The Wednesday morning shock will be devastating for the LEFTY LIBS. The most telling point is Obama’s failure to rise above 48%. Obamanation supporters have already made their decision. What is left are independent voters, libertarians. And with Obama’s “let’s spread the wealth” (meaning take from others and give to those who haven’t earned it) he committed suicide. This one factor will be the decider on election day and voters who are not decided will decide that though they may not find McCain their favorite, they certainty aren’t going to vote for a MARXIST like THE OBAMANATION. It will be a sad day for the LEFTY LIBS.
Next Please!

“the most telling point is Obama’s failure to rise above 48%.”
He’s above 48% in almost all the polls. It is McCain who can’t get above 45%.

Wrong…his only advance to 48% was recently and it has dropped to 47%. Pal, I am talking about LIKELY voters not registered voters. Registered voter polls mean nothing.
McCain’s not being above 45% has to do with INDEPENDENTS. But then like a typical LEFTY LIB you didn’t read my post you just saw what you wanted to see and ignored the rest. INDEPENDENTS are the undecideds. The people who have made up their minds about THE OBAMANATION have done so. Those INDEPENDENTS aren’t weighing their vote for THE OBAMANATION they are weighing their vote for McCain and they represent about 7% and normally they, in a vast majority, reject LEFTY LIBS. They did so with Kerry and they will with Marxist Obamanation.
So LEFTY LIB, try again. The undecided independents reject Marxists like Obama and Obama messed up big time with his idiotic statement about “spreading the wealth around” which means taking from those that earned it and giving it to those that didn’t.
You will learn what the undecided/independent voters means if you don’t get it here on election day. They don’t want The Obamanation, but they aren’t in love with McCain but come election day they certainly aren’t going to vote for a Marxist. So McCain will get a high majority of them. And they do vote. These are people that consistently go to the polls so they will be the decider.
Next Please!

Guy…it is also a sad day for the Republicans when we don’t put up a man who we can vote for…but they put up a man who we must vote against.

yes, right! Don’t take anything for granted. We have not one till the voting is over on Nov 4th.
I too suggest that Dems end their gloating till Nov. 5th. And even then, don’t gloat! We need to work together. Even Joe the plumber needs to be brought into the fold. He needs to understand how a system can benefit everybody- not just the super rich.
No gloating please!!! Just hard work and GET OUT THE VOTE!!!
Please vote early if you can. I will vote this Tuesday when absentee voting begins in my state.

He needs to understand how a system can benefit everybody- not just the super rich.
Joe the Plumber needs to understand that a system that penalizes success (whether or not “double speak” calls it that or not) penalizes everybody except those who live off “free money”.
When people with money have less money, they buy less “stuff”. The people that provide that “stuff” have fewer sales, fewer jobs and less money.
For those who want to work, McCain’s system makes sense. For those who want to vote themselves cash, Obama’s system makes sense.

I agree on gloating now or after the election. It’s counter-productive.
Rasmussen, Gallup and CBS all have published LV polls with Obama
with more than 50% and Obama has run a stronger presentation than McCain.

not gloating… just reporting:
as of yesterday, realclearpolitics.com rolling poll of polls:

RCP Average 10/09-10/16 — 49.5 42.6 Obama +6.9
Rasmussen Tracking 10/14-10/16 3000 LV 50 46 Obama +4
Reuters/C-Span/Zogby 10/14-10/16 1210 LV 49 44 Obama +5
Hotline/FD Tracking 10/14-10/16 804 LV 50 40 Obama +10
Gallup (Traditional) 10/14-10/16 2155 LV 49 47 Obama +2
Gallup (Expanded) 10/14-10/16 2314 LV 51 45 Obama +6
GW/Battleground 10/12-10/16 800 LV 49 45 Obama +4
IBD/TIPP Tracking 10/12-10/16 1020 LV 46 41 Obama +5
LA Times/Bloomberg 10/10-10/13 1030 LV 50 41 Obama +9
CBS News/NY Times 10/10-10/13 699 LV 53 39 Obama +14
USA Today/Gallup (T) 10/10-10/12 761 LV 50 46 Obama +4
USA Today/Gallup (E) 10/10-10/12 1030 LV 52 45 Obama +7
Pew Research 10/09-10/12 1191 LV 49 42 Obama +7
Ipsos/McClatchy 10/09-10/13 1036 RV 48 39 Obama +9

