• on a comment on Richardson In, Too over 7 years ago

    I thought Jesse Jackson was a pretty serious candidate.  

    Per wikipedia:

    Four years later, in 1988, Jackson once again offered himself as a candidate for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. This time, his successes in the past made him a more credible candidate, and he was both better financed and better organized. Although most people did not seem to believe that he had a serious chance at winning, Jackson once again exceeded expectations as he more than doubled his previous results, capturing 6.9 million votes and winning eleven primaries. Briefly, after he won 55% of the vote in the Michigan primary, he was considered the frontrunner for the nomination, as he surpassed all the other candidates in total number of pledged delegates

    Seems like a pretty serous candidate to me.

  • comment on a post Restoring the Public over 7 years ago

    I just realized, as I hit "post", that I didn't do a good job factoring in primaries.  The cost would still be well under a billion in presidential years, and under a half billion in non presidential years, I think.

    The main point is that by using time slots reserved for PSA's and other government-mandated programming that the biggest cost of campaigns is covered from the get-go.  

  • comment on a post Restoring the Public over 7 years ago

    If structured properly, I don't think the cost would be huge.  

    Network TV and radio stations have to run "X" number of hours of public service programming and commercials.  Take that time and dole it out to candidates on an equal basis.  The tv stations get to sell their normal commercial time to their usual vendors, perhaps taking a bit of a hit, ditto with radio.  Stipulate that debates are put on tv at a reasonable hour, but before prime-time.  In the midwest, that might be 6 pm.  Or on Saturday evening.  Something like that.  

    In major cities, the government buys extra ad time, due to the number of races.

    Then, each campaign is given an equal amount of money to purchase other needs (mailings, fliers, and the like).  A candidate has to raise $250,000 on his or her own, to ensure that they are 'serious' candidates, and the government matches that, capping the spending at $500k.  

    Incumbents maintain a certain advantage due to name rec and other inherent advantages of incumbency.  

    Senate races get a bit more, say $1 million max spending cap, with the candidate raising $500k on his own.  That puts the government's tab at $234 million every 2 years, plus the purchase of additional advertising spots for campaigns in major metro areas.  

    Presidential races, on the other hand, are a different beast.  Say $50 million has to be raised by the campaign, with a $50 million match.  Max out spending at $125 million. In the primary, max spending is half that.  So, big corporations still have an advantage in Presidential elections, but I think that people will balk at having to pick up the entire tab.  

    So, in non presidential years, we'll say that the total bill is $300 million, including $66 million for the purchase of additional tv time.  For presidential years, $500 million, including $116 million for additional tv time.

  • comment on a post Not Everything Can Be A Dubai Port Deal over 7 years ago

    after 2 years of a do-nothing Congress, this is a great way to show the public that the Democrats will work.  it'll cause the republicans, as stated previously, to take a stand against super popular legislation, or wilt (and become 'bi-partisan,' thus forcing the Congress a bit to the left and pissing off the right wing Base).

    And, the 100 hours was probably the biggest, most tangible, campaign promise made by the Democrats.  They should fulfill the promise.

  • comment on a post Merry Christmas over 7 years ago

    A Christmas Story

    And Groundhog Day is a Groundhog's Day movie.  Wait about 2 months, and it'll be groundhog season.  :-)

    Season's Greetings!

  • By the way, where are all these infantry troops coming from?  The reserves? Afghanistan?  Some 40 year old guy with 3 kids in Al-Anbar?  Further draw down forces in Afhanistan chasing Osama, while letting the Taliban retake Khandahar?

    Are they going to retrain support soldiers to be front-liners, while bringing in more National Guard to man the support roles?  Or retrain support troops to be front line and replace them with private contractors?

    The army hasn't exactly been hitting its recruiting targets lately.

  • Wouldn't call it a "temporary increase" either.  Temporary increases have a tendency to cease being temporary very quickly.

    Once they're there, they're staying until we get out.  We've already seen this, as there have been attempts to slightly draw down the number of troops, only to have them sent straight back with a few more to boot.

    It's an escalation.  It's an increase in troop levels.  Which will mean an increase in violence.  An increase in the death rate, the insurgency may re-surge (if that's a word), as Iraqi's from all sides start going after the common enemy, again.  I say "may" because who knows.  They might continue more or less ignoring the Americans as they work on killing each other.  Either way, it just means more bloodshed.

