BartBlog

February 4, 2008

Dear R.S. – Grimgold

Filed under: Opinion — grimgold @ 10:18 am

Dear R.S.
I want to take issue with you about something you said several days ago in a post. You gave out an amazing list of ideas that would help the country.
That was good, far better than I’m used to.

But one of them was to raise taxes on corporations.

The idea is, of course, that if corporations pay more, the govt will have more and America will be better off.
Sounds sweet, but not true.

In reality, corporations don’t pay taxes.

This is exactly like prices appearing to go up when the fact is that the worth of the dollar is going down (inflation).

What happens is that the corporations add on the taxes “paid” as an expense of doing business, thereby raising the price of their product to cover the additional cost.
They only pay the taxes on paper. In reality the cost is moved down the chain, trickled down so to speak, to the consumer.
An increase in corporate taxes will cause increased prices, or poorer product quality.
Please get over this warm fuzzy idea that the evil corporations must be taxed more to punish them. You are too smart for such indulgences.
Grimmy

Uniter

Filed under: Toon — Peregrin @ 5:59 am

Yeah, let me know how that works out for you.

Legacy

Filed under: Toon — Peregrin @ 5:56 am

Does it make ANYBODY else sick to hear people praising Reagan?

The Truth

Filed under: Toon — Peregrin @ 5:39 am

Never tell the truth in a political campaign

The Decider

Filed under: Toon — Peregrin @ 5:31 am

“I need WMD for my Legacy!  heheh…heheh…”

Support The Troops

Filed under: Toon — Peregrin @ 5:27 am

Support The Magnetic Ribbon Manufacturers (of China)

Superbowl Surprise

Filed under: Toon — Peregrin @ 5:22 am

It’s not like we can compare the Dems to the Patriots, tho.

February 3, 2008

Hillary Responds To Ann Coulter’s Support

Filed under: Commentary — Volt @ 1:29 pm

Jason Linkins, The Huffington Post, February 3, 2008

Candidates on the campaign trail are frequently faced with any number of tough questions and confronted on all sorts of difficult and divisive issues. But only Hillary Clinton has had to face down the harrowing prospect of earning the support of wackadoodle dandy Ann Coulter. When asked to respond to the news by George Stephanopoulos, Clinton was either forced to choke back a dollop of gorge or else found the prospect so amusing that it prompted a coughing jag. Anyway, who can blame Clinton for reacting the way she did? It definitely “humanizes” her!

See the Video Here

Frank Rich: Ask Not What J.F.K. Can Do for Obama

Filed under: Commentary — Volt @ 12:44 am

 

Frank Rich, The New York Times, January 3, 2008

Before John F. Kennedy was a president, a legend, a myth and a poltergeist stalking America’s 2008 campaign, he was an upstart contender seen as a risky bet for the Democratic nomination in 1960.

Kennedy was judged “an ambitious but superficial playboy” by his liberal peers, according to his biographer Robert Dallek. “He never said a word of importance in the Senate, and he never did a thing,” in the authoritative estimation of the Senate’s master, Lyndon Johnson. Adlai Stevenson didn’t much like Kennedy, and neither did Harry Truman, who instead supported Senator Stuart Symington of Missouri.

J. F. K. had few policy prescriptions beyond Democratic boilerplate (a higher minimum wage, “comprehensive housing legislation”). As his speechwriter Richard Goodwin recalled in his riveting 1988 memoir “Remembering America,” Kennedy’s main task was to prove his political viability. He had to persuade his party that he was not a wealthy dilettante and not “too young, too inexperienced and, above all, too Catholic” to be president.

How did the fairy-tale prince from Camelot vanquish a field of heavyweights led by the longtime liberal warrior Hubert Humphrey? It wasn’t ideas. It certainly wasn’t experience. It wasn’t even the charisma that Kennedy would show off in that fall’s televised duels with Richard Nixon.

Looking back almost 30 years later, Mr. Goodwin summed it up this way: “He had to touch the secret fears and ambivalent longings of the American heart, divine and speak to the desires of a swiftly changing nation — his message grounded on his own intuition of some vague and spreading desire for national renewal.”

Read More Here

February 2, 2008

When Right Wing Pundits Go Over the Top

Filed under: Toon — Volt @ 9:21 pm

What I Learned From Bush!

