All Things Probama

[BigSqwert]

John McCain, June 3, 2008, in his notorious Green Backdrop speech in Louisiana:

You will hear from my opponent'

s

campaign in every

s

peech, every interview, every pre

s

s

relea

s

e that I'm running for Pre

s

ident Bu

s

h'

s

third term. You will hear every policy of the Pre

s

ident de

s

cribed a

s

the Bu

s

h-McCain policy. Why doe

s

S

enator Obama believe it'

s

s

o important to repeat that idea over and over again? Becau

s

e he

k

now

s

it'

s

very difficult to get American

s

to believe

s

omething they

k

now i

s

fal

s

e.

S

o he trie

s

to drum it into your mind

s

by con

s

tantly repeating it rather than debate hone

s

tly the very different direction

s

he and I would ta

k

e the country.

 

John McCain, June 15, 2005, Meet the Press (h/t Blue Texan):

 

MR. RU

S

S

ERT: And what people point to -- and thi

s

i

s

an article in your hometown paper, the Arizona Republic, "At Odd

s

With Bu

s

h. John McCain repeatedly ha

s

ta

k

en maveric

k

po

s

ition

s

that have put him at odd

s

with Pre

s

ident Bu

s

h'

s

admini

s

tration" . . . . The fact i

s

you are different than George Bu

s

h.

 

S

EN. McCAIN: No. No. I -- the fact i

s

that I'm different but the fact i

s

that

I have agreed with Pre

s

ident Bu

s

h far more than I have di

s

agreed. And on the tran

s

cendent i

s

s

ue

s

, the mo

s

t important i

s

s

ue

s

of our day, I've been totally in agreement and

s

upport of Pre

s

ident Bu

s

h.

LINK

[southsider2k5]

His ENTIRE base? If you count the many lefty blogs as part of his base, you had the kids over at Koz making fun of McCain's teeth. Teeth which were knocked out while a prisoner. There were similar posts up at Huffpo, but those got pulled off. This whole political cycle is getting to be too much.

 

Heck, there is similar stuff being done here...

[HuskyCaucasian]

Fight The Smears

In a truly novel move, the Obama campaign has set up a new site explicitly engaging the ubiquitous online rumors about the candidate and his wife and offering Snopes-style debunkings.

[BearSox]

Laurie Dhue doesn't work for Fox anymore... but she was SMOKING.

 

Malkin is decent looking but I just can't stand to look at her when her lips are flapping.

Why did Dhue leave? I miss her... I myself am a fan Meghan Kelly.

[lostfan]

Why did Dhue leave? I miss her... I myself am a fan Meghan Kelly.

She didn't renew her contract.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Laurie Dhue doesn't work for Fox anymore... but she was SMOKING.

 

Malkin is decent looking but I just can't stand to look at her when her lips are flapping.

 

WOW!

[HuskyCaucasian]

McCain kinda Flip-Flops Again...

McCain: I Can't Stop Outside Groups From Attacking Obama

GOP presidential contender John McCain says he can't control every attack ad aimed at Democrat Barack Obama and fully expects he'll face a similar barrage, sounding the bell for a raucous general election brawl.

 

"I can't be a referee of every spot run on television," McCain told the Herald in an exclusive interview. "I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments, but we all know there are groups who want to attack me."

 

The Arizona senator's hands-off posture on attack ads by now-infamous tax-free and unaccountable political groups called 527s marks a softening of his view on the negative campaign tactic -- and opens the door to a no-holds-barred five-month scramble.

 

hmmmm...

 

Via The Page. As McCain says, there are in fact groups who want to attack McCain. But guess what -- Obama's finance team has explicitly instructed donors not to give money to those groups. McCain, by contrast, seems to be saying that he can't control the groups on his side.

 

If McCain can't stand up to the 527s, how is he going to take on Al Qaeda?

Edited June 12, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[HuskyCaucasian]

OOPS!!

McCain in 2005:

I will argue my conservative record voting with anyone's, and I will also submit that my support for President Bush has been active and very impassioned on issues that are important to the American people. And I'm particularly talking about the war on terror, the war in Iraq, national security, national defense, support of men and women in the military, fiscal discipline, a number of other issues. So I strongly disagree with any assertion that I've been more at odds with the president of the United States than I have been in agreement with him.