    And it ain't reversing until GWB is out of
    office, unfortunately.  

  • comment on a post It's an ESCALATION, Not a "Surge" over 7 years ago

    Correcting the terminology...

    In addition to escalation, not 'surge' - by the way, what an odd choice of words, seeing as how it was a Storm Surge that flooded New Orleans...

    Anyway,
    It's an occupation, not a war

    When Iraqis are killing Iraqis, its civil war.  Some actions of the civil war, such as civilians shooting at government troops could be termed a rebellion or even a revolution, but overall its civil war.

    When Iraqis are killing Americans, its an insurgency.  Also known as a Resistance.  

    When the occasional foreigner kills indiscrimintely, it could be termed terrorism.  

  • comment on a post Open Thread over 7 years ago

    Well, I had written a long post about my impressions of the legacy of Richard J. Daley, who died 30 years ago tomorrow.  

    But it disappeared when I hit post.  So, rather than try to remember what I was going to say, I'll just blockquote Mike Royko's column/obit from 30 years ago.  Perhaps I'll try to regurgitate what I wrote later:

    If ever a man reflected a city, it was Richard J. Daley and Chicago.

    In some ways, he was this town at its best -- strong, hard-driving, working feverishly, pushing, building, driven by ambitions so big they seemed Texas-boastful.

    He wasn't graceful, suave, witty or smooth. But, then, this is not Paris or San Francisco.

    He was raucous, sentimental, hot-tempered, practical, simple, devious, big and powerful. This is, after all, Chicago.

    Sometimes, the very same Daley performance could be seen as both outrageous and heroic. It depended on whom you asked for an opinion.

    For example, when he stood on the Democratic National Convention floor in 1968 and mouthed furious crudities at smooth Abe Ribicoff, tens of millions of TV viewers were shocked.

    But it didn't offend most Chicagoans. That's part of the Chicago style -- belly to belly, scowl to scowl, and may the toughest or loudest man win.

    Daley was not an articulate man, most English teachers would agree. People from other parts of the country sometimes marveled that a politician who fractured the language so thoroughly could be taken so seriously.

    Well, Chicago is not an articulate town, Saul Bellow notwithstanding. Maybe it's because so many of us aren't that far removed from parents and grandparents who knew only bits and pieces of the language.

    So when Daley slid sideways into a sentence, or didn't exit from the same paragraph he entered, it amused us. But it didn't sound that different than the way most of us talk.

    Besides, he got his point across, one way or another, and usually in Chicago style. When he thought critics should mind their own business about the way he handed out insurance business to his sons, he tried to think of a way to say they should kiss his bottom. He found a way. He said it. We understood it. What more can one ask of the language?

    Daley was a product of the neighborhoods and he reflected it in many good ways -- loyalty to the family, neighbors, old buddies, the corner grocer. You do something for someone, they do something for you. If somebody is sick, you offer the family help. If someone dies, you go to the wake and try to lend comfort. The young don't lip off to the old, everybody cuts his grass, takes care of his property. And don't play your TV too loud.

    That's the way he liked to live, and that's what he thought most people wanted, and he was right.

    But there are other sides to Chicago neighborhoods -- suspicion of outsiders, intolerance toward the unconventional, bigotry and bullying.

    That was Daley, too. As he proved over and over again, he didn't trust outsiders, whether they were long-hairs against war, black preachers against segregation, reformers against his Machine, or community groups against his policies. This was his neighborhood-ward-city-county, and nobody could come in and make noise. He'd call the cops. Which he did.

    There are those who believed Daley could have risen beyond politics to statesmanship had he embraced the idealistic causes of the 1960s rather than obstructing them. Had he used his unique power to lead us toward brotherhood and understanding, they say, he would have achieved greatness.

    Sure he would have. But to have expected that response from Daley was as realistic as asking Cragin, Bridgeport, Marquette Park or any other Chicago neighborhood to celebrate Brotherhood Week by having Jeff Fort to dinner. If Daley was reactionary and stubborn, he was in perfect harmony with his town.

    Daley was a pious man -- faithful to his church, a believer in the 4th of July, apple pie, motherhood, baseball, the Boy Scouts, the flag, sitting down to dinner with the family, and deeply offended by public displays of immorality.

