The People Demand It!

36 Responses to “Obama opens campaign office in Edinboro?”

1. David
   October 21st, 2008 at 10:06 pm

   This “messiah” stuff is getting old. It’s easy to slam the other guy - tell me why you think your candidate is the right choice. Why should I vote for him in two weeks?

2. Ian Enterline
   October 21st, 2008 at 10:27 pm

   Hey if he would stop acting like the Messiah, and his followers stop treating him like one, then I’ll stop using it. Why should you vote for McCain? I dunno, I don’t really care for the guy. But it beats having a socialist in the office.

3. Danny Lucas
   October 22nd, 2008 at 12:32 am

   David,
   Your question is legitimate and well stated.
   You do not act like the messiah, no one is following you, yet, you are treated ,in an Ian response, not in accordance with his statement that he will stop using that process, when not deserved. He lied to you..

   You deserved better from the blogger, for being polite, and asking a legitimate query. I was surprised at the sophomore response.

   Why should you vote for McCain? I dunno. I don’t really care for the guy, says Ian.

   I guess McCain supported (see how we call em supporters instead of the smarmy title “followers”?) are anti-Obama, not pro McCain. Even they can not figure a reason to go for his rhetoric.

   But Ian says “It beats having a socialist in office”.
   This is true.

   Your vote should surely incorporate whether you support socialist policies.

   For ezample, we used to have an Upper, Middle, and Lower Class in the USA. We no longer do. We have extremely wealthy, and extremely poor, as the Middle Class faces extinction. Jobs have left our country for greener pastures.

   Socialism redistributes the wealth.
   For example, one of George Bush’ first acts was to give the most humongous tax break to the top tier of earners, the wealthy.

   There are many views on why he did this, whether it was beneficial or harmful, and the like.

   But the reality is, it shifted a tax burden from the very Rich, onto the backs of the very not rich. In other words, George Bush engaged in redistributing the wealth, by making the wealthy, MORE wealthy.

   The middle and lower class got zip.

   Ian will tell you that socialism is bad,
   Ian wil lnot tell you that socialism is PRECISELY what Bush has done and McCain will continue.

   On Ian’s BlogRoll are ALL people who state precisely the same views. You can not learn anything new when you only listen to folks who think like you. When you hear countervailing opinion, you can then digest it, compare it to your know beliefs, and determine if a course correction is needed. This is healthy thinking.

   Meander through Michelle Malkin to see how bitterness can overcome common sense. Think Ann Coulter , redux.

   So, Ian wants you to see Obama is bad due to redistributing wealth.
   Obama has this horrible urge to stop the Bush rediustribution from the poor to the rich, and reverse it from the rich to the poor.
   Obama wants to be Robin Hood, but without the Prozac Bush has been on, as Robin Hood to the rich.

   If you think the superwealthy and CEO’s are really hurting and need socialism, vote McCain. He will take care of those folks, as Bush did and does.

   If you think the poor are hurting, or perhaps the Middle Class needs restored (died under socialism to the rich), then vote for Obama.

   There is a lot of yelling about socialism.
   Most folks who hear these words have no clue what it is, tho I think hearers of this rhetoric associate it with communism.

   No matter.
   It is a lie.

   Government affects macro behavior through monetary and fiscal policy.
   Taxes come under fiscal policy.
   Our fiscal policy under republicans favors the rich.
   Our fiscal policy under democrats favors the not rich.

   Our monetary policy is in a shambles state as everyone knows.
   McCain says A) I have no clue about economics and B) I don’t know what to do except suspend my campaign and pass pork.

   Obama has stated his fiscal policy (taxes). The rich are going to have recinded, all that they have been given over 8 years, and that money is going back to the folks from whom it was socialistically taken….the poor.

   Obama’s monetary policy is less clear and not amplified.
   Keep in mind that all of the powers that be are at an absolute loss to understand our monetary policy, why it has spun out of control, and what we should do about it.

   Since no one knows what to do on monetary policy, that is a given for both candidates and you need to go back to what we know is true under fiscal policy.

   90% of the people are NOT in the top 10%.
   That statistic can not be twisted by either side.
   The top 10% have benefitted enormously under Bush and will continue to accrue under McCain. The benefit to that top 10% came out of the hides of the bottom 90%.

   We can continue this bizarre behavior and watch America plummet, or we can change. People fear change. They fear the unknown.

   So we tend to stay the course.
   We wage war in error, we favor greed, we aid the terrorists by makin North korea go nuclear under Bush, and failing to win in Afghanistan, plant closing, no taxes for the wealthy, CEO worship (there is a messiah group for ya), and the like.

   I hope this answer is a little more helpful to you ,than the little, dismissive belch Ian thought proper, in times like these.

4. bojosmom
   October 22nd, 2008 at 4:11 am

   Wow!

5. Hillman
   October 22nd, 2008 at 4:49 am

   Incredible!!

6. Ron
   October 22nd, 2008 at 6:44 am

   Bravo, Danny! Excellent comment.

   And Ian, if you don’t care for socialism, then perhaps you should find another line of work. Unless your fire company is paid for by private funding, it is a socialist entity, as is police, schools and infrastructure, all paid for by tax dollars. But I’m sure these things would be better suited under the “free market”, right?

7. Mike
   October 22nd, 2008 at 10:35 am

   The “slamming of the other guy” works both ways in this campaign. All I ever hear out of liberals is “Don’t vote for McBush”, and the way Palin has been hammered is nothing short of disgusting.