 

no Third Bush Term, huh?

First he loves Dich Cheny, now he has man-love for Bush.

Edited June 12, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[Balta1701]

A copy of Barack Obama's birth certificate.

[HuskyCaucasian]

A copy of Barack Obama's birth certificate.

something about that doesnt seem right. too clean and perfect.

[HuskyCaucasian]

WHOA!!

 

Obama moves DNC operations to Chicago

 

In a major shakeup at the Democratic National Committee -- and a departure from tradition -- large parts of the committee's operations are relocating to Chicago to be fully integrated with the Obama campaign.

 

The DNC's political department, housed in Washington, D.C., will be dramatically rebuilt, with staffers offered a choice of moving to Chicago, joining state operations, or staying in Washington, DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney said.

 

But the power will clearly be shifting to a centralized Chicago hub.

 

Not sure if this is intentional or not, but talk about "Washington outside" physically displayed.

[Balta1701]

The Tax policy center (supposedly non-partisan but I really don't buy it, they're sort of half non partisan in that they're a joint venture of the center-left Brookings institution and the non-partisan Urban Institute) has an analysis up of what the 2 candidates tax plans, if enacted as proposed, would do to the incoming income of different economic groups of americans. The money graph:

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Obama fires the Flip-Flopper Cannon...

The Illinois senator tried to portray McCain as a flip-flopper, something the Republican Party was able to do with former candidate and Obama supporter John Kerry in 2004.

 

“Sen. McCain once knew better. He said that he couldn't vote for the Bush tax cuts in good conscience because they were too skewed to the wealthiest Americans. But now he wants to make those same tax cuts permanent and now give even more to those same folks."

 

Obama continued, "Later, John McCain said it was irresponsible to cut taxes during a time of war because we couldn't afford them. But now he’d continue running up hundreds of billions of dollars in debt while spending billions of dollars a day in Iraq. There’s nothing conservative about that. There’s nothing fiscally prudent about that.”

[HuskyCaucasian]

[Balta1701]

Like I said a few pages back...McCain is really going to wind up in a bit of trouble because of the media's constant adoration of him...he's constantly, over and over again, been booked on shows over and over again...and within the last few years has had a chance to answer questions on every issue probably a dozen times, over and over again, to the point where you can stick just about every clip together and wind up with things that contradict. Over and over again.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Like I said a few pages back...McCain is really going to wind up in a bit of trouble because of the media's constant adoration of him...he's constantly, over and over again, been booked on shows over and over again...and within the last few years has had a chance to answer questions on every issue probably a dozen times, over and over again, to the point where you can stick just about every clip together and wind up with things that contradict. Over and over again.

The ironic part is that one event in Obama's candidacy HAD prior quotes form him, but they were largely ignored.

 

Remember Bitter-gate? He said on Charlie Rose several years ago the SAME thing (i think minus the bitter part), but he phrased it far better back then. Yet, few seemed to notice.

[BigSqwert]

From bicycleretailer.com

 

 

 

Wouldn't mind being a fly on the wall at this event. I'd love to hear Obama's ideas on this matter.

 

Found this on Obama's website:

Didn't seem like much bicycling discussion was involved...

 

Venue Two was the home of Leah Missbach Day and F.K. Day in the West Loop, right across the street from Harpo Studios. Most of the guests paid $2,300 each to attend, and roughly 150 people were in attendance. The hosts listed on the invitation were as follows: Tim Blumenthal, John Burke, Patrick Cunnane, Stan Day, Steve Flagg, Chris Fortune, Jeff Frehner, Chris Lambiase, Steve Meineke, Mike Mercuri, Marc Sani, Mike Sinyard, and Mike Van Abel.

 

The fundraiser was held in a sprawling, two-story loft apartment decorated with an iron-accented, exposed-brick motif that could safely be called Western-rustic-industrial. A pet bird flew freely around the room. The “Yes We Can” video played on a large television screen. Waiters passed hors d’oeuvres – crab salad in pastry, tuna tartare, cheddar puffs – on cedar planks.

