Joe Biden has his Tuzla moment:

Biden isn't afraid of Palin
CAMPAIGN '08 | Ready to pin her down in debate
Recommend (17)
Comments

September 10, 2008

BY ABDON M. PALLASCH Political Reporter apallasch@suntimes.com

Democratic vice-presidential nominee Joe Biden assured a crowd of donors in Lincoln Park Tuesday night that he would handle himself just fine in his debate with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Democratic Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm has even agreed to spend several days with him as Palin's stand-in for him to practice, he said. But he said "we'll see" whether he takes her up on her offer.

» Click to enlarge image
Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) speaks to supporters at Mehlville High School in St. Louis, Mo., Tuesday.
(AP)


RELATED STORIES
Special section: Barack Obama
He's not aiming to take any cheap shots, he said.

"Folks, look, I know what she's going to try to do: she's going to try to make it as personal as she can. She's going to take a lot of straight lefts and jabs at me. She's going to try to get me to respond. She's going to try to get me to respond in a personal way," Biden said. "That's not my style. I'm not going to do it."

Biden told the heavy-hitter donors in backyards of Barbara Goodman Manilow and Steve Koch that he doesn't care about the passing controversies like whether Palin sold her predecessor's plane or not or whether or when she supported or opposed the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska.

"What I care about is: What in God's name is she going to do -- along with John McCain -- about the thousands of people who don't have health care?" Biden asked. He'll ask her about "The superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan where my helicopter was forced down...John McCain wants to know where Bin Ladin and the gates of Hell are? I can tell him where. That's where Al Quaida is. That's where Bin Ladin is. It's not in the country of Iraq."

Four of the six questions Biden fielded Tuesday night were from donors worried about Palin's popularity which has boosted the Republican ticket's poll numbers over the Democrats. Biden urged the donors to "have patience" and Palin's balloon would return to Earth once he or the press forced her to talk about who she would appoint to the Supreme Court or her views on global warming. He told them not to worry about a poll that showed white women defecting from Barack Obama to John McCain because of Palin.

"The press is exaggerating how white women are all of a sudden for Sarah Palin," Biden said. "We still have more women voting for Barack Obama than for John McCain...Part of the problem is in white suburbia, as well as...among ethnic groups, among, particularly Jews and Catholics, there is a lack of ease about Barack. They don't know him. One of my major jobs is to go out and talk about what I know -- they know me -- talk about who I am, why I support Barack."

Part of Biden's job Tuesday night was to make nice to the campaign's most generous donors, who they now have to convince to give just as much for the general election as they did for the primary.

"We're like poor relatives," Biden conceded. "We keep showing up."

Introducing Biden, John Levi thanked Biden for confirming his father, Edward Levi as former President Gerald Ford's Attorney General early in Biden's long senate career. Then, Levi added, speaking to the donors: "For the past 20 months, many of you have been digging in your wallets far deeper than you expected ... and now you're going to do it again, we need your help now more than ever."

Manilow said she saw the candidates‚ choice of vice-presidents as metaphors for their style.

"One took his time, picked someone he knew, whose ideology he respected...someone who is a great statesman," Manilow said. "The other chose someone he had met once for political gain."

Biden defended Palin against commentators who made an issue of her daughter's pregnancy and who argued that she should stay home with her children instead of running for vice-president.

"All it did was generate overwhelming sympathy (for Palin) and quite frankly it offended me," that anyone even raised the issues, he said. "Tell that to my wife. Tell that to a modern woman."

link (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1154564,CST-NWS-biden10.article)


What actually happened:

Helicopter with 3 senators aboard makes emergency landing in Afghanistan
Buzz up!
Like this story? Share it with Yahoo! Buzz

A helicopter with three U.S. senators aboard -- including former Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry of Massachusetts -- has made an emergency landing in Afghanistan, the Associated Press is reporting.

Also on board: two-time Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden of Delaware and Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. We'll provide more details as they become available.

Update at 3:33 p.m. ET: CNN says a Kerry spokesman has told the network that the helicopter landed because of impending bad weather, that none of the three are hurt -- and that all three now are out of Afghanistan.

Update at 3:43 p.m. ET: A Biden spokesperson also is characterizing the landing to CNN as more of an "unscheduled," instead of "emergency," event because of unexpected bad weather.

link (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/02/helicopter-with.html)

No mention of whether or not he had to dodge sniper fire on the "Superhighway of TERROR!" (dun dun DUN!)

To play devil's advocate, his plane was forced to land in "The Superhighway of Terror" (:lol: ) and he doesn't say that terrorists forced it down. His choice of words seems to imply that though. Whether it was intentional or not, who knows.

So Biden claims his helicopter was "forced down" by "terrorists". Biden's plane was actually forced to land by bad weather. God makes the weather.

So by the transitive property, Biden thinks God is a terrorist. It's about time he admitted it.

<img src="http://www.uncorrelated.com/images/joe_biden.jpg" height=200><img height=200 src='http://media.canada.com/ad1a2ccb-1936-4200-8553-a786d06b5fe9/sarahpalin2.jpg'>

Cool, a fresh canvas on which to paint upon. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superhighway_of_terror

Ignite the grundlesignal!

Cool, a fresh canvas on which to paint upon. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superhighway_of_terror


The article has been erased.

Joe Biden: Seriously, would you vote for a guy who picks me as a running mate?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FVy2yh28eig&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FVy2yh28eig&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

The article has been erased.

Because it was poorly written. You can do a better job!

This article by the OP is extremely biased against Palin. When will the sexist left wing media attack end?!

1) Headline says "Biden isn't afraid of Palin." An impartial news source would say "Biden claims he isn't afraid of Palin." It's pretty obvious that he's terrified.

2) "Palin's popularity which has boosted the Republican ticket's poll numbers over the Democrats." Palin... boosted Republican polls? No innuendo there! -rolleyes-

3) "Biden defended Palin against commentators who made an issue of her daughter's pregnancy" As if a woman needs a man to defend her?

I'm outraged. OUTRAGED.

So by the transitive property, Biden thinks God is a terrorist.

Cross dressing is a personal choice, and I fail to see what it has to do with either God or terrorists.

One of the reasons I like Biden as VP is because he really didn't want to be VP.

One of the reasons I like Biden as VP is because he really didn't want to be VP.

Maybe Biden's people have studied the last 3 otter elections.

Next week's campaign poster:

Obama - Biden
WTFever

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/C2mzbuRgnI4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/C2mzbuRgnI4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZN5khF2i2ek&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZN5khF2i2ek&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OIT3jUrNTX0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OIT3jUrNTX0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Maybe Biden's people have studied the last 3 otter elections.

Next week's campaign poster:

Obama - Biden
WTFever


:lol:

^Pity bump ^

Biden says what everyone on the left is thinking:

Biden: Hillary a Better Pick Than Me


September 10, 2008 5:17 PM

ABC News' Matthew Jaffe reports: Sen. Barack Obama's, D-Ill., vice presidential nominee, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., Wednesday said that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., might have been a better pick for the position than him.

At a rally in Nashua, N.H., a man in the audience told Biden how glad he was that Obama picked him over Hillary, "not because she's a woman, but because, look at the things she did in the past."

"Make no mistake about this," Biden responded. "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend, she is qualified to be president of the United States of America, she’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me. But she’s first rate, I mean that sincerely, she’s first rate, so let’s get that straight."

Spokesman Ben Porritt offered this response from the McCain camp: "Barack Obama’s most important decision of this election, and Biden -- the candidate he selects -- suggests, himself, that he wasn’t the right man for the job, and that Hillary Clinton would have been a better choice. Biden certainly has a credible viewpoint on this."




http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/biden-hillary-a.html

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GM537BgCsMg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GM537BgCsMg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I am loving Joe Biden even more than I thought I was going to. It seems like every other day he's either goofing up or doing something to flat out hurt his ticket.