Filed under: Commentary — Volt @ 9:08 pm

Robert Parry: Obama, Clinton and the GOP Attack Machine

Filed under: Commentary — Volt @ 8:52 pm

Robert Parry, Consortium News, February 2, 2008

Barack Obama argues that the Democrats will have a better chance for victory in November if they have a presidential nominee who opposed the Iraq War from the start and who can contrast that judgment against John McCain’s enthusiasm for a centuries-long U.S. occupation of Iraq.

What Sen. Obama didn’t say out loud, but what Democratic voters surely recalled was the endless baiting of John Kerry for having been “for the war before he was against it,” earning a place – as George W. Bush put it – “in the flip-flop hall of fame.”

Hillary Clinton would be open to similar attacks since she voted in 2002 to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq and remained a staunch war supporter almost until the eve of Campaign 2008, when she realigned herself with the anti-war sentiments of rank-and-file Democrats.

She was for it, for it and for it – before she was finally against it.

But another factor that plays to Obama’s advantage as the prospective nominee – when compared to Hillary Clinton – is that the Right’s powerful media apparatus and the Republican attack strategies appear less successful against Democrats with strong oratorical skills and the ability to inspire enthusiasm and passion.

Read More Here

Clintons Show Their Pettiness By Attacking Kennedy

Filed under: Uncategorized — N @ 6:38 pm

Everyone figured that the Clinton’s would be upset that Senator Ted Kennedy endorsed Barak Obama for the Democratic Presidential nomination this week. After all, former President Clinton and Senator Kennedy worked closely together during the Clinton’s administration. What is shocking is how the Clintons, lead by the former president, have suddenly decided to attack Kennedy and attempt to tear down his reputation in the Democratic Party.

Twice in the last week Bill Clinton has tried to attack and slander Senator Kennedy by linking him to President Bush and his disastrous No Child Left Behind bill. Early in the week in Arizona the former president did just that io9n a speech. “I want you to think about this, and I have to say, this was a train wreck that was not intended. No Child Left Behind was supported by George Bush and Sen. Ted Kennedy and everybody in between. Why? Because they didn’t talk to enough teachers before they did that.” The Clinton tried to suggest that the standards in the bill, which are loathed by educators, are Kennedy’s fault and that he had made a deal with Bush.

Let’s discuss the truth. Hillary Clinton was one of those that Bill describe, as “everybody in between.” She voted for No Child Left Behind and at the time had nothing negative to say about the bill. Now, like everyone else she is in favor of changing it. In terms of the bill, its language and standards bear little resemblance to the one drafted by Kennedy, and the Kennedy drafted a bill was not the unfunded mandate that the Republicans pushed through.

The Clinton campaign must be so desperate that they are willing to lie and slander one of the Democratic Party’s greatest senators, while at the same time conveniently forgetting their own complicity in the issue of education reform. I always supported Bill Clinton but now I think it is time for him to leave the stage and go home, and if this is how a new Clinton White House would be, then Hillary should  go with him.

Michael Weiner (Savage) Uses Copyright Lawsuit to Silence Muslim Critics

Filed under: Commentary — Volt @ 6:26 pm

Nate Anderson, ARS Technica, February 01, 2008

Michael Weiner has a radio show. For obvious reasons, he has chosen to do the show under the name Michael Savage instead, and “The Savage Nation” attracts a few million listeners per week. They listen, in part, to hear Savage rant on conservative topics. On October 29, 2007, listeners were rewarded with this bit of enlightened monologue on the topic of Muslims:

What kind of world are you living in that you let them in here with that throwback document in their hand, which is a book of hate. Don’t tell me I need reeducation. They need deportation. I don’t need reeducation. Deportation not reeducation. You can take CAIR and throw them out of my country. I’d raise the American flag, and I’d get out my trumpet if you did it. Without due process. You can take your due process and shove it… Wherever you look on the Earth there’s a bomb going off or a car going up in flames, and it’s Muslims screaming for the blood of Christians or Jews or anyone they hate.

There’s more… much more (Savage believes that “90 percent of them are on welfare,” for instance), and it’s not surprising that the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) might have a different view. CAIR posted a four-minute excerpt of this show on its website along with a rebuttal, and Savage then filed a lawsuit against the group, alleging copyright infringement.

Savage’s legal filing stands in a class by itself. Little of the filing talks about copyright at all; the vast majority is an extended rant about “CAIR and it’s [sic] terror connections” and how the group was “tied to terror from the day it was formed.”

Read More Here

Have a Beer?

Filed under: Toon — Peregrin @ 2:34 pm

Exactly what’s wrong with politics in this country

Who’s the daddy?

Filed under: Toon — Peregrin @ 2:34 pm

I believe that they just didn’t think of it.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress