Somewhat (which was the way I understood the Forbes flat-tax to be), but everything I saw still ended up with a net increase to the middle class and huge relief to the upper incomes. Graduation, even slight, would eliminate some of that.

Fair? Not much of our tax system is fair. But a small farm paying less taxes seems fair to me.

I "lose" about 10-20 bucks per day on my current job after the mileage deduction. Such a shame ;)

Heh, depends on your definition of small. I've also been accused of being a large factory farmer.

This year might be different though. One arm of the business has already plowed over $1 million in equipment purchases this year and other rising input costs might make it hard to horde on some things before January 1st.

We just might have to pay taxes this year!

Here's an interesting analysis of why Obama is leading:

I think I posted that a page or three back :)

edit: minus the cool image in the spoiler tag!

ABC News: New Allegations in Mahoney Sex Scandal

This Mahoney thing is getting uglier and uglier. Mahoney still hasn't dropped out of the re-election campaign, but pulled out of tonight's debate.. saying that he didn't want to be a nationally televised circus. Why, you may ask?


"a) Calling Allen (his Mistress) late in the evenings and demanding "phone sex;"
b) Demanding that Allen answer his calls or face termination;

c) Demanding that Allen attend fundraisers and "tease c-ck" to bring in more donations from the male members of the public;

d) Demanding that Allen engage in sexual conduct with another woman for his enjoyment."

Current and former staffers told ABC News the allegations contained in the "demand letter" sent to Mahoney were backed up by tape recordings of phone calls between the Congressman and Allen.

McCain and his wife stopped in town this afternoon to have lunch a sit-down burger place - along with John Elway and John Lynch (plus a few others). I showed my son the picture with Elway and he absolutely freaked.

"Tease c-ck"? Umm... no thank you!



Why is it that pols never cheat with somebody hot?

She wasn't bad:

And of course she wasn't bad, and with enough money you could have had her too:

Can a campaign wrecker ever be considered hot? GrantDawg says YES!

wanted to point out Palin finally testified before someone in Troopergate. Better late than never.

Palin testifies to investigator in ethics dispute - Yahoo! News

With Obama the clear favorite now, I was thinking about the tradition that the networks have followed in the past when a candidate gets over the magic 270 electoral votes. They typically show a regal portrait of the president elect with his full name, and the commentator will say "Ronald Wilson Reagan" "George Herbert Walker Bush" "William Jefferson Clinton" etc. "has been elected the xxth President of the United States".

Want to bet that the tradition is broken this year if Obama is elected? After all, following the past tradition would be considered "racist" and not "politically correct."

Do you keep practicing your one-lines for this thread? We get it - Obama's a scary Black Muslim Socialist Arab (I'm sure you could go on). :rolleyes:

That has nothing to do with the point that I was trying to make.

Seriously, VV, were you viciously attacked by a rabid donkey at some point in the last four years or something? Seems like a deeply scarring incident must lie behind all this.

Uh-oh. When QS calls you out, you are in serious trouble.

Not really. I'm just disappointed in the demise of the DLC, which was instrumental in getting Bill Clinton elected. I had a really hard time voting for Gore and Kerry, as they were much farther to the left than my political views. My votes in 2000 and 2004 were more or less anti-GWB votes, and I would have even voted for Obama or Hillary in those cases. However, when it became apparent that McCain was going to be the nominee against Hillary or Obama, it was an easy decision for me. The Democratic party is now controlled by its far left, and it will be virtually unchecked in January with the three headed super majority of Obama/Pelosi/Reid.

Well, as a comfort...I think it is pretty safe to say they have two years to do what they can. 2010 could see the House turn red, or the Senate. At the least, well probably see both sides of congress at pretty close to 50/50.

The problem with this is that Clinton's proposals and actions during his first couple of years were more left wing that anything Obama is likely to do. CLinton started with gays in the military, higher taxes for nearly everyone, and an attempt to bring single-payer universal health coverage. Regardless of his DLC connections, Clinton came to office with a very liberal policy agenda that only modified after the 1994 elections.

And we will see that again (hopefully)?


I take no comfort in that. If it's so obvious that the voters will turn them out in two years, why does anyone think what we will have to go through the next two years is a good thing (unless you are on the "far left" as been mentioned)? Is it really all just oppositional politics, taking revenge when one can do so? How noble and worthy.

Ugh, can we please stop this "OMG, why is it wrong to use his middle name?" nonsense. This has already been dealt with numerous times.

Yes, the media will use it when he wins, and no it won't be racist.