His saying that, especially the last part where he says she might have been a better pick, can then reflect on Obama. Many people say the first presidential decision is the VP pick, and Biden's words, even if he's just goofing around, can be twisted around for people to now say that Obama failed at his very first presidential decision by picking Biden, and Biden even says so himself. On the other hand you have tons of people excited about Palin being McCain's pick, and what a great job he did on his first presidential decision.

Maybe he'll eventually say that being VP is above his pay grade.

When was the last time a VP was changed like many are thinking could happen here?

For the record, I don't think there's a chance they'll replace him, since that would mean Obama is admitting he did, in fact, make a bad decision.

I am loving Joe Biden even more than I thought I was going to. It seems like every other day he's either goofing up or doing something to flat out hurt his ticket.

His saying that, especially the last part where he says she might have been a better pick, can then reflect on Obama. Many people say the first presidential decision is the VP pick, and Biden's words, even if he's just goofing around, can be twisted around for people to now say that Obama failed at his very first presidential decision by picking Biden, and Biden even says so himself. On the other hand you have tons of people excited about Palin being McCain's pick, and what a great job he did on his first presidential decision.

Maybe he'll eventually say that being VP is above his pay grade.

When was the last time a VP was changed like many are thinking could happen here?

For the record, I don't think there's a chance they'll replace him, since that would mean Obama is admitting he did, in fact, make a bad decision.

Eagleton '72

Eagleton '72Biden better watch out if Obama says he's behind him 1000%.

Biden better watch out if Obama says he's behind him 1000%.

"This is not the Joe Biden I knew when I picked him for Vice President."

"This is not the Joe Biden I knew when I picked him for Vice President."

:lol:

Biden wets his pants everytime he hears the name "Palin". The Messiah iprobably sn't much better.

Rush Limbaugh was praying that Biden would be picked. Bob(0 for 9) Shrum thought it was just another rant by Limbaugh. Glad that Biden is living up to Rush's faith in him.

Biden wets his pants everytime he hears the name "Palin". The Messiah iprobably sn't much better.

Rush Limbaugh was praying that Biden would be picked. Bob(0 for 9) Shrum thought it was just another rant by Limbaugh. Glad that Biden is living up to Rush's faith in him.

You know, I almost want Obama to win the next two elections just so you have to continue your little charade of calling him the Messiah. It must really steam you up.

Eagleton '72

If a VP candidate has to pull an Eagleton this election, it's going to be one that has five letters in his or her last name, but it's not going to start with a B.

If a VP candidate has to pull an Eagleton this election, it's going to be one that has five letters in his or her last name, but it's not going to start with a B.
I think that's what Obama's supporters want. Obviously, Palin has gotten McCain all kinds of press attention and has excited some of the base that he hadn't excited.

I think that's what Obama's supporters want. Obviously, Palin has gotten McCain all kinds of press attention and has excited some of the base that he hadn't excited.

I say that as someone who cares about serious governance of the country. I don't care what Palin is or is not doing to the election. She scares me.

I am loving Joe Biden even more than I thought I was going to. It seems like every other day he's either goofing up or doing something to flat out hurt his ticket.

His saying that, especially the last part where he says she might have been a better pick, can then reflect on Obama. Many people say the first presidential decision is the VP pick, and Biden's words, even if he's just goofing around, can be twisted around for people to now say that Obama failed at his very first presidential decision by picking Biden, and Biden even says so himself. On the other hand you have tons of people excited about Palin being McCain's pick, and what a great job he did on his first presidential decision.

Maybe he'll eventually say that being VP is above his pay grade.

When was the last time a VP was changed like many are thinking could happen here?

For the record, I don't think there's a chance they'll replace him, since that would mean Obama is admitting he did, in fact, make a bad decision.
If the idea of removing of Biden on the ticket grows legs within the democratic party and polls stand firm or widen in favor of McCain, then there's a possibility of Biden experiencing a medical issue that will require him to remove himself (ala Rudy vs. Clinton). That opens the door for Hillary to save the day.

I say that as someone who cares about serious governance of the country. I don't care what Palin is or is not doing to the election. She scares me.

ah, that makes more sense.

I don't like Palin, but she doesn't scare me any more than the other people.

ah, that makes more sense.

I don't like Palin, but she doesn't scare me any more than the other people.

I should clarify. She doesn't scare me. The thought of her as president scares me.

I should clarify. She doesn't scare me. The thought of her as president scares me.
Same here. She'd look perfectly natural on the cover of a LensCrafter catalog... but sitting behind the desk in the oval office? :eek:

Mcp

:)

I don't like Palin, but she doesn't scare me any more than the other people.


Same here, including the "thought of any of them as President."

Cowards die many times before their death. The valiant taste of death but once.


:)

Has Biden released his financial statements?

Has Biden released his financial statements?

It's been a bad year for him -- his $200 worth of Bennigans giftcards has become completely worthless, which reduced his life savings by 75%.

Has Biden released his financial statements?

Biden's financial situation is the thing I like most about him. He didn't get rich off his 'gig' in DC.

Not much else I like about Biden, but his finances speak well of him.

He's around something like ~$200,000 on the ledger sheet of assets and liabilities. In fact I think it's a little less than that.

You know, I almost want Obama to win the next two elections just so you have to continue your little charade of calling him the Messiah. It must really steam you up.

No. Very little steams me up. It is fun watching the righteous indignation on this board from his devotees. Esp. when his own supporters are comparing him to Jesus.
O5nTvVHfGGM

You go bhk. I hate that all those dems think Barack is the Messiah too!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v379/Mordred2003/palin.jpg

See what I mean?

Biden's financial situation is the thing I like most about him. He didn't get rich off his 'gig' in DC.

Not much else I like about Biden, but his finances speak well of him.

He's around something like ~$200,000 on the ledger sheet of assets and liabilities. In fact I think it's a little less than that.

unless he's giving a lot away to charity, he should be worth more

If the idea of removing of Biden on the ticket grows legs within the democratic party and polls stand firm or widen in favor of McCain, then there's a possibility of Biden experiencing a medical issue that will require him to remove himself (ala Rudy vs. Clinton). That opens the door for Hillary to save the day.

I've already thought pretty much the same thing, except that I suspect the "personal crisis" will be some sort of family matter, something that they will attempt to spin so as to cast doubt on Palin and her ability to serve without neglecting (or being distracted by) her duties as a mother and grandmother.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080912/ap_on_el_pr/biden_finances


Biden released them...now to find them

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080912/ap_on_el_pr/biden_finances

$42,ooo income taxes on $319,000 income comes out to around 15% tax rate

i wonder which tax breaks he took so he wouldn't have to pay the AMT and the 39.6% tax rate that he and the rest of the democrats say he should be paying

Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden and his wife on Friday released a decade of their personal financial records, showing a veteran U.S. senator who earned less than many of his congressional colleagues.

The Bidens' move is designed to pressure Republican vice presidential pick Sarah Palin to release her financial records. An aide to GOP presidential nominee John McCain said the campaign would release the documents but gave no indication when that would happen.

Joe and Jill Biden earned $319,853 in 2007. Joe Biden reported $161,708 in income from the U.S. Senate and another $71,000 in royalties for his book, "Promises to Keep."

Jill Biden earned $66,546 at her job at Delaware Technical and Community College, where she teaches English.

The couple paid $42,516 in federal taxes and another $10,912 in Delaware state taxes in 2007.

The Bidens also paid household employee taxes of $772. A campaign spokesman said that was for a housekeeper who visits the family's Wilmington, Del., home and does not live there.

