Îi mulţumesc lui kukulkan pentru răspunsul la întrebarea „de ce îl preferi pe Obama”. Sper să nu se supere că i-am transformat comentariul într-o postare separată. În primul rînd, este o opinie coerent argumentată. În al doilea rînd, noi, cei care ne dăm de obicei cu părerea, avem o cu totul altă perspectivă şi cred că prezenţa unui suporter Obama e cît se poate de binevenită: sparge monotonia. În al treilea rînd, fenomenul Obama este de asemenea natură încît o polemică în jurul acestei candidaturi depăşeşte persoana şi devine o polemică între filozofii de viaţă diferite.
Pentru început, propun oricărui participant la discuţie să urmeze exemplul lui kukulkan şi să rezume motivele pentru care îl preferă pe unul din cei doi candidaţi, sau motivele pentru care este anti-Obama sau anti-Mccain. Apoi, discuţii la liber.
hailou. am promis ca va voi spune de ce il prefer pe obama:
– voi incepe cu chestiile de fatada: da mult mai bine decat mcain. si nu e vina lui ca e mai rockstar decat mccain. nu e nici vina lui mccain ca in timpul dezbaterilor este atat de crispat. dar nu stiu la ce s-au gandit republicanii atunci cand l-au nominalizat; si dupa cum stiti si a remarcat si obama in speech-ul de mai sus ( ), mcain nu prea a avut dificultati in campania din cadrul partidului. [in ceea ce priveste ultima dezbatere, eu o vad ca vand doua parti: prima in care mccain a adus vorba despre tinichelele care i se leaga lui obama de coada – victorie mccain, si a doua cand s-a revenit la “programe”, castigata, ca de obicei, de obama. oricum, intalnirea a fost mai echilibrata decat ma asteptam. totusi, lui mccain ii dau cel mult un egal].
– apoi, mie imi pare foarte clar ca, in ceea ce priveste chestiunile economice si cele sociale (educatie, sanatate), obama cunoaste mult mai bine. cred ca si in cazul acesta comparatia il avantajeaza. daca nu ma credeti, luati ca exemplu raspunsul lui mccain privind politica de sanatate publica din a doua intalnire.
– apoi, ideile sale in chestiunile sociale si economice se apropie mai mult de ale mele si, normal, le agreez mai mult. “spread the wealth around” – vai, urate cuvinte… dar stiti ca si george w. bush face acelasi lucru? si clinton, si bush tatal, pana chiar si atat de republicanul ronald reagan (ce zambet, ce zambet…) au facut acelasi lucru. nu exista stat in lume care sa nu redistribuie o parte a veniturilor catre cei care au nevoie (si, cred ca suntem de acord in virtutea valorilor comune ale civilizatiei iudeo-crestine, care trebuie) sa fie ajutati. Plecand de la prezumtia ca statul trebuie sa aiba o anumita implicare in societate, care este gradul ideal de actiune? Nu stiu, dar stiu ca ma atrag propunerile de o mai buna reglementare a sectoarelor cu risc crescut de derapaje economice, de acordare de sanse mai mari la educatie pentru persoanele cu venituri reduse, de asistenta a persoanelor in protejarea sanatatii lor (nu pot sa-i dai lui john doe 5000 de dolari pentru asigurare de sanatate si sa-i spui sa aleaga cea mai buna optiune de pe piata, in conditiile in care 5000 de dolari nu sunt suficienti pentru categorii importante ale populatiei). Iau etichetarea lui obama ca “socialist” ca pe o recunoastere a preocuparii mai mari pentru problemele sociale, pentru ca eu nu vad o alta justificare.
– in domeniul politicii externe, mi se pare mai realist. Pune un accent mai mare pe cooperare cu aliatii. sua nu mai sunt superputerea de acum 10 ani: de problemele economice stim… atitudinea din perioada cand erau considerate superputerea incontestabila (spre exemplu, grija particulara pentru drepturile omului in irak) nu le-a adus prea multi prieteni… rusia revine in forta (si, cu ocazia invadarii georgiei, nu uita sa aduca aminte ca si sua au ignorat nu tocmai gratios consiliul de securitate cu ocazia ultimului razboi cu irakul). o cooperare mai stransa cu tarile cu care, in general, impartasesc acelasi sistem de valori nu este, asa cum ar crede unii, numai unilateral avantajoasa.
afganistan+pakistan: obiectivul principal al conflictelor de dupa 9/11 a fost razboiul impotriva terorii. Ce poate fi mai logic decat concentrarea eforturilor militare in aceasta directie? bine, nu se poate iesi oricum din irak… trebuie gasita o solutie, dar nu trebuie uitat cum s-a creat problema. “prenegotiations” etc. etc. – chestiuni discutabile si care ajuta la ascunderea padurii cu ajutorul copacilor.– obama afirma ceva in legatura cu ce va face el, in timp ce mccain isi rezerva o prea mare parte a discursului raportandu-se la obama. obama se prezinta pe sine drept ceva de sine statator, pe cand mccain imi lasa impresia ca s-ar simti cam stingher singur. astfel cum rezulta si din procentajul de publicitate negativa al fiecarui candidat.
In concluzie, cred ca republicanii l-au ales pe mccain fie pentru ca erau siguri de victorie si nu conta pe cine alegeau, fie ca erau siguri de infrangere si iar nu conta pe cine alegeau. Nu pot sa imi imaginez ca, gandindu-se ca exista o anumita incertitudine privind rezultatul alegerilor, nu gaseau un alt candidat care sa le dea sanse mai mari de victorie…
33 Comments
dr. jones
21 October 2008si parerea mea.
1. este adevarat – mr obama e mai charismatic si are priza la public. asa a avut si iliescu si hitler iar cand a murit stalin s-au sinucis rusii ca berbecii ca nu mai aveau motivatie in viata.
2. hmmm. programul lui mccain este unul viabil. ok. vreti asigurari? vom face reduceri la taxe si din banii obtinuti – cumparati-va asigurare. statul nu trebuie sa se implice. iti ofera alternativa. vrei sa iti cumperi asigurare? ok – i-ati. nu? treaba ta – eu nu te oblig. eu nu am sa va inteleg niciodata pe voi astia care sunteti asa de dependenti de stat si daca statul isi ia „mana” de pe voi ajungeti in deriva.
3. agreezi „spread the wealth” pentru ca nu ai nici o idee ce inseamna sa ai propria ta afacere. traiesti cu mentalitatea implementata de comunisti despre chiaburii care sug sangele muncitorilor. ti-a trecut vreodata prin minte ca eu care am deschis o afacere – am riscat enorm? ca voi crea locuri de munca? ca trebuie sa ma intereseze cum platesc facturile, taxele, impozite, salarii s.a.m.d. – lucru pe care pe tine te lasa rece? sti ca america tocmai datorita acestui fapt – al firmelor mici si mijlocii a devenit o asa economie? ca toata aceasta tehnologie s-a dezvoltat tocmai datorita acestei libertati fiscale?
da, bush a facut o mare magarie prin acel bailout. e de discutat mult pe aceasta tema.
4. haidade! in politica externa e paralel complet. pai daca te duci in pakistan dupa dementul ala – nu trambitezi asta in gura mare. si asa islamicii sunt foarte sensibili cand vine vorba de interventiile straine. mai bine negociezi in secret cu regimul de la islamabad si faci incursiuni in adancime. trambitand in gura mare ca vei ataca pakistanul – vei lega de maini si de picioare acel guvern care vrea sa te ajute si iti vei atrage oprobiul public al tarii respective. iar un ton mai moderat va da aripi extremistilor – fie ca e vorba de moscova sau teheran. sper ca intelegi despre ce e vorba. deci acolo e varza. cu carne. muci.
