Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

An argument for redistribution of wealth

Posted By: based on US (capitalist) economic history...sm on 2008-10-19
In Reply to:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm


FY 2007


Total tax revenues for FY 2007 are composed of:


1.     Individual income tax                  45%. 


Included in individual income tax category are capital gains taxes, which make up between 4% and 7% of individual income tax revenues and between 2% and 3% of total tax revenues within this category.


2.     Payroll taxes                               35%


Social insurance (Social Security).  Funds used to pay for Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Medicare/Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)


Supplemental Security Income (SSI).   Individual's share of this is 17.5%.  


3.     Corporate Income Tax                 15%


4.     Excise Tax                                    3%. 


Essentially a consumer tax on alcohol, cigarettes and gas. 


5.     "Other"                                          2%


 


So, individuals' share of total tax revenues amounts to approximately 65.5%, employers 17.5% and corporations 15% plus the mysterious "other" of 2%.    


 


If you go to the above link and scroll down about halfway, you will find a nifty little chart that shows how much the share corporations paid into total tax revenues has diminshed since 1950.  For example, an early 50s spike on the graph show corporations' share to be approximately 30+%...TWICE AS MUCH AS IT IS NOW.   


 


A couple of other points of interest: 


http://www.sba.gov/ADVO/laws/statement07_0309.html


"…tax compliance costs employers with less than 20 employees a total of $1304 per employee as compared to employers with 500 or more employees which incur $780 per employee to comply with Federal taxes.(6) Put another way, small entities pay 40% more for tax compliance than employers with 500 or more employees.


 


http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.htm


Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – How Robust was 2001-2007 Economic Expansion?  Figures 1 and 2 will indicate the following information:


 


Based on the 7 economic indicators, Bush years turned in below average growth percentages in every single indicator except for one….CORPORATE PROFITS.  The biggest losers….employment (JOBS) and wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS).   To make this dry economic data a little bit spicier, 2 comparisons have been shown…Bush years against Post WWII averages and Bush years as compared to the 90s decade.  I have run averages on the trough and peak growth comparison data depicted in Figure 2 to come up with the following overall percentages.  Pay special attention to the last 3 items. 


 


1.     Gross Domestic Product (GDP) down 31% from Post WWII average and down 12.85% from the 90s


2.     Consumption down 23.45% from Post WWII average and down 6.25% from the 90s   


3.     Non-residential fixed investment down 40% from Post WWII average and down 58% from the 90s 


4.     Net worth down 16.25% from Post WWII average and down 20.1% from the 90s 


5.     Wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS) down a whopping 55.6% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 40.55% from the 90s


6.     Employment (JOBS) down an amazing 68.65% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 46.65% from the 90s


7.     Corporate profits up 200% above post WWII average and up 126% from the 90s.    


                                  


From where I sit, there is clearly something wrong with this picture.  I will be voting for the candidate who shares this view and plans to restore a more balanced, equitable and FAIR distribution of wealth.  This is not about shifting bucks from one person to another.  This is about corporations whose butts are being bailed out right and left by us Joe Shmoes shouldering more fiscal responsibility toward their shareholders AND toward John Q. Public.  




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

against wealth redistribution

I am fatigued with more and more of my paycheck going to the stockholders of the company I work for.  My benefits are being taken away, my line count has been "adjusted" several times in the last 10 years to make more profit for the stockholders. Meanwhile, the suits are given astronomical salaries and golden parachutes. 


Second issue.  It is very important to remember that the 3 remaining judges on the Supreme Court who are not conservative will be leaving very soon.  The pres who appoints their replacements will be impacting the nation for the next 30 to 40 years or so.  Think about it.   Can you imagine your 15-year-old granddaughter or great-granddaughter being forced to give birth to a horribly deformed baby because she made a  mistake?  Roe v Wade WILL be overturned if McCain is elected.  The court will be totally pro-corporate interests if mcCain is elected.  This is a much getter consequence that is not getting enough consideration amidst all the slogan throwing.


 


 


I don't really think a redistribution of the wealth
is the answer and don't necessarily agree with it either. What I would like to see though are these corporations, and individuals, that don't fairly pay taxes start paying what they are supposed to. They hide their money in off-shore accounts and redistribute it so they don't have to pay so much. I know that this happens, I started out in accounting in college and we had big long discussions about this. But I didn't have to have a class to know that this happens.
Too bad that redistribution of wealth
won't benefit most of us.....it will benefit the low income people who want to mooch off of the government.  Besides, I still says that the middle class is fair game to Obama.  He will raise our taxes too....you just wait.
Redistribution of wealth...
"Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the hom eless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application."