His bringing up "gays in the military" was a mistake, but it was also blown out of proportion, and it certainly wasn't a priority. He raised taxes after exhaustive discussions with Robert Rubin, who convinced Clinton that getting the deficit under control was the single most important thing at the time, and that it would be in the long term interest.

Clinton was hardly a favorite of his party's left. He often infuriated them with his stands on issues like NAFTA and welfare reform. He had a long track record as a centrist governor before he was elected president.

Well, it is just historical. The president's party loses ground in congress in the first mid-term election. Bound to happen. Right now, though, it is especially true. The economy is no going to suddenly get better, and that will be bad for the Dems as the party in complete power, even though there is absolutely nothing that could be done to change that.

I also don't think there is going to be a whole lot accomplished in his first two years. The economy is definitely going to be a distraction. With tax receipts going down on top of that, the likely-hood of Obama's tax cuts or any raises is very slim. Not to mention the health-care thing will never fly when the government is going to be covered in red.

Obama is probably going to look a lot like Clinton in his first term. He'll push through what he can by executive order to undo much of the damage Bush has done in his tenure. He'll make the right mad, and they'll enrage the people over minor nothings that will be blown out of proportion. Then after the mid-term, he'll move to the center and maybe pass some cuts in taxes and the budget. About the end of his term, the economy will start looking up, and he'll have a shot of re-election. (That is of course something majorly bad happens, like Russia invading the Ukraine, or the financial system hits another crisis and collapses under the strain. Then things might get interesting).

What are Obama's positions that are far to the left of Clinton's? As far as I know there's nothing he's proposed that's far to the left of where Clinton was.(with the possible exception of trade issues) He's also been consulting with Rubin on his tax policy and he also has a record as a pretty pragmatic guy when it comes to policy.

There are plenty of good reasons not to vote for Obama, but I honestly don't understand how being left of Clinton is a serious concern.

Sure, but JPhillips was right on in that he did not govern from the center early on. He never mentioned welfare reform from the time he left the campaign trail till the time the Republicans took the House. His moves to center (which is how he ran in both elections) didn't come till he stopped listening to Hillary's gang and started listening to Dick Morris (the sleaze bag).

All we have is his voting record, which granted is a somewhat small sample size on the issues that he's actually bothered to cast a vote. You can spin it however you want, but Hillary Clinton and Obama aren't anywhere close to being centrists.

Where on the voting record are they substantially different? There just aren't many liberal issues that have been voted on during their time in the Senate. If you have specifics I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any evidence that Obama pursues a radical left-wing agenda.

Look at Clinton in 1992-93, he was for higher taxes, less military spending, gays allowed in the military, universal, single-payer healthcare, high speed rail funding, and tougher environmental standards. As one who would like to see some liberal policies enacted, I see Clinton as more left in most every area.

To be fair, I think that you also need to look at Obama's voting record as a state senator in Illinois, which comprises the bulk of his political experience.

I'm not sure how looking at voting records is a good sell for John "I voted with Bush 90% of the time" McCain.

If not, let's see how many times Obama or McCain has been willing to stand up to their party's establishment.

If you believe the polls, the democrats will have more than enough votes in the house and senate to force through any of Obama's policies they like. I could see them passing the national health care plan, rolling back the Bush tax cuts (esp cap gains) and even repealing all the drilling they supported before the election by next November.

My fear is that all that will get rubberstamped and we'll be in the middle of a recession with a pending tax increase (esp on cap gains) and this enormous health plan starting soon with no real way to pay for it (much like what Hawaii found out).

The last president who raised taxes during a recession was Herbert Hoover.

Hoover raised the top bracket from 25% to 63%. I don't think anyone is talking about a change quite that drastic.

I'd be happy if there was a supermajority, as long as they backroom deal Pelosi out of the speakers chair. And maybe HilRod will unseat the Navada gangster.

dola-

And how exactly does the speaker vote work? Could the republicans nominate and back someone like Dennis Moore(D-Kansas) for speaker? And maybe get enough blue dogs to beat Pelosi.

I think just about every Dem not related to Harry Reid would rather see Hillary in the Senate Majority slot... let's see if they have the balls to can Harry Reid's worthless ass though.


Yes. It's basically a whoever gets the most vote. Usually each party nominates their person and everyone in the party votes for that nominee (and you better if you want the good slots).

