回复noso的评论: you made one mistake: lefties in u.s. are the righties in china, and vice versa. bush's admin is exactly doing things like a communist government would do.
You may also ask why the media and Hollywood are protecting him? Because the media and hollywood are controlled by liberals and socialists.
It is amazing to see that those who benefit the most from this great country hate America so much. Most Chinese American here still have socialist ideology in their heads, who still think someone should take care of them financially instead of becoming a master of their own.
noso 发表评论于
回复秋天的红叶的评论:
Great points!
Like I said, Obama is an empty suit. He is good at giving speeches, which he borrows from others all the time, but he is speechless when you ask his records before and after becoming a politician.
Are we going to let some talker take over this great country? Hell no!
紫萸香慢 发表评论于
回复秋天的红叶的评论:
"One more thing, isn't she easy on the eyes!"
Not really to most women, maybe only to some ladies with some lesiban tendency. In the eyes of a normal woman, Senator Biden is much easier on the eyes. Sorry, I didn't get any wink when I watched the debate.
十一月小棉袄 发表评论于
want to enjoy another clip of Sarah Palin?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc&NR=1
知否 发表评论于
回复snoopy37830的评论:
Yes, she can be PTA president, but not VP.
Any logical people can draw the conclusion. The country was controlled by a Republican president and a Republican congress between 2000-2006. Tell me how John McCain is going to make the national debt smaller.
十一月小棉袄 发表评论于
回复秋天的红叶的评论:
"One more thing, isn't she easy on the eyes!"
Is this a beauty contest? If so, Sarah wins hands down.
Too bad it isn't.
十一月小棉袄 发表评论于
回复秋天的红叶的评论:
The media is just showing the public what Sarah Palin truely is: a person who could not name the magazines she read or the decisions of Supreme Court she disagrees with, a person who is incoherent in answering simple questions, a person whose only ability is to recite prepared buzz words when asked about a question which has nothing to do with it.
Your impression on John McCain and Sarah Palin is so deja vu to what I hear 4 years ago of Bush and Chaney. Look what the country has changed since then.
Tax break is the main thing Republicans use to seduce the public. When the economy is bad, they say tax break is good for economy. When the economy is good, they say it is because of tax breaks therefore we should do more tax breaks.
This is their illogical philosophy. The end results: gigantic national debts and budget deficits under Ronald Reagan, George the father and son Bushes. Who will pay these debts? Did John McCain mention anything?
秋天的红叶 发表评论于
One more thing, isn't she easy on the eyes!
秋天的红叶 发表评论于
I think Sarah Palin is great!
A mother of five, a career woman, a straight talker, I would cheer for her all the way.
Because she does not have Harvard Law degree, I identify with her even better than some other people. I would not worry about the media’s attack on her. They are biased all the time, if they really think Palin is such an idiot, why would they work so hard to smear her reputation and intelligence? I truly believe, in the face of danger, only McCain and Palin will be able to handle the situation without sale the country short. After all, this country needs a leader, not a follower who always changes his mind depends on which direction the wind blows.
There are two more debates coming, I would like to see more of their detailed plans before I make a final decision on who I would like to vote for. We can all stay tuned.
Ps, love your political assays, looking forward to more from you.
noso 发表评论于
回复十一月小棉袄的评论:
only you supporters for Obama think this guy will save you out of misery and change the world to a better place. Not only you guys are naive at default, you kid yourself, you also could not see through the undercurrent of this election. You people act like a cult member of Church Of Obama, all you can say is what you have been brain washed about.
Let me tell you something else, under current economic situation, almost all Obama's promises will fall flat on his face. The people he really needs to pay back are wall street and mortgage industry people, not even those black people he uses, and to you, a Chinese American who votes for him because you really believe his BS that McCain = Bush, you will be left alone with nothing.
Your left wingers not only like to kid yourself, but also like to lecture others with laughable materials.
The following is from a pro-Obama press, enjoy it:
Obama and ’60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: October 3, 2008
New York Times
CHICAGO — At a tumultuous meeting of anti-Vietnam War militants at the Chicago Coliseum in 1969, Bill Ayers helped found the radical Weathermen, launching a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and United States Capitol.