The tax return shows that the Bidens paid the alternative minimum tax that the senator has argued should be changed "so millions of middle-income Americans are not hurt by a tax intended to make sure the wealthiest pay their share." Biden and his wife claimed an income of $280,146 last year under that provision, and paid $66,273 in income taxes.

The alternative minimum tax was established in 1969 in essence to limit the deductions that the richest Americans could take, ensuring that they would pay at least some tax. But because it was never adjusted for inflation, more and more taxpayers are getting swept in.

In the 2006 tax year, a few taxpayers with incomes as low as $40,000 were affected by the alternative minimum tax, according to figures kept by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. About 10 percent in the $100,000 to $200,000 income bracket fell under it, and 74 percent in the $200,000 to $500,000 income range had to pay it that year.

Biden, who underwent brain surgery for a life-threatening aneurysm in 1988, has yet to release his medical records.

Biden already had released a summary of his personal finances per U.S. Senate rules. In June of this year, he reported assets between $59,000 and $366,000; Senate rules allow for broad reporting windows.

Unlike Republican John McCain, the Bidens file their taxes jointly. McCain's tax returns showed a total income of $405,409 in 2007.

According to her 2006 tax returns, Cindy McCain had a total income of $6 million. Her wealth is estimated by some at $100 million, based on her late father's Arizona beer distributorship. She has not released her 2007 returns, which she files separately from her husband.

Obama and his wife, Michelle, reported making $4.2 million in 2007.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080912/ap_on_el_pr/biden_finances

$42,ooo income taxes on $319,000 income comes out to around 15% tax rate

i wonder which tax breaks he took so he wouldn't have to pay the AMT and the 39.6% tax rate that he and the rest of the democrats say he should be paying
article says he paid the AMT.

uh something doesn't add up...



The couple paid $42,516 in federal taxes and another $10,912 in Delaware state taxes in 2007.
...
Biden and his wife claimed an income of $280,146 last year under that provision, and paid $66,273 in income taxes.

they have the actuall pdf's on the campaign website

http://answercenter.barackobama.com/cgi-bin/barackobama.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=224&p_created=1220635525&p_sid=O73-WGdj&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MiwyJnBfcHJvZHM9JnBfY2F0cz

and here is the highly paid accountant that did his taxes

http://www.cogensklar.com/

some details

$38,712 in mortgage interest
$11,604 in RE taxes

Biden gave away 1000 in charity last year
380 in 2006
380 in 2005
380 in 2004

I see no reason for him to have a low net worth. if he isn't giving the money away, he's spending it, right?

if he isn't giving the money away, he's spending it, right?Uh, no. Get with the lexicon!

Democrats don't "spend" money, they "invest" it.

Uh, no. Get with the lexicon!

Democrats don't "spend" money, they "invest" it.

ah crap, you just made me realize that he reported 99 in interest income last year and no dividend income.

Why do i have more in interest income when i'm at a fraction of his income and a fraction of his age?

The total tax for 2007 was around $66,000. $42,000 he paid in withholding and the rest was applied from 2006 taxes. idiot reporters. just the normal deduction and nothing crazy like krdave where you would need a tax lawyer.

at least in this case you know why congresss is all talk and no action in raising taxes

ah crap, you just made me realize that he reported 99 in interest income last year and no dividend income.

Why do i have more in interest income when i'm at a fraction of his income and a fraction of his age?

i bet the republican opposition research machine will be burning the midnight oil for a while

Should the $29000 estimated payment show up on the 2006 return or could it have been paid later?

i think it's a check he wrote when he got his $71,000 in royalties, pretty sure the line is either a carryover or payments you make yourself other than the normal withholding

still according to the DNC platform he needs to be paying 39.6% federal and then whatever state and local taxes on top of that

You guys are spending more time on Biden's taxes than you probably do on your own. :lol:

You guys are spending more time on Biden's taxes than you probably do on your own. :lol:

it's a friday afternoon and i dont want to be in the office :p

it's a friday afternoon and i dont want to be in the office :pYou know what that means for me - graph time, baby! :banana:

uh something doesn't add up...



The couple paid $42,516 in federal taxes and another $10,912 in Delaware state taxes in 2007.
...
Biden and his wife claimed an income of $280,146 last year under that provision, and paid $66,273 in income taxes.

You figure both and pay the larger, so I assume this means he paid the $66K because the AMT was larger.

You figure both and pay the larger, so I assume this means he paid the $66K because the AMT was larger.

posted it above, he prepaid some 2007 taxes in 2006

i looked at the AMT sheet and it didn't scare me. i thought it was something where all your deductions vanish and you pay 40% taxes to the IRS. looks like it's not the case

posted it above, he prepaid some 2007 taxes in 2006

i looked at the AMT sheet and it didn't scare me. i thought it was something where all your deductions vanish and you pay 40% taxes to the IRS. looks like it's not the case

Some of your deductions vanish, some survive. If your income is too high, much of your personal exemption is phased out (half of his) then you pay a mix of 26% and 28% (alternatively, the exemption phaseout adds a "kicker" and incrementally, you are paying 32.5% and 35% until phased out).

But his actual regular tax was $62K, somebody read the W/H he paid as his tax. The AMT was only $2-3K higher.

i remember in 2000 when the Cheney's released their tax records, they paid a higher percentage of income as taxes than mr liberal

Some of your deductions vanish, some survive. If your income is too high, much of your personal exemption is phased out (half of his) then you pay a mix of 26% and 28% (alternatively, the exemption phaseout adds a "kicker" and incrementally, you are paying 32.5% and 35% until phased out).

But his actual regular tax was $62K, somebody read the W/H he paid as his tax. The AMT was only $2-3K higher.Are you willing to do my taxes this year?

You guys are spending more time on Biden's taxes than you probably do on your own. :lol:

We're so poverty-stricken, we don't pay taxes.

We're just trying to figure out how much of Joe's money we've got coming to us per the Biden/Obama plan.

Man, these numbers and facts are boring as balls; let’s get back to the insults, slander, and random bouts of indignant anger.

Man, these numbers and facts are boring as balls; let’s get back to the insults, slander, and random bouts of indignant anger.

Fuck you, fascist!

I say that as someone who cares about serious governance of the country. I don't care what Palin is or is not doing to the election. She scares me.

I love this Democrat talking point. Obama being President scares the living fuck out of me, and apparently a ton of the Democratic base, as well. And he will be the one in charge -eek-.

I love this Democrat talking point. Obama being President scares the living fuck out of me, and apparently a ton of the Democratic base, as well. And he will be the one in charge -eek-.

:hscratch: Have you missed all the conservatives basically saying the same thing?

I think it's fair to criticize Obama based on lack of "experience", as long as one defines what experience we're talking about.

However, Obama is not an unknown quantity. He has been on the national stage for over four years, and has been running for president since 2007. Palin has been on the national stage for three weeks and her one interview so far has not inspired confidence.

I don't care what Palin is or is not doing to the election. She scares me.

:lol:

:hscratch: Have you missed all the conservatives basically saying the same thing?

I think it's fair to criticize Obama based on lack of "experience", as long as one defines what experience we're talking about.

However, Obama is not an unknown quantity. He has been on the national stage for over four years, and has been running for president since 2007.
Exactly. And what I know about him prevents me from voting for him.

Palin has been on the national stage for three weeks and her one interview so far has not inspired confidence.
True. And if she were running for president, I couldn't vote for her either.

I think it's fair to criticize Obama based on lack of "experience", as long as one defines what experience we're talking about.

However, Obama is not an unknown quantity. He has been on the national stage for over four years, and has been running for president since 2007. Palin has been on the national stage for three weeks and her one interview so far has not inspired confidence.

But he IS an unknown quantity. Talking about what you'll do isn't exactly the same thing as a record. (I know this applies to Palin, too, which makes me a bit nervous. Not scared, but nervous. Then again, she's only running for VP.)

