Would Obama Get "Crushed?"

Via The Politico, allegedly Hillary told someone she thinks Obama will get "crushed" in the Fall against McCain:

Here is why: She and Bill Clinton both devoutly believe that Obama’s likely victory is a disaster-in-waiting. Naive Democrats just don’t see it. And a timid, pro-Obama press corps, in their view, won’t tell the story.

But Hillary Clinton won’t tell it, either.

It is beginning to look that way, what with him supposedly dropping big in PA before the pending primary, though I would take the ARG Poll with a big grain of salt.

Putting aside the race issue, Obama has several problems. He's young, inexperienced, and far better working with a teleprompter, than working on his feet. McCain is somewhat the opposite of that.

Also, while some do, personally, I don't think whites will vote for Obama out of some sense of guilt, or desire to show their lack of bias.

In the end, he's never held an executive position, is starting to look rather brash - more ego, than substance - and for now I'm thinking he'll lose on the merits, even if the media will make the race all about race.

In the end, it may not be so.

Becoming the nation's first black president is enough of a challenge for someone to overcome. Doing it when you lack the qualifications and experience is probably too much to ask. I don't believe that many Americans really believe in Affirmative Action, anyhow. And it's starting to look like that's precisely what an Obama nomination by the Dems would be.

Comments

[jharp]

Was out working in the yard.

My days might be numbered her as this blog is clearly making me dumber simply by reading the posts.

Someone asked where I got the $4 trillion from.

It is the accumulated deficits under W and the GOP Congress.

That comes to $200 billion per year in interest, forever.

And we pay twice to three times for health care what the rest of the industrialized world pays.

And we have around 40 million uninsured.

You GOP apologists should be ashamed of what you have supported.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

joeb; We must all accept that Obie told the truth. Not so much that what he said is true but the truth of that is exactly what he and Hilda and most demonrats think of most of America. When boob and chrissy and a few others come here with their comments, they mean it, that's how your government to be thinks of you. That's how a huge part of the democrat party thinks of the people of this country. When Hilda came to Ft Bragg to talk to the soldiers....she actually sent Bill. They know what she really thinks of them. Going on memory, I'm not sure she has really been to NC at all......Obie has and I will give him props for it.

[Lala]

JHarp

I think you are making up that figure of 4 trillion

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"Someone asked where I got the $4 trillion from."

"It is the accumulated deficits under W and the GOP Congress."

Wow how disingenuious can you be Harpie? You implied that the war alone cost that much now we're dumb because we needed it clarified. Hm, sin of omission I guess. And of course spending ceased since Pelosi and friends took over. Kinda like using SS money, shuffling govt retiree funds and other smoke and mirror tricks "balanced" the budget with the last Pres.....who also had a GOP congress. Maybe it's people who wont face reality who should be ashamed. And while we're on the subject, maybe you could actually point out some specific "apologist" remarks.

[Worst President Ever]

What Obama said about towns across America that are dying because of jobs leaving and what happens to those workers was dead on.

[Worst President Ever]

Reality? Try this: George Bush is the one that's run up the huge deficit. Clinton left with a surplus, whether you liked the bookkeeping or not. Bush used the same tricks and still managed to tack on $4,000,000,000,000 of debt. By the time he leaves office, he'll have almost doubled the deficit. He'll also leave behind an economy in less than stellar shape and as for the dollar, it's about the only thing that's gone down faster than Shrub's approval rating.

[jharp]

From treasurydirect.gov

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

Sorry I was off a tad. It's only 3.75 trillion.

[jharp]

Willie,

"fire: I did it for over 30 years, dont get me started"

I just knew it willie.

You're sucking off the government teat for health care, aren't you. And probably a government pension too.

[Yoda]

"Obama will have more money, an energized base, and new ideas."

Old as Karl Marx, Obama's ideas are.

[Lala]

When Clinton left office the deficit was 5.719 trillion dollars

[Lala]

Willie,

yes, this guy Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate, is trying to say that the Iraq war will cost 4 Trillion.

[jharp]

When Clinton left office the deficit was 5.719 trillion dollars

You are correct. And it is now about 9.5 trillion.

Posted by: Lala | Monday, April 14, 2008 at 11:02 PM

Willie,

yes, this guy Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate, is trying to say that the Iraq war will cost 4 Trillion.

If McCain is elected the guy will probably be right.

Posted by: Lala | Monday, April 14, 2008 at 11:08 PM

Willie,

"fire: I did it for over 30 years, dont get me started"

I just knew it willie.

You're sucking off the government teat for health care, aren't you. And probably a government pension too.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"You're sucking off the government teat for health care, aren't you. And probably a government pension too."