Bill Ayers is now an education professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. His wife, Bernardine Dohrn, teaches at Northwestern University.
Mr. Ayers was wanted by the F.B.I. in 1970. Charges against him were dropped in 1974 because of prosecutorial misconduct.
Opponents of Senator Barack Obama have created advertisements linking him to Mr. Ayers.
Twenty-six years later, at a lunchtime meeting about school reform in a Chicago skyscraper, Barack Obama met Mr. Ayers, by then an education professor. Their paths have crossed sporadically since then, at a coffee Mr. Ayers hosted for Mr. Obama’s first run for office, on the schools project and a charitable board, and in casual encounters as Hyde Park neighbors.
Their relationship has become a touchstone for opponents of Mr. Obama, the Democratic senator, in his bid for the presidency. Video clips on YouTube, including a new advertisement that was broadcast on Friday, juxtapose Mr. Obama’s face with the young Mr. Ayers or grainy shots of the bombings.
In a televised interview last spring, Senator John McCain, Mr. Obama’s Republican rival, asked, “How can you countenance someone who was engaged in bombings that could have or did kill innocent people?”
More recently, conservative critics who accuse Mr. Obama of a stealth radical agenda have asserted that he has misleadingly minimized his relationship with Mr. Ayers, whom the candidate has dismissed as “a guy who lives in my neighborhood” and “somebody who worked on education issues in Chicago that I know.”
A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called “somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.”
Obama campaign aides said the Ayers relationship had been greatly exaggerated by opponents to smear the candidate.
“The suggestion that Ayers was a political adviser to Obama or someone who shaped his political views is patently false,” said Ben LaBolt, a campaign spokesman. Mr. LaBolt said the men first met in 1995 through the education project, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and have encountered each other occasionally in public life or in the neighborhood. He said they have not spoken by phone or exchanged e-mail messages since Mr. Obama began serving in the United States Senate in January 2005 and last met more than a year ago when they bumped into each other on the street in Hyde Park.
In the stark presentation of a 30-second advertisement or a television clip, Mr. Obama’s connections with a man who once bombed buildings and who is unapologetic about it may seem puzzling. But in Chicago, Mr. Ayers has largely been rehabilitated.
Federal riot and bombing conspiracy charges against him were dropped in 1974 because of illegal wiretaps and other prosecutorial misconduct, and he was welcomed back after years in hiding by his large and prominent family. His father, Thomas G. Ayers, had served as chief executive of Commonwealth Edison, the local power company.
Since earning a doctorate in education at Columbia in 1987, Mr. Ayers has been a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, the author or editor of 15 books, and an advocate of school reform.
“He’s done a lot of good in this city and nationally,” Mayor Richard M. Daley said in an interview this week, explaining that he has long consulted Mr. Ayers on school issues. Mr. Daley, whose father was Chicago’s mayor during the street violence accompanying the 1968 Democratic National Convention and the so-called Days of Rage the following year, said he saw the bombings of that time in the context of a polarized and turbulent era.
“This is 2008,” Mr. Daley said. “People make mistakes. You judge a person by his whole life.”
That attitude is widely shared in Chicago, but it is not universal. Steve Chapman, a columnist for The Chicago Tribune, defended Mr. Obama’s relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., his longtime pastor, whose black liberation theology and “God damn America” sermon became notorious last spring. But he denounced Mr. Obama for associating with Mr. Ayers, whom he said the University of Illinois should never have hired.
“I don’t think there’s a statute of limitations on terrorist bombings,” Mr. Chapman said in an interview, speaking not of the law but of political and moral implications.
“If you’re in public life, you ought to say, ‘I don’t want to be associated with this guy,’ ” Mr. Chapman said. “If John McCain had a long association with a guy who’d bombed abortion clinics, I don’t think people would say, ‘That’s ancient history.’ ”
Mr. Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, a clinical associate professor at Northwestern University Law School who was also a Weather Underground founder, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
The Schools Project
The Ayers-Obama connection first came to public attention last spring, when both Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Obama’s Democratic primary rival, and Mr. McCain brought it up. It became the subject of a television advertisement in August by the anti-Obama American Issues Project and drew new attention recently on The Wall Street Journal’s op-ed page and elsewhere as the archives of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge at the University of Illinois were opened to researchers.