those who can read tables and poll results will observe that obama has broken 50 in 7 polls in the past week alone and maintains an average lead ahead of mcbush by 6.9 points among likely voters (that’s what the LV stands for). among likely voters, he has polled at 48 or higher in 12 of the 13 recent polls.
however, this only reflects the popular vote. and as kerry voters know all too well, that matters little compared to electoral votes by state. so here’s where those stand so far, based on statewide poll averages:

Solid Leaning Total
Obama 249 37 286
McBush 140 15 155
Toss Up 97

among the toss-up states (NV, ND, MO, IN, OH, WV, NC, FL), obama leads in most of them:

RCP LV Averages
State EV Obama McBush Spread
NV 5 49.0 44.8 +4.2
ND 3 47.7 43.7 +4.0
MO 11 49.3 46.8 +2.5
IN 11 45.0 48.8 -3.8
OH 20 48.9 45.7 +3.2
WV 5 46.3 47.8 -1.5
NC 15 47.9 46.7 +1.2
FL 27 49.2 46.0 +3.2
CO* 9 50.6 44.6 +6.0
VA* 13 51.8 43.7 +8.1
NM* 5 50.7 42.3 +8.4
MN* 10 51.2 42.6 +8.7

obama leads in 4 other battle ground states (*) including MN, CO, VA, and NM. mcbush is having to compete hard in traditional “red states” like IN, VA, FL, CO, NC, ND and even in OH that went for bush in 2000 and 2004. it’s not impossible for mcbush to win some of those, but even if he wins all 97 electoral votes from all 8 of the toss up states (most of which he’s trailing in), he still only comes out with 252 electoral votes. he needs 270 to win – and a 269-269 tie goes to obama since he will have the votes in the house. that means mcbush has to peel off some “leaning” for obama. this means he will need to take VA or MN and one of either CO or NM. CO is his best shot, and i assume that’s what their strategy is since both mcbush and his side-kick will be making stops here next week. i don’t know how he plans to steal the vote in VA and MN, but republicans are already challenging voter registration rolls, trying to stir controversy and suppress voters. the fewer people who vote, the better off they are.

I apologize for posting off-topic, but, Michelle, apparently Beliefnet believes you are a rabbi,Author, radio and TV talk show host, and President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership. Not a flattering photo, however.

Yeah, Robert, that explains to me why people have come here in the past looking for Reformed Judaism. Only to be disappointed.

And the Blogs Worth Reading links haven’t worked for months! But I still link to you, Reformed Chicks.

Yeah, if that’s the look of a 21st-century reformed chick, us guys are gonna have to start going retro
P.S. I hope the Obamanites do continue gloating and counting their chickens before the eggs hatch, then maybe they’ll rest on their laurels. Who are you working for anyway, Michelle?!? Let sleeping dogs lie!

I wish, MizEllen, that ‘people with less money buy less stuff’ would be understood by those who outsource jobs or was applied to flat wages.
Believe me, I’d be more than willing to pay more in taxes if I was making more money in the first place.
Despite the ‘punished for success’ bit, anyone here willing to turn down an increase of wages to 250k because of the taxes they might have to pay?

With all of the potential loop-holes, write-offs, legacy-gifts, tax-deffered vehicles, and other machinations (because of no flat tax I’m sure there’d be a lot fewer reported incomes in the $250k to $260k range than in the $240k to $250k range should Obama get elected.
In answer to your question Karen, I and most other readers would probably answer with an emphatic NO. Never mind the fact that it would be a six-figure pay raise for 95% of us reading your comment. Sounds like you have the creativity of an Obama speechwriter (maybe they should read your comment and pick up a few pointers.)

