I'm STILL Voting For Obama

[Brassmask]

Maybe this will clue you guys on the right in...but I seriously doubt it.

http://www.dailykos.com/
"I'm still voting for Obama"
by kos
Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 11:45:06 AM PDT

Ben Smith talks to a Republican consultant, who had done a focus group showing a hard-hitting, no-holds barred anti-Obama attack ad from a 527 that has yet to air, to a group of midwestern Reagan Democrats. The results: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Voting_for_Obama_anyway.html?showall] [url]http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Voting_for_Obama_anyway.html?showall[/url]

 

  Reagan Dems and Independents. Call them blue-collar plus. Slightly more Target than Walmart.

    Yes, the spot worked. Yes, they believed the charges against Obama. Yes, they actually think he's too liberal, consorts with bad people and WON'T BE A GOOD PRESIDENT...but they STILL don't give a f***. They said right out, "He won't do anything better than McCain" but they're STILL voting for Obama.

    The two most unreal moments of my professional life of watching focus groups:

    54 year-old white male, voted Kerry '04, Bush '00, Dole '96, hunter, Nascar fan...hard for Obama said: "I'm gonna hate him the minute I vote for him. He's gonna be a bad president. But I won't ever vote for another god-damn Republican. I want the government to take over all of Wall Street and bankers and the car companies and Wal-Mart run this county like we used to when Reagan was President."

    The next was a woman, late 50s, Democrat but strongly pro-life. Loved B. and H. Clinton, loved Bush in 2000. "Well, I don't know much about this terrorist group Barack used to be in with that Weather guy but I'm sick of paying for health insurance at work and that's why I'm supporting Barack."

    I felt like I was taking crazy pills.  I sat on the other side of the glass and realized...this really is the Apocalypse. The Seventh Seal is broken and its time for eight years of pure, delicious crazy....

You can sense the frustration in GOP ranks -- the playbook that has been so successful for so many years has been ripped out of their hands and thrown out the window. People want substance? They want their elected officials to be on the right side of the issues? But what about the crazy liberal terrorist-living Democrat???

How can substance be trumping character attacks?

Only a Republican ideologue would think that we haven't already lived through eight years of pure crazy, not to mention a generation of voters voting against their own interests because of bullshit social issues that affect them little. That's why these voters are shrugging off allegations of Ayers and sticking with Obama, no matter how much slime the Republicans dish.

And if Obama ends up being a good president and proves to the American people that government can be their friend? Republicans are going to be in an even bigger world of hurt than they think.

[sirs]

"I'm still voting for Obama"  by kos

LOL.......I'm stunned, I tell ya, stunned.  Kos & Brass STILL going to vote for Obama after all these revelations??  Shocking           

Here's to Carter II.  Perhaps we need to measure the baseline Misery Index right now

[Brassmask]

"I'm still voting for Obama"  by kos

LOL.......I'm stunned, I tell ya, stunned.  Kos & Brass STILL going to vote for Obama after all these revelations??  Shocking           

Here's to Carter II.  Perhaps we need to measure the baseline Misery Index right now

You didn't read it.

You're stuck on stupid.

[richpo64]

Read something from kos?

Get real.

[sirs]

You didn't read it.

An op-ed from a terminal BDS leftest, Kos??  Pray tell, what relevelations would we have gleemed from that?  And your response if I posted an op-ed from Sean Hannity would be.....what again?

You're stuck on stupid.

ah, the tried and true debate tactic of the left.  When one disagrees with them, call them all kinds of names.  The consistency is impressive, I'll grant you that.  Let's all hunker down for Carter II.  I'm predicting a misery index of ..... hovering around 18, by the end of Obama's 1st and only term

[Brassmask]

You didn't read it.

An op-ed from a terminal BDS leftest, Kos??  Pray tell, what relevelations would we have gleemed from that?  And your response if I posted an op-ed from Sean Hannity would be.....what again?

You're stuck on stupid.

ah, the tried and true debate tactic of the left.  When one disagrees with them, call them all kinds of names.  The consistency is impressive, I'll grant you that.  Let's all hunker down for Carter II.  I'm predicting a misery index of ..... hovering around 18, by the end of Obama's 1st and only term

Again, you didn't read it.  The actual article that Markos is commenting is from BEN SMITH AT POLITICO, sirs.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Voting_for_Obama_anyway.html?showall] [url]http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Voting_for_Obama_anyway.html?showall

But since you're so consumed with ODS and stuck on stuck you don't have the god damned sense to actually pay attention.

[sirs]

ah, the tried and true debate tactic of the left.  When one disagrees with them, call them all kinds of names.  The consistency is impressive, I'll grant you that.  Let's all hunker down for Carter II.  I'm predicting a misery index of ..... hovering around 18, by the end of Obama's 1st and only term

Any other bets?  20 maybe?

[Plane]

OK I read it , and this too.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/16/14747/740/490/632094

Closely related.


Obama is picking up the "don't confuse me with facts " voting block?

It may make the difference for him but I would not brag about it.