That project was part of a national school reform effort financed with $500 million from Walter H. Annenberg, the billionaire publisher and philanthropist and President Richard M. Nixon’s ambassador to the United Kingdom. Many cities applied for the Annenberg money, and Mr. Ayers joined two other local education activists to lead a broad, citywide effort that won nearly $50 million for Chicago.
In March 1995, Mr. Obama became chairman of the six-member board that oversaw the distribution of grants in Chicago. Some bloggers have recently speculated that Mr. Ayers had engineered that post for him.
In fact, according to several people involved, Mr. Ayers played no role in Mr. Obama’s appointment. Instead, it was suggested by Deborah Leff, then president of the Joyce Foundation, a Chicago-based group whose board Mr. Obama, a young lawyer, had joined the previous year. At a lunch with two other foundation heads, Patricia A. Graham of the Spencer Foundation and Adele Simmons of the MacArthur Foundation, Ms. Leff suggested that Mr. Obama would make a good board chairman, she said in an interview. Mr. Ayers was not present and had not suggested Mr. Obama, she said.
Ms. Graham said she invited Mr. Obama to dinner at an Italian restaurant in Chicago and was impressed.
“At the end of the dinner I said, ‘I really want you to be chairman.’ He said, ‘I’ll do it if you’ll be vice chairman,’ ” Ms. Graham recalled, and she agreed.
Archives of the Chicago Annenberg project, which funneled the money to networks of schools from 1995 to 2000, show both men attended six board meetings early in the project — Mr. Obama as chairman, Mr. Ayers to brief members on school issues.
It was later in 1995 that Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn hosted the gathering, in their town house three blocks from Mr. Obama’s home, at which State Senator Alice J. Palmer, who planned to run for Congress, introduced Mr. Obama to a few Democratic friends as her chosen successor. That was one of several such neighborhood events as Mr. Obama prepared to run, said A. J. Wolf, the 84-year-old emeritus rabbi of KAM Isaiah Israel Synagogue, across the street from Mr. Obama’s current house.
“If you ask my wife, we had the first coffee for Barack,” Rabbi Wolf said. He said he had known Mr. Ayers for decades but added, “Bill’s mad at me because I told a reporter he’s a toothless ex-radical.”
“It was kind of a nasty shot,” Mr. Wolf said. “But it’s true. For God’s sake, he’s a professor.”
Other Connections
In 1997, after Mr. Obama took office, the new state senator was asked what he was reading by The Chicago Tribune. He praised a book by Mr. Ayers, “A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court,” which Mr. Obama called “a searing and timely account of the juvenile court system.” In 2001, Mr. Ayers donated $200 to Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign.
In addition, from 2000 to 2002, the two men also overlapped on the seven-member board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago charity that had supported Mr. Obama’s first work as a community organizer in the 1980s. Officials there said the board met about a dozen times during those three years but declined to make public the minutes, saying they wanted members to be candid in assessing people and organizations applying for grants.
A board member at the time, R. Eden Martin, a corporate lawyer and president of the Commercial Club of Chicago, described both men as conscientious in examining proposed community projects but could recall nothing remarkable about their dealings with each other. “You had people who were liberal and some who were pretty conservative, but we usually reached a consensus,” Mr. Martin said of the panel.
Since 2002, there is little public evidence of their relationship.
If by then the ambitious politician was trying to keep his distance, it would not be a surprise. In an article that by chance was published on Sept. 11, 2001, The New York Times wrote about Mr. Ayers and his just-published memoir, “Fugitive Days,” opening with a quotation from the author: “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”
Three days after the Qaeda attacks, Mr. Ayers wrote a reply posted on his Web site to clarify his quoted remarks, saying the meaning had been distorted.
“My memoir is from start to finish a condemnation of terrorism, of the indiscriminate murder of human beings, whether driven by fanaticism or official policy,” he wrote. But he added that the Weathermen had “showed remarkable restraint” given the nature of the American bombing campaign in Vietnam that they were trying to stop.