Doesn’t take creativity.
I work at a homeless shelter. I don’t think a person here would find the taxes paid at 250k so onerous they’d refuse a job that paid that a year, even without loopholes.
I do know that workers have had flat wages for years, and years. Nobody seems to mind THEY don’t have as much money to buy stuff.

Karen, is socialism the answer?

What’s YOUR definition of socialism?

”
Main Entry:
state socialism
Function:
noun
Date:
1879
: an economic system with limited socialist characteristics that is effected by gradual state action and typically includes public ownership of major industries and remedial measures to benefit the working class
As in the effective takeover of the banking industry, the increasing control over insurance companies, take from the rich to give to the poor.

When people with money have less money, they buy less “stuff”.
The thing about rich people is that they don’t spend money. That’s how come they’re rich. (Look at what the banks are doing now, hoarding the money Paulson gave them).
If you want the economy you describe, get money to people who will spend it – those who ain’t so used to having it in the first place.

There are places socialism works reasonably well, like Norway, and places where socialism is a disaster, like Burma. I really don’t give a flip who owns my bank as long as they at least can pay out the money I put in, and I do not believe that state socialism is an inherently anti-Christian system. Didn’t the Book of Acts refer to Christians having all things in common?

I have not bought a sail boat in a long, long time.

MzEllen, please tell me what part of the 700 billion dollar bailout (which is taxpayer money) belongs to the rich, and what part of it is being given away to the poor?
I also suggest that you update your definition of socialism. And specify what kind of socialism you are defining. Are you talking about Scandanavian-type socialism–Democratic Socialism–or are you talking about other forms of socialism as practiced by totalitarian states such as the former Soviet Union? Let’s be a little more precise. You and Michele throw terms like “Marxism” and “socialism” around all the time as if they are interchangeable, and without ever specifying what you mean by the terms–except of course that we all know you think these are very, very bad words. Like “liberal.”

“liberal” (in and of itself) is not a bad term. In terms of Christianity, I can be liberal.
In politics, there are “thinking liberals” and “angry liberals”. I work with thinking liberals and get along quite nicely with them.
And specify what kind of socialism you are definin
I did. Read the definition. “state socialism”.
Frankly, as I have said here, the bailout was a bad plan. There is no good way to do it.
without ever specifying what you mean by the terms-
I just did.

“If you want the economy you describe, get money to people who will spend it – those who ain’t so used to having it in the first place.”
The noveau riches of our society generally have to earn their money, it isn’t given to them. The banks are being cautious with the second chance they’re being given (at least in these first few days.) If the rich didn’t spend money, Robin Leech would have to get a real job. I do admit you raise an interesting prospect of a different kind of socialism. The more I spend, the more I’ll be given; this is a spendaholics paradise. I may have finally found a profession I’m good at (praise be!!!)

I have not bought a sail boat in a long, long time.
And you wouldn’t buy one every week like groceries, if you did. Big ticket item purchases by 1 to 10% of the population doesn’t make our economy go ’round.
You watch, those people will continue to do what they’ve always done throughout this recession, unfazed, without any trickle-down benefit to the rest of us. I think it’s called “class,” but it might just as well be called “universe.”
Who got those economic stimulus checks? Rich people? No, people who could be counted on to spend them. Washington knows, even if you don’t.
Peace, and I mean that sincerely, mzEllen – I hope you believe I do. If I sound mad it’s because I had to type this in a second time.

But it isn’t quite the same, is it?
You give, (an example) another million to one person who already has several, it is likely he already HAS a car. He already HAS a house. He may buy one, he may not. If he does, no guarantee it will be done in the US, buying US goods and services.
You divide that between 10 middle class people, that’s 10 down payments on 10 houses. That’s probably a good car, more groceries, pay down debt, all down locally.
Its also one person USING less taxes, on subsidized housing, or food stamps, or free lunches.
How about, for a change, instead of ‘trickle down’, we try ‘trickle up’?
You work on the lower middle, the working poor, to make them LESS working poor, not by lowering taxes, but by more wages. Which rewards them for doing the right thing. For an honest day’s work for a real day’s wages, and enough left over for those extras, times 100, because that rich guy is going to have to buy a lot of cars to accomplish what dividing the same amount of money between a hundred people. And one expensive car doesn’t equal 100 moderately priced ones when it comes to stimulating an economy.

no guarantee it will be done in the US, buying US goods and services.
I was thinking that, too.