    And, for all the swinging new lifestyles, that is still basically Chicago. Maybe New York will let porn and massage houses spread like fast food franchises, and maybe San Francisco will welcome gay cops. But Chicago is still a square town. So City Hall made sure our carnal vices were kept to a public minimum. If old laws didn't work, they got new laws that did.

    On the other hand, there were financial vices. And if somebody in City Hall saw a chance to make a fast bundle or two, Daley wasn't given to preaching. His advice amounted to: Don't get caught.

    But that's Chicago, too. The question has never been how you made it, but if you made it. This town was built by great men who demanded that drunkards and harlots be arrested, while charging them rent until the cops arrived.

    If Daley sometimes abused his power, it didn't offend most Chicagoans. The people who came here in Daley's lifetime were accustomed to someone wielding power like a club, be it a czar, emperor, king or rural sheriff. The niceties of the democratic process weren't part of the immigrant experience. So if the Machine muscle offended some, it seemed like old times to many more.

    Eventually, Daley made the remarkable transition from political boss to father figure.

    Maybe he couldn't have been a father figure in Berkeley, Calif., Princeton, N.J., or even Skokie, Ill. But in Chicago there was nothing unusual about a father who worked long hours, meant shut up when he said shut up, and backed it up with a jolt to the head. Daley was as believable a father figure as anybody's old man.

    Now he's gone and people are writing that the era of Richard J. Daley is over. Just like that.

    But it's not. Daley has left a legacy that is pure Chicago.

    I'm not talking about his obvious legacy of expressways, high-rises and other public works projects that size-conscious Chicagoans enjoy.

    Daley, like this town, relished a political brawl. When arms were waving and tempers boiling and voices cracking, he'd sit in the middle of it all and look as happy as a kid at a birthday party.

    Well, he's left behind the ingredients for the best political donnybrook we've had in 50 years.

    They'll be kicking and gouging, grabbing and tripping, elbowing and kneeing to grab all, or a thin sliver of the power he left behind.

    It will be a classic Chicago debate.

    He knew it would turn out that way, and the thought probably delighted him.

    I hope that wherever he is, he'll have a good seat for the entire show. And when they are tangled in political half nelsons, toeholds, and headlocks, I wouldn't be surprised if we hear a faint but familiar giggle drifting down from somewhere.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/17780 7,CST-NWS-royko19.article

  • on a comment on The Bar Fight Primary over 7 years ago

    That argument is getting so tired.  He has also taken shots at the DLC, for not wanting to push UHC, out of fear of being labeled too far left.

    I really don't want to get into this, so I'll just let a smarter man than I make the requisite point.

    Archpundit:

    Chris Bowers jumps on the claims that Obama is triangulating by taking everything he says and turning it into some sort of major speech instead of a decent answer in a town hall-but again, the quote is clipped.

    We're now in a packed room at Eastern Illinois University. A woman stands up and tosses Obama what I assume she thinks is a bit of red meat. What, she asks, does the senator think of the pervasiveness of religion in public discourse these days? Obama doesn't take the bait.

    "No one would say that Dr. King should leave his moral vision at the door before getting involved in public-policy debate," he answers. "He says, `All God's children.' `Black man and white man, Jew and Gentile, Protestant and Catholic.' He was speaking religiously. So we have to remember that not every mention of God is automatically threatening a theocracy.

    Chris criticizes Obama's response because no one suggested it was threatening theocracy, but there is a simple point here-Bill Clinton's language was no less religious than George Bush's. In fact, one of Clinton's speechwriter's pointed this out while doing a book on Presidential religious rhetoric. So the premise of the question rests upon the notion that religious discourse has become far greater--which isn't true from anything I know. I take issue with how Bush uses religion, but the amount of discourse hasn't changed much if at all.

    Chris also leaves off the paragraphs in the story that follow:

    "On the other hand," he continues, "religious folks need to understand that separation of church and state isn't there just to protect the state from religion, but religion from the state." He points out that, historically speaking, the most ardent American supporters of the separation between church and state were Evangelicals--and Jefferson and Franklin. "Who were Deists, by the way," he adds, "but challenged all kinds of aspects of Christianity. They didn't even necessarily believe in the divinity of Christ, which is not something that gets talked about a lot."

    Back in the car, he elaborates on the kinds of themes he tries to communicate to his constituents. "To me, the issue is not are you centrist or are you liberal," he says. "The issue to me is, Is what you're proposing going to work? Can you build a working coalition to make the lives of people better? And if it can work, you should support it whether it's centrist, conservative, or liberal."