Most of the bombs the Weathermen were blamed for had been placed to do only property damage, a fact Mr. Ayers emphasizes in his memoir. But a 1970 pipe bomb in San Francisco attributed to the group killed one police officer and severely hurt another. An accidental 1970 explosion in a Greenwich Village town house basement killed three radicals; survivors later said they had been making nail bombs to detonate at a military dance at Fort Dix in New Jersey. And in 1981, in an armed robbery of a Brinks armored truck in Nanuet, N.Y., that involved Weather Underground members including Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, two police officers and a Brinks guard were killed.
In his memoir, Mr. Ayers was evasive as to which bombings he had a hand in, writing that “some details cannot be told.” By the time of the Brinks robbery, he and Ms. Dohrn had emerged from underground to raise their two children, then Chesa Boudin, whose parents were imprisoned for their role in the heist.
Little Influence Seen
Mr. Obama’s friends said that history was utterly irrelevant to judging the candidate, because Mr. Ayers was never a significant influence on him. Even some conservatives who know Mr. Obama said that if he was drawn to Ayers-style radicalism, he hid it well.
“I saw no evidence of a radical streak, either overt or covert, when we were together at Harvard Law School,” said Bradford A. Berenson, who worked on the Harvard Law Review with Mr. Obama and who served as associate White House counsel under President Bush. Mr. Berenson, who is backing Mr. McCain, described his fellow student as “a pragmatic liberal” whose moderation frustrated others at the law review whose views were much farther to the left.
Some 15 years later, left-leaning backers of Mr. Obama have the same complaint. “We’re fully for Obama, but we disagree with some of his stands,” said Tom Hayden, the 1960s activist and former California legislator, who helped organize Progressives for Obama. His group opposes the candidate’s call for sending more troops to Afghanistan, for instance, “because we think it’s a quagmire just like Iraq,” he said. “A lot of our work is trying to win over progressives who think Obama is too conservative.”
Mr. Hayden, 68, said he has known Mr. Ayers for 45 years and was on the other side of the split in the radical antiwar movement that led Mr. Ayers and others to form the Weathermen. But Mr. Hayden said he saw attempts to link Mr. Obama with bombings and radicalism as “typical campaign shenanigans.”
“If Barack Obama says he’s willing to talk to foreign leaders without preconditions,” Mr. Hayden said, “I can imagine he’d be willing to talk to Bill Ayers about schools. But I think that’s about as far as their relationship goes.”
laojie 发表评论于
回复十一月小棉袄(and all friends below)的评论:
任何有脑子有自尊心的人都不会真心赞美佩林的。美国民众再怎么不知好歹，still deserve better than that. God bless America, no more Republicans in the White House in the next 4 years.
非常支持你的观点！Palin is just great! I admire her very much, not only personally but also her conservative points of views!
Biden几乎自始至终表现乏味，典型的老左形象。一点都没兴趣。怎么看老左，怎么没劲。
紫萸香慢 发表评论于
回复紫萸香慢的评论:
Correction: They were too afraid she would look too stupid if she had to talk without written scripts
紫萸香慢 发表评论于
Palin is not a very smart woman and she couldn't answer any question directly. She always tried to dance the questions and went back to the scripts Macain's advisors gave to her. She even said she wouldn't answer the questions. It was not really a debate. By the rules set by repulicans, she could only answer questions to the mediator, no back-forth debate with Joe Biden. They were too afraid she would look too stupid if she had to talk with scripts. That was why we didn't hear the words like "Putin rears his head? where's he go?..."
She speaks like average Americans and her intelligence and abilities are just like average Americans. So just be herself, an average American. Do not try to pretend she's an expert on everything, do not try to seek the high office position. For the experience of past eight years, Americans are better to have leaders smarter than the average Joes.
紫萸香慢 发表评论于
所有的Poll顯示Biden以巨大差距贏了Debate.
MSNBC, 313,013votes, 76% says Joe Biden won.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553
CNN Lary King Live, 15484 votes, 85%: Joe Biden won.
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/
就連樓主喜歡的Fox News（偏右）, 462,541 votes, 54% says Joe Biden was the winner.
http://elections.foxnews.com/
回复noso的评论: Shed no crocodile tears for me, please.