For example. I'm going to take four bags of trash from my recently-cleaned apartment to the dump tomorrow. Now, I may or may not do that. But I can expect you to be perfectly convinced that I will, right?

So I guess I define the "experience" I'm talking about as actual decision-making experience, not intellectual experiment experience. In which case Obama falls short of McCain. And probably Palin, but I can't say that with confidence.

EDIT to keep with the thread: Biden? I know him as the blowhard I see on C-SPAN during important debates, yelling down his opponents and making an O'Reilly-style ass of himself. Doesn't matter really, as he, too, is only running for VP. Plus, I kind of like loud blowhards, as long as they're not sitting next to me on the train.

What are the odds Biden bows out "for personal reasons" and Obama names Hillary (or another female) VP?

I just can't see them doing that. It would reek more of desperation than John McCain picking Sarah Palin in the first place. That said, if either VP bows out, it'll be Biden. I just don't think it'll happen.

Watching the CNN piece on Biden.

Interesting, complex fellow with some very positive points regarding his personal life (his overcoming the loss of wife & child in car crash & his overcoming the ensuing depression to raise his two severly-injured sons who survived the crash...also, his struggle to overcome a severe speech impediment that caused him to stutter badly when growing up).

On the other hand, I didn't hear CNN mentioning his draft deferrments due to asthma (although they pointed out that he was a high school football hero). They have covered his first Presidential campaign that was aborted due to charges of plaigarism and his controversial opposition to Judge Robert Bork on ideological grounds rather than Bork's judicial qualifications (ushering in the era of political "litmus tests").

They're talking about his two life-threatening surgeries now. Coming up are discussions of Biden's handling of the Clarence Thomas hearings & Biden's connections with credit card companies.

I'm sure that Biden has many good qualities (tenacity, etc.) to go with his negative tendencies (foot-in-mouth disease, appearance of self-aggrandizement in his lengthy monologues during Senate hearings rather than allowing witnesses to give their testimony, etc.). CNN is implying that Biden has hurt middle-class Americans by taking the lead in introducing legislation to make it tougher for people to declare bankruptcy. However, I have to agree with Biden here since I have had so many frustrating experiences with those who have been acted so irresponsibly or dishonestly in running up debt and then used the system to avoid paying creditors (my own elderly mother was a victim of such a person).

Biden was interviewed this morning on MSNBC.

He was asked if he would submit a list of the earmarks he has voted for. He replied that he had already done so.

He went on to say that the total outlay for all the earmarks was 18 billion dollars. He was critical of McCain's constantly harping about earmarks when the deficit this year will exceed 400 billion dollars - actually the real deficit is a hell of a lot more than that (my comment).

Actually Biden is incorrect about the 18 billion dollars. He failed to include the Iraq supplementals in that figure. Those supplementals are earmarks although I've never heard McCain griping about them.

Possible one reason Biden didn't include them is because he voted for them. ;)

Anderson Cooper 180 yesterday did their part for Biden yesterday by doing a story on how he's a master of the quick recovery after his numerous gaffes.

Today, he said that people who are against Obama are against him becuase he's too intelligent.

Today, he said that people who are against Obama are against him becuase he's too intelligent.

And he's right. Well, partly anyway. Stupidity and bigotry are arm in arm.
I saw Scarborough call out Biden in the first segment for his apparent condescention and arrogance and why that infuriates 'average americans' who identify and then vote for slick pieces of fluff like Palin and Bush. I know these outraged common folk, they're in my family. And it's always galling how they sneer and mock intelligent thought and education credentials and then vote for the ticket they feel 'comfortable' with...or in other words, identify more closely with.
I used to groan and roll my eyes when people would cry racism everytime the 'black' option in any competition of ideas/talent/personality etc would come up short- but how can anyone look at the situation and NOT see race as what is making this a desperate struggle for the O/B ticket? M/P have waged a campaign based on contempt for voters intelligence...no issue ads, criticizing celeb charisma for its vapidity, and then transparently co-opting the same , a campaign full of mendacity following a convention weighted in snarky mockery, in a climate of economic meltdown, rallying around a figure who was a posterboy for ethical corruption during the last round of bank failures 20 years ago (also after long republican rule)... AND THEY ARE AHEAD!
Regular 'murkins in this country are like petulant bratty children. They willfully pursue actions that are in their own worst interest, just to spite that person who knows better than them and won't hesitate to tell 'em. That's why they gravitate to a party that panders to their their petty venality and then are baffled when they get played like a cheap kazoo.

A democracy gets the leaders it deserves, and if there were a God in heaven this country would get 8 more years of Bush. Fortunately McCain/Pailn is a lock, and they are pretty much the same decietful, opportunistic package.

He went on to say that the total outlay for all the earmarks was 18 billion dollars. He was critical of McCain's constantly harping about earmarks when the deficit this year will exceed 400 billion dollars -

See, that is exactly the problem. He arrogantly assumes another $18B is "no problemo" when there is a $400B problem.

Budgetting is a problem in the corporate world too, and solving it is a "death of a thousand cuts" process. You NEVER find ripe fruit equal to your whole problem just waiting to be plucked. (well, except the CEO's salary, but that's untouchable). It is a critical review of every item. I would guess that many items he has voted for would not pass critical review.

The waste in government HAS to be tackled a billion here, a billion there, in hopes it adds up to real money.

Why don't you look at what many people consider a real waste of a hell of lot more than 18 billion dollars - our involvement in Iraq.

He went on to say that the total outlay for all the earmarks was 18 billion dollars. He was critical of McCain's constantly harping about earmarks when the deficit this year will exceed 400 billion dollars - actually the real deficit is a hell of a lot more than that (my comment).


So he doesn't think a 5% cut in the deficit is worth doing?

The real deficit is far greater than 400 billion - closer to a trillion.

If you want to go after real waste why don't you start with DOD? There's far more waste in that department than the 18 billion in earmarks.

I suppose the folks that throw the word 'pork' around don't believe that the federal government should have contributed to rebuilding the collapsed I-35 bridge in Minneapolis. I'm glad they contributed to the rebuilding of that bridge and the collapsed I-40 bridge in Eastern Oklahoma.

Of course there are earmarks that aren't really necessary. You'll find a hell of a lot more of them in the regular budget-bill process - again - the DOD for instance. I wonder why our fiscal conservative friends don't call that 'pork?'

some of us do :)

When I hear the word 'pork' mentioned on this forum it always pertains to earmarks.

The real deficit is far greater than 400 billion - closer to a trillion.

If you want to go after real waste why don't you start with DOD? There's far more waste in that department than the 18 billion in earmarks.

I suppose the folks that throw the word 'pork' around don't believe that the federal government should have contributed to rebuilding the collapsed I-35 bridge in Minneapolis. I'm glad they contributed to the rebuilding of that bridge and the collapsed I-40 bridge in Eastern Oklahoma.

Of course there are earmarks that aren't really necessary. You'll find a hell of a lot more of them in the regular budget-bill process - again - the DOD for instance. I wonder why our fiscal conservative friends don't call that 'pork?'

To be fair, Senator McCain wants to trim some of the fat at DoD, too. For example, he said he wants to get rid of the Future Combat Systems program, a position he held right up until last week when he criticized Senator Obama for advocating cuts to (guess what!) the Future Combat Systems program.

Anderson Cooper 180 yesterday did their part for Biden yesterday by doing a story on how he's a master of the quick recovery after his numerous gaffes.

Today, he said that people who are against Obama are against him becuase he's too intelligent.

He meant to say, "people are against Obama because they're too intelligent".

He should have corrected himself the way George Stephanopolous corrected Obama when Obama cited "...my Muslim faith..." in an interview a week or so ago.