   I would vote for McCain (and republican) because I am pro life and pro capitalism- I don’t want to have my rearend taxed to the hilt nor do I want to live in a socialist country. I am also proud that our country has been safe from terroristic attack in the last seven years, and that the US is still the greatest country in the world, and yes, it still is under the Bush presidency regardless of what the liberal media or what Danny Lucas wants to tell us.

   My biggest gripe with Bush is that he is too liberal at times, and Obama is much, much more liberal.

   So to the liberal posters on here, tell me why Obama is the right choice, and do it without bashing Bush or McCain or Palin. Just tell mewhat quallities Obama will bring to the table to keep the U.S. a great country, and why he should be President.

8. Vito Randazzo
   October 22nd, 2008 at 10:52 am

   I think were forgetting the whole concept of “Free Speech” on here. Ian is entitled to his opinion right or wrong. The slamming of the candidites happens every single day on both party lines. Each day I turn on the TV and Mccain is saying Obama did this or Obama saying Mccain did that.

   Considering Ian opinion as a “belch” is ridicilous. If you don’t like what he’s saying , then you don’t have to listen. I will openly say I don’t always agree with Ian’s views on the world today, but I don’t write him off either.

   People should be more worried about what’s going on now. The USA is in a deep hole. I’m not only concern for the current generation but for future generations as well. We need change and we need change now. Obviousley, what been done for the last eight years hasn’t worked and isn’t working now. I don’t think one man can fix either. Its going to take the amercian people to wake up and say enough is enough.

   Just my 2 cents as always,

   Vito

9. Danny Lucas
   October 22nd, 2008 at 11:20 am

   The little white arrows were not locked like they were in the Primary.
   You could push down any arrow you want, tho some groups were limited in number (like State Judge)..

   I always took my daughters to the voting booth with me.
   Once inside, the curtain was pulled shut, and Karli and I would face an array of little white arrows and names.

   Karli was still pretty small and looked up at the bottom of the arrows.
   I voted and then, pulled the curtain open to record the vote and exit..
   We walked out of the booth and she exclaimed:
   “You voted for 17 people , dad!”

   I guess it was her “participation” to count the number of votes cast within that booth. I wanted her to see the process and learn.
   I had never counted the total number of folks I had voted for, and I chuckled at the point of view I had just learned.

   But the curtain was closed to everybody else.
   Private voting has always appealed to me.
   It is no ones business but my own, and I absolutely hate endorsements. The smugness of believing your endorsement should sway my vote is atrocious, and done all the time.

   In this post, David asked an opening query.
   I did not feel he received an answer and posted one.
   My comment is not intended to inflame, but rather an attempt to defuse the rhetoric.

   Mike has the chance to defuse and rationally state his case too.

   However, NO ONE should conclude from my comments that they have the right to classify me, and how I will vote, based on any or all comments I make.

   Too much of “putting people in a box and classifying them” has been done in more recent elections.

   The only one to know how I vote in the booth was daughter, Karli as a child. When the curtain is closed, we all get the opportunity to vote privately.

   None of my comments should be taken as an endorsement or dismissal of anyone.

   Nor should I be classified liberal, conservative, or worse, libertarian, as a label for having a particular outlook on the process and the people.

   My comment above takes Obama to task as well as McCain.
   It is a clarification of what is going on in our country from my point of view and a response to David’s query. Nothing more.

   So Mike, since I will not be letting you in the voting booth, as I did Karli, how about you stop pretending to know how I vote?

   State your case, and let folks make up their own mind by hearing varied opinion, digesting it, and determining THEIR course of action from that.

   There is no “slamming of the other guy” in my post as you claim.
   I have stated records and past action and offered BOTH candidates as someone to vote for,…depending on the result you seek..

   Since you request a “liberal poster” to state the case for Obama, I am disqualified. The same would be true if the request came for a comment from a “conservative poster”… not me, sorry.

   But if you want an impartial assessment of Both candidates, I would have no problem with doing that. However, the jingoistic, inflammatory, knee-jerk pablum that everybody hungers to eat, will not be found in my assessment. It accomplishes nothing.
   Sargeant Joe Friday was correct : Just the facts, ma’am”.

   Finally, I have taken Ian to task above and I am comfortable with what I wrote. But Ian is clearly a conservative blogger and makes no bones about that. When you come into his turf on the Internet, you can expect conservative thought. To the extent he opens his same space to countervailing opinion, I have to tip my hat off to him for doing so.

   Everyone can choose to turn up the anger and wrath, or find a way to seek common denominators we all share, and build from there.

   We are a House Divided, and Abe Lincoln said that “Those will not stand”. Lincoln was correct. And., he was a Republican.

10. Danny Lucas
    October 22nd, 2008 at 11:49 am

    Vito-isms.

    1) I think were forgetting the whole concept of “Free Speech” on here.

    2) Considering Ian opinion as a “belch” is ridicilous. If you don’t like what he’s saying , then you don’t have to listen

    Vito, these two statements do not add up.
    The concept is “Free Speech”.
    “Free Speech” allows that, if you do not like what some one is saying, YOU ALSO have the Free Speech guarantee.

    The right to remain silent falls more into the criminal area when you are being charged with a crime….Miranda Rights.

    Free Speech…is just that!……SPEECH, for everybody.

