Did anyone bother to watch the debates this past week? I sure did, and to be honest, it didnapos;t disappoint. It was interesting, covered a variety of subject, and was moderated so as to actually facilitate an exchange instead of just parroted talking points. It was a success...in pissing me off.
McCain came off attacking Obama as he was expected to. Ayers, Acorn, etc. Obama explained these contacts very eloquently and concisely, but the repubs keep insisting that "we deserve to know the truth". This type of innuendo tactic is used to imply that we donapos;t know...and that there must inevitably be some sinister connection between any or all of them. If you repeat a lie, no matter how subtle, often enough, it becomes a truth (especially at FOX). The media and political parties today have become really good at the use of these duh-versions, but the populace is starting to become more immune. Iapos;m just sick of it.
He did score some good points by calling Obama out directly on his attacks by stating point-blank, "I am not George Bush. If you wanted to run against him, you shouldapos;ve run four years ago." I donapos;t support McCain this time around (unlike in 2000), but I was glad to see him cut through the BS. However, there is one thing going on in the background concerning this:
McCain: I am not George Bush.
Voters: We donapos;t believe you. Besides, Bush was enough of a reason not to elect a republican in the WH for the next decade.
Me: ...or a Texan...ever.
McCain then proceeded later in the debate - about 20 times, mentioning "Joe the Plumber" to attack any rational explanation of Obamaapos;s Tax and Healthcare plans. The story goes that he had finally made/saved enough to buy the business he had worked for over thirteen years. What we now know is that Joe is a registered republican who is on record as stating Obama (and the dems) are socialist. He owes tens of thousands in back taxes and doesnapos;t even have a plumberapos;s license.
Most small businesses today earn less than 250k, and they are taxed on profit, not revenue. Yet, he is portrayed as being hurt by the tax hike and healthcare requirements, which is completely untrue. The math simply doesnapos;t add up.
I find myself more and more objecting to the Republican criticism that any progressive scheme of taxation (or more progressive anyway) amounts to socialism or as McCain put it, "spreading the wealth around". I contend that despite what they call more oppressive taxes for the rich, being wealthy remains a popular activity. The financial incentive of making as much money as you can will never dissapear or decline due to your tax bracket/rate. Nobody will choose poverty for the tax breaks.
IMHO, what we need is to do just that - spread the wealth around. Prior to Reagan, the top brackets were paying 70 on their top dollars made, yet the wealthy were doing just fine then. Same after WW2. Since Reagan, that rate has been cut in half. The spread between salaries of the average worker and the boards/officers of publically traded companies has grown exponentially. Yet, as productivity has shot up, the wages for the average worker (who actually makes the product/provides teh services/ or otherwise "makes the money") have stagnated and decliined to where many can no longer keep up.
Wealth and power go hand in hand and I fear that the concentration of wealth is now threatening democracy itself. There is nothing wrong with making profit or capitalism in itself, but there comes a point where it ceases being that and becomes pure greed. Profit should not be at the expense of the well-being of society at large. Besides, anyone familiar with how a progressive income tax structure works knows that the first 250k (or whatever value) of everyone is taxed at the same rate. Anything above that is taxed differently. If you donapos;t make above that, you canapos;t pay taxes on what you donapos;t make. There isnapos;t any inequity there.
We need to invest in our nationapos;s infrastructure and financial solvency. This extra funding can come from spending cuts in non-necessary areas, but mathematically we would also need an increase in revenue. Taxing the "top dollars" more wonapos;t leave anyone out on the streets, but raising across the board (which the Rapos;s consider fair as they support the inverse) will. Seriously guys, boot to the head. You know nothing about the "average joe" and never will as long as your party is controlled by corporatists.
The debateapos;s best drinking phrase: "Joe the Plumber".
asc x12, asc x12 edi, asc x12 standard, asc x12 standards.
