than the mom and pop shop because of the volume in which larger corporations are able to buy their goods get them larger discounts. This give the larger corporation the ability to take a hit on the minimum wage. Are you seriously not going to admit that when minimum wage goes up that it does not put more small privately owned stores out of business that they were doing fine with before the wage hike? - SupremeBeing, on 08/07/2008, -1/+3"You want to ensure that any old dumbass high school dropout can get a job. In other words, you're rewarding failure. I think those people should stay in school and not be massive *****."
So you want only people who stay in school to be able to get what minimum wage jobs are left. But now you have increased the unemployment rate. Congrats, you made our point. - vexingmodstwo, on 08/07/2008, -2/+4stagmire is making ***** up now, SB.
- stagmire, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1"But you forget that the larger corporation's overhead cost is a lot less than the mom and pop shop because of the volume in which larger corporations are able to buy their goods get them larger discounts."
No, I haven't forgotten that. That's precisely my point. That's going to be case no matter what.
"Are you seriously not going to admit that when minimum wage goes up that it does not put more small privately owned stores out of business that they were doing fine with before the wage hike?"
Sure, I'll admit that it doesn't do that. The privately owned stores in my neighborhood already pay well above minimum wage, because they're more dependent on having qualified workers and need to employ people who can count past 20 without pulling down their pants. The only places that pay $6.55/hr are big corporate conglomerates that will hire any old douchebag.
"So you want only people who stay in school to be able to get what minimum wage jobs are left."
Huh?
"But now you have increased the unemployment rate."
Unemployment among losers, sure. Cry me a river for the filthy ghetto hoodrats. - tkstock, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1"You want to ensure that any old dumbass high school dropout can get a job. In other words, you're rewarding failure. I think those people should stay in school and not be massive *****."
I think you just made a case for abolishing welfare - or did I miss something? - SupremeBeing, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1"Unemployment among losers, sure. Cry me a river for the ghetto hoodrats."
So for Obama, we shouldn't count people in this group, but we will count this group when we talk about unemployment rate with any republican, right?
They are part of the unemployment rate. And unemployment is what we are talking about. Now that it seems that you agree, please shut up. - Sumtin2Say, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Cheaper labor means cheaper ***** for vexing and the rest of us. Kind of like how poor quality of life for the Chinese = better quality of life for us. It's easy to throw idealism by the wayside for realism when you're on top.
- aikimann, on 08/07/2008, -2/+6If employers are forced to pay more for an employee than their worth, guess what happens? That's right, they get fired.
Also, politicians who want to increase the minimum wage do so not to help the poor, they do it to increase union wages which are indexed to the minimum wage. They tell you its for the poor, so you'll praise them, while unions line the politicians' pockets.- stagmire, on 08/07/2008, -2/+1"If employers are forced to pay more for an employee than their worth, guess what happens?"
Maybe employees should focus on being worth more than $6.55/hr.
"Also, politicians who want to increase the minimum wage do so not to help the poor, they do it to increase union wages which are indexed to the minimum wage."
Where are you getting this nonsense? Union wages are decided through direct negotiations between unions and employers. Ultimately, the wages that GM and Ford have more to do with what Toyota and Honda pay their American workers for comparable work than anything else. Minimum wage has nothing to do with it. - aikimann, on 08/07/2008, -0/+3"Maybe employees should focus on being worth more than $6.55/hr."
-Exactly, I agree.
"Where are you getting this nonsense? Union wages are decided through direct negotiations between unions and employers."
-Most union wages are states as a multiple of the minimum wage. So if a union worker's wage is set to say 10 times the minimum wage. What does a dollar increase in the mininum wage do? That's right, it increases every employees wage by $10/hour. That's a HUGE benefit to unions don't you think?
Only a small percentage of minimum wage workers are actually working that job to get by. Most are kids in school or a second worker in a household that is far from poor.
This only serves to help the unions and gain campaign contributions for politicians all while making people think those politicians truly care about the poor. - Sumtin2Say, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0Those at the top are getting paid more than they are worth too. No doubt an educated person with talents brings more to the table than a laborer, but the compensation begins too exceed the service provided exponentially the closer you get to the top. When you are one of the good ol' boys your salary is essentially determined by your buddy. But its not just unskilled labor that gets the short end of the stick. Scientists and engineers whose degrees were much more difficult to obtain than a business degree wont make as much as upper management.