4. ce afirma obama? in afara faptului ca va impozita la sange firmele care aduc profit? ca va declansa o lupta de clasa? ca a creat impresia ca cei care muncesc din greu si fac profit sunt cei mai aprigi dusmani ai americanilor?
revin cu mesajul care s-a pierdut:
tax, tax, tax america:
N.C. plumbers speak out about election
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3756852/10311733
Exclusive: Guilliani talks about McCain’s N.C. chances
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3742104/10277825
spread the wealth around is socialism not american.
dr. jones
21 October 2008la 2. – versus programul lui obama cand fie ca vrei sau nu trebuie sa platesti taxe pentru ca altii care nu muncesc, nu aduc nici un venit vor avea parte de mai multi bani, de mai multe asigurari.
adica ce e mai important? sa trimiti omul la munca ( sa ii creezi locuri) sa isi plateasca asigurarea? sau sa il faci dependent de stat? sa ii dai casa, bani de mancare si asigurare medicala?
pe carca alora care muncesc si produc?
plus ca implicarea statului va insemna un concurent neloial pe piata.
tu nu vezi ca pana nici in alegeri statul ( in US) nu se amesteca? vrei sa votezi? du-te si inregistreaza-te. nu vrei? stai acasa.
v-a obisnuit asa mult europa cu modelul socialist incat daca statul isi va lua mana de pe voi maine veti ramane neajutorati.
dromichaetes
21 October 2008Si eu merg pro Obama. Consider ca primul argument al lui kukulkan e foarte puternic. Obama are carisma si emana dinamism si incredere. In dezbaterile televizate a aparut mult mai relaxat si mai stapan pe situatie decat adversarul sau.
In plus cred ca il simpatizez si pentru noutatea istorica. Si cred ca pentru multi electori americani atarna greu in balanta faptul ca acum pot face istorie: alegandu-l pe primul presedinte de culoare din istoria SUA. Din acest punct de vedere Obama este mai mult un lider in the making decat un lider providential [de fapt chiar campania lui „Change we can believe in” nu a batut moneda pe ideea de lider providential, ci pe facerea de istorie printr-un efort comun].
Sunt pentru Obama nu in ultimul rand pentru ca – spre deosebire de McCain – este cel care poate oferi Americii un New New Deal. Despre asta s-a scris pe Huffingtonpost.com, dar si in Wall Street Journal [incercati sa cititi articolul din WSJ in cheie pozitiva, nu negativa, sa vedeti daca trece testul]. Obama va avea la dispozitie o larga majoritate pe Capitol Hill, dar stim ca asta nu este de ajuns in politica americana pentru promovarea de legislatie. Dar si aici sta Obama mai bine decat McCAin, pentru ca a aratat ca poate asigura bipartizanatul atat de necesar pentru actele legislative importante.
dromichaetes
21 October 2008Inca ceva, guys, vreau sa spun ca apreciez foarte mult gestul vostru de a initia aceasta discutie pornind de la argumente „Pro Obama”. Discutia are de castigat pentru ca automat prin demersul vostru propuneti un exercitiu critic. Si e intotdeauna bine sa fie asa. Best regards.
dr. jones
21 October 2008bun, l-ai vota pentru culoarea pielii, charisma, noutate istorica insa nu inteleg ce vrei sa spui cu un alt new deal.
programul lui obama e departe de a fi asa ceva.
ce mi se pare insa grozav la obama este flexibilitatea.
nu l-am mai auzit in ultima vreme discutand asa de aprig despre retragerea trupelor din iraq. nici de faptul ca vrea sa creasca pretul la pompa pentru a da health care pentru toata lumea.
comparatia cu delano mi se pare riscanta – eu unul l-as compara mai mult cu jimmy carter.
mi-a placut un comentariu pe care l-am citit mai demult: probabil ca va fi nevoie de un jimmy carter ca sa poata aparea un nou reagan.
dr. jones
21 October 2008revin: un presedinte nu il votezi dupa zambet sau promisiuni populiste. pe cine ai alege acum intre iliescu si ratiu?
dromichaetes
21 October 2008Scuze, dar cred ca de o comparatie intre situatii nici nu poate fi vorba. Nu poti compara dimensiunea liderilor americani cu cei romani asa cum nu poti compara democratia americana cu cea romaneasca.
Imperialistu'
21 October 2008Kukulkan> O sa incerc sa vin cu un raspuns mai serios in urmatoarele zile. Mai trebuie sa ma pasuiesti nitel.
Dromichaetes> Comparatia este potrivita, zic eu, pentru ca marea intrebare care se pune este „alegi costumul sau omul?”
Dromichaetes, eu m-as feri de premiere istorice. Ti-as putea da exemple de premiere care au sfarsit foarte prost, baieti carismatici si simpatici, fiecare dintre ei, unul si unul cum s-ar zice la noi. O premiera poate sa aiba efecte pozitive sau complet dezastruoase. Daca tot ne aflam in zona americana, a se vedea presedintia lui Carter. Jimmy Carter este, fara indoiala, cel mai slab presedinte american din ultimatate jumatate de secol.
Culoarea lui Obama nu este un argument nici in favoarea, nici impotriva candidaturii sale pentru Casa Alba. Experienta nu il recomanda, iar retorica superioara demonstreaza doar calitatile de avocat. Charisma in sine nu transforma nici un candidat in presedinte. Pana la urma, ce vreti? Un star sau un presedinte?
Tiberiu Florea
21 October 2008Dromichaetes, eşti culmea. Tocmai asta e problema, că Obama vrea un New New Deal! După cum bine spune subtitlul de pe WSJ: Obama is much more dangerous to economic freedom than FDR. – dangerous e cuvântul cheie aici.
A se vedea şi:
In 1932, Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected president as the nation was heading into a severe recession. The stock market had crashed in 1929, the world’s economy was slowing down, and all economic indicators in the U.S. showed signs of trouble.
The new president’s response was to restructure the economy with the New Deal — an expansion of the role of government once unimaginable in America. We now know that FDR’s policies likely prolonged the Great Depression because the economy never fully recovered in the 1930s, and actually got worse in the latter half of the decade. And we know that FDR got away with it (winning election four times) by blaming his predecessor, Herbert Hoover, for crashing the economy in the first place.
Nu ţi se pare bună paralela asta? FDR şi-a bătut joc de constituţie, iar Obama îşi va bătea în continuare joc de idealurile pe baza cărora a fost înfiinţat statul American independent: culoarea pielii şi sensibilităţile vor deveni mai importante ca efortul şi competiţia.
dr. jones
21 October 2008cred ca daca iei 100 de sustinatori ai lui obama si ii intrebi diferenta dintre planurile economice ale celor doi – nici unul nu stie ce sa iti raspunda. ei vor sti doar ca obama va scade taxele „pentru 95%” dintre americani, ceea ce este foarte bine din punctul lor de vedere.
cu toate ca se bate cap in cap cu declaratia lui joe biden care spune ca e patriotic sa platesti taxe mai mari.
bineinteles ca acea comparatie pe care am facut-o este legitima.
iliescul cu zambetul larg si promisiuni populiste ( pe care le-a si pus in aplicare ducand economia de rapa) versus ratiu care vroia sa aduca investitori in romania si sa vanda tara.
nu stiu daca va mai amintiti dar la al cel de-al doilea mandat al iliescului cand a pierdut in favoarea lui constantinescu – romania se afla in imposibilitate de plata.
au dus de rapa in asa hal economia incat nu mai puteau vinde fabricile nici pe un dolar.
pe cand fabrica de automobile de la pitesti a fost luata de daewoo si falimentata de cotizatii si acum de renault si facuta competitiva. am inteles ca si ford vroia sa investeasca la craiova. nokia la cluj.
a fost bine sau rau ca iliescu nu a „vandut tara”?
v-ati gandit vreo clipa unde ar fi fost romania acum daca iesea ratiu si nu iliescu?
Imperialistu'
21 October 2008Discutii, discutii, dar sa ai cu cine, Emil. Pana una alta, doar noi ne-am prezentat pe aici, sustinatorii lui Obama aruncand cateva mesaje si apoi retragandu-se. Vorba vine „sustinatorii”, a fost Dromichaetes, Kukulkan asteptand pesemne rezultatul alegerilor pentru a mai aborda personalitatea candidatului mesianic. ????
costin
21 October 2008argumentul anti-Obama al lui Fred Thompson:
Panseluta
21 October 2008dr. jones:
Perfect raspuns.
emil:
Eu nu am ce discuta cu cineva care exulta calitatile de „rockstar” ale lui Obama vis-a-vis „mosul” McCain.