I don't need your cheap "sorry" for my "own problem". My problem is big: it's the American problem: it's in knee-deep trouble of the Iraq war etc. Shoud I blame the Iraq war problem on myself?
If you want to feel sorry, feel for those who lost their mom or dad to the war!
McCain/Palin will keep running along the Bush/Cheney's disastrous railway--that's why my vote is not for them.
jlc 发表评论于
The main reason I will not vote for OB is because I like HRC and will write her name in. also I dont think OB will do anything better than McCain. I think he will do less, he always thinks himself first. he cant delivery who he promise.
My main concern is the enviroment, people who lose money now may recover later. but when the tree (or enviroment) were down, they will be gone forever.
I am aginst immigration also. for example one people uses 1 unit energy in Maxico, when he move to US the same person will consumes may be 5 unit energy. how the world resources can support that many people?
十一月小棉袄 发表评论于
佩林真的是个花瓶.
By the way, winking to the audience is not professional. It is folksy at best, childish at worse.
十一月小棉袄 发表评论于
Palin did not answer questions raised by the mediator all night because she did not know how to answer those unprepared questions. All she could do was to recite those prepared scripts by the McCain campaign that had nothing to do with the questions. Go watch the clips yourself.
Sarah Palin does not have the brain to be the vice president of the country. Period.
靈小抓 发表评论于
Palin did not even answer questions. She just followed the script, found every possible way to go back to her principles. It was viewed by many as smart strategy to cover her weakness, but at the same time, bad way of debating.
noso 发表评论于
看美国最大盟友英国驻美大使是怎样评理奥巴马的
Barack Obama is 'aloof' says British ambassador to US
Barack Obama is a "decidedly liberal" senator "who was finding his feet, and then got diverted by his presidential ambitions", according to a frank verdict delivered to Gordon Brown by the British ambassador to the United States.
Sir Nigel Sheinwald, ambassador in Washington since last year, delivered his unvarnished assessment of the White House front runner in a seven-page letter to the Prime Minister, obtained by The Daily Telegraph, just before the Democratic nominee's visit to Downing Street just over two months ago.
The candid letter, marked as containing "sensitive judgements" and requesting officials to "protect the contents carefully" gives a remarkable insight into how the Foreign Office views the political phenomenon who stunned Mr Brown's inner circle by defeating their favourite, Hillary Clinton, in the Democratic primaries.
Although the picture Sir Nigel paints is a highly complimentary one - Mr Obama's speeches are "elegant" and "mesmerising", he is "highly intelligent" and has "star quality" - he also judges that his "policies are still evolving" and that if elected he will "have less of a track record than any recent president".
The letter's contents suggest that Mr Brown could initially find it difficult to deal with a President Obama because he remains a largely unknown quantity who "resists pigeon-holing" and the leak is likely to complicate relations.
Last month, the prime minister was forced to backtrack after an article written in his name broke with convention by showering praise on the Democratic candidate at the expense of his Republican rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona.
Sir Nigel traces the ambition of Mr Obama, 47, to reach the White House right back to his 20s or before. "He has talked at least since the 1980s about a shot at the Presidency."
He also identifies several political vulnerabilities that Sen McCain will seek to exploit in the last month of his campaign against the Illinois senator. The leaked letter will provide him with welcome ammunition.
Mr Obama "can seem to sit on the fence, assiduously balancing pros and cons", Sir Nigel wrote, and "does betray a highly educated and upper middle class mindset". Charges of elitism "are not entirely unfair" and he is "maybe aloof, insensitive" at times.
"He can talk too dispassionately for a national campaign about issues which touch people personally, eg his notorious San Francisco comments [in April] about small-town Pennsylvanians 'clinging' to guns and religion."
Mr Obama's Democratic primary victory over the former First Lady showed that "he is tough and competitive. This is of course the Chicago school.
You don't beat Clinton without being resilient" but "his energy levels do dip and he can be uninspiring e.g. in debates".
Curiously, there is no mention of his wife Michelle - a central figure in his rise and his closest adviser - and little examination of his time in Chicago, where he had radical associations, or his background in Hawaii, essential to understanding why "Obama is cool", as the letter puts it.
Sir Nigel detects a potential clash between Downing Street and an Obama administration over Iran.