    Since you brought it up, belch had to do with brevity, not content.

    YOUR content in espoused view number 1) above, allows me to expand on the belch.

    Speech can also be silent. The most eloquent speech I ever heard in my life was a solitary teardrop slowly rolling down a silent face.

11. Vito Randazzo
    October 22nd, 2008 at 12:48 pm

    Vito-ism, call what you want, simply my opinion as a form of “Free Speech”. With all due respect Danny, you are entitiled to your opinions and just as the guy down the street.

    The point I’m trying to make is that we need open dialouge on today’s issues.

    “Silence” is what has gotten this country in the mess that it’s in now.

12. Mike
    October 22nd, 2008 at 1:09 pm

    Danny, I’m not trying to label you one party or another or know how you vote. I simply disagree with your statements on Bush:

    1. “Obama has this horrible urge to stop the Bush redistribution from the poor to the rich, and reverse it from the rich to the poor”

    Redistribution from the poor to the rich. Maybe it’s just me, but I never get how the rich rob the poor. What are they taking from the poor anyway? I agree with you that the middle class is suffering, but I feel it is from the weight of supporting the ever growing amount of welfare recipients in this country, as well as the people on top of the ladder. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem helping the poor, but we have created a society of people who expect handouts and won’t (not can’t, but won’t) help themselves.

    Not to say that the CEO abuse isn’t disgusting and hurting our country, but there’s more to the dissolution of the middle class.

    Also, I was quoting Davids comment to Ian about “Slamming the other party” when I said it works both ways. I find it ironic when a liberal get’s mad about comments of Obama being the messiah when Bush, McCain, and Palin get constantly slammed. It’s like the pot calllng the kettle black.

13. Ron
    October 22nd, 2008 at 2:06 pm

    Mike, the middle class is not hurting because we’re propping up those getting “handouts”. The middle class is hurting because wages are not reflecting inflation, and the wealth is being increasingly taken from the middle class and given to the top 1% and then the next 19% below that.

    http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

    In 2001, America’s financial wealth was as follows.

    Top 1% - 39.7% of America’s wealth
    Next 19% - 51.5% of America’s wealth
    Bottom 80% - 8.8% of America’s wealth

    That bottom 80% contains the middle class. The top 1% have seen their wealth increase steadily pretty much as soon as Ronald Reagan took office; This has been in the top 1%’s favor since then. Trickle Down Economics has trickled down alright, in as much as the dogs at the king’s table get a few scraps and maybe a bone with some meat still attached trickling down from the king’s bib.

    Welfare recipients has very little to do, if nothing at all, with the middle class’ current situation. CEO pay has ballooned to obscene levels, and productivity has increased to it’s highest levels yet wages remain flat compared to inflation. How is that justified?

    http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_16/b3625017.htm

    In 1979, the highest paid executive made $1 million. After this point, CEO pay jumps substantially. According to the above article, between 1995 and 1996 average CEO compenstation increased FIFTY FOUR PERCENT. This also has not changed.

    If we allow this to keep happening, eventually the bottom 80% is going to have 4-5% of the wealth or less. The top 20% won’t be obligated or even obliged to take less to help out the bottom 80%, and those bottom 80% will have less to spend - which is what enables the top 20% to be where they are in the first place.

    Greed is this country’s worst enemy.

14. Jeremy
    October 22nd, 2008 at 4:28 pm

    see: http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2008/10/socialism-obama.html

15. Danny Lucas
    October 22nd, 2008 at 6:20 pm

    Vito, I think you are on the right track.
    Thank you for your gracious words.
    I suspect Deception has been a greater killer of Trust, than Silence in recent years.

    Mike, you are gifted with discernment.
    Pro life and capitalism are values worth fighting over.
    Regrettably, this election will determine neither.

    If there is inference that the Supreme Court will change under either new administrations possible, the answer is maybe.
    Congress is going to change more than the Presidency this year. And Congress oversees judicial appointments all the way to the top.

    People have differing views on their top issue.
    Recently, it was Iraq.
    Then, the economy.
    For some, it is values like abortion.

    I would like to delve into 2 key points going on here.
    First, the slamming.
    Both sides are guilty, there is no question on that.
    This is not a recent phenomenon. It is part of the political process.
    There is an underlying hope that you win the election BEFORE your lies are exposed. It is how people get elected.

    One example. South Carolina. Bush is running against John McCain.
    Karl Rove and company let the word out that McCain fathered a black child. Truth? McCain ADOPTED a young child of color. This was the lowest of low treatment, particularly to that young child who will grow up and read about it.

    But in South Carolina, that issue worked and Bush creamed McCain and went on to win.

    Bush senior, did the same to Mike Dukakis with the Willie Horton issue hung around his neck. It is a despicable tactic.
    Karl Rove raised it to a fine instrument of battle. He can take apart any candidate cell-by-cell.

    It is now given names like “swiftboating” as the other guy never saw the sucker punch coming. Obama seems better able to handle these thrusts and parries than did prior Dem candidates, Kerry and Gore.

    But it has gotten so viscious, that the real problem becomes an inability to GOVERN, after an election. The elections never end under this system and indeed, the election of 2012 begins in 2 weeks.
    Running the campaign is all that is done anymore.

    Whoever wins, they will base all activity on what gets them re-elected, not what is best for the country. So, we have built in a system of perpetual campaigning to the detriment of any governing.