Michele, thanks for motivating me to work another shift for Obama tomorrow instead of going to brunch. And who’s gloating? You think Democrats would be gloating at this point after what happened in 2000 and 2004? Every Democrat I know is chewing their fingernails, keeping fingers and toes crossed, rubbing their lucky rabbit’s foot, avoiding sidewalk cracks, etc. etc. A woman at the library book sale this morning told me she was thinking of making proprietary offerings.
As blister and Melle and others have said on this post, we can’t afford to be complacent. We must keep running to the finish line. I urge everyone to do SOMETHING, even if it’s only for an hour between now and the election. If you’re not in a swing state, you can make calls to voters who are. And if our extra efforts result in a landslide, all the better: it will give Obama the mandate he needs to set us on the road to fiscal and national sanity. God bless him and God bless our beloved America: “one country,” as Biden reminded us recently, “indivisible.”

You give, (an example) another million to one person who already has several, it is likely he already HAS a car.
Two points that I cannot agree on.
We are not talking about giving that “million”. We are talking about money that has been earned by a person. The money is not “given” to them…It is already theirs.
What do you call a political system where individuals no longer own the fruit of their labor?
The other premise that there are many more people who in the range of $250,000 than a million.
Say a woman has a job in software development in Silicon Valley and earns $150,000 a year. Her husband is in computer security and earns $140,000. These are average salaries for that field in that area. Their combined income in $290.000 per year – well over Obama’s $250,000.
$290,000 divided by 12 months is roughly 24,200.
The state income tax for that bracket is 9.3% – $2250.
$24000 – 2250 = 21750 (now, that is still roughly what my job pays in a year, but this is money that they earned.
Now lets talk federal taxes.
24,200 a month – Obama’s plan is to raise or eliminate the cap on social security earnings. That means that the entire $24,200 per month will be subject to payroll taxes at 7.65% – $1851
Plus federal income tax – 35% (at least) – $8740.
$21750 – 1851 = $19899
$19899 – 8740 = $11159
So far, after local, state and federal taxes, this average income (for that region) has only 46% of their gross pay left in their pocket – after all the governments confiscate their portion, this couple has less than half of what they earned left.
And this does not include California’s sales tax (8.25%), gasoline tax ($0.639 per gallon), state vehicle taxes or local sales tax.
How much of the money that YOU earn, do you think you should be able to keep?
My point is that in many areas of this county, wages are higher and the cost of living is higher. In these areas, a couple making $250,000 is (in Obama’s eyes, and it appears in the eyes of some folks here) is not “rich”. But they are going to be losing over 54% (amazing that that seems “fair”) to various taxes.
If that couple wants to tithe (on the net), they’ll be giving over $2,000 a month. Most couples own two cars – $1,000 a month. \
Does this couple want to own a home? I’m thinking that home ownership should not be restricted to ACORN recipients…In 2006, the average cost of a single family home was just a shade over $900,000. The payments at 6% is going to be around $5,000. Property taxes are 1.1% on the full cash value of the home – $9900 per year or $825 per month.
How much of the money that this couple earns should they be able to keep?
How much of your income would you like to be able to keep?

You work on the lower middle, the working poor, to make them LESS working poor, not by lowering taxes, but by more wages.
BINGO! Who funds the salary? Big Brother or companies (which need to give more of their money to the government, leaving less for wages?
no guarantee it will be done in the US, buying US goods and services.
Please consider for a moment that people with more money (not me) tend to have work “done”, rather than “DIY”.
My son is patching my ceiling. Someone with more cash in their pocket would hire somebody.
I’m painting my own interior. Someone with more cash in their pocket would hire somebody.
My son’s friend is fixing my brakes. Someone with more cash in their pocket would hire somebody.
I mow my own lawn. Someone with more cash in their pocket would hire somebody.
I wash my own car. Someone with more cash in their pocket would hire somebody.
Next summer I’ll be hosting a “roofing party.” Someone with more cash in their pocket would hire somebody.
Waiters, roofer, plumbers, landscapers, dry wallers, electricians…all those jobs cannot be outsourced.
And if you’re concerned about products made in the United States…how much of the merchandise that you see at Walmart is made in the US?