Certainly entreprenuers who make these enterprises possible deserve their just reward. It just sucks that the trickle down is a bit fatter on the business side of the business. Say for instance Vice Presidents of corporations. They didn't create the business, they are just higher ups, but employees like everyone else. Are they really worth $100s of thousands or even millions? Really, it's just the ivy leaguers taking care of each other. - Sumtin2Say, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0Let's take a real life example. My wife's uncle make's an average of $300k a year on commissions from selling paper. He certainly has skills in landing the right contracts with school districts and local government. He knows how to network and schmooze. I'll bet they pay their administrative assistant $30k a year tops. Yeah, admin assistants are a dime a dozen but is my wife's uncle worth 10 times as much? We are told that if we deregulated and lower taxes that the market would take care of itself and people at the bottom would experience trickle down. I call BS. You yourself admitted that these people aren't worth minimum wage. Profits at company X could double and the guys at the bottom wont experience any change. These people are supposed to care when a rich guy or gal cries a river about the graduated income tax system? Cracka please.
- aikimann, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1"Yeah, admin assistants are a dime a dozen but is my wife's uncle worth 10 times as much?"
Clearly if he's doing so well he's selling quite a bit of paper. Increasing sales of his product means more of that product needs to be produced, which means more jobs for those who create paper. Increase sales enough and more factories or locations will end up being created. Which means more management positions including those for administrative assistants you mentioned. So I'd answer yes. He is worth 10 times as much, and it's doubtful he would be paid that much if he wasn't worth it.
I think there's just a little bit too much wealth envy out there. A lot of sour grapes concerning where people's lives have ended up. - Sumtin2Say, on 08/08/2008, -0/+0"Increasing sales of his product means more of that product needs to be produced"
He increases profits for his company and may be creating more jobs for his company but if he didn't sell it, another company would. Overall number of jobs in paper production is the same.
BTW, his son is being groomed to take over his position after his upcoming retirement. His son has been a manager at Walgreens. I'm sure there are more qualified people out there. But they take care of their own. Goes back to my first comment in this thread.
"A lot of sour grapes concerning where people's lives have ended up."
My wife will finish pharmacy school and earn her PharmD in May 09. She will make over 100k a year starting out. She has worked really hard in school and certainly deserves compensation but even she will admit that it seems like a lot.
- stagmire, on 08/07/2008, -2/+1"If employers are forced to pay more for an employee than their worth, guess what happens?"
- glibpaxman, on 08/07/2008, -1/+3oh i see. so workers should just bend over and take it up the ass while their stagnated wages actually fall thanks to roaring inflation. Whose wins the prize for causing inflation?
Spend like drunken sailor Republicans!!!! comon down. you're the next contestant on f*** the american worker.
ah yes. sweet, sweet, irony that the only president in like... forever to actually have a government surplus was a Democrat. how did he do that? he raised taxes on the wealthy, raised the minimum wage and the economy boomed increasing tax receipts.- SupremeBeing, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1"Spend like drunken sailor Republicans!!!!"
Yes! Democrats don't want to increase spending at all! Let's reduce spending on crap like schools and create a new universal healthcare plan that will do nothing but move us further toward a communist nation, and decrease the quality of our healthcare. The average ER wait time is already over an hour. Let's see how long we can push that wait time up there. Oh, but don't forget to act enraged when people die waiting for the doctor. - Hetman, on 08/07/2008, -1/+2Increasing minimuim wage does nothing. It creates less jobs in the end. And even if minimium wage is raised guess how these corporations deal with it. They raise the price of there goods and services. They are just not going to sit back and lose profit, they are just going to pass it on to the consumer.
- SupremeBeing, on 08/07/2008, -1/+3Thank you. It appears that some here don't want to understand that. It seems that some here probably wouldn't even pass a high school economics class...
Probably, just wants his $.45/hour from working at McDonalds - Sumtin2Say, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0@Hetman
Interesting that we are only worried about costs being passed on to the consumer when it comes to nickle and dime raises at the bottom. Nevermind all the other people in the company who make quite a bit more and usually recieve raises to keep up with inflation. They don't cost the company anything. Oh wait, those are white collar folk like you and me. Nevermind, keep our raises coming, they don't count in this argument. - Hetman, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1I work for the state. No one in our agency received a raise. And according to our budget it does not seem like it is very likely to happen next year. Is it *****. Yea completely especially with the weakening dollar and inflation. But would I rather have this job with out a raise, then have no job at all. Yea. And that basically what it comes down to for me.