Redistribution of Wealth

Redistribution of wealth is happening as I write this, except that it's all going to make greedy rich people richer.  Up to a trillion dollars now (and probably growing in the future), the Wall Street crooks are still earning their bonuses.


Why is it okay to redistribute the wealth to the WEALTHIEST while punishing people who are working hard and HONESTLY, just trying to feed their families?


The middle class has been diminishing in this country for a long time now, and it's almost extinct.  I'll never understand why people support rewarding those who are dishonest.


Redistribution of wealth...another way of saying
reparations, just not as blatant.
Redistribution of YOUR Wealth
Obama and Congress will let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. That will cost each of us MTs about $1,200 or so a year. He is proposing 3 new separte payroll taxes (new separate deductions) including his own bill now in Congress to "fight WORLD hunger." Sounds nice, but I would rather fight hunger at my house. If you think you are going to get a bunch of free stuff in return for all these new taxes, think again - that stuff will all evaporate after the election but the tax increases will remain, just like with Clinton. I heard last night that 57% of Americans think Republicans now control Congress - and these morons vote - scary.
He is already promising redistribution of wealth and he ...
doesn't even have the job yet. That is not a lie. He has campaign commercials about it and he is Barack Obama and he approved that message. Have you read anything about his voting history and the people he has associated with most of his adult life? Of course he is socialist. Way left socialist.

I never said Democrats were socialists. I did say Hillary Clinton was one, and Obama is to the left of her on that particular issue.

You think calling someone a socialist is name calling?
About all that redistribution of wealth silliness
That would be $1200 to nearly every Alaskan in addition to their already existing $2000 annual rebate. In a nutshell, Palin levied a windfall profit tax against oil companies, then will pay a portion of the revenues out as bonus checks to residents.

One might even suggest that, since Alaska has no state income tax, this was a almost straight redistribution of wealth using higher taxes on the oil companies to redistribute wealth to individuals. It's almost...socialist. Go Gov. Palin!!!
Correct. The *redistribution of wealth* is just that...

those who have gotten their piece of the American Dream are forced to give to those who can't/don't/won't achieve their own American Dream. We are on the way sheeple, wake up and do research, don't take leftist talking points as truth.


I think not. both related to redistribution of wealth...nm

What pat of redistribution of wealth do you not understand?
THAT is socialism and THAT is what he wants to do. Said so himself. Remember spreading the wealth? C'mon. Admit it. He's a socialist. Fair tax cuts go to EVERYONE. Not the rich to redistribute to those who do not even PAY taxes. THAT is socialism.
He's not lying about redistribution of wealth...
unfortunately. He is wholly committed to that one.
Obama's redistribution of wealth
I challenge all of you who are making such a big deal about Obama's plan for "redistribution of wealth" to do a little research.  Then come back and talk about it.  It's a matter of where the distribution is to go.  Republicans want it to go to the top i.e. Reagan's "trickle down economics"  and the institution of the earned income tax credit goes to him as well.  Tell me, who has benefited?  Maybe it's about time we go back to trickle up economics....sorta like FDR's "chicken in every pot."  Ya thank????
Spread the wealth, redistribution of income...that is the big O's
plan...AKA I'll give to those who don't deserve it by taking it from those who have worked hard to get it. O wants to take the hard earned money from many Americans and then HE will decide who he gives it to. Sounds a bit like socialism to me. Just where is he going to get the money for all the programs he wants to GIVE to us?  Oh, and remember the words of Biden, it's patriotic to pay taxes. So what does that make the 40% of Americans who DON'T pay taxes?
Redistribution of wealth American style.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm


Total tax revenues for FY 2007 are composed of:


1.     Individual income tax 45% of tax revenues.  Included in individual income tax category are capital gains taxes, which make up between 4% and 7% of individual income tax revenues and between 2% and 3% of total tax revenues within this category.


2.     Payroll taxes 35% of tax revenues.  Social insurance (Social Security).  Funds used to pay for Federal old age, survivors, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, temporary assistance to needed families, Medicare/Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).  Employee's share of this is 17.5%.