Ma depaseste. Imi pare rau.
Panseluta
kukulkan
21 October 2008N-am fost cateva pe site; am placuta surpriza ca interventia mea a devenit un nou topic :).
Mai putin placuta este interpretarea absentei. Nu voi comenta…
Ideea era ca fiecare sa spuna care sunt motivele pentru care sustine unul dintre candidati. Si surpriza (sau poate nu :))))): cu exceptia lui dr. jones si dromichaetes, nu prea au fost musterii. De ce oare? Sa fie din cauza ca e mai usor sa vorbesti de rau despre „celalalt” decat sa ill vorbesti de bine pe „favoritul” tau? Ca e mai usor sa distrugi decat sa cladesti?
– partea cu rockstar. Nu am inteles contra-argumentele la o afirmatie care nu comporta contra-argumente… Mie (kukukan) imi pare ca Obama „da mai bine pe sticla” (ceva foarte relativ, recunosc). In conformitate scopul propus al topicului, eu as fi vazut doua tipuri de raspunsuri: 1. dincolo de argumentele pe care le aduce, Obama, ca persoana, este mai simpatic pentru ca… sau 2. dincolo de argumentele pe care le aduce, McCain, ca persoana, este mai simpatic pentru ca… Asocierile cu Iliescu, Hitler, Stalin etc. sunt fara rost. dr. jones, daca te duci la supermarket si vezi doua mere (unul frumos si unul urat) cu acelasi pret si in legatura cu care nu ai motive sa crezi ca unul este mai bun decat celalalt, tu il cumperi pe cel urat pentru ca rusii s-au sinucis ca berbecii cand a murit stalin deoarece nu mai aveau motivatie in viata?
– in materie de asigurari de sanatate, trecand peste programul candidatilor, cred ca regula trebuie sa fie ca angajatul sa nu fie obligat sa isi aleaga unde isi face asigurarea, pentru ca multe persoane nu au timpul, educatia si/sau capacitatea intelectuala sa ia o asemenea decizie. In masura in care unele persoane considera ca pot investi mai bine banii pe care altfel ii manageriaza statul, acestea pot alege unde si in ce conditii sa incheie aceste asigurari (asumandu-si si unele riscuri care, din motivele de mai sus, ar fi prea mari pentru restul populatiei).
– toata stima pentru curajul de a incepe o afacere, dr. jones. insa presupunerile (ba nu, afirmatiile categorice) pe care le faci in continuare ma surprind din perspectiva faptului ca nu ma asteptam sa intalnesc pe situl asta argumente de genul „sunt sigur ce gandesti tu” (am intalnim de atatea ori argumentul asta incat incep sa cred ca noi, romanii, avem capacitati paranormale. esti sigur ca Nostradamus a fost francez?). Nu am afacerea mea, dar crezi tu ca, daca iti spun ca acum cateva luni am preferat o pozitie in companie care ma pregatea mai bine pentru luarea de decizii si asumarea de responsabilitati uneia mai degraba specializate, iti spun adevarul sau te mint? Crezi tu ca, daca iti spun ca in general sunt ultimul care pleaca din firma, iti spun adevarul sau te mint? Crezi tu ca, daca iti spun ca si eu am vrut acum cativa ani sa-mi deschid o afacere, iti spun adevarul sau te mint? Bineinteles ca nu ai de unde sa stii adevarul pentru ca nu ai de unde sa ma cunosti… Poate ca „te-au furat” argumentele, dar te rog sa nu mai faci afirmatii despre mine pe care nu poti sa le sustii.
Iar despre implicarea statului, cred ca toti plecam de la premisa ca nici implicarea totala, nici lipsa totala a implicarii nu este posibila. Atunci care sa fie calea de mijloc cea mai buna? Aici intr-adevar e mult de discutat. Cei care pot sa munceasca trebuie sa fie incurajati sa munceasca. Ajutorul social trebuie sa fie suficient de mic astfel incat cel care poate munci sa prefere salariul. Daca o persoana nu poate sa munceasca, ea trebuie sa fie protejata social (tocmai prin intermediul atat de porcaitei idei „spread of wealth”). In conditiile deficitului comercial si ale ultimelor cheltuieli legate de „rezolvarea” crizei financiare, de unde vor veni veniturile statului? In viziunea lui McCain, ele vor veni, in principal, din impozitele si taxele percepute acum activitatilor economice. In viziunea lui Obama, in principal, din impozitele si taxele percepute acum activitatilor economice plus anularea reducerilor de taxe pentru cei cu venituri de peste 250000 dolari plus, dupa cum am inteles, un nou impozit pentru cei cu venituri de peste 250000 dolari pentru programul de securitate sociala. Pe de o parte, venituri mai putine si cheltuieli mai putine, pe de alta, venituri mai mari si cheltuieli mai mari. Nu sunt un expert, asa ca nu am pretentia ca optiunea mea pentru Obama este neaparat cea corecta din punct de vedere economic. Dar demonstrati-mi voi ca gresesc. (nu te deranja, draga Panseluta, banuiesc ca acesta e inca un lucru care te depaseste).
– nu este cea mai buna solutie sa spui ca ai putea fi nevoit sa ataci un stat independent, dar, in conditiile in care ai pornit deja o cruciada impotriva terorii ocupand Afganistanul si Irakul, de ce nu ar fi o solutie foarte buna ca, dupa ce ai epuizat toate caile sa convingi regimul din Pakistan sa conlucreze in prinderea lui bin Laden, sa il ataci dracului odata pe dobitocu asta care, impreuna cu organizatia lui, a reprezentat cauza pornirii acestei actiuni? Sau e o mai buna solutie sa stai in Afganistan si sa-l lasi pe Osama sa stea bine-mersi la doi pasi de tine?
Imperialistu'
21 October 2008Nu e nici un mister. Sustinerea lui McCain intra la „cel mai mic rau”: candidatul american care nu va ceda in fata inamicilor lumii libere si va fi mai limitat in ceea ce priveste extinderea statului in economia nationala americana. Nu cavalerul pe cal alb, ci cel mai mic rau.
In alegerile prezidentiale nu il alegi pe cel mai simpatic, ci pe cel mai capabil.
Kukulkan, problema sta nitel altfel. Nu ai pe de o parte venituri mai putine si cheltuieli mai putine, pe de alta venituri mai mari si cheltuieli mai mari.
In primul rand, numarul de bani cheltuiti nu este un criteriu al eficientei. Dovada ca la noi prin institutiile statului, la sfarsitul fiecarui an se cumpara computere si alte dracovenii pentru ca nu cumva sa ramana bani necheltuiti si la anu’ bugetu’ alocat sa fie mai mic.
In al doilea rand, logica lui McCain este urmatoare: nu il pedepsesc pe cel bogat ca are, il taxez la fel ca pe ceilalti si ii permit astfel sa investeasca mai mult in afacere; omul baga bani, isi extinde afacerea si creeaza noi locuri de munca; noi locuri de munca => bunastare.
Principala problema: Pakistanul este o tara cu arme nucleare. E greu sa ataci niste dementi care dorm langa butonul rosu. Problema secundara: rostirea cu voce tare a planurilor de atac = naivitate, daca nu prostie. Nu iti anunti inamicul ca il vei face praf. Daca Bin laden se afla in Pakistan si presedintele american afla, fii fara griji, Kukulkan, ca fortele speciale americane vor merge dupa Ossama. Asta insa nu inseamna ca tu, viitor presedinte american, te poti bate cu mana in piept ca vei face si vei drege. Lasa-i pe pakistanezi sa creada ce vor, tu stii cum vei actiona: decisiv.
Tread lightly, but carry a big stick.