"If Obama wins, we will need to consider with him the articulation between (a) his desire for 'unconditional' dialogue with Iran and (b) our and the [United Nations Security Council]'s requirement of prior suspension of enrichment before the nuclear negotiations proper can begin."
But Sir Nigel - who described the Iraq war as "the Iraq expedition" and "Bush's Iraq adventure" - briefed that Mr Obama's Iraq policy gelled with Britain's.
"Whatever the detail, our own proposed transition in south-east Iraq would be consistent with Obama's likely approach. Obama's ideas on a more expansive regional framework for Iraq would also fit well with our thinking."
He wrote approvingly of Mr Obama's "mainstream team of youthful economic advisers, with strong credentials [who] approach policy with refreshingly few prescriptions", his "progressive position on climate change" and his 'pragmatic realism" and "balanced approach to the big security issues".
Sir Nigel concludes that searching for a deal between Israel and the Palestinians is "unlikely to be a top priority for Obama" and he expresses concern about his protectionist trade policy, while noting that he has "repositioned himself somewhat towards free trade".
British officials said that since it became clear that Mr Obama would overcome Mrs Clinton, Sir Nigel had worked hard to dampen down what he viewed as "Obamamania" within Downing Street that had become so strong that he feared it might alienate the McCain campaign.
Sir Nigel's letter, though initially drafted by his political staff, is an intensely personal assessment of Mr Obama and is based largely on the ambassador's owns observations from the campaign trail.
He has travelled to rallies as far afield as New Hampshire and South Carolina - where he had a personal meeting with Mr McCain - and to the party conventions in Denver and St Paul, Minnesota.
Although he has the lowest public profile of any recent British ambassador in Washington, Sir Nigel has won respect for his range of contacts within the Bush administration and the campaigns.
The letter quotes Tom Daschle, a former Senate Majority Leader and Obama confidant who is hotly tipped to become White House chief of staff should Mr Obama be elected, from a private meeting with Sir Nigel.
There is a strong indication Sir Nigel also consulted Senator Richard Lugar, a Republican who has worked with Mr Obama on legislation and travelled abroad with him.
"Obama's politics and policies are still evolving," Sir Nigel wrote.
"His Illinois and US Senate careers give us only a few clues as to his likely priorities in office.
"In the Senate he took a low profile in 2005-6, but was a diligent member of the Foreign Relations Committee, respectful and friendly to the veteran Republican Senator Lugar, with whom he travelled to London in 2005.
"His voting record was decidedly liberal. But the main impression is of someone who was finding his feet, and then got diverted by his presidential ambitions."
Sir Nigel later reiterates the point: "Although he has been a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for four years, and a regular attender of meetings in his first two, there is little Obama track record to refer back to."
He highlights luck as a key factor in Mr Obama's rise. "He was certainly lucky in having Democratic and Republican opponents for the US Senate in 2004 who were tarnished. He was lucky that Hillary Clinton had such a bad organisation in the primary campaign, and took so long to respond to Obama's threat."
A spokesman for the British Embassy in Washington declined to comment.
noso 发表评论于
Obama Tax Plan: Back To Welfare?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Obamanomics: To those of us who can still tell the difference between a tax cut and a government handout, the Democratic plan for "relief" looks more like a blueprint for dependency.
In the first presidential debate, Barack Obama repeated a claim he has made many a time — that his economic plan would cut taxes for "95% of working families." But is this really so? Yes, more or less, but only if you accept Obama's definition of a tax cut. And doing that may force you to leave your common-sense zone.
First of all, "working families" does not include all households. Throw in singles, retirees, students and the unemployed, and the share getting some tax-related benefit is a good deal less. The Tax Policy Center, a group affiliated with the center-left Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, says only about 80% of households would get a cut.
Then there's the difference, not acknowledged by the Obama camp, between a real tax cut and the type of "tax relief" that looks suspiciously like welfare. A true tax "cut" is a reduction in the taxes you're paying. In contrast, much of the "relief" in Obama's plan consists of "refundable credit" — payments you get even if you owe no taxes at all.