 

Mr. Obama arrived at 8:30 p.m., and was introduced by F.K. Day, the president of World Bicycle Relief, a charity group that promotes sustainable bicycle use. Standing on a slightly raised platform in the corner of the loft, Mr. Obama first acknowledged the obvious: this was a seriously bicycle-friendly crowd. Many of the people in attendance wore large royal-blue bicycle pins. Greg Lemond, the Tour de France winner, was there, along with his wife, Kathy, whom Mr. Obama pointed out in the crowd.

 

“This was the fittest host committee that has ever organized an Obama event,” Mr. Obama said.

 

He paused to mention his much-photographed bike ride with one of his daughters last Sunday. “There was no setup,” Mr. Obama promised. “I was not trying to pander to this crowd.”

 

When one bicycle enthusiast yelled out, “Thanks for wearing a helmet!” Mr. Obama suggested that before donning the helmet, he remembered one of the cardinal rules of politics: never allow yourself to be photographed wearing nerdy headgear.

 

“I had an internal debate,” he said. “Because I knew that the A.P. was going to take a picture, and they were trying to portray it like Dukakis wearing that tank helmet. But I wanted to make sure that the children who saw that picture knew that even the Democratic nominee for president wears a helmet when he goes biking. (Hearty applause.)

 

“Now, obviously the rest of my apparel was apparently not up to snuff, because I got a hard time from all sorts of blogs,” he said, “Who said I looked like Urkel.”

 

After Mr. Obama finished his speech, he took three questions: one on nuclear power, one on his urban agenda, and one on conflict in the Middle East.

 

Then, after giving thanks to the donors, he shook some hands and posed for pictures.

[southsider2k5]

The Tax policy center (supposedly non-partisan but I really don't buy it, they're sort of half non partisan in that they're a joint venture of the center-left Brookings institution and the non-partisan Urban Institute) has an analysis up of what the 2 candidates tax plans, if enacted as proposed, would do to the incoming income of different economic groups of americans. The money graph:

 

 

Thank you for posting that. This is EXACTLY what I want John McCain to bring to the debates and here is why. When Jimmy Carter the second starts in about the economy, John McCain can put a torpedo right into his hull by mentioning the damage that this tax plan will do to our economy. Who hires people in this country? Its the rich people. What happens when rich people lose money? They cut costs. What is the #1 cost in a company? Employees. So is the rich guy going to take a paycut, or fire the poor guy? Bye, bye, poor guy. Don't believe me? I really, really hope this comes up.

 

Here is some info on history when income taxes are raised.

 

http://www.nber.org/digest/mar08/w13264.html

 

Tax changes that are made to promote long-run growth, or to reduce an inherited budget deficit, in contrast, are undertaken for reasons essentially unrelated to other factors influencing output. Thus, examining the behavior of output following these relatively exogenous tax changes is likely to provide more reliable estimates of the output effects of tax changes. The results of this more reliable test indicate that tax changes have very large effects: an exogenous tax increase of 1 percent of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly 2 to 3 percent.

 

Here is some perspective on who would get hit in a FICA cap removal, interesting to note that Barack would be hitting some of the most heavily Democratic territory in the country with CA, NY, and IL getting hit the most.

 

http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/CDA01-07.cfm

 

WHO WOULD PAY ADDITIONAL OASI TAXES?

 

Heritage analysts, using data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, estimate that eliminating the Social Security taxable wage cap would subject 10.4 million workers to a $1.2 trillion tax increase from FY 2002 to FY 2011. 25 Almost 5.7 million of these workers are heads of families, and 2.8 million are spouses. Another 1.5 million single workers also would see their paychecks decline. On average, these 10.4 million workers would see their taxes increase by $4,907 in the first year after the tax cap is removed. 26

 

Of the 10.4 million workers who would be directly affected by tax increases,

 

*

 

8.5 million (82 percent) are men ; two-thirds, or 5.7 million, of these men are aged 35 to 54; another 1.7 million are over the age of 54 and nearing or eligible for retirement.

*

 

On average, these 10.4 million workers work 49 hours per week year-round.

*

 

8.2 million (79 percent) are married.

*

 

4.5 million (43 percent) are married with children.

*

 

7.3 million (67 percent) have college degrees ; 1.2 million (11.4 percent) are high school graduates or less.

*

 

Over 50 percent (5.5 million workers) live in eight states: California (1.5 million), New York (859,000), Texas (754,000), Illinois (519,000), New Jersey (503,000), Florida (495,000), Pennsylvania (430,000), and Michigan (429,000).