Panseluta
21 October 2008kukulkan:
Un articol al Melaniei Phillips care analizeaza perfect de ce McCain e raul cel mai mic — si nu „favoritul” nostru:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/mel…..this.thtml
chriscross
21 October 2008offtopic:
„…pentru ca multe persoane nu au timpul, educatia si/sau capacitatea intelectuala…” aduce foarte mult cu socialismul („lasa ca stie statul mai bine ???? „)
1. – cine crezi tu ca sunt oamenii aia care n-au timp? nu cumva te gandeai la cei care muncesc mult ergo care sunt umpic mai instariti ergo care, daca sunt asa de ocupati, si-ar putea permite un avocat sau un contabil (sau pe unul care se ocupa cu asa ceva) pentru a prospecta piata ca sa-i ofere respectivului om fara timp cea mai buna alegere?
2. – cei „needucati”: nu cred ca e treaba statului sa lucreze pentru cel care nu a vrut sa invete
3. – in aceasta categorie as include exclusiv pe cei care intr-adevar nu pot sa decida pentru ei insisi (retarzi, cei cu handicap etc.)
Panseluta
21 October 2008kukulkan:
„Daca o persoana nu poate sa munceasca, ea trebuie sa fie protejata social (tocmai prin intermediul atat de porcaitei idei “spread of wealth”).”
Nu mi-e clar la ce fel de persoane te referi. America are, intre tarile dezvoltate, cel mai mic somaj, somerii primesc ajutor, iar cei cu dizabilitati sunt protejati prin tot felul de legi, printre care celebrul „Americans with Disabilities Act.” E perfect? Nu.
Te gindeai cumva la persoane ca cele din povestea de mai jos?
http://www.npr.org/templates/s…..d=92592545
Panseluta
21 October 2008Timothy Carney explica de ce SUA e deja socialista, ca socialismul distruge initiativa privata, si de ce e nevoie de mai putina interventie a statului, nu de mai multa:
Free All of the Joe the Plumbers
By Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist | 10/24/08 6:15 AM
Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, also known as “Joe the Plumber,” has received more scrutiny from the mainstream media than Barack Obama. The Associated Press (which has never found the time to report that Obama’s earmarks for donors and a former employer) reported that Joe has no plumbing license.
Liberal bloggers and mainstream journalists have pegged it as scandalous or mock-worthy that Joe is engaging in unlicensed plumbing. Instead we should be asking why the City of Toledo, Ohio, or any city, county, or state, is justified telling its citizens whom they can or cannot hire to fix a leaky pipe.
Joe the Plumber probably won’t succeed in derailing Obama’s “spread the wealth around” tax plan, but maybe he can become the rallying flag for tearing down government licensing laws that often have the purpose and effect of protecting bigger existing businesses against upstart competitors like Joe.
There’s a sensible argument behind professional licensing: Governments want to protect consumers from unscrupulous or incompetent practitioners who could harm you or rip you off. But how effective is this protection, and what are the costs?
The most straightforward downside of licensing requirements is the cost in time and money. Small businesses often have slim profit margins, and borrowing costs them more than it costs bigger businesses. All the different government hurdles require up-front outlays in cash that can be enough to dissuade someone from starting his own business.
Also, plumbers usually know pipes and not bureaucracy. Small businesses don’t have government-relations departments, and they don’t hire lobbyists. The maze of government rules and regulations can be daunting for a guy like Joe.
A more insidious downside to licensing requirements for workmen is how they become a tool of existing businesses and thus become far more effective at protecting these incumbent businesses than at protecting consumers.
Consider Louisiana’s laws that require a license for all florists. You can’t practice floristry in that state without a license. You can’t get the license without passing an exam. The judges who determine if you pass? Currently practicing florists. Should we be surprised that most applicants fail?
Pennsylvania’s laws require lengthy instruction before you can get the cosmetology license you need to professionally do anything resembling hairdressing. Hair braiding, an art that requires skill no doubt, is included under this law.
Is the state protecting customers from bad hair dos, or is it protecting existing hair dressers from skilled mothers or students trying to earn a couple bucks on the side by braiding their neighbors’ hair?
Unions are a similar barrier to entry that protects incumbent businesses. They are cartels that would be denounced by the media and broken up by the courts as “conspiracies in constraint of trade,” were they not sanctioned by the government and extremely cozy with politicians.
The New York Times spoke to union bosses who attacked Joe the Plumber for not belonging to their union. Thomas Joseph at Toledo’s local plumbers union told the Times that by calling himself a plumber and not enrolling in their union, Joe is “basically playing games with the world.”
So Joe, we’re told, is some sort of shady character, not getting government and union stamps of approval for his work.
But is it really the government’s job to tell us which businesses we can and cannot trust? Aren’t there already non-profit organizations that do the same sort of thing? Wouldn’t there be more of these groups if the government wasn’t doing so much of this?
And looking at examples like Louisiana’s floristry regulations, and knowing how easily it is for governments to become the tools of powerful big businesses, it’s hard not to conclude that many licensing requirements are just another example of big business using big government to keep out competition.
So Joe the Plumber hasn’t won approval from Toledo’s government to do his job, but he also hasn’t been hit with a citation—yet. With his newfound attention, will the Toledo Division of Building Inspection come after him?
What’s going on here is that if one person wants to pay Joe in exchange for Joe’s labor, Toledo will say that consensual arrangement is illegal. But Joe and his customer are not asking for anything from anyone else, certainly not from their government. The customer’s money and pipes, and Joe’s labor and parts, are all that’s involved.
If we’re all about “spreading the wealth around” these days, how about removing barriers to small businesses? How about setting Joe the Plumber free?
emil
21 October 2008Kukulkan, faci urmatoarea sumarizare a unei initiative McCain de imbunatatire in sectorul „health care”, insa este atit de distorsionata incit devine o caricatura.
Cu parere de rau, dar nu ai inteles nimic din ce propune McCain. Repeti mantra Obama-Biden si crezi in ea fara sa te obosesti sa verifici.
Uite cum stau lucrurile, de fapt. Sa presupunem o familie cu un salariu cumulat de $50,000 anual. (Zic familie intrucit cei $5,000 sint un tax credit pe familie. Pe individ, creditul este de $2,500. De dragul simplificarii voi denumi familia John Doe.) In prezent, asigurarea medicala costa, in medie, $9,500 anual. Voi lua totusi in calcul suma umflata de $12,000 avansata de Obama-Biden, nu de alta, dar aceste costuri cresc in timp; vom face o mica analiza nu pentru prezent, ci pentru viitor. Deci, avem in medie un cost de $12,000 pentru un contract privat de asigurare medicala, iar McCain propune un „tax credit” de $5,000. Ce se intimpla cu diferenta de $7,000?
John Doe este platit cash cu $50,000 anual. Asigurarea medicala a lui John Doe este achitata de angajator, cu $12,000 pe an, si se numeste „premium”. Deci John Doe are un venit cumulat anual de $62,000 si plateste impozit federal doar pe venitul sub forma de salariu si nu pe suma achitata de angajator in numele sau pentru asigurarea medicala. Acesta e sistemul actual.
Impozitul pe venit al lui John Doe este de 25%, deci venitul sau anual net este de $37,500, iar impozitul pe venit se ridica la $12,500.
McCain mentine sistemul actual, dar introduce o alternativa optionala pentru John Doe. Daca acesta nu este multumit de asigurarea medicala oferita de angajator, poate sa iasa de sub umbrela oferita de angajator si sa cumpere direct asigurarea medicala, de la orice firma din statul de rezidenta sau din orice alt stat american. In acest caz, calculul venitului se schimba. Angajatorul continua sa ii plateasca lui John Doe cei $12,000 sub forma de „premium”, dar acest „premium” devine venit impozitabil al lui John Doe. In acest caz impozitul pe venit se va calcula pe suma de $62,000 si se va ridica la $15,500 anual. Aici intervine acel „tax credit” de $5,000. Practic, John Doe va beneficia de o reducere automata, cu $5,000, a impozitului pe venit. In loc sa datoreze statului $15,500, impozitul va scadea la $10,500. In final, venitul sau net va fi $39,500, adica cu $2000 mai mult decit in prezent, in acelasi timp beneficiind de asigurarea medicala pe care, fata de situatia actuala, poate sa si-o aleaga singur.