    No governing is leading to an out of control system that upsets everybody.
    I think Obama has displayed an aloofness to this slamming to a greater degree than predecessors. I think it is the reason he is ahead in the polls. People do not like that negative campaigning stuff and are revolting.
    But what about Palin, you may ask? She is getting knocked around the block from all over (and at times seems to enjoy that attention). I think that the media is jumping on her more than the opposing campaign.
    I personally resent her children being brought up in any fashion.
    They are kids and off limits for discussion.

    The media does not like blowout wins, they like a tight race.
    Who is the chief beneficiary of all this campaign money being spent?
    Media.
    They make big bucks on campaign expenditures and encourage battles everywhere.

    But finger pointing at what I think, or you think is the problem does not stop the problem. It just makes BOTH of us players in a dastardly game if we do the same as the candidates.

    As the Internet replaces TV and radio and newspapers, media will change too. So I think there is hope coming in this area.

    Second, “Maybe it’s just me, but I never get how the rich rob the poor. What are they taking from the poor anyway?”
    —–Mike

    This could take many forms to answer, but let’s make it cut to the chase. BOTH candidates are discussing tax cuts, stimulus packages, and pie-in-the-sky nonsense. They argue over the effect of a tax cut or a particular stimulus proposal. Why is this so futile?

    Because it takes everyone’s mind off the real issue. JOBS.
    Without jobs, tax cuts or increases have very little meaning.
    A Tax Rate of 100% on a job producing zero income yields zero tax.

    Same deal with a tax cut.
    If I promise you a tax cut of 30% and you have no job, you have no
    income to be taxed and thus, get zero cut in rate, not 30%.

    Jobs is the only issue.

    Which takes us to Bush.
    400,000 jobs disappeared since the New Hampshire Primary. They are not coming back

    I want to clarify the class war going on, since it is obvious to all that the Middle Class is going down the tubes. I speak of “rich” and “not rich”, where Mike speaks of “poor”. The days of several classes —Poor, Lower Middle, Middle, Upper Middle, yada, yada, are gone.

    Upon taking office, Bush lowered taxes on the richest of the rich in the country. Those folks always have income to tax. When they got the largest tax cut in history, the balance of people paying taxes have to pick up the load of what the rich no longer paid.
    Can you see how the “not rich” are paying the way, instead of BOTH rich and non-rich paying?

    Bush’s tax cut will expire. McCain will renew it and the rich continue to not pay. Obama will allow the tax cut to expire and the rich no longer have favored tax status.
    HOWEVER, the income distribution has already occurred.

    Anyone can look around and see the poor are growing in numbers, the middle class is history, and the rich are thriving. This is wrong and the people are walking into the Obama camp with all his baggage, for the sheer reasoNn that he will end this income redisribution to the wealthy.

    Bush’s theory was that the wealthy would use their gains to create jobs.
    I just told you how many jobs disappeared. They are NOT being created. The theory is bogus and does not work. Greed sets in and they want more. Our wealthy class hurts the nonwealthy by paying too little tax period.

    Welfare is a concern for Mike.
    Me too.
    But we look through different ends of the telescope.
    Mike can see the poor getting too much welfare.
    I see the rich getting ALL the welfare, corporate welfare, medical welfare, health care, BAILOUTS of epic proportions that NO DEM dreamed possible. it is as if Bush was a Democrat kingpin.

    The Bailout that failed was $700 BILLION.
    It passed when $300 BILLION more in goodies was added.
    That is $1 TRILLION in Bailout, and it ain’t going to the non-rich among us. It is all going to Corporate welfare.

    We could have 2 more wars in Iraq and never approach this welfare of the rich expense. To date, it has done diddly to help the economy and done wonders to help ailing CEO spreadsheets.
    Mike, are you starting to see how the rich are on state welfare in ways the poor could never reach the same numbers?

    Pharmaceuticals lobby laws into creation for THEM.
    Doctors have no say in medical treatment. An HMO says what treatment is going to happen to a person. This is a total disconnect in health care.

    After Bush passed his welfare for the rich, he then sought to privatize Social Security, allowing individuals to invest in stocks for their future retirement. Guess what those stocks are worth at the end of Bush’s term. Aren’t you glad he was stopped?

    Now we are getting pretty far from Ian’s post on Edinboro having an Obama office. Many young minds are destroyed by attending and listening to the nonsense espoused in the Boro. Ian is correct that it is a bastion of liberalism.

    But two weeks left in the election, I think the issues covered in Comments outweigh the issue in the Post.

    NO ONE and NO SIDE has a monopoly on goodness and being right,
    Both sides, in our bipolar political body, have elements of good and bad.
    Given that, we need to see that GOOD more clearly and cling to the areas that we all agree this country needs.

    But we allow a digression of focus on what splits us, instead of how we are the same. In the process, we are losing our future.

    I appreciate your comment Mike. Yours too, Vito.

16. Peter Panepento
    October 22nd, 2008 at 10:44 pm

    Fantastic debate here, folks. You’ve taken this beyond partisan finger pointing and are using nuance and depth. Good points by both sides.

17. Ian Enterline
    October 23rd, 2008 at 7:44 am

    Danny, as always your comments are appreciated. You have a great way of stating things that others do not, and I disagree with you at times, and agree with you at others. However, what I do not appreciate is being called a liar in so many words. Because you have a difference of opinion from me, does not make me a liar. I didn’t lie to David, nor dismiss him. I simply stated what I believe. Maybe I didn’t use as much flowery language, and came across too sharply. If that is the case, I will try to explain myself more thoroughly next time. Assuming that I am lying to someone from 500 miles away, without knowing me, is in itself sophomoric.