*

 

Most (6.1 million, or 58 percent) live in the suburbs. Another 2.3 million, or 22 percent, live in central cities.

*

 

Over two-thirds (7.2 million) are private-sector wage-and-salary workers; 2.1 million (20.5 percent) are self-employed.

*

 

Nearly 10 percent (816,000) are union members.

*

 

Nearly 5 percent (485,000) are not U.S. citizens.

*

 

Over two-thirds (7.1 million) are in executive, managerial, and professional specialty occupations , but not all are doctors, lawyers, or CEOs.

*

 

Over 1.2 million of the affected workers are teachers, nurses, truck drivers, computer analysts, construction workers, farmers, police officers and firemen, mechanics, repairers, and retail sales workers.

*

 

Two-thirds (6.6 million) work in six major industries: manufacturing (1.9 million); finance, insurance, and real estate (1.2 million); other professional services (1.1 million); business and repair services (940,000); medical services (660,000); and retail trade (728,000).

 

Some research on corporate taxes

 

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.2785.../pub_detail.asp

 

The Decline of the Corporate Income Tax

 

Many countries have restructured their corporate tax structures in recent years and cut tax rates in efforts to improve corporate output and stimulate their economies. These changes have put pressure on the United States to reform its corporate tax code, and AEI has sponsored research in the area.

 

At a March 17 AEI conference, a group of leading experts examined the effects of corporate taxation. AEI's Kevin A. Hassett discussed two recent changes affecting the corporate income tax: the bonus depreciation offered in 2001–2004 and the preferential dividend and capital gains tax rates introduced in 2003 to reduce the "double tax" on corporate income. He found that "immature" companies--those that have never paid a dividend--saw larger stock price increases from the latter provision than companies that have paid dividends.

 

Andrei Shleifer of Harvard University argued that "effective corporate tax rates have large and significant adverse effects on corporate investment and entrepreneurship." Roger H. Gordon of the University of California, San Diego, presented evidence that a more progressive corporate tax rate schedule encourages profitable firms to borrow and discourages less profitable firms from doing so, which helps resolve problems in the loan market. Harvard Business School's Fritz Foley presented statistical evidence indicating that "the burden of corporate taxation is not entirely borne by corporations or owners of capital . . . but is instead shared between labor and capital."

 

On a similar note, in a 2006 working paper, Hassett and AEI's Aparna Mathur examine the connection between taxes and manufacturing wages. Using data for seventy-two countries over twenty-two years, they find that higher corporate tax rates result in lower wages. They attribute this to "capital flight"--the movement of businesses from high-tax countries to countries with lower tax rates, which decreases productivity, and thus wages, in the former country. Hassett and Mathur advocate international tax competition because it leads to higher wages. Their work was cited in The Economist.

 

In another recent paper, Hassett and AEI's Alex Brill found "strong statistical evidence of a Laffer curve in the international corporate tax data"--that is, that corporate tax revenues fall as the corporate tax rate is increased beyond a certain level. Moreover, they find that the rate at which revenue is maximized "has dropped over time." Countries with rates above the maximizing level not only collect suboptimal revenue but are also less competitive than other countries.

 

The increase in the number of governments lowering the corporate income tax to attract investors worries some observers. They have argued that countries should collude to keep rates high, claiming that global coordination provides the solution for unhelpful global competition. But AEI's Alan D. Viard writes in the April edition of Tax Policy Outlook that this recommendation is misguided. He argues that the corporate income tax has distinct flaws unrelated to competitive pressures--it is not neutral with respect to savings, type of firm, or type of securities. "Rather than trying to prop up the corporate income tax against competitive pressures," he writes, "countries around the world should celebrate its decline and work for

its demise."

 

For more information on AEI scholars' work on the corporate income tax, visit www.aei.org/corporatetax/.

[kapkomet]

Thank you for posting that. This is EXACTLY what I want John McCain to bring to the debates and here is why. When Jimmy Carter the second starts in about the economy, John McCain can put a torpedo right into his hull by mentioning the damage that this tax plan will do to our economy. Who hires people in this country? Its the rich people. What happens when rich people lose money? They cut costs. What is the #1 cost in a company? Employees. So is the rich guy going to take a paycut, or fire the poor guy? Bye, bye, poor guy. Don't believe me? I really, really hope this comes up.