De asemenea, planul McCain nu penalizeaza angajatorii. Pentru ei, costurile de asigurare medicala pentru angajati ramin aceleasi.
Ideea din spatele acestei propuneri a lui McCain este de a oferi optiuni salariatului, astfel incit decizia vizavi de asigurarea medicala potrivita situatiei sale sa ramina o decizie personala, nu la discretia angajatorului sau statului. Contrar acuzatiilor aduse de Obama-Biden, planul McCain ar reduce in timp numarul celor fara asigurare medicala. The Lewin Group, o firma de consulting in domeniu, estimeaza o reducere cu 21 de milioane pe o perioada de 8-10 ani.
The Audacity of Distortion
Obama’s Glass House
emil
21 October 2008De la sanatate sa trecem la educatie. Spui:
Fara discutie, Obama cunoaste mult mai bine chestiunile arzatoare din educatie. Stii pe cine a numit Obama drept consilier personal in probleme de educatie? Pe o oarecare Linda Darling-Hammond. Madam Linda este un teoretician rasial in probleme de educatie, cu o cariera in invatamint la Columbia University si Stanford. Dinsa este o adepta infocata a conceptului de invatamint bazat pe „justitie sociala” si „afrocentrism”. Ce inseamna asta? Un invatamint in care elevii si studentii sint supusi la o dieta de indoctrinare ideologica marxista si rasiala. Partea marxist-culturala cuprinde toate elementele deja in voga in universitatile americane: injustitia „genetica” a societatilor occidentale, cultul victimizarii, necesitatea unei constiinte revolutionare, modalitati de actiune in scopul subminarii societatii si avansarii cauzelor „juste”. Partea afrocentrica se invirte in jurul condamnarii albilor si institutiilor create de ei drept iremediabil rasiste, cuplata cu cerinta ca albii din America sa plateasca negrilor miliarde de dolari in compensatii pentru perioada istorica in care au instituit sclavia si discriminarea rasiala. In viziunea acestei madame, scoala este un incubator de activisti politici.
Alta persoana pe care Obama o cunoaste de mult si care ocupa o pozitie de expert pe probleme de educatie in cadrul campaniei prezidentiale este Michael Klonsky. Acest Klonsky a intretinut un blog oficial pe siteul campaniei Obama, blog dedicat, evident, invatamintului si educatiei bazate pe… „justitie sociala”. Misiunea lui Klonsky: promovarea marxismului in invatamintul american.
Tatal lui, Robert, a fost un comunist condamnat in anii 50 pentru incitare la rasturnarea prin forta a guvernului american. Fiul a intemeiat in anii 60, impreuna cu Ayers, Dohrn si alti radicali de stinga, organizatia marxista numita Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Din aceata s-a format apoi Weather Underground unde au migrat Ayers si Dohrn. Klonsky a intemeiat in anii 70 organizatia maoista „October League” care s-a metamorfozat in Partidul Comunist (Marxist-Leninist). La fel ca Ayers, Klonsky si-a reciclat cariera in invatamint si in anii 80 a devenit profesor de colegiu, specializat pe probleme de educatie. S-a dus in Chicago unde impreuna cu Ayers a fondat „Small Schools Workshop”, o organizatie „civica” specializata pe schimbarea profilului educational al scolilor americane. In cuvintele lui Klonsky:
Exact in acea perioada (inceput de ani 90) Barack Obama facea parte din consiliul de administratie al fundatiei Chicago Annenberg Challenge, un proiect de reforma… educationala. Cui a dat Obama bani – un milion – pentru reforma educationala a invatamintului din sudul orasului Chicago? Proiectului lui Klonksy-Ayers, Small Schools Workshop. Altceva? Cu un mizilic de 200 de mii de dolari, Obama a finantat si organizatia numita „Coalition for Improved Education”, al carei scop era educatia… afrocentrica. Obama are vocatie de reformator educational. Ulterior, cind a fost in consiliul de administratiei al fundatiei Woods, Obama a mai aprobat un milion pentru proiectul lui Klonsky. Astazi, scolile din sudul Chicago au cele mai proaste rezultate la matematica si aptitudini de engleza din intreg statul Illinois. Reforma educationala promovata de Obama si amicii sai a dat rezultate peste orice asteptari.
Vorba ta, „obama cunoaste mult mai bine”.
OBAMA’S EDUCATION IDIOCY
Another Communist in Obama’s Orb
Ayers/Obama Update
The Ed Schools’ Latest—and Worst—Humbug
dr. jones
21 October 2008kukulkanule, cand ma duc la „piata” – miros fructele. nu de alta dar de multe ori am luat teapa cu un mar frumos fara gust.
restul pe alta data ca sunt in criza de timp.
dr. jones
21 October 2008p.s. – favoritul meu nu este mccain – este cel din video-ul pus de costin. si cred mai degraba intr-o piata libera decat un comert socialist de stat.
criza asta nu este prima si nu va fi nici ultima in capitalism.
din criza de timp nu am cum sa iti raspund coerent asa ca o las pe alta data.
Panseluta
21 October 2008dr. jones:
„criza asta nu este prima si nu va fi nici ultima in capitalism.
din criza de timp nu am cum sa iti raspund coerent asa ca o las pe alta data.”
Am ris copios. Eu, una, prefer sa ma infund in „criza” asta decit sa-l las pe Obama sa-mi dicteze existenta.
Imperialistu'
21 October 2008Mai amuzant este ca aceasta „criza” ne-capitalista are meritul de a duce la si mai mult anticapitalism. In alte stiri, ONU se pregateste de Era Obamessiah. Ce surpriza! ????
At the U.N., Many Hope for an Obama Win by Colim Lynch
UNITED NATIONS — There are no „Obama 2008” buttons, banners or T-shirts visible here at U.N. headquarters, but it might be difficult to find a sliver of territory in the United States more enthusiastic over the prospect of the Illinois senator winning the White House.
An informal survey of more than two dozen U.N. staff members and foreign delegates showed that the overwhelming majority would prefer that Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, saying they think that the Democrat would usher in a new agenda of multilateralism after an era marked by Republican disdain for the world body.
Obama supporters hail from Russia, Canada, France, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Indonesia and elsewhere. One American employee here seemed puzzled that he was being asked whether Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was even a consideration. „Obama was and is unstoppable,” the official said. „Please, God, let him win,” he added.
„It would be hard to find anybody, I think, at the U.N. who would not believe that Obama would be a considerable improvement over any other alternative,” said William H. Luers, executive director of the United Nations Association. „It’s been a bad eight years, and there is a lot of bad feeling over it.”
Conservatives who are skeptical of the United Nations said they are not surprised by the political tilt. „The fact is that most conservatives, most Republicans don’t worship at the altar in New York, and I think that aggravates them more than anything else,” said John R. Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. „What they want is the bending of the knee, and they’ll get it from an Obama administration.”
The candidates have said little about their plans for the United Nations, but Obama has highlighted his desire to pursue diplomacy more assertively than the Bush administration, whereas McCain has called for the establishment of a league of democracies, which many here fear is code for sidelining the United Nations.
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has avoided showing a public preference about the presidential campaign — although he has hinted at a soft spot for Obama in private gatherings, according to U.N. officials. His top advisers say they think McCain and Obama would support many of Ban’s priorities, including restraints on production of greenhouse gases that fuel climate change.
„The secretary general and the Secretariat of the United Nations take no position on the U.S. election,” said Ban’s chief spokeswoman, Michele Montas. „The secretary general deeply respects the democratic process, and he looks forward to working with whomever the American people choose.”
Many U.N. rank and file are less circumspect, saying they see in Obama’s multicultural background — a Kenyan father, an Indonesian stepfather and a mother and grandparents from Kansas — a reflection of themselves. „We do not consider him an African American,” said Congo’s U.N. ambassador, Atoki Ileka. „We consider him an African.”
