Attention deficit disorder? Don't flame lies....

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

I like the fact that she is NOT a Washingtonian ..... Obama took a big hit with me - all that talk about change and then he picks Biden -- who has been in Washington most of his life, who does the Democrat double talk better than most!

I like the fact that she stands up for what she believes in and fights the big boys when necessary.

I like the fact she is a normal person .... sure, they have some money but .... she has problems and is dealing with them. Her husband is blue collar worker, and to me that is a plus.

Do I think she is ready to be VP? I have to do more thinking and soul searching about that ...

Be honest about it -- they both chose their running mates based on what they hoped would help them win the most votes ... not who they really wanted or thought was most qualified!!

BUT....... she does NOT deserve the crap she is taking. That is what is wrong with politics in this country.

The people who COULD do the best job -- WON'T EVEN RUN. They won't subject themselves to the BS they have to endure .....

JMHO .. I will be watching, reading and listening over the next few months. Tough decisions to be made!

Peter Peterson. (Photo: Reuters)

Peter Peterson is coming to get your Social Security and Medicare. Peterson was the commerce secretary in the Nixon administration. He then went on to make billions of dollars as one of the top executives at the Blackstone Group, a private equity fund. Mr. Peterson is known as one of the top beneficiaries of the fund managers' tax break, through which he personally pocketed tens of millions of dollars.

Mr. Peterson has been using his Wall Street wealth to attack these social insurance programs for decades, but he recently stepped up his efforts. Last year, he spent $1 billion to endow the Peter G. Peterson Foundation to further his efforts.

In politics, it's not easy to counter the impact of $1 billion. In addition to its money, the Peterson crew enjoys the support of many important news outlets, most importantly The Washington Post, which pushes his line on both its editorial and news pages.

In fact, The Post even went so far as to identify Peterson's foundation by its boilerplate, an organization that "advocates for federal fiscal responsibility," instead of telling readers of its political leanings, the normal mode of identification for such organizations. (The Center for Economic and Policy Research was established "to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives.")

While the Peterson crew may have the money and the support of the media, the rest of us can rely on logic and ridicule to counter the attack. In this spirit, we have the Peter G. Peterson Intergenerational Fairness Tax Credit. (Mr. Peterson is apparently fond of having things named after him. In addition to his new Peter G. Peterson Foundation, he also has a think tank named after him, the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics.)

The Peterson tax credit would essentially take the Peterson crew at their word. They claim that they are worried that huge tax burdens will leave future generations worse off than the generations that preceded them.

This isn't true. There is no plausible scenario, short of war or environmental disaster, that would leave future generations worse off than their parents or grandparents. But we don't have to argue with the billionaire; let's just give future generations the option to trade places with their parents or grandparents who made out so well.

This is where the tax credit comes in. The tax credit would allow an individual to trade her after-tax income for the after-tax income that someone born 20 or 40 years sooner would have earned at the same age. For example, if someone born in 1990 believes in 2020 that their grandparents got a better deal, they would simply check off the year 1940, and they would have their taxes adjusted so that they would have the same after-tax income of a person born in 1940, when they were also age 30.

Of course, the young ones would end up big losers in this story. Real wages, on average, will be more than 50 percent higher in 2020 than they were in 1970. Even if tax rates were, on average, 5 percentage points higher, workers in 2020 will still have after-tax wages that are more than 40 percent higher than their counterparts in 1970.

This means that anyone who chose to take advantage of the intergenerational equity tax credit would end up as a big loser. That is why it can help solve the deficit problem. If people check off the tax credit, they will pay more in taxes and, therefore, increase government revenue.

It might be hard to convince large numbers of people to voluntarily pay more in taxes. This is where the Peterson Foundation comes in. They are spending huge amounts of money trying to convince young people that they are being ripped off by their parents and grandparents. They are even promoting front groups of young people to advance this effort.

With his billion dollars, Peterson could convince a huge number of gullible young people to tax advantage of the intergenerational equity tax credit. Insofar as he is successful in this effort, he can help to generate billions of dollars that can be used for items like health care, preschool education, and other pressing needs.

So, let's join efforts with Mr. Peterson and encourage his followers to take advantage of the Peter G. Peterson Intergenerational Fairness Tax Credit. There is a word for taking money from willfully ignorant young people who would deny their parents and grandparents the Social Security and Medicare benefits they need to survive: justice.

how do you know no one has anyone serving over there. You have no way of knowing that.

Now, what Americans need to understand is that that means every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina and our tax cuts, Clinton added. We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and Korea primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina. I don't think it makes any sense. I think it's wrong.

Clinton also discussed bringing world leaders together to combat the world's chronic problems � including extreme poverty, global warming and religious conflicts � as well as the Hurricane Katrina recovery effort and Hillary Clinton's political future.

STEPHANOPOULOS: We're here on your initiative, and I want to talk about that, but let's begin with Katrina. President Bush has brought you into the recovery effort, but he's not taking all of your advice. You say roll back the tax cuts for the wealthy. He says no tax increase of any kind. We're spending $5 billion a month in Iraq, probably $200 billion on Katrina. Something's got to give.