3.     Corporate Income Tax 15% of total tax revenues. 


4.     Excise Tax 3% of total tax revenues.  Essentially a consumer tax on alcohol, cigarettes and gas.


5.     "Other"  2%


So, individuals' share of total tax revenues amounts to approximately 65.5%, employers 17.5% and corporations 15% plus the mysterious "other" of 2%.    If you go to the above link and scroll down about halfway, you will find a nifty little chart that shows how much the share corporations paid into total tax revenues has diminshed since 1950.  For example, an early 50s spike on the graph show corporations' share to be approximately 30+%...TWICE AS MUCH AS IT IS NOW.


http://www.sba.gov/ADVO/laws/statement07_0309.html


"…tax compliance costs employers with less than 20 employees a total of $1304 per employee as compared to employers with 500 or more employees which incur $780 per employee to comply with Federal taxes.  Small entities pay 40% more for tax compliance than employers with 500 or more employees.


http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.htm


Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – How Robust was 2001-2007 Economic Expansion?  Figures 1 and 2 will indicate the following information:  Based on the 7 economic indicators, Bush years turned in below average growth percentages in every single indicator except for one….CORPORATE PROFITS.  The biggest losers….employment (JOBS) and wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS).   To make this dry economic data a little bit spicier, 2 comparisons have been shown…Bush years against Post WWII averages and Bush years as compared to the 90s decade.  I have run averages on the trough and peak growth comparison data depicted in Figure 2 to come up with the following overall percentages.  Pay special attention to the last 3 items.


1.     Gross Domestic Product (GDP) down 31% from Post WWII average and down 12.85% from the 90s


2.     Consumption down 23.45% from Post WWII average and down 6.25% from the 90s


3.     Non-residential fixed investment down 40% from Post WWII average and down 58% from the 90s 


4.     Net worth down 16.25% from Post WWII average and down 20.1% from the 90s 


5.     Wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS) down a whopping 55.6% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 40.55% from the 90s


6.     Employment (JOBS) down an amazing 68.65% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 46.65% from the 90s


7.     Corporate profits up 200% above post WWII average and up 126% from the 90s. 


From where I sit, there is clearly something wrong with this picture.  I will be voting for the candidate who shares this view and plans to restore a more balanced, equitable and FAIR distribution of wealth.  This is not about shifting bucks from one person to another.  This is about corporations whose butts are being bailed out right and left by us Joe Shmoes shouldering more fiscal responsibility toward their shareholders AND toward John Q. Public.


Redistribution of wealth is a basic socialism tenet...
and it is part of his platform. He leans very hard in the direction of government run health care...alnother socialism tenet. He used and taught the Alinsky method of organizing...hard left Marxist theory. Not overgeneralization. He went to a church preaching black liberation theology for 20 years....major Marxist overtones and "economic parity" part of that theology. If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it's a duck. And if you look at his associations throughout his career...common thread there. And for me, that is concerning. And yet another reason I am not voting for him. He is no change from any of the hard left liberals before him, except in one key area...he is harder left than any of them, if you look only at his voting record. He's not the guy for the job as far as I am concerned.
Does corporate welfare qualify as wealth redistribution
nm
Obama talking about redistribution of wealth in 2001...

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/26/obama-in-2001-how-to-bring-about-redistributive-change/


Before discounting this because it is on a conservative site....the You Tube tape is there...you can hear "O" in his own words.


Hope is not a dirty word....redistribution of wealth is,
in my books. Have you looked at the church he belonged to for 20 years? Divisive is a MILD way to describe it. He has no interest in uniting us. He has interest in forcing his view of how society should run down all our throats. I do not call that bringing unity. His whole life has been influenced by Marxists. That is how he wants to "unify" us. I am sure Cubans heard these same stories from Che Guevara and loved him just as much. And look how it turned out for them. Not great, not even the way Che wanted. He was off to Bolivia when he found out it wasn't going the way he hoped. The next socalist always thinks he will get it "right." And you know what? Those who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them...I just hope America is not the next failed socialist state. There is MY "HOPE."
Redistribution (sm)
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

Exactly. It is income redistribution, even though he denies it...
and that does not work. Stirring up class warfare does not work. And that $200,000 puts small businesses' necks on the block. Because many S corporations and other small businesses pay the personal tax, not the business tax. He will effectively kill them and jobs will be lost and even MORE people added to the lower bracket. Do people really not see the socialist implications here?
Over generalization....socialism is redistribution
xx
"income redistribution" is just a fancy term for
nm
LOL No argument s/m

I'm neither Democrat or Republican, I usually call myself independent.  I march to my own drum.  I would have liked to have seen 2 different candidates than what we had.  I would have liked to see a true Christ-like man, humble and honest in his/her campaign...i.e. the "Straight Talk Express" which McCain claimed to have and didn't.