And he's right. Well, partly anyway. Stupidity and bigotry are arm in arm.
I saw Scarborough call out Biden in the first segment for his apparent condescention and arrogance and why that infuriates 'average americans' who identify and then vote for slick pieces of fluff like Palin and Bush. I know these outraged common folk, they're in my family. And it's always galling how they sneer and mock intelligent thought and education credentials and then vote for the ticket they feel 'comfortable' with...or in other words, identify more closely with.
I used to groan and roll my eyes when people would cry racism everytime the 'black' option in any competition of ideas/talent/personality etc would come up short- but how can anyone look at the situation and NOT see race as what is making this a desperate struggle for the O/B ticket? M/P have waged a campaign based on contempt for voters intelligence...no issue ads, criticizing celeb charisma for its vapidity, and then transparently co-opting the same , a campaign full of mendacity following a convention weighted in snarky mockery, in a climate of economic meltdown, rallying around a figure who was a posterboy for ethical corruption during the last round of bank failures 20 years ago (also after long republican rule)... AND THEY ARE AHEAD!
Regular 'murkins in this country are like petulant bratty children. They willfully pursue actions that are in their own worst interest, just to spite that person who knows better than them and won't hesitate to tell 'em. That's why they gravitate to a party that panders to their their petty venality and then are baffled when they get played like a cheap kazoo.

A democracy gets the leaders it deserves, and if there were a God in heaven this country would get 8 more years of Bush. Fortunately McCain/Pailn is a lock, and they are pretty much the same decietful, opportunistic package.

Could you take off those dang overly-optimistic, sunny blinders and tell us how you really feel?

The real deficit is far greater than 400 billion - closer to a trillion.

If you want to go after real waste why don't you start with DOD? There's far more waste in that department than the 18 billion in earmarks.

I suppose the folks that throw the word 'pork' around don't believe that the federal government should have contributed to rebuilding the collapsed I-35 bridge in Minneapolis. I'm glad they contributed to the rebuilding of that bridge and the collapsed I-40 bridge in Eastern Oklahoma.

Of course there are earmarks that aren't really necessary. You'll find a hell of a lot more of them in the regular budget-bill process - again - the DOD for instance. I wonder why our fiscal conservative friends don't call that 'pork?'


I have. :wave: I have frequently called for trimming the fat from earmarks and the normal budget, including the DoD. Please pay attention this time.

The real deficit is far greater than 400 billion - closer to a trillion.

If you want to go after real waste why don't you start with DOD? There's far more waste in that department than the 18 billion in earmarks.

I suppose the folks that throw the word 'pork' around don't believe that the federal government should have contributed to rebuilding the collapsed I-35 bridge in Minneapolis. I'm glad they contributed to the rebuilding of that bridge and the collapsed I-40 bridge in Eastern Oklahoma.

Of course there are earmarks that aren't really necessary. You'll find a hell of a lot more of them in the regular budget-bill process - again - the DOD for instance. I wonder why our fiscal conservative friends don't call that 'pork?'
Are you saying that some of our defense contractors may be a bit overpaid? That can't possibly be true. They get quotes from a wide variety of capable companies :distract:

On the Today show yesterday.

BIDEN: Our tax plan would take that tax cut of another $130 billion that John wants to give to people making over $250,000 next year, not let it go forward and give it to the middle class, the very people who desperately need it to stay in their homes, to buy food, to take care of the gas to fill up their tank, to be able to go out and buy a toaster, to unemployed people.

:lol:
vote for Obama and get a toaster.

To be fair, Senator McCain wants to trim some of the fat at DoD, too. For example, he said he wants to get rid of the Future Combat Systems program, a position he held right up until last week when he criticized Senator Obama for advocating cuts to (guess what!) the Future Combat Systems program.Do you have documentation on this? I'm feeling lazy this afternoon.

Are we talking a 2-slice or 4-slice toaster?

More importantly, will it toast bagels?

I weep for the millions of toasterless Americans should McCain claim victory in November.

Are there any stats on what percentage of Americans that do not pay taxes have flat screen TVs?

Sen McCain needs to get on board with technology and join the toaster revolution!http://i35.tinypic.com/21ew5c6.jpg

To be fair, Senator McCain wants to trim some of the fat at DoD, too. For example, he said he wants to get rid of the Future Combat Systems program, a position he held right up until last week when he criticized Senator Obama for advocating cuts to (guess what!) the Future Combat Systems program.

Do you have documentation on this? I'm feeling lazy this afternoon.

McCain on FCS: Flip-flop or fib?

By Bradley Peniston - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Sep 15, 2008 17:08:08 EDT

Has Sen. John McCain renounced his longtime antagonism toward the Army’s Future Combat Systems?

On Sept. 8, the Republican presidential candidate told a rally crowd in Lee’s Summit, Mo., about an Obama video message to a liberal advocacy group.

“He promised them he would, quote, ‘slow our development of Future Combat Systems,’” McCain said, according to wire reports. “This is not a time to slow our development of Future Combat Systems.”

Flashback to July, however, when his campaign furnished McCain’s economic plan to The Washington Post, declaring that “there are lots of procurements — Airborne Laser, [C-17] Globemaster, Future Combat System [sic] — that should be ended and the entire Pentagon budget should be scrubbed.”

In fact, McCain has long criticized the over-budget, behind-schedule FCS program. In 2005, he blasted the Army for allowing the program to balloon to $161 billion, and forced the service to rewrite the main FCS contract.

So where does McCain really stand? Some bloggers and analysts have suggested that he used the term “future combat systems” generically. Obama’s campaign maintains their candidate was speaking specifically about FCS, in which case McCain may be twisting his rival’s words.

Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute called it deceitful.

“McCain’s interpretation of Obama’s position is typical of the way in which the Republicans have twisted Democratic views in order to undercut their opponents and at the same time obscure the past positions of the Republicans,” Thompson said. “Future Combat Systems is the centerpiece of Army modernization. However, McCain has been more critical of it than anyone else in the chamber. Obama has been much more detailed and thoughtful in his comments about future military investment than McCain’s very superficial statements.”

Officials with the McCain campaign did not return phone calls and emails requesting clarification.

What Obama said

McCain was quoting from a campaign video message from Obama to a liberal group that seeks to cut Pentagon funds by 15 percent.

“I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending,” Obama said in the video, recorded earlier this year. “I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of Future Combat Systems.”

F. Whitten Peters, a defense adviser for the Obama campaign and former secretary of the Air Force, confirmed that the Democratic candidate was talking about the Army program.

“Obama had said that he wanted to review FCS and he thought that he might want to slow the fielding,” Peters said. “His feeling is there really needs to be an overall strategic review of larger weapon programs to decide which ones are sufficiently important to keep going and which ones may need to be scaled back.”

Antonie Boessenkool contributed to this report.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/defense_mccain_FCS_091208/

Sen McCain needs to get on board with technology and join the toaster revolution!http://i35.tinypic.com/21ew5c6.jpg

He has:

http://www.toastermuseum.com/images/toastercollection/toasters/158x1.jpg

Get it!? Because he's old!!!

All kidding aside, I am shocked to learn that there is a website called www.toastermuseum.com where you can find pictures of all sorts of vintage toasters.

JasonF, thanks for the FCS article above. Good read and explains the situation well. :up:

All kidding aside, I am shocked to learn that there is a website called www.toastermuseum.com where you can find pictures of all sorts of vintage toasters.Have you ever watched The Incurable Collector (http://www.fancast.com/tv/The-Incurable-Collector/90089/synopsis) with John Laroquette? People collect everything. :D

JasonF, thanks for the FCS article above. Good read and explains the situation well. :up:Agreed.