 

Here is some info on history when income taxes are raised.

 

http://www.nber.org/digest/mar08/w13264.html

 

 

 

Here is some perspective on who would get hit in a FICA cap removal, interesting to note that Barack would be hitting some of the most heavily Democratic territory in the country with CA, NY, and IL getting hit the most. The rich certainly aren't taking care of us, so the government should!

 

http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/CDA01-07.cfm

 

 

 

Some research on corporate taxes

 

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.2785.../pub_detail.asp

 

It's ok, because the government can run things and take care of us all, so all of our money should just go to the government so that they can take care of everything for us. It works so well in China, why not?

 

Redistribution of wealth is against everything this country is set up to do.

[lostfan]

That is too much economy-speak for me to read, I had to skip over it and try to find the main points.

 

Besides the EU I don't know where else companies would leave to that compares to the wages of US workers because of higher taxes... I think it has everything to do with cheap labor and relatively little to do with taxes.

[lostfan]

It's ok, because the government can run things and take care of us all, so all of our money should just go to the government so that they can take care of everything for us. It works so well in China, why not?

 

Redistribution of wealth is against everything this country is set up to do.

That's hyperbole.

[kapkomet]

That's hyperbole.

Yep, that's where "Kaperbole" ™ comes in. It drives me crazy to think that the Democrats think that the government should have all these programs, when time and time again it's shown privitization is more effective then the government will ever be, in anything.

[lostfan]

Yep, that's where "Kaperbole" ™ comes in. It drives me crazy to think that the Democrats think that the government should have all these programs, when time and time again it's shown privitization is more effective then the government will ever be, in anything.

There is a balance though. I mean I'm all about "OMG FREE MARKET" but there has to be some form of government intervention so it doesn't get out of control (because it will), although not to the point of socialist-style price controlling etc. And it has to be done the right way or the free market will be f***ed up worse. Case in point: Health care industry

[BigSqwert]

This guy is sounding more and more Bush-like. "And that's not the change we believe in." *pro-longed awkward smile*

 

Tonight was the first in a much-hyped series of 'town hall' forums scheduled by John McCain's campaign, in which Barack Obama had been challenged to show up to discuss the issues directly with the GOP nominee.

 

Except, as Fox News reported, McCain's campaign misled the public about the nature of the event. The forum was "billed by the McCain campaign as a town hall with independent and Democratic voters," but Fox News noted at the end that the audience was actually "made up of invited guests and supporters," the Democratic National Committee said in a statement.

 

Here is FNC's Shepard Smith breaking the news:

 

"I reported at the top of thi

s

hour that the campaign had told u

s

at Fox New

s

that the audience would be made up of Republican

s

, Democrat

s

, and independent

s

. We have now received a clarification from the campaign and I feel I

s

hould pa

s

s

it along to you. The McCain campaign di

s

tributed tic

k

et

s

to

s

upporter

s

, Mayor Bloomberg, who of cour

s

e i

s

a regi

s

tered Republican, and other independent group

s

."

[BigSqwert]

This guy is sounding more and more Bush-like. "And that's not the change we believe in." *pro-longed awkward smile*

First Read's take on the townhall.

 

So did McCain get what he wanted out of last night's Fox town hall? On the one hand, it appears the campaign was trying to send the message to Republican activists and insiders that he can put together a compelling visual campaign; everything looked great and McCain was clearly in his comfort zone. But because Fox News ended up criticizing the makeup of the audience by the campaign, have the McCain's folks lost their opportunity to produce future town halls in conjunction with networks on exclusive basis in the future? Most news organizations like to have editorial control, and judging by last night, more will demand it if choosing to air these solo-candidate town halls on an exclusive basis. Frankly, we're surprised the campaign didn't include more opponents in their cherry-picked audience last night, because McCain handles that stuff about as well as any pol; doing what they did came across as a bit ham-handed for a candidate who boasts of straight talk. McCain's core strength with voters is his authenticity; getting criticized by Fox News on the authenticity front is not good day for the campaign. By the way, is this another example of those thought to be friendly to McCain having no qualms about challenging him publicly, while Obama continues to enjoy a relatively amiable relationship with his base.