I simply voted AGAINST the man who bragged that he had voted "with the president over 90% of the time, more than even his Republican colleagues."  We certainly need change.  I know I haven't fared so well under Bush.  All is not lost for those who think Obama is a monster if he in fact turns out to be what he's been accused of being. .  Remember Richard Nixon? 


you win the argument
If you like Bush you are a rare person indeed. His approval rating is 26%.

So now is your time to shine because your guy is still in charge and you should enjoy it.
Yes, anything to make an argument...sm
No pun intended to reality check, but yes anything can turn into an argument. Yep.
Why don't you take your little argument over to the CON board.
You can con each other on the CON board.  How's that?
So is posting the same argument.
I remind you that the monitor recently posted we could cross-post, as we have had liberals on the conservative board, as long as the posts were not bashing. 
Wow, that's a good argument....
it is not a personal choice. There are two people involved, one of whom has NO choice. Not fair.
Is that your only argument for socialism?
My word....people are committing adultery on both sides of the fence, that will never change. What in the world does that have to do with socialism and socialists candidate?
But you have made your argument here FOR
You already know where Obama stands. He has said outright he will raise taxes to pay for more social programs. He wants to tell you how to get your healthcare. I agree we definitely need to do something about healthcare but then that could be easily done if the fat cats on capitol hill, including Obama, would stop insurance lobbyists and make it illegal for lobbying....period!!! They then would have to make it more affordable or they will not have a business to run in the first place.

I too would like to see our troops come home from Iraq but not give that money to Obama because it will be wasted faster than you can blink and on what? More socialist programs...

If you look deep into what Obama hasn't detailed in his healthcare plan, you will see that you WILL be paying DEEPLY for it. He has managed to waltz around the details of his plan, which include HUGE tax hikes to pay for that wonderful healthcare he wants to give you.

With the two candidates I am left to choose from, I choose a capitalist over a socialist any day. I'm about to believe Obama would sell his soul to the devil to get in that position.
Okay, that argument aside, here's a legitimate
What will be your thoughts, and more importantly - your ACTIONS - if the candidate of your choice doesn't win?

Where do you go from there?
Do you have a plan as to what you will do, or not do, or change, or flee, if your candidates lose the election?
I can see both sides of the argument
Yes, many people are getting threatened and businesses getting picketed for supporting Prop 8. You cannot deny that (what was the pink taliban or whatever that disrupted church service a month or so ago?)

But on the other hand, if they want these donations anonymous, than that means Obama and other politicians can make their donations anonymous, and I think it's the publics right to know who is financing the next leaders of the country.

I just find it interesting that the homosexuals are assaulting and threatening supporters of the Prop 8 for what they believe in when they themselves are asking for fair treatment for what they believe in.
You don't do your argument any good

by talking down to people.  The point I gathered from the the Bloomberg article seems to state what many have said and that is that with all the spending the government has done and will continue to do, the government could have paid off almost all mortgages and settled what was touted as the root cause of all the problems, the subprime mess. 


Bailouts don't work, handouts don't work, the free market does. 


With one mistake after another, rookie Obama's decisions and policies demonstrate one thing only and that is his stimulus package is political payback instead of finding genuine solutions.  The vagueness of his campaign speechmaking was the work of a hollow wordsmith after all. 


"I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
-Winston Churchill

 


I am so sick of this argument
All that clause means is that their will be no state sponsored religion - like saying everyone has to be Baptist or Lutheran or Catholic. It had nothing to do with taking God out of the white house or supreme court or anywhere else! The only reason that happened is because Christians just sat by and didn't say anything while everyone else whined about it and now it's too late to reverse all that because the mindset now is "oh we have to have separation of church and state!"

Of course as greedy and grimy as politicians are these days they probably feel better thinking that God doesn't pay attention to politics!

Here's some quotes from the founding fathers:

William Bradford
• wrote that they [the Pilgrims] were seeking:
• 1) "a better, and easier place of living”; and that “the children of the group were being drawn away by evil examples into extravagance and dangerous courses [in Holland]“
• 2) “The great hope, and for the propagating and advancing the gospel of the kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world"

John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

“The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.”
John Quincy Adams. Letters to his son. p. 61

Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."


Patrick Henry:
"Orator of the Revolution."
• This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”
—The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry


Thomas Jefferson:
“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

Article 22 of the constitution of Delaware (1776)
Required all officers, besides taking an oath of allegiance, to make and subscribe to the following declaration:
• "I, [name], do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."