My guess is that McCain was probably trying to twist Obama's words, i.e. McCain wants us to have combat systems in the future, but Obama doesn't!

Whoever named FCS did a piss-poor job.

More importantly, will it toast bagels?

I'm surprised a good conservative like you eats elitism toast.

He has:

http://www.toastermuseum.com/images/toastercollection/toasters/158x1.jpg

Get it!? Because he's old!!!

All kidding aside, I am shocked to learn that there is a website called www.toastermuseum.com where you can find pictures of all sorts of vintage toasters.

Thanks for the toaster link, Jason. Had lots of fun surfing the site although some of those rascals are downright scary...looks like it would be easy to lose some fingers (or get electrocuted) with them.

Thanks for the toaster link, Jason. Had lots of fun surfing the site although some of those rascals are downright scary...looks like it would be easy to lose some fingers (or get electrocuted) with them.

Yeah, a lot of them had exposed heating elements that seemed designed to burn your fingers when you go to get your toast out. I guess we modern-day toast-eaters don't appreciate how easy we have it compared to our grandparents.

Is this another "open mouth, insert foot" moment for Biden?

“We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people,” Biden said in an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: “It’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”

He makes it sound as if the "rich" aren't already shouldering most of the tax burden as it is right now. Apparently people are unpatriotic if they don't want higher taxes, and the government collecting more money is the solution for getting America "out of the rut".

-ohbfrank-

Link: http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/09/18/biden_taxes.html

Is this another "open mouth, insert foot" moment for Biden?

No, not really. :shrug:

Personally I find it mildly offensive (not hugely because it's so typical) that Biden has been in Congress for decades wasting and mismanaging our tax dollars and now he wants more. Plus many of the staunch opponents of Bush contend that protesting or disagreeing with a certain war does not make one unpatriotic. Then Biden goes and compares paying higher taxes to patriotism, as if disagreeing with raising taxes is unpatriotic. Sounds awful arrogant to me especially since taxes are already high and many of our problems have been caused or made worse by the government in the past. :shrug:

^^^ or lack of government oversight.

:lol: And you all thought I was kidding when I said that if Obama/Biden gets in I should quit my high paying job and get a nice low paying job to maintain my lifestyle.. Why the heck should I work so many hours in a high-stress job when I can have the government pay me for doing less? The message is clear - Don't succeed in this country or you will continue to get screwed over. And people wonder why we're losing our grip as a dominant superpower..

Is this another "open mouth, insert foot" moment for Biden?

“We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people,” Biden said in an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: “It’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”

He makes it sound as if the "rich" aren't already shouldering most of the tax burden as it is right now. Apparently people are unpatriotic if they don't want higher taxes, and the government collecting more money is the solution for getting America "out of the rut".

-ohbfrank-

Link: http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/09/18/biden_taxes.html

Do you really think that's what he meant?

:lol: And you all thought I was kidding when I said that if Obama/Biden gets in I should quit my high paying job and get a nice low paying job to maintain my lifestyle.. Why the heck should I work so many hours in a high-stress job when I can have the government pay me for doing less? The message is clear - Don't succeed in this country or you will continue to get screwed over. And people wonder why we're losing our grip as a dominant superpower..

Rich people will not want to be rich anymore? I don't buy it.

Do you really think that's what he meant?
Is the interpretation ever what the politician meant?

Rich people will not want to be rich anymore? I don't buy it.
:lol: Exactly. I challenge them to prove it. ;)

It seems like something that talking heads could get in a tissy about. But really, it's along the same lines as Obama calling such a thing "neighborliness."

We're in a pinch. And the bottom line is some people ARE going to have to pitch in.

But the problem is that the government has largely gotten us into this mess and while I understand the need for more cash, coupling that with increased spending and more government programs is what I personally find offensive.

Increase taxes if you must, but in good faith show us that you are also going to cut spending so that we know the debt is actually going to diminish long term.

Is the interpretation ever what the politician meant?

rarely

This thread is getting boring. Let's talk about Biden and his record.

I said in another thread that Biden is the candidate who scares me the most. That guy hasn't been right about any major foreign policy decision he's ever made and many people who support him would oppose his domestic policy decisions if they bothered to check them out. Here is a partial list I compiled.

1) Opposed the military buildup in the 1980s that helped end the Cold War
2) Supported a unilateral nuclear freeze on the West
3) Opposed supporting local forces fighting communists in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Angola
4) Opposed missile defense and defense modernization
5) Opposed the first Gulf War
6) Supported the second Gulf War
7) Opposed the surge, and declared it a failure even as it showed success
8) Proposed partitioning Iraq into three federations along ethnic/religious lines
9) Supported the law that made it more difficult for people to declare bankruptcy
10) Sponsored oppressive drug laws

Do you really think that's what he meant?

He'd probably say no, but I think his basic belief and gov't philosophy rings loud and clear. Obama/Biden's policies reflect this philosophy, but Biden comes right out and admits it. For that I commend him.

I agree with Biden on 6 of those 10, sooo....

More class warefare crap from the dem ticket. The top 25% already pay 87% of the fed income tax. Does Hairplugs-impanted-too-deep mean to imply that the rest aren't as patriotic. Or that the bottom 40% of wage earners that don't pay fed income taxes are traitors?

Joe, I read somewhere that one of the causes of this little thing called the American Revolution was caused by excessive taxes.

It's easy to see why Bush and Cheney love tax cuts. Cheney's tax rate in 2005 was 5.7 percent!! So, please, don't expect me to cry about raising his taxes. Good God. The middle class is getting squeezed like nobody's business, and you guys are crying about the rich!

:rolleyes:

Without the tax cut, Cheney would have paid 17.7 percent. Wow. That would be SO horrible, wouldn't it?

I await the reasoned arguments with bated breath.




http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0418-10.htm


Bush Tax Cuts Saved President $26,000, Cheney $1.1 Million in 2005

WASHINGTON - April 18 - On Good Friday, April 14, 2006, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney released their federal income tax returns for 2005. An analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice of the White House figures shows:


Due to the 2001-05 Bush tax cuts, the President’s 2005 income tax was reduced by $26,204.


The President’s income tax rate was 25.4 percent of his reported income. Without his tax-cut legislation, he would have paid 29.0 percent.


Vice-President Dick Cheney’s 2005 income tax bill was reduced by $1,093,937 due to the Bush tax cuts.


The Vice-President’s income tax rate was only 5.7 percent of his $9.1 million reported income. Without the Bush tax cuts, he would have paid 17.7 percent.
President Bush’s $26,000 tax cut stemmed from both the lower regular tax rates and his reduction in the top tax rate on dividends from 39.6 percent to 15 percent. Vice-President Cheney’s $1.1 million tax cut in part reflected the lower regular tax rates and the 15 percent tax rate on capital gains and dividends. Cheney also was able to take an additional $2.5 million in itemized deductions due to a tax-law change signed by Bush in 2005, which was ostensibly designed to encourage charitable donations to the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Normally, charitable deductions cannot offset more than half of a taxpayer’s adjusted gross income. (Unused deductions can be carried forward for possible use in later years.) A special rule for 2005, however, allows unlimited charitable deductions if made after August 27, the date of the Katrina disaster. The law does not require that these donations be linked in any way to hurricane relief.

None of Cheney’s charitable donations went to hurricane victims. Instead, they went to the Washington, D.C. hospital that takes care of his heart condition, the University of Wyoming (his alma mater), and Capital Partners for Education, which helps low-income Washington, D.C. students pay private school tuition.