    What's interesting about the complaints about Obama supposedly triangulating is that each example is taken from speeches or venues that are not soundbite based, but actually thoughtful statements and points in a larger context of a speech. The questioner at this venue suggested by the very premise of the question that religious rhetoric is increasing and there is too much, but the response isn't one of attacking the woman, but putting religious rhetoric in context of history and then moving from rhetoric to problems of religious entanglement with government-one in which he strongly supports the separation of church and state.

    more?
    Archpundit again:

    Fisking is a stupid process that right wing bloggers have mistakenly thought meant refuting an argument. Big Tent Democrat does it to Obama's speech and makes some rather bizarre claims.

    One of my favorites is this:

    But Mr. Keyes implicit accusation that I was not a true Christian nagged at me, and I was also aware that my answer didn't adequately address the role my faith has in guiding my own values and beliefs.

    My dilemma was by no means unique. In a way, it reflected the broader debate we've been having in this country for the last thirty years over the role of religion in politics.

    For some time now, there has been plenty of talk among pundits and pollsters that the political divide in this country has fallen sharply along religious lines. Indeed, the single biggest "gap" in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, or those who reside in so-called Red States and those who reside in Blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don't.

    This of course is a red herring and Obama well knows it - the biggest political divide is between black and white voters. Why no discussion of that?

    Among white voters... If somehow Obama is supposed to discuss the white/black issue in every sentence perhaps that's an issue, but arguing that Obama never talks about race is a bit silly.

    Mr. Obama says he's a Christian, he would say, and yet he supports a lifestyle that the Bible calls an abomination.

    Mr. Obama says he's a Christian, but supports the destruction of innocent and sacred life.

    What would my supporters have me say? That a literalist reading of the Bible was folly? That Mr. Keyes, a Roman Catholic, should ignore the teachings of the Pope?

    Personally, I would have Obama say what was in his heart. That he disagrees with Keyes' extremist views whether the are in accord with the Pope or not. But Obama did not:

    And he does. You know, later in the speech.

    I think that we should put more of our tax dollars into educating poor girls and boys. I think that the work that Marian Wright Edelman has done all her life is absolutely how we should prioritize our resources in the wealthiest nation on earth. I also think that we should give them the information about contraception that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, lower abortion rates, and help assure that that every child is loved and cherished.

    But, you know, my Bible tells me that if we train a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not turn from it. So I think faith and guidance can help fortify a young woman's sense of self, a young man's sense of responsibility, and a sense of reverence that all young people should have for the act of sexual intimacy.

    Insinuating that Obama didn't speak to what he believed when he does is simply dishonest. Cutting the speech to ignore when Obama pointed out his position is even more dishonest.

    Conservative leaders, from Falwell and Robertson to Karl Rove and Ralph Reed, have been all too happy to exploit this gap, consistently reminding evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design.

    I assume this was an unfortunate turn of phrase by Obama as it is false that Democrats disrespect the values of evangelical Christians.

    Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, some liberals dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.

    These are utterly false Roght Wing strawmen as described by Chris Bowers. It was very wrong of Obama to embrace these falsehoods.

    Like being personally against abortion, but the Constitution ties one hands. I can think of several Democratic candidates who say exactly that sort of thing. Like John Kerry. He framed it as something he was against, but that civil society needed rules to allow such things. Instead of having a value debate about safe, legal, and rare abortion, the debate is one about how we all hate it, but it's a Constitutional issue. It shouldn't be one only about the Constitution, it should be about how values and morality insist upon choice and why different moral judgments made by secular or Christians who are not right wing are valid moral positions.

    There are people who argue that religion doesn't belong in the public sphere. And when you describe the position as at worst--it's not saying that's a mainstream position, it's saying it's a position held by some liberals. Having come out of talks where people criticize right wing fundamentalists as Christians, that's true. It is a problem on the left that many people cannot distinguish between different forms of Christianity and there are stereotypes of what a Christian is.

    And it's an odd complaint given many of the progressive movements in the United States are based on Christianity including abolition, peace, civil rights, and abolition of the death penalty. But it is a complaint that is not uncommon when someone brings up religious values. That doesn't mean it's the majority left position, but it is a significant position.

    Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.

    Of whom does Obama speak here? What Democratic politician is Obama referring to? This is yet another false strawman.