One U.N. official threw a party over the summer and asked guests to place stickers of either an elephant or a donkey on the front door to show their political preference. At the end of the night, the door was covered with about 30 donkeys and two elephants. „We found out that one of the Republicans was an American and the other couldn’t vote,” according to a U.N. official who attended. „So we convinced the American to vote for Obama.”
„I have not heard a single person who will support McCain; if they do, they are in hiding,” said another U.N. Obama booster from an African country. „The majority of people here believe in multilateralism,” he said. „The Republicans were constantly questioning the relevance of the United Nations.”
For the small minority of U.N. officials who have stuck with McCain — only two of 28 U.N. officials and diplomats questioned said they favored the Arizona senator — life in Turtle Bay can seem lonely. „I keep my mouth shut,” said one American official here who plans to vote for McCain. „Everyone is knocking on wood, counting the days to the elections. Some Americans here are planning to move to Washington,” in search of jobs in an Obama administration.
„It will be devastating if Obama loses,” the official said. „There has been such an amount of faith placed on the outcome.”
The official, who like all other Secretariat staffers spoke on the condition of anonymity, recalled that Democrats have not always been so supportive of the United Nations, citing the Clinton administration’s lone 1996 campaign to block the reelection of then-Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. And some foreign delegations, including Georgia, have been outspoken in their support of the foreign policy approach of McCain, who reacted quickly and sharply to Russian intervention in Georgia.
Still, the Obama candidacy has enormous emotional resonance among delegates from developing countries, particularly for what it says about race in America. They recall that one of the United Nations’ most famous civil servants, Ralph Bunche — an African American who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for his Middle East mediation — could never have risen to the same heights in U.S. foreign policy circles. And Kofi Annan, the first black U.N. secretary general, said the prospect of an Obama presidency would be „phenomenal.”
Even while critics of the Bush administration here root for Obama, they acknowledge that the U.S. attitude toward the United Nations has improved dramatically in recent years, citing cooperation on Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq.
They say President Bush deserves much credit for supporting U.N.-backed initiatives, including the provision of billions of dollars in funding to fight AIDS and malaria in Africa as well as support for the largest expansion of U.N. peacekeeping in history. And they expect that whichever candidate prevails will be compelled by the United States’ falling financial fortunes to work more cooperatively with foreign governments.
„We don’t have voting rights,” said Yukio Takasu, Japan’s ambassador to the United Nations.
But, he added, „We expect whoever [wins] in Washington will have a fresh look at the U.N. and the utility of working through the U.N. And, of course, we have to adjust to them.”
kukulkan
21 October 2008> Imperialistu’: evident fiecare il alege pe candidatul pe care il considera ca fiind cel mai capabil. Totul a pornit pornit de la expunerea motivelor pentru care il prefer pe Obama; primul dintre ele era ca mi se pare mai charismatic. Cineva il „invinuise” anterior cum ca ar fi un rockstar, iar eu, chiar prin asezarea acestui motiv pe primul loc, am vrut sa spun „da, si ce e rau in asta?” si sa trec mai departe la celelalte motive (relevantele motive).
Apoi, vorbind despre venituri si cheltuieli, cred ca este vorba de doua filosofii economice si sociale diferite. Ce crezi ca au spus industriasii din sec.XIX auzind, spre exemplu, de impunerea unui numar maxim de ore de munca pentru un angajat? Parerea mea este multi au spus ca totul se va duce de rapa… O mai buna protectie sociala nu inseamna neaparat si reducerea performantelor economice (in conditiile in care o mai buna protectie nu inseamna incurajarea nemuncii). Bine, iti inteleg logica solutiei tale, dar mai multe venituri pentru populatie inseamna cresterea consumului, deci a productiei, deci a profitului furnizorilor de bunuri si servicii. In fapt, eu nu incerc sa te contrazic categoric; vreau doar sa spun ca ar putea fi si alte solutii.
Ai dreptate ca trebuie o mai mare atentie fata de o putere nucleara (nu a fost chiar cea mai fericita solutie sa mentioneze expres o eventuala interventie in Pakistan), dar eu cred ca lupta contra terorismului trebuie sa se concentreze totusi asupra teroristilor. Chiar cu riscul de a afecta in sens negativ rezultatele financiare ale unora dintre beneficiarii programului fiscal al domnului McCain pasionati de platforme petroliere si, ati ghicit!, de drepturile omului :)))))).
>chriscross: interventia ta m-a dat pe spate. Totusi, nu crezi ca ar putea exista si un alt tip de stat decat cel socialist care ar putea manageria mai bine interesele in materie de asigurari ale unei mari parti dintre cetatenii sai (daca nu ale majoritatii cetatenilor sai) decat ar face acestia? Mi se pare ca nu prea te incurci cu nuante…
1. Nu imi ascund un zambet cand te intreb: trezi tu ca nu exista oameni care muncesc de dimineata pana seara si nu isi pot permite un avocat sau un contabil? Macar intr-o anumita perioada a vietii lor?
2. Sincer, aici ma refeream mai mult la situatia din SUA, unde, inteleg, trebuie sa ai ceva banuti sau sa fii intr-adevar exceptional ca sa faci o facultate. Sau sa faci un credit…
>Panseluta: mai putin ma refeream la somajul din America, ajutorul social etc., cat vroiam sa arat ca expresia „spread of wealth” nu are, prin ea insasi, nici ceva rusinos, nici ceva diabolic. Ea a capatat, alaturi de „socialism” etc., o semnificatie magica in panteonul axiologic al anti-obamistilor. Oameni buni, nu mai insistati intr-o prostie! Pot fi de acord sau nu cu privire la nu-stiu-care impozit sau nu-stiu-care masura sociala, dar orice stat face o redistribuire a veniturilor. Poti sa nu fi de acord cu reintroducerea taxarii celor cu venituri de peste 250000 dolari (sau cu alte aspecte ale programului economic), dar nu poti invinui pe cineva doar pentru ca a folosit expresia „spread of wealth”.
>emil: omul cat traieste, invata. Multumesc pentru informatiile privind asigurarile de sanatate. Voi incerca sa mai citesc in domeniu.
>emil si imperialistu’: motive prozaice ce tin de ciclul zi-noapte ma fac sa aman un raspuns (daca va fi unul, pentru ca n-am avut timp sa citesc ce ati scris).
Imperialistu'
21 October 2008Prima stire pe Yahoo. Mi se face scarba de jurnalistii lu’ peste prajit.
Feds disrupt skinhead plot to assassinate Obama
WASHINGTON – Two white supremacists allegedly plotted to go on a national killing spree, shooting and decapitating black people and ultimately targeting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, federal authorities said Monday.
In all, the two men whom officials describe as neo-Nazi skinheads planned to kill 88 people — 14 by beheading, according to documents unsealed in U.S. District Court in Jackson, Tenn. The numbers 88 and 14 are symbolic in the white supremacist community.
The spree, which initially targeted an unidentified predominantly African-American school, was to end with the two men driving toward Obama, „shooting at him from the windows,” the court documents show.
„Both individuals stated they would dress in all white tuxedos and wear top hats during the assassination attempt,” the court complaint states. „Both individuals further stated they knew they would and were willing to die during this attempt.”
An Obama spokeswoman traveling with the senator in Pennsylvania had no immediate comment.
Sheriffs’ deputies in Crockett County, Tenn., arrested the two suspects — Daniel Cowart, 20, of Bells, Tenn., and Paul Schlesselman 18, of Helena-West Helena, Ark. — Oct. 22 on unspecified charges. „Once we arrested the defendants and suspected they had violated federal law, we immediately contacted federal authorities,” said Crockett County Sheriff Troy Klyce.
The two were charged by federal authorities Monday with possessing an unregistered firearm, conspiring to steal firearms from a federally licensed gun dealer, and threatening a candidate for president.