- glibpaxman, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1we all need to think more strategically about employment, wages, and inflation. i dont have a solution but i do know the frame we operate within is leading everyone to doom.
if we raise the wages to keep up with inflation, inflation speeds up. we lose
if we dont raise the wage to keep up with inflation, companies will refuse to pay workers more than they absolutely need to. we lose.
if we stay on this path and keep our jobs that are paying us less every year in real wages we lose.
if we go on general strike to demand our needs are met, business models shift. our jobs are not there waiting for us to come back to. we lose
the either/ or model is not going to work for anyone.
- SupremeBeing, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1"Spend like drunken sailor Republicans!!!!"
- jeffbw, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1That's total bull; raising the minimum wage actually improves employment numbers because it increases overall levels of exchange. This has actually been studied scientifically, so enough with the vintage Heritage "wisdum."
- IMJGaltstill, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Spoken like a true middle class socialist brat. I have a customer with whose payroll just jumped 748.00 per hour. Where does that money come from? What happens when the non minimum wage employees demand raises to compensate for their loss of purchasing power? The real reasons for increasing the minimum wage are two fold, as a stealth tax increase and a reward to labor unions whose contracts are generally tied to multiples of the minimum wage.
- fedja, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1Or maybe to help the people working for minimum wage survive?
- jsebrech, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1B.S.
The american economy is driven by consumer spending. Spending means disposable income. Increase income, and you increase spending, and thereby the economy.
You've seen an increase in unemployment not because the increase in the minimum wage, but because of the drop in consumer spending. I would venture the minimum wage increase staved off a worse rise in unemployment.
- stagmire, on 08/07/2008, -2/+5OK, I'll vote for McCain so that I can have more opportunities to make less than minimum wage.
- johnnyfistfight, on 08/07/2008, -12/+11So in other words the "leaked memo" is just stating the truth. Huffington is besieged in confusion because her man is slipping in the polls. The 'America is broken and only Obama can fix it' card was played once to often. McCain can sit back awhile at this point. Obama is doing a fine job at cutting his own throat.
- fedja, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1McCain has to sit back a while, he's out of breath from all the standing.
- headzoo, on 08/07/2008, -4/+16I don't see what the big deal is. I'm sure the Obama camp has similar memos. There's nothing unusual about a campaign having a list of talking points to use as weapons against their opponents.
- ericjohnson0, on 08/07/2008, -22/+10So, McCain is telling the truth and that's 'Bad?' I really don't get this Political Correctness stuff.
Job killer? Check http://thesaloon.net/blog/_archives/2008/8/1/38197 ...
Military Wimp? Check http://thesaloon.net/blog/_archives/2008/5/21/3703 ...
Racist? Check http://thesaloon.net/blog/_archives/2008/7/8/37824 ...
Anti-American? Check http://thesaloon.net/blog/_archives/2008/8/5/38260 ...
Race Baiter? Check http://thesaloon.net/blog/_archives/2008/6/21/3756 ...
So many different ways to paint Barry Hussein, why stop with just one?- GreatSunJester, on 08/07/2008, -2/+5You were making your point quite well until you used a cliched name (Barry Hussein, McSame, McChimpy, etc...)
- ericjohnson0, on 08/07/2008, -3/+2Hmmm... Good point. My apologies.
- BlackTye, on 08/07/2008, -3/+3I didn't see him making a point at all. I just see blogspam.
- ericjohnson0, on 08/07/2008, -3/+2So says the DIGGer with 'Barry Hussein' listed as a friend.
Well, sorry but your boy is a very bad guy who doesn't have a chance of winning. Make a smart move- support Hillary for the nomination. She got more votes anyway.
- ericjohnson0, on 08/07/2008, -3/+2So says the DIGGer with 'Barry Hussein' listed as a friend.
- NikoKun, on 08/07/2008, -2/+4What the ***** is wrong with people... when they can't instantly see that McCain is an evil *****.
- GreatSunJester, on 08/07/2008, -2/+5You were making your point quite well until you used a cliched name (Barry Hussein, McSame, McChimpy, etc...)