    Okay, how many Democratic politicians ask for equal time when their opponents show up on religious radio? The radio station doesn't have to give it, but it will. I know it was quite the exception when Durbin demanded it on Chicago's WYLL and he showed up and didn't concede the venue. Having listened to a number of right wing religious stations, that is truly uncommon. Hell, most Democrats have never listened to evangelical radio to understand the messages out there.

    When the debate is about whether school prayer can take place or about intelligent design and those issues represent religion, it does define religion negatively and that's often done. Debate about religious values isn't only about tolerance in civil society that many make it out to be. It is also about alleviating poverty and treating the poorest amongst us with kindness and providing opportunity. Liberals do avoid this in many instances-think about debates over poverty or education where the debate is about the benefits to the larger society. Fine, but there is a moral reason to support such programs beyond simply its benefit to the whole society and liberals are generally bad at making those arguments.

    Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical. Our fear of getting "preachy" may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems.

    What a crock. Obama assumes moral underpinnings are all faith vased. This is simply offensive and I strongly condemn Obama for saying so. It is an outrageous thing to have said.

    This is my favorite part though. After saying that Obama is playing up a strawman in saying that there is an aversion to religion from liberals and Democrats, BTD demonstrates that aversion. How? By saying that Obama assumes all moral underpinnings are faith based when Obama doesn't say that.

    For example, high rates of teenage pregnancy is a huge moral issue for those who are secular or religious and underpinnings for those beliefs. Both secular and religious people can get preachy about the issue by pointing out the importance of values and culture. It is not only those who have faith who rely on values and culture. The problem is that all too often liberal politicians don't talk about the problem in the culture instead relying only upon interventions while conservative politicians only talk about the culture and not interventions. Most Americans understand teenagers are going to have sex and they understand two things. First, there are parts of our culture that encourage irresponsible sex at young ages and second, that intervening in the lives of those kids through sex education and access to health care professionals can reduce the problem of unwanted teenage pregnancies. Obama is explicitly suggesting just this sort of model later in the text of the speech. How much later? Starting in the next paragraph.

    After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness - in the imperfections of man.

    Solving these problems will require changes in government policy, but it will also require changes in hearts and a change in minds. I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers' lobby - but I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we've got a moral problem. There's a hole in that young man's heart - a hole that the government alone cannot fix.

    I believe in vigorous enforcement of our non-discrimination laws. But I also believe that a transformation of conscience and a genuine commitment to diversity on the part of the nation's CEOs could bring about quicker results than a battalion of lawyers. They have more lawyers than us anyway.

    I think that we should put more of our tax dollars into educating poor girls and boys. I think that the work that Marian Wright Edelman has done all her life is absolutely how we should prioritize our resources in the wealthiest nation on earth. I also think that we should give them the information about contraception that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, lower abortion rates, and help assure that that every child is loved and cherished.

    But, you know, my Bible tells me that if we train a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not turn from it. So I think faith and guidance can help fortify a young woman's sense of self, a young man's sense of responsibility, and a sense of reverence that all young people should have for the act of sexual intimacy.

    If one follows BTD's comments, one should only speak in sentences and not paragraphs. While I think Democrats often forget that reporters tend to take sentences from paragraphs and distort their meaning, the real problem is when bloggers help the media do that.

    As I said when he made the speech, the speech isn't anything like what many have reported it. It's a challenge to reshape and reframe the debate from one liberal versus conservative which isn't terribly compelling other than to partisans, but to a debate about the values each party trumpets and how the Democratic values fit with the core values of the country.

    To take issue with Obama in this case is to miss what he is saying. Democrats have ceded the debate to Republicans on matters of faith even though Democratic policies are rooted in core American values. All he wants Democrats to do is point that out instead of relying on John Kerryish crap that gets you saying things like I was for it before I was against it.

    Talk like real people do and put it terms of their lives and those lives are often influenced by faith so why shouldn't Democrats' language do the same.

    You'll have to visit http://www.archpundit.com for the properly blockquoted items, but hopefully this can be followed.

  • on a comment on The Bar Fight Primary over 7 years ago

    But what past record are you tracking.  Its true that Obama has been very careful in the US Senate, picking up very good, but under the radar causes, and not stirring a debate.  (Causes he has pushed in the Senate - non-proliferation of conventional arms, Darfur, voting rights, ethics and accountability)

    But, in the Illinois Senate, he pushed a harder left agenda, with things like universal healthcare, and other strongly liberal causes.