WSJ has an interesting article on both candidates' tax plan:

The Election Choice: Taxes - WSJ.com

Your only looking at one component of what Obama says he will do. The total tax increase is greater than what Hoover did in 1932. For example, Hoover's Revenue Act of 1932 implemented a tax of 13.75% on corporations (much less than Obama). Also, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (passed in 1930) was in full effect and added fuel to the fire and of course a world wide depression resulted. Yeah, it didn't work for Hoover in the middle of a recession and it won't work for Obama either.

Obama probably has no clue what happened in 1932. Heck, his Vice Presidential candidate thinks Roosevelt (FDR) was president in 1932.

Unfortunately, I think the debate is about over at this point. I'm astounded at the number of friends that I have, most of whom are very intelligent, who get indignant over any criticism of Obama, despite the fact that they can't cite any accomplishment or any substantive policy issue that they think he will implement. They just "like him" and think it's "time for change." I think that's where the bulk of the country is at right now.

Considering the amount of different kinds of taxes we have now compared to 1932, I would think it would be rather easy to have a "total tax increase greater than what Hoover did" after you added everything up.


Which was an increase of 1.75% in corporate net income tax (which was a flat tax back then). Is Obama planning a larger increase in that tax? A quick google search only shows that McCain plans to lower it, but nothing on Obama doing anything to it.


Trust me, I know all about that one. I may have ranted about it at some point in that past on here.


Don't take my reply earlier as a defense or support for Obama's tax plan. From what I see, we're probably screwed with either Obama's or McCain's plan getting passed. I just think the comparisons to Hoover are pretty silly (which would put them on par with just about everything else going on in this election).

Have the masses ever talked deeply about policy? If Obama wins, he would have put forth more specific policy details than any elected President in my lifetime. His tax proposal alone has more specifics than any candidate has put forth in decades.

Sounds a little bit like you "just don't like him." Or at least some of bandwagoning going on around him. Thats just presidential politics.

I wonder how many people think that that's what Social Security is supposed to be, anyway.

You been listening to the same guy I have?

Dang, Palin just needs to stay away from hockey games. First the booing, and now this:

Goalie injured after tripping on Palin carpet | ajc.com

Goalie injured after tripping on Palin carpet

By JIM SALTER
Associated Press Writer
ST. LOUIS — Blues goalie Manny Legace left after one period Friday night with a hip injury that occurred when he slipped on the carpet placed on the ice for Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

The Alaska governor dropped the ceremonial first puck before the Blues hosted the Los Angeles Kings. A narrow carpet walkway was placed from the gate at the Blues bench to center ice for Palin, her husband and two of her daughters.

Just before the ceremony, Legace was the first player onto the ice for St. Louis. A team official pointed to the carpet. But Legace said the official moved his own foot from the carpet just as Legace stepped down, causing the carpet to slide.

Legace fell, then gingerly made his way to the crease. After Legace's mishap, the official rolled up enough of the carpet so other players wouldn't have to step on it.

Legace described the injury as a strained left hip flexor. He doesn't believe it is serious but said it is painful. He said he won't play Saturday when the Blues host Florida, but wasn't sure if he'd miss any additional games. "I felt a pull right away," Legace said. "I was hoping it would just go away." But after making his first save, the injury felt worse, Legace said. He played one period, giving up two goals on 12 shots. After the intermission, the team said he suffered a "lower body" injury but did not immediately elaborate. He was replaced by Ben Bishop, making his NHL debut.

Legace is 4-2 with a 2.94 goals-against average in six games this season. He is 313-291 in his nine-year career. He was selected to the Western Conference All-Star team last season.

It was Palin's second appearance at an NHL game this month. She also dropped the ceremonial puck at Philadelphia on Oct. 11.

Legace didn't blame Palin for the injury.

"She's been pretty good for our game," Legace said. "I'm starting to like her more and more. No grudge."

The Flyers finally won yesterday, their first win since Palin dropped there a few weeks ago. With Legacy's injury and the Blues losing last night I guess the curse has been passed on.

Maybe not. The Flyers won on the road, not at the Wachovia Center. ;)

Agreed, but apparently Harry Reid is beloved by his colleagues. And Pelosi, for all her flaws, is a bare-knuckled politician, and I'd be shocked to see her lose that role.

Christian right intensifies attacks on Obama - Yahoo! News


Terrorist strikes on four American cities. Russia rolling into Eastern Europe. Israel hit by a nuclear bomb. Gay marriage in every state. The end of the Boy Scouts. All are plausible scenarios if Democrat Barack Obama is elected president, according to a new addition to the campaign conversation called "Letter from 2012 in Obama's America," produced by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family Action.

Do they not realize how incredibly counterproductive this is and how idiotic it makes them look?