Tables showing the tax figures released by the White House, as analyzed by Citizens for Tax Justice, follow.

kind of misleading to say the taxcuts gave cheney such a low tax rate when part of it was his donating over 2 million dollars that year


either way, i dont have a problem with rich paying more in taxes until that rich includes me :)

It's easy to see why Bush and Cheney love tax cuts. Cheney's tax rate in 2005 was 5.7 percent!! So, please, don't expect me to cry about raising his taxes. Good God. The middle class is getting squeezed like nobody's business, and you guys are crying about the rich!

:rolleyes:

Without the tax cut, Cheney would have paid 17.7 percent. Wow. That would be SO horrible, wouldn't it?

I await the reasoned arguments with bated breath.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0418-10.htm
Are you really upset that he got to deduct more charitable giving?

kind of misleading to say the taxcuts gave cheney such a low tax rate when part of it was his donating over 2 million dollars that year

Trying to be factual is hit and miss here man.

Cheney has given millions to charity since 2005 also.

kind of misleading to say the taxcuts gave cheney such a low tax rate when part of it was his donating over 2 million dollars that year


either way, i dont have a problem with rich paying more in taxes until that rich includes me :)


How is it misleading when I quoted that part?

saying "Vice-President Dick Cheney’s 2005 income tax bill was reduced by $1,093,937 due to the Bush tax cuts." is misleading. The tax bill was reduced not only because of the tax cut, but because of a change in tax law and also Cheney's deductions.

saying "Vice-President Dick Cheney’s 2005 income tax bill was reduced by $1,093,937 due to the Bush tax cuts." is misleading. The tax bill was reduced not only because of the tax cut, but because of a change in tax law and also Cheney's deductions.


Then you can't read. Sorry, try again. I'll spell it out for you.

Dick Cheney gives 2 mill to charity. Whether we have Bush's tax cuts or not. (change in tax law? These were Bush's tax cuts. Thus there was a change in tax law. Sheesh).

So he gives the 2 mill.

Now, with the tax cuts, he pays 5.7%.
Without, he pays 17.7.

He got a reduction in what he would have paid, solely because of the cuts.

Now you can make the argument he wouldn't have given as much without the cuts, but that doesn't change the fact that he went from 17.7 to 5.7 because of the cuts.

You might want to read the article again. The tax cuts didn't change his rate to 5.7%. Because of tax law changes in 2005 to encourage support for Katrina victims, Cheney was able to deduct all the money he gave away to charity. Because he gave away so much and because he was able to deduct it all, his effective tax rate because 5.7%.

If the Bush tax cuts had not gone through but the tax law change (I dont think anyone would call it a tax cut) in 2005 had gone through and he donated the same amount, he still wouldn't have paid 17.7%

You might want to read the article again. The tax cuts didn't change his rate to 5.7%. Because of tax law changes in 2005 to encourage support for Katrina victims, Cheney was able to deduct all the money he gave away to charity. Because he gave away so much and because he was able to deduct it all, his effective tax rate because 5.7%.

If the Bush tax cuts had not gone through but the tax law change (I dont think anyone would call it a tax cut) in 2005 had gone through and he donated the same amount, he still wouldn't have paid 17.7%


I would call it a Bush tax cut because it was passed by Republican lawmakers, signed by Bush, and favors a certain class of taxpayers.

anyone who gives more than half their income away is a certain class of taxpayer?


btw, it should be noted cheney gave away over 8 million that year, the 2 million figure int eh article was the extra he could deduct under the katrina provision

call it a tax cut if you want then but i dont. if that is what the govt wants to give the rich, i'm in favor of it.

Cheney's tax rate for his taxable income was 32%. I guess that is too low?

Cheney's tax rate for his taxable income was 32%. I guess that is too low?

That means nothing. Only effective tax rate matters, at the end of the day,
and that's whether you're talking about Cheney, or me or you. Because the tax rate is made up of tax rate, deductions, credits, etc. The tax law as a whole.

I don't know how 2005 compares, but in prior years Cheney has paid very little tax because most of his income is from investment income.

And what exactly does Bush and Cheney's taxes have to do with the other guy who is a VP nominee? Diversion from discussing the "other guy"?

:lol: And you all thought I was kidding when I said that if Obama/Biden gets in I should quit my high paying job and get a nice low paying job to maintain my lifestyle.. Why the heck should I work so many hours in a high-stress job when I can have the government pay me for doing less? The message is clear - Don't succeed in this country or you will continue to get screwed over. And people wonder why we're losing our grip as a dominant superpower..
:rolleyes:
So those of who aren't rich do less? whatever

the idea that only the rich work hard and the middle class don't is idiotic and a total lie
Please don't act as though you do know the middle class and what we do to get by
the middle needs a break
of course do away with government waste and no one's taxes would go up in fact it'd all go DOWN

I agree with your last sentence - but that's not going to happen with happy "patriotic" taxpayers handing more and more money to the government.

I am middle class now. If Obama gets his way I won't be middle class when he gets in and I will be making less. I took a higher position so I can make more.. but I'll actually be doing that job and making less because I'll be getting screwed over on the taxes. So I would have been better off, and making more, not trying to advance. Is that the right direction for this country?

1) Opposed the military buildup in the 1980s that helped end the Cold War
2) Supported a unilateral nuclear freeze on the West
3) Opposed supporting local forces fighting communists in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Angola
4) Opposed missile defense and defense modernization
5) Opposed the first Gulf War
6) Supported the second Gulf War
7) Opposed the surge, and declared it a failure even as it showed success
8) Proposed partitioning Iraq into three federations along ethnic/religious lines
9) Supported the law that made it more difficult for people to declare bankruptcy
10) Sponsored oppressive drug laws
Shut up! He is a foreign policy expert!

This sums up my point nicely..

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/but_one_life_to_give_the_irs.html

... But One Life to Give the IRS

The Boston Tea Party be damned. This week, Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden unleashed the most absurd remark of his illustrious career, claiming that taxes are "patriotic."

Biden claims that wealthier Americans should pay more in taxes because "it's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

Oh, the injustice of American society!

When, exactly, did taxation transform into a form of charity? Biden, it seems, has a difficult time differentiating between coercion and generosity. The distinction is simple: When one fails at altruism, he is a louse; when one fails to pay taxes, he ends up in the slammer.

But anyone can "jump in" at any time. Biden and his wife -- who would be considered wealthy under an Obama-Biden tax plan -- for instance, gave an average of $369 a year to charity during the past decade. So you can see that by "help," Biden means assistance with your money.

Have you ever wondered when exactly taxation became a tool for mass redistribution of wealth?

"We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden explained in an interview on "Good Morning America." The wealthy, last I heard, do not "take" or steal from the defenseless middle class; they, most often, earn their money. There is nothing to give back.

Moreover, the very premise of Biden's argument is a rickety mess.

The rich already shell out their share. According to the Internal Revenue Service, the top 10 percent of households pay roughly 70 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent pay more than 60 percent of all taxes. The top 1 percent? They pay nearly 40 percent of all income taxes. Sounds like an unfair share to me.

Biden also errs in advancing the notion that higher rates always translate into a larger percentage of tax revenues. In 1980, when the top income tax rate was at 70 percent, the share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent was less than 20 percent. Since we've cut top rates for the wealthy, that number has increased steadily.

Setting aside the crass election-time populism of Biden, is there anyone who believes shrinking the tax base and hanging the cost of massive government on a slither of the nation's citizens is a sustainable solution?

How much does Biden expect the rich to "jump in" with, exactly? What is the acceptable percentage? Should the wealthy hand over 80 percent? Or is it 100 percent?

It's difficult to grasp.

Barack Obama, for instance, claims that his tax policy would bring relief to 95 percent of Americans. Yet a report from the Tax Foundation tells us that 32.58 percent of IRS income tax returns for 2005 were "non-paying" and that the bottom 5 percent of earners contributed only 3 percent of all income taxes. That means many households don't pay a penny in income taxes.