Peace, and I mean that sincerely, mzEllen – I hope you believe I do. If I sound mad it’s because I had to type this in a second time.
I do understand that…thanks.
(I’ve taken to writing comments in Word for just that reason)

The bottom line is (in all this tax discussion):
Whose money is it? Who should get the majority of the money that people earn?

Problem with the scenario is, MizEllen…
It has been shown, over and over, that corporate execs do NOT take their tax windfall and use it to, I dunno..
Hire more employees, raise their salaries and benefits, not even necessarily expand their businesses.
When they do, it isn’t necessarily in THIS country.
Why? Because getting more back in taxes does not mean one needs to, or even should, expand their business.
A person should expand their business because, well, they are DOING more BUSINESS. Period.
People who make less money would also hire people.. if they had more MONEY. You honestly think Jack, the barely paying his rent homeowner patches his own roof because he WANTS to patch his own roof?
And there’s a few thousand Jacks to every Wentworth, and I guarantee, their homes need more repair.
And that’s only ONE business. There’s also groceries, clothes, cars, electronics. Things that Wentworth already owns. And unless you are a collector, you can still only drive so many cars at a time.
And, once again, one 200k car does NOT equal the economic boost of 10 20k cars. You only build that car once, you only sell it once, you only collect the commission once, and at one business. It only gets repaired as much as one car does, only requires the accessories, gas, tires and lubes of one car. And when it breaks down, or they want something prettier, it only gets replaced.. once.
Same with clothes, same with food, same with houses.

Oh, and Wentworth, by BEING a Wentworth, is already hiring people to do those things. A few thousand extra in taxes won’t make a difference one way or the other.
You honestly think Bill Gates is saying. “Geez.. that roof sure could use replacing. But man.. if I don’t get my taxes lowered, I don’t think I could swing it! Better see if that goes through or not!’
Or do you think it more likely that Jack, who works as a mechanic at the local gas station is saying, “Well, hon, keep the pot under that leak. And if that tax rebate goes through, maybe we can manage to buy the supplies so we can get the roof repaired.’
(Remembering that hardware stores and supply places are as much businesses as construction subcontractors.)
It CAN make the difference, with Jack, if he DIY, or hire someone. Sometimes whether he gets it done at all.

Again, Karen, do you recognize any difference between Bill Gates and (read my earlier post) a working couple making $250,000?
Evidently not.
Again I ask, how much of what another person earns belongs to you? What percentage of YOUR earnings would you like to belong to somebody else?
How much is fair?
I keep asking the question and I keep hearing the sound of crickets chirping.

You honestly think Jack, the barely paying his rent homeowner patches his own roof because he WANTS to patch his own roof?
Must you deal only in extremes?
It is not either “Bill Gates” or “Jack, the barely paying his rent homeowner”.
(by the way, homeowners don’t pay rent, they pay mortgages).
Or is it really “if they can afford their rent, raise their taxes!”