That is a valid argument. Thank you

I heard that argument..(sm)

They're saying they'll have to raise taxes when the extended benefits run out.  This doesn't make sense to me.  If while they are receiving extended benefits they are creating jobs with the other aspects of the stimulus, wouldn't the total bill for unemployment go down? 


Not a good argument...(sm)

I could just as easily say that if you believe in the sanctity of life so much, why are you willing to torture and kill others.


That argument won't work because most people who are pro-choice do not believe that life begins at conception.


Ah, the persecuted Christian argument. Please.............

That was the argument in 1960. We didn't buy it then and we are...sm
not buying it now almost 50 years later. Religion should have no part of politics any more than race, gender or anything else that has no bearing on whether a person can lead.
That whole "blood for oil" argument is garbage.
nm
Citizenship argument...another red herring on
Get over yourself.
The closing argument that lifts us up
what it really means to be an American.  No amount of harsh rhetoric or divisive tactics can touch the hope I hold nor the joy I take in knowing that the country I love, which has lost so much of late, is still there, is on the mend and that better and brighter days are just around the bend.     
Good argument for the 10% threshold. :) nm
nm
What kind of good solid argument is that?
All I saw was a good article assessing the state of our emergency readiness and the conservative comes back with nyah nyah, a guy got shot, hope you're happy.

Is that what anyone calls good solid argument?
I just knew some people would make this into an argument

I just thought it was pretty cool and on the lighter side. But...as usual, some people just want to argue.


Your argument does not hold a drop of water.
Number one. No they wouldn't...journalists are like lawyers...they don't rat out their sources. It is a question of professional integrity. Furthermore, the LA Times went into great detail to describe precisely what was on the video. No cigar on that media bias whining. This is what happens when campaigns declare war on the media, keep their VP pick on a short leash, avoid one-on-one interviews like the plaque and squeal out loud when the rogue goes off script. The media would not be having a field day if there weren't such an abundant pool of news stories being generated daily by this pathetically mismanaged and misguided camp.

Since when is the International REPUBLICAN Institute, chaired by McCain, the REBPULICAN presidential candidate apolitical? Explain this to me, please. The Center for PALESTINIAN Research and Study...apolitial? On what planet is the subject of Palestine apolitical? Seriously, can you point out any Palestinian living either in OCCUPIED Palestine or in the diapora who is NOT political. If it weren't political, there would have been no exchange of funds. Not at all the same as what...a little incoherent here.

The "meeting" was a farewell dinner for Khalidi held at a Palestinian community center in Chicago for this American born, Yale graduate, Oxford University Doctor of Philosophy, former professor and director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and the Center for International Studies at the University of Chicago, current professor at Columbia University. He is a member of the National Advisory Committee of the US INTERreligious Committee for Peace in the Middle East...a national organization of Jews, Christians and Muslims. He is also a member of the Board of Sponsors of the Palestine-Israel Journal, a publication founded by prominent Palestinian and ISRAELI journalists.

Radical Israel hater? Sam, this may come as a shock to you, but Palestinians take great pride in crossing cultures and religions for the sake of garnering peace in their war-torn country. You need help interpreting what Obama meant by "showing me my own personal bias." This is what occurs when people cross cultures, talk to one another, listen to points of view other than their own and start the process of coming to terms with the ethnocentric bias they carry around from their own cultures. I know exactly what he means. It is precisely the quality an effective foreign policy leader need to have to make effective diplomatic inroads. If you want to make something suspicious and subversive out of that....be my guest. In the absence of the tape, Sam, just how is it that you claim to know precisely what transpired during that farewell dinner?

Notably absence from you post is any direct comment on the fact that Chairman McCain's IRI funded the organization that Khalidi founded for 2 years in a row. If he is the Jew hater you suggest he is, then wouldn't that mean that once again, Chairman McCain had a vetting deficit?

Rabid rants will not support your argument.
with anything. Rememer the burden of proof thingy in the courts? Why do you think Berg the Boob is suing on grounds of "standing" and alleged "harm"...claims that thus far have been laughed out of court?
Another argument based on false premise.
underpinnings of our democracy? Here's a clue just for you. What is the function of the Supreme Court? Since when do the 3 branches of our govt NOT interpret the constitution? This has absolutely nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with the ignorance you seem to feel compelled to display, and dern proudly, I might add.

Before you try to tell the rest of us how we should be thinking and such, perhaps you should be addressing your own severe afflictions, starting with your blind hatred.
Wow, that was a powerful, cogent, scholarly argument!..................nm
nm