Cowart and Schlesselman are being held without bond. Agents seized a rifle, a sawed-off shotgun and three pistols from the men when they were arrested. Authorities alleged the two men were preparing to break into a gun shop to steal more.
Jasper Taylor, city attorney in Bells, said Cowart was arrested on Wednesday. He was held for a few days in Bells, then moved over the weekend to another facility.
„It was kept under lid until today,” Taylor said.
Until his arrest, Cowart lived with his grandparents in a southern, rural part of the county, Taylor said, adding that Cowart apparently never graduated from high school. He moved away, possibly to Arkansas or Texas, then returned over the summer, Taylor said.
Attorney Joe Byrd, who has been hired to represent Cowart, did not immediately return a call seeking comment Monday. Messages left on two phone numbers listed under Cowart’s name were not immediately returned.
No telephone number for Schlesselman in Helena-West Helena could be found immediately.
The court documents say the two men met about a month ago on the Internet and found common ground in their shared „white power” and „skinhead” philosophy.
The numbers 14 and 88 are symbols in skinhead culture, referring to a 14-word phrase attributed to an imprisoned white supremacist: „We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children” and to the eighth letter of the alphabet, H. Two „8”s or „H”s stand for „Heil Hitler.”
Court records say Cowart and Schlesselman also bought nylon rope and ski masks to use in a robbery or home invasion to fund their spree, during which they allegedly planned to go from state to state and kill people. Agents said the skinheads did not identify the African-American school they were targeting by name.
Jim Cavanaugh, special agent in charge of the Nashville field office for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, said authorities took the threats very seriously.
„They said that would be their last, final act — that they would attempt to kill Sen. Obama,” Cavanaugh said. „They didn’t believe they would be able to do it, but that they would get killed trying.”
He added: „They seemed determined to do it. Even if they were just to try it, it would be a trail of tears around the South.”
An ATF affidavit filed in the case says Cowart and Schlesselman told investigators the day they were arrested they had shot at a glass window at Beech Grove Church of Christ, a congregation of about 60 black members in Brownsville, Tenn.
Nelson Bond, the church secretary and treasurer, said no one was at the church when the shot was fired. Members found the bullet had shattered the glass in the church’s front door when they arrived for evening Bible study.
„We have been on this site for about 120 years, and we have never had a problem like this before,” said Bond, 53 and a church member for 45 years.
The investigation is continuing, and more charges are possible, Cavanaugh said. He said there’s no evidence — so far — that others were willing to assist Cowart and Schlesselman with the plot.
At this point, there does not appear to be any formal assassination plan, Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren said.
„Whether or not they had the capability or the wherewithal to carry out an attack remains to be seen,” he said.
Zahren said the statements about the assassination came out in interviews after the men were arrested last week.
The Secret Service became involved in the investigation once it was clear that an Obama assassination attempt was part of this violent far-reaching plot.
„We don’t discount anything,” Zahren said, adding that it’s one thing for the defendants to make statements, but it’s not the same as having an organized assassination plan.
Helena-West Helena, on the Mississippi River in east Arkansas’ Delta, is in one of the nation’s poorest regions, trailing even parts of Appalachia in its standard of living. Police Chief Fred Fielder said he had never heard of Schlesselman.
However, the reported threat of attacking a school filled with black students worried Fielder. Helena-West Helena, with a population of 12,200, is 66 percent black. „Predominantly black school, take your pick,” he said.
Deci avem 2 neonazisti descreierati care si-au propus sa faca si sa dreaga. Atentie! Si-au propus. ATAT. Dar asta e cea mai importanta stire pe yahoo.com in acest moment. Frate, Obama a castigat deja, calmati-va!
costin
21 October 2008Obama nu a cistigat, Imperialistule… si nici nu va cistiga.
Panseluta
21 October 2008O analiza la singe a ce-i asteapta pe cei din clasa mijlocie/micii antreprenori sub un guvern Obama:
October 27, 2008
Senator Obama’s Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k
By Ned Barnett
I confess. Senator Obama’s two tax promises: to limit tax increases to only those making over $250,000 a year, and to not raise taxes on 95% of „working Americans,” intrigued me. As a hard-working small business owner, over the past ten years I’ve earned from $50,000 to $100,000 per year. If Senator Obama is shooting straight with us, under his presidency I could look forward to paying no additional Federal taxes — I might even get a break — and as I struggle to support a family and pay for two boys in college, a reliable tax freeze is nearly as welcome as further tax cuts.
However, Senator Obama’s dual claims seemed implausible, especially when it came to my Federal income taxes. Those implausible promises made me look at what I’d been paying before President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as well as what I paid after those tax cuts became law. I chose the 2000 tax tables as my baseline — they reflect the tax rates that Senator Obama will restore by letting the „Bush Tax Cuts” lapse. I wanted to see what that meant from my tax bill.
I’ve worked as the state level media and strategy director on three Presidential election campaigns — I know how „promises” work — so I analyzed Senator Obama’s promises by looking for loopholes.
The first loophole was easy to find: Senator Obama doesn’t „count” allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse — allowing the rates to return to a higher levels — is not actually a „tax increase.” It’s just the lapsing of a tax cut.
See the difference?
Neither do I.
When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up — a lot — but by parsing words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won’t actively raise taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he’s passively allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay Federal income taxes.
Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when those tax cuts lapse. That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple of house payments or help my two boys through another month or two of college.
No matter what Senator Obama calls it, requiring us to pay more taxes amounts to a tax increase. This got me wondering what other Americans will have to pay when the tax cuts lapse.
For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this increase will be $3,074. For those making just $50,000, this increase will be $1,512. Despite Senator Obama’s claim, even struggling American families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase — they’ll pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007. Across the board, when the tax cuts lapse, working Americans will see significant increases in their taxes, even if their household income is as low as $25,000. See the tables at the end of this article.
Check this for yourself. Go to http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/ and pull up the 1040 instructions for 2000 and 2007 and go to the tax tables. Based on your 2007 income, check your taxes rates for 2000 and 2007, and apply them to your taxable income for 2007. In 2000 — Senator Obama’s benchmark year — you would have paid significantly more taxes for the income you earned in 2007. The Bush Tax Cuts, which Senator Obama has said he will allow to lapse, saved you money, and without those cuts, your taxes will go back up to the 2000 level. Senator Obama doesn’t call it a „tax increase,” but your taxes under „President” Obama will increase — significantly.
Senator Obama is willfully deceiving you and me when he says that no one making under $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes. If I were keeping score, I’d call that Tax Lie #1.
The next loophole involves the payroll tax that you pay to support the Social Security system. Currently, there is an inflation-adjusted cap, and according to the non-profit Tax Foundation, in 2006 — the most recent year for which tax data is available — only the first $94,700 of an unmarried individual’s earnings were subject to the 12.4 percent payroll tax. However, Senator Obama has proposed lifting that cap, adding an additional 12.4 percent tax on every dollar earned above that cap — and in spite of his promise, impacting all those who earn between $94,700 and $249,999.
By doing this, he plans to raise an additional $1 trillion dollars (another $662.50 out of my pocket — and how much out of yours?) to help fund Social Security. Half of this tax would be paid by employees and half by employers — but employers will either cut the payroll or pass along this tax to their customers through higher prices. Either way, some individual will pay the price for the employer’s share of the tax increase.
However, when challenged to explain how he could eliminate the cap AND not raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000, Senator Obama suggested on his website that he „might” create a „donut” — an exemption from this payroll tax for wages between $94,700 and $250,000. But that donut would mean he couldn’t raise anywhere near that $1 trillion dollars for Social Security. When this was pointed out, Senator Obama’s „donut plan” was quietly removed from his website.
This „explanation” sounds like another one of those loopholes. If I were keeping score, I’d call this Tax Lie #2.