What part of any income?
Are you saying that all taxes are theft? Secondly, frankly, until you actually own your home, your mortgage is nothing more than renting from the bank. (Want to test that? Ask your bank what happens if you decide to tear down your entire house and rebuild from scratch if you haven’t paid it off…)
The same applies to the 250k if that is INCOME. Note, not business profits, but the amount the person makes after paying all the expenses of his business, and this is what he pays himself.
To put it in perspective, a person MAKING (once again, not business profits, what he takes home, before taxes, but after business expenses) 250k a year, he is making more than 20 THOUSAND dollars a MONTH.
That person makes more in a month and a half than most people make in a year.
And Jack doesn’t have to be on welfare to have a problem making his rent and utilities. We have plenty of people who end up where I work who have jobs, who used to have homes, who were working hard as they can, and barely making ends meet.
Are you saying that an extra couple of thousand in taxes a year is going to mean he can’t repair his roof?
I consider it not ‘money owed to other people’. Most of the objections deal with who is paying the taxes, but they aren’t being taken from your pocket, and put into Jack’s.
They are being put, mostly, into projects that benefit us all.
Roads, schools, health and safety projects, etc.
Is a highway we can travel on something you’re giving me? Is that money you’re claiming I think you owe me? Or, the last time I checked, do most people (indeed, higher income at a higher rate) use roads, emergency services, and national security too?
They don’t answer because the question doesn’t make sense. You aren’t paying something to a particular person, whether you think it is being treated like its ‘owed’ to them or not.
You, and I, and lots of other people, are paying for goods, and services, and institutions that benefit us all.

And you didn’t answer MY question.
Would you (unless you already make it, or more) turn down a job offer that paid 250k just because you think you’ll have to pay more in taxes?
Do you know of anyone outside of those who make barely under (and that’d be an issue as long as there are defined numbers and brackets, regardless of how much people paid), who would?
Do you know how much people paid in taxes during the golden era of the 50′s?

Right.
I will answer yours and will have no expectation of hearing anything more than crickets. (Rings a bell from yesterday)
No, I would not turn it down. No, that does not make socialism right.

Why would you hear anything more than crickets now? You didn’t ask anything.
And once again, how is someone being ‘owed’ your money? Are you talking taxes?
Taxes go to a variety of things. Most of us approve of some of it, disapprove of others. Usually those lists are different from person to person.
But at no point does someone say, “You, MzEllen, owe Bill, over here, a thousand of your dollars. Here, let’s snatch it from your check, and put it in his pocket.”
Now, if you view paying for, say, health inspections, Homeland security, national disaster relief, highway maintenance, military expenses, and any of a thousand other things that our taxes go to as bad expenditures, they are still not, in any sense, taking your money and saying it is owed to anyone else.
So, my debate is with the question, itself. Since it ‘begs the question’. (Namely, the question, itself, is a point of debate, you’d have to agree to a number of things under dispute to even have a basis to answer it. Rather like ‘do you still beat your wife’.)

???
How much of the money that YOU earn, do you think you should be able to keep?
How much of the money that this couple earns should they be able to keep?
Again I ask, how much of what another person earns belongs to you?
What percentage of YOUR earnings would you like to belong to somebody else?
How much is fair?
And that’s only in this thread.

Let’s see..
If I had to spend out of my pocket every day to, oh.. fix the roads, to shovel the snow off of them.. If I had to pay the police before they’d come for a call, or had to worry if the food I bought was going to kill me..
Well, those last two? Like the credit card ads…. priceless.
That’s the point. They aren’t GOING to ‘someone else’. They are going to goods, services, and institutions we ALL use.
If we each had to pay for those services ourselves, most of us would go without. If our country had insecurity about those services being provided.. well, see any third world country to see what its like when only the well to do have utilities, have roads that you can drive on, when you aren’t sure if the fire trucks are going to come.

As for what percentage? I’d have to pick one out of a hat. Many things those taxes they collect pay for, I couldn’t find for that price anywhere else. Some of them no individual can do for themselves.
Some would take time, skills, or money no one person has.
I remember reading an essay on what daily life would be like without those things we take for granted, but forget don’t come for free.
Waking up, being sure to inspect the food we eat with our microscopes, because there’s no actual standards that what we buy is safe, that we get as much as we paid for, or even that its what we thought we WERE paying for.
Having to either repair and shovel and even make the roads ourselves, or pay tolls on every road we didn’t.
The days of highwaymen and merchant highway robbery.
We really don’t have to go that far back to find out what it was like, or even back at all.
We see countries like that now. We see the businesses more than happy to build factories there, and hire their workers. Oddly enough, we don’t see the ‘taxes are robbery’ crowd flocking to live there.