[Michael Tee]

<<Obama is picking up the "don't confuse me with facts " voting block?>>

You should have read it and thought about it more carefully.  There was this -

<<Fuel prices are killing us. To me, McCain is just for the rich people. A lot of us are reconsidering Obama because we like what he's saying on the economy.">>

and similar comments like it.

These people might not know or remember exactly where their impressions come from, but a comment like the above is a natural, gut-felt impression that's unavoidable where one candidate rises on his own from obscurity and the other, the son and grandson of Admirals, doesn't know off-hand how many houses he owns and has to promise to "get back to" his interlocutor with the answer when his "staff" tells him.

People are dumb but they're smart, if you know what I mean.

[BT]

People are dumb but they're smart, if you know what I mean.

Gas prices have dropped a dollar in one week here in Atlanta. I doubt Obama gets credit for that.

[Michael Tee]

Gas prices are the one silver lining in the whole depressing mess.  The guy's problems don't start and end with the price of gas.  And the class-war lines are just way too obvious in the case of McCain and Obama.  As well-off as the Obamas are, they still have only one house.  I'll stand by my comment regardless of what happens to the price of gas.

[BT]

Class war is a tool of the commie sympathizer socialist social justice crowd. Just as much a tool to keep the rabble in line as Marx said about religion.

I see resentment for McCain remarrying well, but i don't see resentment for Obama making a boatload of money for a couple of books.

Why is that?

If he is the poster boy for wealth distribution, why is it that Palin gives more to Charity.

I think your guy is a big ass hat with no cattle.

[Michael Tee]

<<Class war is a tool of the commie sympathizer socialist social justice crowd. Just as much a tool to keep the rabble in line as Marx said about religion.>>

Class war is a fact of life which the ruling class and its stooges have a vested interest in denying.  But everyone encounters it every day everywhere.

<<I see resentment for McCain remarrying well, but i don't see resentment for Obama making a boatload of money for a couple of books.  Why is that?>>

McCain was born into the upper class and has always belonged there.  Marrying upwards inside a closed class doesn't change your class allegiance or membership.  Obama is someone who's crossed the class barrier in an upwards direction, and is thus not as resented as those "to the manor born."  Because of the colour of his skin, his wife's skin and their origins, they will never be real members of the upper class.  Nor are they wealthy enough.  And it's accepted that people can get rich by writing books, even trashy novels.  Writing is just another branch of the entertainment industry.

<<If he is the poster boy for wealth distribution, why is it that Palin gives more to Charity.>>

I think you meant re-distribution, right?  Charitable donations are mainly symbolic.  As a means of re-distribution of the wealth, most folks understand that bigger donations are just purchasable status symbols.  In the overall scheme of things, they're a drop in the bucket.  The real re-distribution of the wealth, if it ever occurs (and I am certainly not one who believes that Obama will even try to accomplish it) would have to be done through taxation.  A tax of only one dollar per head on every living American would instantly raise $300,000,000 more or less.  Nobody is fooled by charitable donations any more.  Rich Republicans presumably give to charity to highlight the "hypocrisy" of Democrats and fight off attempts to make a REAL redistribution of wealth through the IRS.

<<I think your guy is a big ass hat with no cattle.>>

I don't trust him either.  However as the lesser of two evils - - a doddering, half-senile war criminal, fake torture victim and treasonous broadcaster of enemy propaganda,  who's been on the wrong side of every issue as far as I can remember and got off to one of the most crooked starts in politics as we all know, and a ditzy bimbo with almost zero qualifications to be Governor of Alaska let alone President of the U.S.A. should anything happen, whether you love him or hate him, when Obama's finally elected you should get down on your knees and kiss your TV screen in thanks that it was not John Insane.

[sirs]

In defense of 'the rich'

Posted: October 09, 2008 

So, what do "the rich" pay in federal income taxes? Nothing, right? That, at least, is what most people think. And Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wants to raise the top marginal rate for "the rich" ? known in some quarters as "job creators."

A recent poll commissioned by Investor's Business Daily asked, in effect, "What share do you think the rich pay?" Their findings? Most people are completely clueless about the amount the rich actually do pay.

First, the data: The top 5 percent (those making more than $153,542 ? the group whose taxes Obama seeks to raise) pay 60 percent of all federal income taxes.
The rich (aka the top 1 percent of income earners, those making more than $388,806 a year), according to the IRS, pay 40 percent of all federal income taxes.
The top 1 percent's taxes comprise 17 percent of the federal government's revenue from all sources, including corporate taxes, excise taxes, social insurance and retirement receipts.

Now, what do people think the rich pay? The IBD/TIPP poll found that 36 percent of those polled thought the rich contribute 10 percent or less of all federal income taxes. Another 15 percent thought the rich pay between 10 and 20 percent, while another 10 percent thought the rich's share is between 20 and 30 percent. In other words, most people thought the rich pay less ? far less ? than they actually do. Only 12 percent of those polled thought the rich pay more than 40 percent.