    And David, if I came across as dismissive, then I apologize. I understand that people get upset over partisanship and whatnot. But partisanship has been around for a long time in the country. (If you think this election is bad, read about the 1800 election with Jefferson v Adams.)

    I echo Peter’s words: great discussion!

18. Mike
    October 23rd, 2008 at 11:41 am

    Ron, your comment about the rich having most of the wealth is true. But there is the counter-argument to that- the rich pay most of the taxes also.

    http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=13984 - 7k -

    Then there are those who don’t work or own a home that pay no income taxes, though the percentage is debatable- some saying as much as 40%.

    Danny says: “For ezample, we used to have an Upper, Middle, and Lower Class in the USA. We no longer do. We have extremely wealthy, and extremely poor, as the Middle Class faces extinction. Jobs have left our country for greener pastures”.

    I agree about the jobs part, but are there that many that are “extremely poor?” Poverty is an overused term in this country. I would say even people considered poor in the US today have it better than 99% + of people who have lived on our planet over the history of time. Things may be getting worse, but we have lived high off the hog as a society for a long time with our spend and consume mentality we have had for the last several years. I think people buy into the negativity that is heard in the media too often today, and then start believing it. If MSNBC or CNN keep telling us that our country is in dire straits, and we are all headed for poverty, eventually people start believing it.

19. Vito Randazzo
    October 23rd, 2008 at 4:38 pm

    A good movie to see is V for Vendetta. It displays what happens when society is silent and the goverment has total control. It seems like where heading in that direction.

    Just a thought

    Vito

20. Danny Lucas
    October 23rd, 2008 at 7:21 pm

    Ian,
    I have reread your comment, and mine, that lead to your angst.
    YOU are right.

    I am wrong.

    It won’t happen again.
    I need to choose my words more wisely.
    I ask you to forgive me.

    “Forgiveness is the fragrance the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it. ” ~Mark Twain

21. Danny Lucas
    October 23rd, 2008 at 8:50 pm

    Mike,

    The link you provide is by the Wall Street Journal.
    They have a vested interest in making the public believe that the super rich pay a fair amount. Further, the link is old, and not current data, or rather, data over the years of the Bush tax cuts.

    On Google, you can find a story to back up any contention.

    The conservative Heritage Foundation has THEIR figures for their folks.

    CNN ran this…………… regarding Bush tax cuts:

    “According to the study, taxpayers with incomes greater than $10 million reduced their investment tax bill by an average of about $500,000 in 2003, and their total tax savings, which included the two Bush tax cuts on compensation, nearly doubled, to slightly more than $1 million.

    These taxpayers, whose average income was $26 million, paid about the same share of their income in income taxes as those making $200,000 to $500,000 because of the lowered rates on investment income.”

    Full article here:
    http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/05/news/tax_cuts/index.htm

    Now I could let it go at that and say we are both right.
    We each have stories and links to back us up.
    And, we are both wrong!

    You see, your article is aged, and biased by author.

    My article gives an appearance that the rich are getting away with a bonanza under Bush. (True, but not proven in my link).

    It is imperative to read WHO is writing, and WHY, WHAT is actually said, how CURRENT and UNBIASED is the information, and several other considerations.
    My link at CNN took me a moment to realize it reflects INVESTMENT income, and the rich are going wild there. But, that does not reflect the whole picture. (All income, not just investment income needs tabbed).

    Best bet?
    Always go with figures from the most current Census figures.
    They are true.
    They have no bias or axe to grind, or interest to uphold.

    I cannot look the pertinant date now, perhaps later.

    However, when you see 1% paying 35% taxes, keep in mind that taxes are a function of income. That statistic begs the question……
    How Much Total Income did that 1% get to pay 35%?

    If the 1% made 10 % of all income, they are paying exhorbitant tax.
    If the 1% made 60% of all income, they are dreadfully short in fair tax payment. You see why you have to look for truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

    On a smaller scale, if one individual, say Warren Buffett–
    the richest guy in the USA because Bill gates is a philanthropist and gives his money away while he is alive via his foundation—,
    if Buffet paid total taxes of say, $10 BILLION, our eyes would pop at that.
    Until we realize he made $100 BILLION. He has $90 BILLION left to feed his family, buy a car, and eat out on occasion….on his 747 jet maybe.

    This and below are EXAMPLES, not true data.

    Warren above is paying an effective 10% in that example.

    Now, lets take somebody in Erie making $30,000 and paying 10% too.
    They have $27,000 left after paying $3000 taxes, to pay the mortgage, eat, get a car, utilities, and the rest.

    Clearly, having $90 BILLION left after tax makes life easier than having $27,000 left.

    Remember, these are fictitious examples, but they prove the point of expendable after tax income. The rich are infinitly ahead and Census figures will prove that.

    Indeed, in the example above, if Buffett paid the 35% rate you found, he would have to make due in the next year with a paltry $65 Billion after taxes of $35 BILLION on the $100 BILLION income.

    Bush feels the rich cannot live on said $65 BILLION, and cut their taxes massively so they have more “take homer pay”.

    Um, the “not rich” need more take home pay to eat, house, and transport to work…nothing fancy.
    President Bush gave them….zero tax cut.

    Obama is simply saying, WOAH! Put the old tax back for the rich (they were paying it before Bush passed his cuts for them. And with that money now available, Obama’s priority is to lower taxes for the “not rich” for a while.
    Realistically, which group needs it most and benefits most?
    The nonrich. They will spend it ALL and reinvigorate the economy anew

    Further, by righting a wrong and making the Bush cuts expire, Obama is not doing what Bush and prior Presidents did. Obama could just send the dough in the form of lower taxes to the non rich and leave the rich in bliss and alone. THAT would raise the deficit big time., like Reagan did with his cuts, and like Bush did with his cuts.

    Clinton left the country in a SURPLUS.
    Bush gave all that to the rich and none to anyone else.

    Not fair. Not good. Must be corrected.

    Worse, we then waged war after an attack (the new tax cuts were then law). Young men and women are fighting terrorists.
    Um, could the rich have foregone their tax cut as expenses rose dramatically due to war?

    Instead, deficit went thru the roof.
    How much?

    Go to Bill Clinton, then backwards every year through every President until you come to George Washington.
    Add up ALL their expenditures….Civil War, WWI, WWII, Vietnam,
    Gulf War I, everything.
    Here is the kicker.

    The sum of adding every president in history — all of ‘em—-
    is NOT enough to equal what George W has spent us into deficit.

    We are in real trouble as a result of this guys work, on the economy, on the electorate, on political processes being mean, on our world stature becoming zip, on our laws and protections, on the suspending of the Constitution, on loss of jobs massively, on the Patriot Act, and after all that……..
    ther terrorists are positioned massively better than at any time in their history.

    Afghanistan alone has gone from a two bit player in opium trade, the basis of drugs, to their current status thanks to Bush. Afghanistan today supplies 92% of all the opium in the WORLD.

    How many American Kids died there to allow that country to become
    the world’s source of opium?

    It gets worse from there.

    And, McCain wants to leave the tax cut by Bush for the rich……
    just as it is.
    Think about that.

22. Dale
    October 23rd, 2008 at 11:18 pm

    In all fairness, Danny , you must acknowlege the fact that many fo the top wealth-holders in the country, including Bill Gates AND Warren Buffett have donated billions of their excess dollars to charitable organizations, much more aid, I’m sure, than the federal government would have passed out, and not only in the US, but also in third world countries.

    And no matter how it is slanted, the richest people pay more as a percentage and as a dollar amount in taxes. The fact is, there just are not enough of them to equal the total tax income from the used-to-be middle class.

    I must say, however, that I do agree with much of what you have said, except that along side George Bush, I would have inserted ‘Congress’.

23. Danny Lucas
    October 24th, 2008 at 5:36 am

    ” the richest people pay more as a percentage and as a dollar amount in taxes.”
    —–Dale

    Not true.
    We all have preconceived ideas likely based on our life experiences, but when it comes to facts, we are in denial. Facts get in the way of our notions.

    What Would Buffet Say?
    Let’s look:
    From The TimesJune 28, 2007

    Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary
    That is the headline.
    Here is his statement:
    “Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

    The comments are among the most signficant yet in a debate raging on both sides of the Atlantic about growing income inequality and how the super-wealthy are taxed. ”
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

    This is a long stretch from the proposition that the richest people pay more tax as a percentage.

    Or look at this eye opener:

    America’s wealthiest should pay for the billion-dollar bailouts
    By Senator Bernie Sanders

    “The current financial crisis facing our country has been caused by the extreme right-wing economic policies pursued by the Bush administration. These policies, which include huge tax breaks for the rich, unfettered free trade and the wholesale deregulation of commerce, have resulted in a massive redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the very wealthy.

    The middle class has really been under assault. Since President George W. Bush has been in office, nearly six million Americans have slipped into poverty, median family income for working Americans has declined by more than $2,000, more than seven million Americans have lost their health insurance, more than four million have lost their pensions, foreclosures are at an all-time high, total consumer debt has more than doubled, and we have a national debt of more than $9.7 trillion dollars.

    While the middle class collapses, the richest people in this country have made out like bandits and have not had it so good since the 1920s. The top 0.1 percent now earn more money than the bottom 50 percent of Americans, and the top one percent own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.

    The wealthiest 400 people in our country saw their wealth increase by $670 billion while Bush has been president. In the midst of all of this, Bush lowered taxes on the very rich so that they are paying lower income tax rates than teachers, police officers or nurses.

    http://www.straight.com/article-163365/senator-bernie-sanders-billions-bailouts-who-pays

    But that is commentary.

    What does the IRS say?
    Well, here it is:

    Everyone speaks of taxes. How much is paid by who?
    What percentage does that represent?

    The key criteria overlooked by the candidates is NOT taxes, percents, and amounts (as Dale recites). Those are insidiously flawed.

    The key variable is income.
    ALL income tax is a function of Adjusted Gross Income (AGI).

    The IRS says this:
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1979791/posts

    THIS IS CRITICAL.
    I wish I could embed this IRS chart, but spreadsheets and Outside Erie are not compatible.

    Conclusions galore are available in the chart.

    AGI (adjusted gross income) is key.
    Folks who have more money, pay more taxes.

    Roughly 1.6 million PEOPLE make nearly twice as much as
    66 million people in the bottom half of all of us. Look at that figure.
    READ that line again.

    Second, the IRS is confirming Obama is on the level in his plan.

    Obama targets those making ABOVE $250,000 (AGI).
    The chart at the right side reflects this to be between group 1 and 2, or somewhere between the Top 1% and Top 5%.
    So 95% of folks would get tax help under Obama.
    He spoke truth.

    Roughly 6.6 million people in the Top 5% make 36% of all the wealth.

    Ten times that number of people, or 66 million folks are in the bottom half at about 12%.

    TRIPLE wealth is accrued by a TENTH of the people.

    Bush tax cuts create the disparity.
    Obama says, put some of that back to the bottom 50% of folks making zip in wealth.

    Dale, I do not agree with your midle paragraph, nor does the IRS.

    On philanthropy, you ask that I acknowledge it is done by the rich.
    Above in a prior comment, I point out that Bill Gates makes more than Buffett, but Buffett is the richest man in the world. Reason?

    Bill Gates contributes massively to his foundation.
    Indeed, he has retired from Microsoft to work full time at the foundation.
    He gives his money away NOW while alive.
    Because he gives wealth away, Buffett is now number one richest guy.

    I do not begrudge Gates one cent. He has transformed society.
    But keep this in mind when we say how great is the philanthropy work done there.

    Every cent in the foundation is a reflection of Actual Income being reduced to avoid taxes. Had it NOT been put in a foundation to spend where Bill wants, the government would have taken the money.

    Looking at it another way, because of these write offs, tax revenes are reduced for the government .

    It is a simple example of fiscal policy affecting behavior.
    Give the money to the Feds, or set up a foundation and spend it on the charity of your choice.

    I wonder if forcing charity contributions is a function of government as seen by Founding Fathers. HA!

    Locally, the Times-News Needy Fund draws contributions from across the board of folks, but mostly nickle and dime amounts. Those contributors take no write off. Says a lot about true philanthropy, eh?

    Your view on Congress getting equal billing with misdeeds of Bush would hold more water if Mr. Bush had opened his pen at least ONE TIME in 6 years of one-party rule, and vetoed anything.
    The negligence for not overseeing the public good was at the top.

    Congress has a function of passing laws. They do.
    The laws passed are WRITTEN by lobbyists to get tax breaks for the lobbyist, in return for political donation to the congress person who helped. These are mostly committee chairmen, as lobbyists can get the bill passed by them alone, and save on bribery expenses.

    Again as a matter of contrast, John McCain says everything is
    hunky dory ok “as is”. Bush travesty cuts remain under Mccain stewardship.
    Nothing partsan. I have outlined Both candidates positions on this.

24. Ian Enterline
    October 24th, 2008 at 9:52 am

    Danny, I forgive you my friend! No big deal!

25. Jim
    October 24th, 2008 at 10:33 am

    I have come to the conclusion Danny is one of those who is dramatically under taxed.

26. Dale
    October 24th, 2008 at 11:10 am

    Danny-The movers and shakers such as Gates and Buffett would not be moving and shaking if not for the profits they are allowed to earn under our society. Do they pay equivalent taxes rates? I will leave that to your research. Do they have any real use for their billions? Dunno, on a much, much smaller scale, most of us have savings or investments that we don’t use for daily life. Does that mean that we should be taxed extra because we have more than we need?

    I take a deduction when I have a charitible donation that qualifies. I also use that small amount of tax relief to increase the amount that I am financially able to donate. There is nothing wrong with taking a charitible deduction, nothing immoral, nothing illegal. Instead of blindly giving that extra amount of cash to the Government to be misspent, I am able to direct my help toward those places I perceive as needing assistance. At least I know who gets it and that it is used and appreciated. Can’t say that for my tax money!!

    As far as congressional oversight is concerned, Congress passes the laws, the President either signs on or off, in which case he can be overridden in a vote. That, my friend, is what is called ‘Balance of Power’ between the legislative and executive branches.

    And I hold firm to my view that NO ONE in government is innocent of causing the mess that is Washington today, whether by action or lack of action. The same holds true for the voting public who allowed this sort of improper behavior to take such a hold on our government.

27. Danny Lucas
    October 24th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

    Coincidence by Jim…..a grade school primer.

    My comment here:
    Danny Lucas
    October 18th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
    “Tax your mind a moment EBW (it is the only thing yet to be taxed)”.

    A week later, Jim/CRANK has a thought:
    Jim
    October 24th, 2008 at 10:33 am
    “I have come to the conclusion Danny is one of those who is dramatically under taxed.”

    Gomer Pyle would exclaim “Surprize! Surprize! Surprize!”
    But Gomer never met Jim.

    The only time I am under taxed, Jim, is when I am sparring with you.

    Perhaps you forgot which identity you are again and which forum you are posting.

    Here is what I asked you over and over and you never answer….
    tax YOUR mind and do tell us:

    “Vietze has reported over and over to you to talk of NOW and where we are going as a community. When you read his words, your next sentence is the “Tullio who beat a dead man” lament of 1966.
    It is as if you never even read what George Vietze just wrote.

    I believe you read it.
    I believe it is not a situation of ignoring George’s enthusiasm for our collective future.
    I believe you do not comprehend what you read.
    For as you read, you seek sentences that corroborate your preset beliefs and , like a tongue seeking the hole of a missing tooth, go round-and-round in the same hole of that belief.