The plan does have some real tax cuts, such as the extension of President Bush's cuts for families making under $250,000. This relief is significant — though John McCain would go further and provide it for everyone. However, so are Obama's new or expanded refundable credits. These include, with five-year costs estimated by the Tax Policy Center:
• The "making work pay" credit of 6.2% up to $8,100 of earnings. Cost: $323.7 billion.
• A "universal mortgage" credit equal to 10% of mortgage interest for income-tax filers who don't itemize. Cost: $54 billion.
• An expansion of the child and dependent care credit, which would rise from 35% to 50% of expenses and would be refundable for the first time. Cost: $10.6 billion.
• The "American opportunity tax credit" to replace the (non-refundable) hope credit with a refundable credit of $4,000 for college costs. Cost: $58.2 billion.
• Expansion of the earned income tax credit to lower-income workers. Cost: $19.3 billion.
That's $465.8 billion in all over five years, all transferred from the $250K-plus set and going mostly to lower- and lower-middle-income Americans.
Millions of those in line for these benefits pay no income tax, and Obama's plan — both through these credits and a pure-pander policy of eliminating taxes for 7 million seniors — would increase the nontaxpaying class by millions more.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that the share of households not owing income tax would rise from 38% under current law to 48% under the Obama plan.
Another think tank, the Tax Foundation, says the number of nonpayers would rise from a third of tax filers to 44%.
So how many will get "tax relief" that is really just welfare? The number is impossible to pin down exactly, but it's likely to be huge.
Start with the nonpaying class of 48% or 44%, depending on whose calculation you use. That's well over 60 million tax filers. Many, if not most, of these would probably qualify for at least one of the Obama credits, because it doesn't take much, other than low income, to qualify.
For one of those credits, dependent and child care, you don't even have to have a job. You can simply be looking for one. Taking college courses (and agreeing to 100 hours of community service) qualifies you for the "American opportunity credit."
The most expensive credit, "making work pay," is aimed at low-wage workers but will have to be phased out at higher income levels. As the Tax Policy Center notes, the resulting jump in marginal tax rates in the phaseout zone "might actually give workers an incentive to work less."
What happens to our society and politics when so many Americans no longer expect to share the income-tax burden and instead think "tax relief" means getting checks extracted from "the rich"?
The country is on dangerous ground at such a point, because there may be no stopping the zeal of politicians to pad their majorities even more by squeezing the wealth producers and buying the votes of a new welfare class that once was proud of paying its own way.
noso 发表评论于
回复偶灯斯陋的评论:
go ahead blame others for your own problem. When you are not doing well, it always some one else's fault.
BTW, you did not get my point from the story I told at all. I am sorry for you.
chaya 发表评论于
noso 的评论 回到顶部
上一页 [1] 2
Shake hand! 北鹤, we were thinking about the same thing...I didn't read your comments before post mine.
回复noso的评论:
Of course YOU are living a better life after 8 years of Bush/Cheney but not your FRIENDS (re: "灾难真的来了") and the MOST of American people and those who lost their loved ones to the war of who-knows-what's-the cause. But I guess you could care less.
noso 发表评论于
Biden's 14 Lies Tonight (ZT)
来源: dell_dell
http://minx.cc/?post=274757
1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to
increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE
THAT WAY.
2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never
said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran
. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.
3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has
opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping”
the Outer Continental Shelf.”
4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and
Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field.
John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of
the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.
5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he
just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in
America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S.
Senate.
6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is
exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative
energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.
7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people's
health insurance coverage -- they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike.
Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false
8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in
Alaska -- she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it's not a windfall
profits tax.
9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military
commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to
Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance
Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge
strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in
Afghanistan.
10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation -- he actually
called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.
11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong
on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and
differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.
12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t
see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on
individuals making $200,000 or more.
13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four
principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the
four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include
an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a
globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”
14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans
won't pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.
noso 发表评论于
回复谁说非得注册的评论:
"佩林对奥巴地批评也很中肯：见人说人话，见鬼说鬼话。", well said indeed.
noso 发表评论于
回复ncpga的评论:
Many Chinese here who root for Obama don't even have right to vote, some of them are living in Canada. I realize that the country who dislikes America most is actually Canada. : )
noso 发表评论于
回复偶灯斯陋的评论:
Am I living a better life after 8 years of Bush administration? Damn right I am.
yes, u r correct. have changed it. thanks. long time no c. : )
noso 发表评论于
回复北鹤的评论:
What I am talking about here is that many Chinese don't think independently. We Chinese are actually very conservative on social and economic issues, yet most of us vote with liberals and left wingers, who represent nothing to our value.