CLINTON: Well, that's what I think. I think this idea � I think it's very important that Americans understand, you know, tax cuts are always popular, but about half of these tax cuts since 2001 have gone to people in my income group, the top 1 percent. I've gotten four tax cuts.

They're responsible for this big structural deficit, and they're not going away, the deficits aren't. Now, what Americans need to understand is that that means every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina and our tax cuts. We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else.

CLINTON: They should continue to oppose it, and they should make it an issue in the 2006 election, and they should make it an issue in the 2008 election. And they should hope, to goodness, for the sake of our country, that the cows don't come home before we have time to rectify it.

I mean, sooner or later, just think what would happen if the Chinese � We're pressing the Chinese now, a country not nearly rich as America per capita, to keep loaning us money with low interest to cover my tax cut, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Katrina and at the same time to raise the value of their currency so their imports into our country will become more expensive, and our exports to them will become less expensive. And by the way, we don't want to let them buy any oil companies or anything like that.

So what if they just got tired of buying our debt? What if the Japanese got tired of doing it? Japan's economy is beginning to grow again. Suppose they decided they wanted to keep some of their money at home and invest it in Japan, because they're starting to grow?

We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and Korea primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina. I don't think it makes any sense. I think it's wrong.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is there anything coming out of this initiative here that you can apply directly to Katrina and the poverty we saw revealed there?

CLINTON: Oh, yes, we have raised quite a bit of money for Katrina here. And former President Bush and I, you know, we were asked to raise money. We already have $90 million to $100 million. And what we're trying to do is make sure that our money goes directly to the poorest people who have been dislodged by working with church groups and others. We're working on some mechanisms now to do that, and we'll have some announcements in the next week or so.

But I think there will be a lot of money coming forward from the federal government. A lot of it will be necessary, you know, to build the infrastructure, rebuild the fabric of life and not simply in New Orleans but along the Gulf Coast.

CLINTON: Yes; you know, keep in mind, Mississippi was devastated. Everything from a mile in Mississippi was blown down, and Alabama, but we've got to do that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Excuse me; the problems of race that were tied to poverty here, and I know you don't think there's any conscious racism at play in the response, but we saw one more time blacks and whites looked at this event through very different eyes. What can President Bush do about that, and looking back, do you think there was anything more you could have done as president?

CLINTON: Well, I think we did a good job of that. For example, we had the lowest African-American unemployment, the lowest African-American poverty rate ever recorded. We had the highest homeownership, highest business ownership, and we moved 100 times as many people out of poverty in eight years as had been moved out in the previous 12 years.

This is a matter of public policy, and whether it's race-based or not, if you give your tax cuts to the rich and hope everything works out all right, and poverty goes up, and it disproportionately affects black and brown people, that's a consequence of the action made. That's what they did in the '80s; that's what they've done in this decade.

You said, Truman and Kennedy and even Johnson were real Democrats, not like those of today. And I said the same holds true for republicans. I was answering your post to show you it goes both ways. Got it now?

they have blacked out the information that they got in those memos for national security reasons. You know....I would be curious to see what you would say if you found out that your life was actually one of the ones saved by "torturing" terrorists.

As far as I'm concerned, you behead Americans that you capture, than the people we capture of yours can be subjected to anything we want and to he!! with you.....but that is just me.

The Jordan Times has his whole speech written up and I don't see those words there.

I did see some very interesting things, though, when he talked about Islam, religion, Muslins, etc.

There are way too many personal attacks, foul language and abusive posts going on here.

Read the sticky above. Also read that it is NOT saying to write whatever you want on here.

We're getting loaded with report after report after report to delete messages from this board.

Back off and take it easy on people. Absolutely NO MORE personal attacks. You don't have to like a candidate, but that doesn't make the poster who does any less of person nor do they deserve to be attacked or belittled or called names.

The same is true for those that are reporting absolutely every little thing on here. Read the sticky. Beware of flaming in these posts. If you are too sensitive to be on a political board, then please don't read the posts.

to the complaints on this board, you would realize that what we are complaining about is not the fact that our money is going to government programs to help people who need it. Most of us are upset because these government programs are being abused and misused by dishonest people who would much rather not work and be lazy just to receive government assistance. I have no problem helping people who need it. I think Clinton did a good thing by reforming welfare and I think it is a shame that Obama is undoing that. Welfare is supposed to be a hand up.....not a hand out.

Not wanting to help people in need is not the issue here and I wish that you guys could understand that. We aren't being heartless here. We are just sick and tired of people mooching off of the government when they could work and make a living for themselves.

If the dishonest people who are abusing the system could be taken out of the welfare equation, just think of the extra money we would have to really help those in need. Think about it.

"If we lose a couple dems in the process, well, then so be it. If they were in on it, then they need to go anyway."

However, now that you mention it, as far as calling Pelosi a liar or Pelosi saying that the CIA lied, well, that would be hard for any of us to do as I'm pretty sure none of us were in that meeting to verify what was said......except (of course) trigger happy. I'm assuming she was there as she seems to know exactly who is and who isn't lying.