Dont know why you felt the need to c&p your own posts and other people's to me harpie. But you're correct, for 30 years I "sucked the govt teat" if that is what you think police, fire and EMS do for a living and you know what HUGE salaries they make. No better than you're local welfare recipient I guess. You might know that a chunk of that career was in private industry and contracting, not all military and govt service. It did give a me a little insight into human nature and what happens to people who depend upon govt. Also got a REAL good look at what govt health care will be like. Oh and that big ole govt pension and health care? Like 90% of career fire fighters, I worked 2-3 jobs most of my career and saved/invested money. Bought, built and sold service businesses and went into rental property.....and now harpie, I give 1/2 of my govt pension to charity.
Wasn't always easy harpie, especially sending my kids to a private school while the wife went back for her master degree, trying to live in a decent home, paying for insurance and saving 10% of every little dime but we did it. So there's you a little lesson in why I don't have much sympathy for your 40 million too trifling to get health insurance or people like the Frost family from way back. The whiners about the "cost of education", the price of gasolene, whah,whah,whah.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"When Clinton left office the deficit was 5.719 trillion dollars

You are correct. And it is now about 9.5 trillion."

OK harpie you have all that education mommy and daddy worked to buy. Care to explain HTF a deficit of 5.7 T is a surplus? I also like how you think it's perfectly fine to "hide" the deficit with smoke n mirrors. Do you do that with your own money at home?

[seekeronos]

"--- What Obama said about towns across America that are dying because of jobs leaving and what happens to those workers was dead on. ---"

So said the elitist latte-sipping Marxist as he looked down his nose at those bitter, gun-toting, Bible-believing, immigration-concerned Pennsylvania honkies he will need to persuade to yank the voting lever for him.

Unfortunately for Barry "Heinrich" Obama, most people don't like to have emotions, much less words, put into their mouths. Americans generally rather like hearing solutions and plans attended by a winning spirit, than downer comments about how much their supposed bitterness has supposedly driven them to buy lots of guns and Bibles and look around for Mexicans or Black folks to bash.

[jharp]

"OK harpie you have all that education mommy and daddy worked to buy. Care to explain HTF a deficit of 5.7 T is a surplus?"

I misspoke. The "debt" was 5.7 trillion in 2000.

The "debt" is now 9.4 trillion.

[joeb]

I remember Jimmy Carter got in a lot of trouble and caught a lot of flak when he said Americans were suffering from malaise.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"The "debt" was 5.7 trillion in 2000. (but Clinton left a surplus)The "debt" is now 9.4 trillion."

So, with tax cuts, a war, major catastrophes, social programs, lord knows hat else. GW has spent well over a trillion dollars a year, well, except for since the dems took over congress and just quit spending anything. We're going to walk away and leave half of Iraq to be slaughtered which will save billions. If we're able to spend all this money with the tax cuts, but will be saving more than enough to cover your health care...why is it we need to raise taxes?

[Lala]

So, what did Pres. Bush piss away almost 4 Trillion dollars on?

When Clinton took office the debt was 4.167 Trillion, when he left it was 5.719 Trillion. What did Clinton piss away that 1.6 Trillion dollars on?

[jharp]

"The "debt" was 5.7 trillion in 2000. (but Clinton left a surplus)The "debt" is now 9.4 trillion."

Deficits refer to a fiscal year. Debt is the accumulation of deficits.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.

the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."
Clinton
President Clinton announces that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 is the largest in U.S. history

Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone.

[jharp]

So, with tax cuts, a war, major catastrophes, social programs, lord knows hat else.

All have led to the record breaking deficits.

Tax cuts mostly for the richest.

A war of choice.

Social programs. Just how much is the Wall Street bailout costing us?

Major catastrophes? Yeah, there has been. It's name is George Bush and the Republican Congress.

"We're going to walk away and leave half of Iraq to be slaughtered"

According to the folks who have been wrong about everything. Why don't we try listening to the guys who have been right all along. Who also say the problem is the occupation.

...why is it we need to raise taxes?

One reason is we have an additional $200 billion in interest expense thanks to your King George.

[jharp]

OK, Bush bootlickers. If you like W you're going to love McCain.

The McCain plan shares five key characteristics of Bush policies. First, it is enormously expensive, costing more than $2 trillion over the next decade and essentially doubling the Bush tax cuts.... ...offering two new massive tax cuts for corporations and delivering 58 percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent of taxpayers. The Bush tax cuts provide 31 percent of their benefits to the top 1 percent of taxpayers.

And do virtually nothing for the middle class: only 9 percent of the tax cuts will go to the bottom 80 percent of households.