(updated) Senator Obama has also said that he will raise capital gains taxes from 15 percent to 20 percent. He says he’s aiming at „fat cats” who make above $250,000. However, while only 1 percent of Americans make a quarter-million dollars, roughly 50 percent of all Americans own stock – and while investments that are through IRAs, 401Ks and in pension plans are not subject to capital gains, those stocks in personal portfolios are subject to capital gains, no matter what the owner’s income is. However, according to the US Congress’s Joint Economic Committee Study, “Recent data released by the Federal Reserve shows that nearly half of all U.S. households are stockholders. In the last decade alone, the number of stockholders has jumped by over fifty percent.” This is clear – a significant number of all Americans who earn well under $250,000 a year will feel this rise in their capital gains taxes.
Under „President” Obama, if you sell off stock and earn a $100,000 gain — perhaps to help put your children through college — instead of paying $15,000 in capital gains taxes today, you’ll pay $20,000 under Obama’s plan. That’s a full one-third more, and it applies no matter how much you earn.
No question — for about 50 percent of all Americans, this is Tax Lie #3.
Fiinally, Senator Obama has promised to raise taxes on businesses — and to raise taxes a lot on oil companies. I still remember Econ-101 — and I own a small business. From both theory and practice, I know what businesses do when taxes are raised. Corporations don’t „pay” taxes — they collect taxes from customers and pass them along to the government. When you buy a hot dog from a 7/11, you can see the clerk add the sales tax, but when a corporation’s own taxes go up, you don’t see it — its automatic — but they do the same thing. They build this tax into their product’s price. Senator Obama knows this. He knows that even people who earn less than $250,000 will pay higher prices — those pass-through taxes — when corporate taxes go up.
No question: this is Tax Lie #4.
There’s not a politician alive who hasn’t be caught telling some minor truth-bender. However, when it comes to raising taxes, there are no small lies. When George H.W. Bush’s „Read my lips — no new taxes” proved false, he lost the support of his base — and ultimately lost his re-election bid.
This year, however, we don’t have to wait for the proof: Senator Obama has already promised to raise taxes, and we can believe him. However, while making that promise, he’s also lied, in at least four significant ways, about who will pay those taxes. If Senator Obama becomes President Obama, when the tax man comes calling, we will all pay the price. And that’s the truth.
Tax Rates – and the Obama Increase – $50,000/year Taxable Income
2000 Tax Tables
2003 Tax Tables
2004 Tax Tables
2010 Tax Tables – (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)
Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
Taxable Income
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
Tax: Single
$10,581
$9,304
$9,231
$10,581
$1,350
Tax: Married – Filing Joint
$8,293
$6,796
$6,781
$8,293
$1,512
Tax: Married – Filing Separate
$11,143
$9,304
$9,231
$11,143
$1,912
Tax: Head of Household
$9,424
$8,189
$8,094
$9,424
$1,330
Tax Rates – and the Obama Increase – $75,000/year Taxable Income
2000 Tax Tables
2003 Tax Tables
2004 Tax Tables
2010 Tax Tables – (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)
Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
Taxable Income
$75,000
$75,000
$75,000
$75,000
$75,000
Tax: Single
$17,923
$15,739
$15,620
$17,923
$2,303
Tax: Married – Filing Joint
$15,293
$12,364
$12,219
$15,293
$3,074
Tax: Married – Filing Separate
$18,803
$16,083
$15,972
$18,803
$2,831
Tax: Head of Household
$16,424
$14,439
$14,344
$16,424
$2,080
Tax Rates – and the Obama Increase – $100,000/year Taxable Income
2000 Tax Tables
2003 Tax Tables
2004 Tax Tables
2010 Tax Tables – (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)
Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
Taxable Income
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
Tax: Single
$25,673
$22,739
$22,620
$25,673
$3,053
Tax: Married – Filing Joint
$22,293
$18,614
$18,469
$22,293
$3,824
Tax: Married – Filing Separate
$27,515
$23,715
$23,504
$27,515
$4,011
Tax: Head of Household
$23,699
$20,741
$20,594
$23,699
$3,015
* When „President” Obama allows President Bush’s tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to expire, this will amount to a de facto tax increase
emil
21 October 2008Panseluta, pun aici linkul la articolul in original (tabelele sint mai usor de urmarit):
Senator Obama’s Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k
kukulkan
21 October 2008Articolul este foarte interesant. As avea cateva observatii:
Tax Lie #1
Ceea ce am gasit pe net este ca, in ciuda opozitiei sale inversunate, dl. Ned Barnett tot va beneficia cu reducerea de impozit, conform programului electoral al lui Obama. Asta pentru ca reducerile impozitelor catre bugetul federal pentru familiile cu un venit anual sub 250000 dolari si singleshii cu un venit anual sub 200000 dolari se vor mentine:
Cred ca putem mentine totusi titlul subcapitolului: Tax Lie #1 :)))).
Tax Lie #2
Aici dl. Barnett are dreptate. Incercarea lui Obama de a aplica Social Security Tax si diferentei dintre salariul anual si valoarea impozabila corespunzatoarea anului 2008, in cuantum de 102000 dolari, ar creste impozitele pe cei care castiga intre 102000 si 249999 dolari. De aia cred ca a si fost retrasa pagina web.
Dar este echitabil ca cel care castiga 102000 dolari pe an sa plateasca un impozit SS de 12.4% pe intreaga suma, iar cel care castiga 10000000 dolari pe an sa plateasca aceiasi bani? Mie mi se pare ca nu este.
Vezi si
Tax Lie #3
Cresterea impozitului aplicat castigurilor de pe piata de capital se va aplica numai celor cu venituri peste 250000 dolari, asa ca nu pot decat sa fiu de acord cu dl. Barnett: No question, this is Tax Lie#3.
– n-ar fi rau sa fie citit intregul articol;
Tax Lie #4
„Finally, Senator Obama has promised to raise taxes on businesses” = afirmatie de o rea-vointa care este in rezonanta cu intregul articol. Iar restul subcapitolului tine de teoria economica si deloc de incalcarea unei promisiuni.
Avand in vedere eforturile deosebite depuse de autorul articolului in vederea redarii cu exactitate a realitatii, nu ma mai obosesc sa verific datele din tabele.
kukulkan
21 October 2008nu ma pricem la linkuri:
Tax Lie #1:
http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/” title=”http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/
http://www.issues2000.org/econ…..reform.htm
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf….._FINAL.pdf
Tax Lie #2:
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10003.html
Tax Lie #3:
http://online.wsj.com/article/…..mmentaries
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf….._FINAL.pdf
dr. jones
21 October 2008amintea panseluta pe undeva despre violenta din chicago.
[url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081030/ap_on_re_us/chicago_violence;_ylt=Ao0b6gCim1pDUG6Z6GPeaXFvzwcF]Hudson deaths add to South Side Chicago’s violence[/url]
( am incercat sa vad daca merge0
CHICAGO – During the same weekend that county pathologists conducted autopsies on the bodies of actress-singer Jennifer Hudson’s mother and brother, they also examined the bodies of six other people who’d been gunned down or beaten to death.
Five of them died in Chicago, as did the Oscar winner’s mother, Darnell Donerson, her brother, Jason Hudson, and 7-year-old nephew, Julian King, whose body was found Monday. Like Hudson’s relatives, three died on the city’s South Side.
The deaths are yet another reminder of the bloodshed on Chicago’s streets this year — when the city has seen more homicides than both New York and Los Angeles. And they go a long way toward explaining why residents of Hudson’s childhood neighborhood say it’s not surprising that people may have heard gunfire coming from her family home but didn’t bother to call police.
in south side of chicago impuscaturile in plina zi au devenit ceva banal si cotidian. „lumea” de acolo nici nu se mai oboseste sa cheme politia. si asta in cnditiile in care primarul dailey si guvernatorul blagojevic au interzis portul de arma, au construit in draci sub sectiunea 8 ( case sociale) – un lucru bun in sensul ca au impins acea comunitate catre sud – dar au acum datorii bugetare numai pentru primaria chicago de 400 milioane usd. vor sa taie din pompieri, politie si transport in comun.
si asta se intampla cand in loc sa il incurajezi pe om sa se duca la munca – il ti acasa pe ajutor social, ii dai casa si masa.
cam acelasi lucru s-a intamplat si in suburbiile parisului.