Now, even a transcendent candidate of Obama's breathtaking magnitude can't make a whole into something larger than 100 percent.

His plan also fails to account for the pass-through costs. When government raises corporate taxes and energy taxes and capital gains taxes, etc., the consumer, the investor, the middle-class citizenry foots the bill.

As if more government spending is a way to get us out of a "rut."

Punishing those selfish fat cats who dare to succeed, which includes many small-business owners, is a sure way to stifle growth and job creation. Perhaps it can help win an election, but it has nothing to do with patriotism.

Sure, candidates can debate tax policy and quarrel over which tax percentage is optimal. But patriotism is a devoted love, support and defense of one's country.

I agree with your last sentence - but that's not going to happen with happy "patriotic" taxpayers handing more and more money to the government.

I am middle class now. If Obama gets his way I won't be middle class when he gets in and I will be making less. I took a higher position so I can make more.. but I'll actually be doing that job and making less because I'll be getting screwed over on the taxes. So I would have been better off, and making more, not trying to advance. Is that the right direction for this country?

Well, at least you'll have the consolation of knowing that you've become more patriotic.

Thanks to Vice-Prez "D'oh!" Biden's tutelage.

Heck, maybe even Josh Howard will start singing the national anthem (once he realizes that "being black" and "for Obama" doesn't automatically offer one an exemption).

Now I see why such a big deal was made of Cheney's charitable deductions and using his resulting tax rate to criticize him earlier in this thread.

Biden gave average of $369 to charity a year

By Matt Kelley, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden and his wife gave an average of $369 a year to charity during the past decade, his tax records show.
Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's campaign today released 10 years' worth of tax returns for Biden, a senator from Delaware, and his wife Jill, a community college instructor. The Bidens reported earning $319,853 last year, including $71,000 in royalties for his memoir, Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics.

The Bidens reported giving $995 in charitable donations last year — about 0.3% of their income and the highest amount in the past decade. The low was $120 in 1999, about 0.1% of yearly income.

Over the decade, the Bidens reported a total of $3,690 in charitable donations, or 0.2% of their income.

Biden spokesman David Wade said in an e-mail that the Bidens "also contribute to their favorite causes with their time as well as their checkbooks." Wade said Jill Biden has volunteered to help military families and the family "pitched in driving supplies to the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina."

Nationally, more than two-thirds of U.S. households reported giving to charity in 2004, with average contributions of $2,047 that year, according to a study released in January by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. Those households who gave to charity averaged donations of about 3% of their income, says Patrick Rooney, the center's interim executive director.

Another study of wealthy households in 2005 found average yearly donations of $40,746 from people with incomes from $200,000 per year to $500,000 per year, Rooney says. But like most statistics on giving, those numbers are skewed upwards by a small number of people who give large amounts to charity, says Rooney, formerly the center's research director.

Other vice presidents have been criticized over their charitable contributions.

Then-Vice President Al Gore came under fire when his 1997 tax return showed only $353 in donations to charity; he and his wife, Tipper, gave $15,000 to charity, or nearly 7% of their income, in each of the following two years.

When Vice President Dick Cheney was campaigning in 2000, he defended his family's charitable donations of $209,832, or about 1%, of the $20.6 million he earned from 1989 to 1999. "It's a private matter … a matter of private choice," Cheney said in 2000. Last year, Cheney and his wife, Lynne Cheney, donated more than $166,000 to charity, or about 5.5% of their income, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy.

Obama and his wife, Michelle, released tax returns earlier this year showing they earned more than $4.2 million last year, about $4 million of it from sales of Obama's two books, Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope.

The Obamas gave more than $240,000 to charity last year, about 5.7% of their income, their tax return shows. Their charitable giving has risen with their income; in 2000, when the couple made $240,726, they gave $2,350 to charity, about 1% of their income.

Republican presidential nominee John McCain reported income of $405,409 last year. His wife, Cindy McCain, the head of a Phoenix beer distributorship, files separate tax returns. McCain's campaign released only a summary of one of Cindy McCain's tax returns, showing she earned more than $6 million in 2006.

John McCain reported giving more than $202,000 — a quarter of his income — to charity in 2006 and 2007, the only years for which his campaign released his tax returns. His campaign didn't release information about his wife's charitable contributions, however. In 2006, her total itemized tax deductions, a category which includes charitable contributions and other deductible items such as mortgage interest, was $569,737, or 9.3% of her income.

The McCain campaign has not said when his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, will release her tax returns. The Democratic National Committee has criticized McCain for only releasing two years' worth of his returns, rather than the seven years' worth of complete returns released by Obama and the decade's worth from Biden.

Compared with the two presidential candidates, Biden's income is much more modest. His earnings in the past decade ranged from a high of more than $320,000 in 2005 to a low of $210,797 in 1999.

Besides his Senate salary and his wife's earnings, Biden also reported earning $20,500 a year from Widener University, where he's listed as an part-time, adjunct instructor of a constitutional law class. Widener has campuses in Delaware and Pennsylvania.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-12-biden-financial_N.htm

$369 a year, eh. Does that mean he's not a patriot? ;)

$369 a year, eh. Does that mean he's not a patriot? ;)Oh, he is. Only with your money.

I agree with Biden's idea.

It just was politcally the unwise to say.

I agree with Biden's idea.

It just was politcally the unwise to say.

:up: Yep it's much better to lie to the electorate or cover up what you really want to do ;)

Now I see why such a big deal was made of Cheney's charitable deductions and using his resulting tax rate to criticize him earlier in this thread.
The issue does seem to reinforce what other studies about giving among conservatives and liberals show. Conservatives view the caring for other people as a personal responsibility. Liberals view it as the responsibility of the government.

Would you say that falls into the broad generalization category?

I agree with Biden's idea.

It just was politcally the unwise to say.

You agree that it's patriotic to pay as much tax as you can so the government can nationalize financial institution?

Would you say that falls into the broad generalization category?
Probably. Why do you think that those who identify themselves as conservative give more money to charities than those who identify themselves as liberal? I don't begrudge anyone for giving too much or too little to charity (every dollar given is a dollar they didn't have before). I also don't think that it is necessarily wrong to think that the government is best equipped to handle major social problems.

The issue does seem to reinforce what other studies about giving among conservatives and liberals show. Conservatives view the caring for other people as a personal responsibility. Liberals view it as the responsibility of the government.

If there are "studies" that you are aware of please provide links/evidence... otherwise this does just seem like a generalization which is against the rules.

If there are "studies" that you are aware of please provide links/evidence... otherwise this does just seem like a generalization which is against the rules.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/11/22/it-turns-out-conservatives-really-are-compassionate/

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

I agree with Biden's idea.

It just was politcally the unwise to say.

So you support Socialism? If it walks and quacks like a duck...

Socialism

:rolleyes:

Now the graduated income tax is socialism.

If there are "studies" that you are aware of please provide links/evidence... otherwise this does just seem like a generalization which is against the rules.Previous post (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/8119323-post23.html)

Article link (http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm)

If there are "studies" that you are aware of please provide links/evidence... otherwise this does just seem like a generalization which is against the rules.We've already had discussions with links and evidence concerning this.

Socialism

:rolleyes:

Now the graduated income tax is socialism.


You're right. For the government to take from one section of the populace according to their ability and give to another section of the populace according to their need isn't socialism, per se. Its outright Marxism.

Hogwash!!!

Just saw this on Drudge, no link yet:


Biden taps reporter's chest, tells him, 'you need to work on your pecs'... Developing...

:lol:

You're right. For the government to take from one section of the populace according to their ability and give to another section of the populace according to their need isn't socialism, per se. Its outright Marxism.

WRONG. It is called Robin Hoodism

X,

Spokesman David Wade said the re