- mcse2k3, on 08/07/2008, -5/+11Is this kind of ***** really a surprise to anyone anymore? ALL politicians are ***** liars. I don't care what anyone says. It's all about money and power. They lie to everyone to get what they want. ***** all of them. That's why I mind my own business and live my life the way I want to. I don't give a ***** what trash politicians are trying to cram down our throats.
- diggduggDOOM, on 08/07/2008, -4/+3What everyone's overlooking is the benefits to a job killing machine. Just think of all the miners who obtain the metals and other raw materials, the manufacturers building the machine, the instructors that teach people how the machine works, and the technicians that maintain the machine in good working order.
If you take all that into account, you'll soon see that a job-killing machine is actually a job-creating machine.- GreatSunJester, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg we have identified your DIGG alias! :)
- jeffbw, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Cute.
- mishabear, on 08/07/2008, -4/+15If we want jobs, bring back tariffs. This will keep US companies from running their factories on foreign shores and keep Americans working.
- aikimann, on 08/07/2008, -4/+1Or, we could stop punishing businesses who operate in the US. The US is one of the costliest places to run a business in the industrialized world. Forget the tariffs, pass the Fair Tax and watch trillions of dollars and countless business flow back into the US.
- jsebrech, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2You're on something, right? The US is one of the cheapest industrialized countries for businesses.
- iizh, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Funny, protectionism vs free trade is one of the few economic topics where there is an overwhelming consensus among economists rather than debate. Guess what side nearly all credible economists are on? Yet this gets dugg up. ***** brilliant, diggers.
- aikimann, on 08/07/2008, -4/+1Or, we could stop punishing businesses who operate in the US. The US is one of the costliest places to run a business in the industrialized world. Forget the tariffs, pass the Fair Tax and watch trillions of dollars and countless business flow back into the US.
- Treoinmypocket, on 08/07/2008, -11/+4Hey - Do you think John Edwards going to start campaigning for Obama before or after the midnight feedings of his love child?
- phocis850, on 08/07/2008, -15/+8Why do Diggers believe that the Puffington Post actually acquired a memo of this nature?
- MikeFallopian, on 08/07/2008, -2/+5***** you. Two of my friends died stealing that memo.
- reaper527, on 08/07/2008, -2/+3more importantly why do they care? i'm sure obama has a plan to paint mccain as something negative. was the huffington post expecting mccain to leak a memo saying he intended to paint obama as a family friendly disney character?
- pintomp3, on 08/07/2008, -4/+14more so than bush?
- stagmire, on 08/07/2008, -6/+29This worked so well under Bush - cut taxes among the wealthy so that they can create jobs.
Problem is, all those jobs were created in China.- thegreatgazoo, on 08/07/2008, -5/+2Bzzzt!
The jobs were created by small business, which he (Obama) is trying to raise the tax rate on by about 50%.- lolmax, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2you mean all those new small businesses that pop up after megamart co. and all of it's chinese made products come cruising into town?
- fedja, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1It's always booming around the Wallmarts. Butchers, bakeries, entrepreneurs and shops of all types.
- thegreatgazoo, on 08/07/2008, -5/+2Bzzzt!
- Hetman, on 08/07/2008, -13/+12The problem is I cannot trust anything the huffington post writes. Where did this leaked memo come from, is it real etc. And I also found this part to be really funny. Obama as being "aligned with trial lawyers" and "unions (card check, trade, education reform)," First off he is a lawyer therefor he would be around lawyers. Secondly he comes from chicago wich is still has lots of unions, I would like to see a politician in chicago that is not aligned with some unions.
- DagonNL, on 08/07/2008, -2/+9There is no limit at just how truly revolting the stranglehold of corporate america is on american civil society, and just how far these soulless hyenas are willing to go to enforce their mephistophelean predation on american society.
In an honest, accountable world these actions would fall squarely in the domain covered by death sentences in the US judicial system.
Maybe some day soon they will for real.- vexingmodstwo, on 08/07/2008, -4/+2Whoa. This one isn't even hiding the red streak.
- DagonNL, on 08/07/2008, -0/+5Read streak? Buddy, over here in the netherlands I vote SOCIALIST.
I wear my red with pride. The SP is the THIRD party here, numerically. - IMJGaltstill, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1So using the social safety net as a hammock allows you to troll digg all day
- nopRT, on 08/07/2008, -6/+21Unemployment is at a 6 year high. I don't think McCain's "stay the course" plan is working.
- bobh1234, on 08/07/2008, -2/+1Honestly, that has little to do with