    Obama is an unknown, but he generally tracks liberal.  Whether that means he'll change the fundamental governing process or not is the big unknown.  

    And that's the thing.  While we can reasonably consider what a Hillary Presidency would look like, we can't be sure of John Edwards, or Wes Clark, or Barack Obama.  None of them have a particularly long or strongly established record.  Wes, to my knowledge, has never held political office.  Both Obama and Edwards have only served limited time in US Senate, as junior members of the minority party.  

    It's too early to tell on anyone.  I have my gut feelings, and my gut tells me that Gore, Edwards, and Obama are my pretty much co-equal favorites, but a lot can happen between now and 2008.

  • comment on a post Random TV Thread over 7 years ago

    I do a lot of my tv watching via Netflix.
    So, Rome and Carnivale are the best things I've seen lately.

    I sit down to watch tv on Sunday nights and watch a bunch of dull shows surrounding The Family Guy.

    There's a few shows on Comedy Central worth watching, but half the time its a Chapelle rerun I've seen 8 times already.

    Sometimes I watch Olbermann.

    I love Mythbusters.

    I watch a lot of CSI reruns.  They're like Law and Order reruns.  It seems like some channel somewhere is playing CSI.

    I do like the thursday night NBC lineup - Office, Earl, 30 rock.  But, I never remember to watch.

    I'll be netflixing all those along with Heroes and Lost (one of these days).

    That's my tv preferences.  I've been either really busy with stuff at night lately (The Illinois Dem Net Holiday party was this week - great times!), or playing Final Fantasy 12.

  • comment on a post Don't Sell Our Roads over 7 years ago

    Unfortunately, I'm stuck in Illinois where our Governor is obsessed with selling off public infrastructure to patch budgetary holes.

    Sure you get a one time kick, but what do you do for the next 99 years when that money isn't coming in?

    Our Gov has failed to actually sell anything off, he tried to sell the downtown Chicago Thompson Center, but Lisa Madigan (Attorney General) blocked the sale.  He wants to sell the Lottery off, too.

    Mayor Daley sold off the skyway to some french company that immediately doubled the tolls, and then jacked them again.  This is after the city spent hundreds of millions refurbing the skyway.  The skyway, by the way, already had the highest tolls of any road in the state.  The toll went from $1 to $3 in like 2 years.  

    The Mayor got $3 billion for the sale (99 yr lease).  But I haven't heard a word about the money in at least 18 months.  So God only knows which cronies got rich off our skyway.

    The selling off of America continues unabated.

    Kowalski - that CPA was either an idiot or making an interesting statement.  Depends on if he's drinking the kool-aid or not.  The marginal rates on the middle class are very high these days, maybe historically.  The marginal rates on the rich are very low historically, in fact at an all time low.  Warren Buffet said that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does.  

    Plus the middle class shoulders a growing level of burden for other regressive taxes - property, state income, sales, fees and charges, all kinds of stuff.

    The rich, and even more so, big corporations do not pay their fair share of taxes anymore.  The middle and working classes subsidize the rich.

    So, if that CPA wasn't drinking the Kool-ade, then that might have been his point.  

    -A CPA

  • on a comment on The End of the 1960's? over 7 years ago

    Obama was born in Hawai'i, lived through grade school in Indonesia, then moved back to Hawai'i, where he lived with his grandparents and attended an elite prep school.  Later he moved on for college, law school, etc before landing in Chicago.

    His mother was from Kansas, but I don't think Barack ever lived there.

  • comment on a post Being And Blogging over 7 years ago

    Pfff.  We're onto you.  Its all one big conspiracy.

    You are Jerome.  You are Kos.  You are Jane Hamsher. You are Matt Stoller.  Hell, you're probably Georgia10.

    How do I know this?  Because, you are actually George Soros, and you created all these identities to hide your evil intentions to fund the entire Democratic Party so that you can take over the United States.  Then you will fund your Manchurian Candidate who will undermine American Hegemony.  We all know this.  You are the evil George Soros.  Or Michael Moore.  Probably Soros, he has the infinite fortune.

    Where do you get your money Soros?!  Did you really think you could get away with it?!  Didn't you know a bunch of meddling journalists and a dog would expose your insidious plans?!?!  Confess!!!

Diaries

Advertise Blogads