Let's try this another way. A U.S. News & World Report blogger went to the Democratic National Convention in Denver and conducted an informal poll of 24 DNC delegates. He asked them, "What should 'the rich' pay in income taxes?" Half the respondents said "25 percent"; 25 percent said "20 percent"; 12 percent said "30 percent"; and another 12 percent said "35 percent." The average DNC delegate wanted the rich to pay 25.6 percent, which is lower than what the rich pay now ? both by share of taxes and by tax rate!

Thirty percent of American voters pay nothing ? zero, zip, nada ? in federal income taxes. And, not too surprisingly, compared with taxpaying voters, they are more likely to support spending that benefits them. The majority of the 30 percent who don't pay federal income taxes agree with Obama's $65 billion plan to institute taxpayer-funded universal health coverage. But the majority of the 70 percent who pay federal income taxes are opposed to Obama's health care plan.

Non-taxpayers support Obama's plans for increased tax deductions for lower-income Americans, along with higher overall tax rates levied against middle- and upper-income households. The majority of non-taxpayers (57 percent) also favor raising the individual income-tax rate for those in the highest bracket from 35 percent to 54 percent. And the majority (59 percent) favors raising Social Security taxes by 4 percent for any individual or business that makes at least $250,000.

Obama calls increasing taxes and giving them to the needy a matter of "neighborliness." Vice-presidential running mate Joe Biden calls it a matter of "patriotism."

Yet when it comes to charitable giving, neither Obama (until recently) nor Biden feels sufficiently neighborly or patriotic to donate as much as does the average American household: 2 percent of their adjusted gross income.

Liberal families earn about 6 percent more than conservative families, yet conservative households donate about 30 percent more to charity than do liberal households. And conservatives give more than just to their own churches and other houses of worship. Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, give far more money and donate more of their time to nonreligious charitable causes than do liberals ? especially secular liberals.

In 2007, President George W. Bush and his wife had an adjusted gross income of $923,807. They paid $221,635 in taxes, and donated $165,660 to charity ? or 18 percent of their income. Vice President and Mrs. Cheney, in 2007, had a taxable income of $3.04 million. And they paid $602,651 in taxes, and donated $166,547 to charity ? or 5.5 percent of their income.

Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned between $200,000 and $300,000 a year between 2000 and 2004, and they donated less than 1 percent to charity. When their income soared to $4.2 million in 2007, their charitable contributions went up to 5 percent.

Joe and Jill Biden, by contrast, made $319,853 and gave $995 to charity in 2007, or 0.3 percent of their income. And that was during the year Biden was running for president. Over the past 10 years, the Bidens earned $2,450,042 and gave $3,690 to charity ? or 0.1 percent of their income.

So let's sum up.
- The "compassionate" liberals ? at least based on charitable giving ? show less compassion than "hardhearted" conservatives.
- The rich pay more in income taxes than people think.
- Voters, clueless about the facts, want the rich to pay still more.


Those evil greedy conservatives

[Michael Tee]

This article is misleading in several ways, but just to pick the most obvious:

1.  The rich have more to give away, so they can give more away.  The obvious test is to look not at what they give away, but what they have left.  Their lifestyle appears unimpeded by their giving.  The McCains, for example, may give more to charity as a percentage of income, than the Obamas.  But after giving whatever it is they give, the McCains are left with eight homes, the Obamas with one.  The life-style that goes with the ownership of eight homes is obviously a little different than that of the Obamas as well.  John McCain, for example, reported personally paying out over a quarter of a million dollars in just one year for household help.

2.  The rich have various tax-shelter devices available to shelter a large portion of their income from U.S. income tax, so that their real income is usually not the reported income.  Accounting for the wealth of even one typically rich family could be almost a full-time job for a professional C.P.A., structuring and tracking off-shore accounts, "sprinkler" trust funds and dummy interlocking corporations and voting trusts.

3.  The article is fundamentally mistaken in stating that <<[the] top 5 percent  (those making more than $153,542, the group whose taxes Obama seeks to raise) pay 60 percent of all federal income taxes. >>  In actual fact, the group whose taxes Obama seeks to raise is the group earning over $250,000.00 in annual income.

4.  I've seen the figures before showing the relative percentages of income given by conservative families and liberal families.  It sort of reminded me of the factoid I've seen in several places now that poor, elderly, black women living alone are the biggest contributors to televangelists like Swaggart and Benny Whatsizname and the others.  Simple people with simple demands on life don't need a hell of a lot of money for themselves.  Liberals with a very high regard for education want something more for their kids than some anti-evolution Bible College in the depths of the Ozarks, they want to attend theatre, opera, night-clubs, etc. and they want to save for a comfortable old age.  So, sensibly, they save more and give less.  They're smart enough to know that giving to charity solves nobody's problems because of the haphazard, drop-in-the-bucket nature of the gifts, it's really meant to make the giver feel good about himself, and they're also smart enough to know that government action CAN change social conditions.  So maybe it's not very nice to say this, but charitable giving is for dummies, smart people who really want to make a difference rather than just indulge their own egos know that only government policy will make the changes that are needed.