    I note that when Julio brought up your use of CRANK as a foil to propose a thought, and then Jim come along with the sequel, you were silent. I watched to see if that was true. It is. I have seen other examples since that cut and paste by Julio.

    I mentioned it again up above.
    Silence again.

    That confirms the comprehension by choice method you use to read.
    It is not an asset by any means. I think you owe this audience an explanation. I think you owe Topix no explanation.
    Topix at Goerie is a public service to keep the riff-raff off the street and throwing their verbal anger darts at one another, all along beliveing their is merit and value in their rant.

    Sometimes you forget that when you surface here.”

    Now that you have surfaced again as “Jim”, school board member in at least three school districts so far, give it your best shot.

    Given the state of the economy, the election, the topic, and comments, I am not surprized, surprized, surprized,…..that the best you,… or your alter egos can produce here, is a personal attack to add flavor to the discussion…….CRANK - style.

28. Danny Lucas
    October 24th, 2008 at 2:58 pm

    Dale,
    I have no desire to do research for you.
    I do that for my own comments.

    There is a search engine at http://www.google.com that may be of use in finding answers to your myriad questions and proposals.
    Post your research at What If? and see if anything happens.

    I note your abhorrence to our government, and your previous notice that you are voting for Kathy Dahlkemnper AND Phil English.
    That should reform any problem our government has.

    Warren Buffett has answered your thoughts on the rich at the link I gave above. Clearly, you must touch the link with your mouse, left click, read it, and Voila!….find that Buffett thinks getting all those profits and paying little tax is wrong, rigged, and unfair.

    OOPS! I am in error. I actually posted the relevant section on Buffet, in ADDITION to the full link. Apparently, posting BOTH is not enough to change a firm mind like yours,…that what Mr. Buffet said……IS what Mr. Buffett said.

    As for your charity, the Bible is clear that any heavenly reward for doing such acts quietly and unknown, is lost eternally when you voice what you did on Earth.
    I am firm in MY opinion…that God probably got it right.

29. Dale
    October 24th, 2008 at 4:25 pm

    Please do not cite the Bible to me.

    If venomous rants and raves, hatefulness, and need to degrade others were a sign of a Christian trying to live a meaningful life, I would secede from the faith.

    Instead those are signs of a mind that is crying out for help. Please do us all a favor and seek some counsel. The need is obvious.

    There are many good Psychiatrists listed in the phone book, and they can give you a supply of tiny little pills to make you feel better.

30. Danny Lucas
    October 24th, 2008 at 5:09 pm

    What the If?

    Don’t smoke.
    Don’t drink.
    Don’t do tiny pills.

    But if I ever need an authority on how to run a life, I will seek the one who TRIES to run everfybody’s.
    But, I STILL won’t do your research.
    Your seceding was noted long ago.

31. Ian Enterline
    October 24th, 2008 at 5:10 pm

    Ok people, remember to be courteous please. It is ok to discuss and have different viewpoints. Please do not delve into accusations toward other posters, there are plenty of politicians to accuse of various things! Let’s save our energy toward those who deserve it. Any further mudslinging toward other posters will be deleted.

32. Dale
    October 24th, 2008 at 5:25 pm

    Sorry for sullying your column, Ian.

33. Mike
    October 24th, 2008 at 5:50 pm

    Danny says: “You see, your article is aged, and biased by author”…… It is imperative to read WHO is writing, and WHY, WHAT is actually said, how CURRENT and UNBIASED is the information, and several other considerations.

    True, the article may be aged but that doesn’t mean the content is outdated. Many people hold the same views today.

    As far as current and unbiased information, saying what is biased and what isn’t is completely subjective. I could make a case that your posts are biased, and you could say the same for mine depending on how you interpret them. You make a case that NBC, CBS, Fox, deliver biased news. It’s all in your perspective.

    Dale hit on a good point earlier when talking about the mess in Washington, stating some of the blame is on”the voting public who allowed this sort of improper behavior to take such a hold on our government” This isn’t the only improper behavior the public is allowing.

    The latest Forbes richest American list has 4 members of the Walton family (Wal-Mart) in the top 7, each worth 23 Billion

    http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/54/400list08_The-400-Richest-Americans_Rank.html

    Why is this family, which is worth nearly 100 billion, so rich? It’s because we the American people keep shopping there by the cartful instead of supporting the local mom and pop stores. No one has to shop at Walmart and help create this empire which has a GDP bigger than many countries, but instead of taking a stand and not shopping there, we continue to do so. Then we cry that the government needs to tax them more.

    It’s the same concept with the government failures that have been mentioned many times in this thread. People are too apathetic today, and aren’t demanding the change. Instead, we want government to fix everything, including taxing the rich. The rich are rich because of us. We don’t take a stand, or demand a better government.

34. Peter Panepento
    October 30th, 2008 at 9:01 am

    And now this has devolved from a political discussion into a tit-for-tat between Danny and Erie BlogWatch. Nice work, guys. I’m sure Ian’s audience appreciates it.

35. Chris Jackson
    November 17th, 2008 at 8:40 pm

    Ya Obama is the shit. The Obama office in edinboro helped make a record turnout among edinboro university students. Oh and the Obama campaign had nothing to do with the finances in getting the office started in town. It was all the good people of the community.

36. Dale
    November 17th, 2008 at 9:36 pm

    We’ll see how the opinions change after 4 years.