Go ask any Chinese voter who like to vote for Obama and soon you will find out that the reasoning in their heads doesn't make any sense.
Gwen Ifill, the moderator of Thursday night’s vice presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden, is coming under increasing fire for her apparent anti-Palin bias.
When Ifill was chosen to moderate the debate, the John McCain-Palin campaign was unaware that she has a new book coming out that expresses admiration for Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, “Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.”
McCain himself complained on “Fox & Friends” Thursday morning: “Frankly, I wish they had picked a moderator that isn’t writing a book favorable to Barack Obama…
“Life isn’t fair.”
Ifill tipped her hand when she hosted a discussion on PBS’ “Washington Week” on Sept. 5, after the close of the Republican convention that nominated Palin.
Ifill showed a video showing Palin saying, “Here’s a little news flash for those reporters and commentators: I’m not going to Washington to seek their good opinion, I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this great country.”
Ifill sniped: “Wow, was she talking about us, or just changing the subject?”
Later Ifill said about Palin: “Lots of talk about, what, gutting caribou or whatever — I shouldn’t say it this way — gutting caribou in Alaska, which I’m sure is a fine, fine thing to do.” That drew laughter from the audience. “What I’m just saying, we heard a lot more about what Sarah Palin did for sport or what she did as a mother or what she did — than what she did as a governor actually, the actual policy decisions.”
Ifill also raised this point: “This is a weird question, but what don’t we know about Sarah Palin?”
Conservative commentator Michelle Malkin said on Tuesday that Ifill is “so far in the tank” for Obama that “her oxygen delivery line is running out.”
Ifill was cited in complaints PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler said he received after Palin delivered her nomination acceptance speech at the convention, World Net Daily reported.
Some viewers complained of a “dismissive” look by Ifill when discussing Palin’s speech, and some said she wore a look of “disgust” while reporting on the GOP candidate.
One complaint read in part: “It is quite obvious that Ms. Ifill supports Obama as she struggled to say anything redemptive about Gov. Palin’s performance. I am disappointed in Ms. Ifill’s complete disregard for journalistic objectivity.”
ncpga 发表评论于
yes, agree! we vote a leader not a party. there are so many close-minded people who don't want to see a brilliant and intelligent Sarah Palin! Look at those ill-minded post: http://blog.wenxuecity.com/blogview.php?date=200810&postID=1879
偶灯斯陋 发表评论于
佩林真的是个花瓶? No she is not. She is Bush/Cheney II.
That's all.
If you enjoyed the past 8 years--by all means go on vote her.
If you do not want to repeat the 8 years, vote otherwise. Period.
This might be a slip of a pen from a writer I have been fond of---Election is for what you believe and what is good for the country, not a popularity contest. And it is certainly not a game show to see how good a guesser you are to match the final outcome. If a nincompoop or a charlatan is elected, it hurts everyone, and the past 8 years clearly demonstrated that.
This might be a slip of a pen from a writer I have been fond of---Election is for what you believe and what is good for the country, not a popularity contest. And it is certainly not a game to show to see how good a guesser you to match the final outcome. If a nincompoop or a charletan is elected, it hurts everyone, and the past 8 years clearily demonstrated that.
小睿儿 发表评论于
还有，我觉得她说得的这句很好：“Darn right it was the predator lenders, who tried to talk Americans into thinking that it was smart to buy a $300,000 house if we could only afford a $100,000 house”。
在美国，为了political right,政客们一般都不对loser说实话，obama更是要给他们画饼，让这些人得错不饶人，我觉得palin在这里点得很好。一部分美国人也需要奋斗、用脑子、少贪婪。
"值得一提的是，辩论主持人是奥巴马的粉丝，在主持过程中表现出明显的政治倾向" She is not only a fan, she wrote a book about Obama.
You are right, I think Palin did a great job last night. Binden was so fake...