[Worst President Ever]

McCain recently told the Wall Street Journal that he doesn't understand economics. Something tells me the public's going to be in an ugly mood come next November. And anyone with a R next to their name may suffer for their party' and Bush's incompetence - especially McCain.

"Seven in 10 Americans now give negative ratings to the president's stewardship of the sinking U.S. economy. Only 28 percent approve of his performance in this area, a double-digit decline from a year ago, and even core Republicans have begun to abandon the president on the issue."

And:

President Bush's approval trend has taken a sharp downturn in recent weeks, to fall to a new low for the administration at 28.3%.

While the President has taken a back seat to the primaries in recent months, his new approval slump reflects growing pessimism over the economy which has displaced the war in Iraq as the most important problem facing the country. Likewise the percent saying the nation is headed in the wrong direction has continued to grow in recent months, to a high of 81% in a recent CBS News poll.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

Damn Harpie, are you discussing deficits or debt, please make up your mind.
How the hell can you have a surplus when you're still in debt? And how do you pay down the debt when you're basically amking interest payments? I bet you've got an "interest only" loan somewhere. Or maybe you're one of the financial geniuses who got an ARM. "Yup, yup I'll be much better off in five years when my mortgage interest SPIKES."

"Major catastrophes? Yeah, there has been. It's name is George Bush and the Republican Congress." There goes Cheney's ninjas with giant heaters warming the Mississippi delta and their giant wind tsunami making machine. Oh, and let's not forget sneaking thousands of pounds of explosives into three buildings downtown NYC.

"According to the folks who have been wrong about everything. Why don't we try listening to the guys who have been right all along. Who also say the problem is the occupation." Actually cupcake that was my own opinion from the start and I've yet to be wrong about the sand box misadventure. Occupation my ass. Harpie, you aren't stupid and you're no actor so quit acting like you are. Here's a secret....if the "occupation" was the problem, the sunni and shia would be ganging up on us NOT KILLING EACH OTHER. Saddam kept them from murdering each other (mostly) and we fucked up the balance. Within weeks after we leave they wi9ll be sawing each others heads off and burning little girls alive in the streets.

[seekeronos]

"--- OK, Bush bootlickers. If you like W you're going to love McCain. ---"

Don't be so sure that all of us REALLY want to vote for McCain. It's just that he is the least of all evils (although, the least evil is still evil).

"--- And (the Bush Tax cuts) do virtually nothing for the middle class: only 9 percent of the tax cuts will go to the bottom 80 percent of households. ---"

Baloney.

The whole "tax the rich" meme needs to die the death of Marx and Engels; it is a very poison to a well-functioning capitalist economy:

What you may not understand about taxes, jharp, is that by reducing taxes to corporations and to smaller businesses, you actually create jobs (or in an under-performing economy, keep them)... the tax cuts are here to keep the cash flows going back into the economy.

To break it down even more simply let us define "the rich" as America's top income producers, be it multi-billion dollar corporations or hedge fund managers or i-bankers; generally the eight-figure income folks....

Here is what happens when we try to tax them at Rooseveltian rates of 70% or more:

Less money to pay wages & benefits = Fewer employees.
Fewer employees = greater unemployment and lowered revenue streams
Unemployment and lowered revenue streams = less tax revenue for the government across the entire tax base
Less tax revenue for the government = decreased quality or lowered standards for those big government spending programs

The only possible exception to this would be a crisis on the same par as WW2 was to Roosevelt, where we needed to fight and win a two-front war against two major industrial powers. The war itself provided sufficient drive and demand to keep that economy going, but as wars go, they take a certain detrimental toll, and most people would rather see victory come at such a great cost and personal privation; therefore, we can safely say that the basis for Rooseveltian tax levels are quite the exception to the norm, and we could see this as the New Deal programs continued onward into the 1960s and early 1970s as the economy wound down (not discounting that taxes had been lowered somewhat along the way from the 90% of the war time period to the 70% of Carter's time).

Those top 1% tax payers pay well over 70% of the national tax burden, and those top tax payers hold the keys to creating wealth and prosperity.

Now all other things being equal, extending tax cuts to the middle class would be nice, as well as a means for the underclass not to have taxes withheld, if their actual tax burden is less than zero in a given tax year.

The real secret, BTW to managing taxes, is to manage your deductions and your W-4 so that the bare minimum is withheld so as to have a tax return close to zero (either paying or refund). That is free money that you are lending to the government at zero interest, which could otherwise be invested.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

Wow WPE, The ARG poll that this thread is about is incorrect (according to you) but this CBS poll is right on the money. And CBS polled what percent of 360 million people? Maybe you meant 28% of those polled and not 28% of americans. You're right about one thing. GWB has ruined the R party for at least a decade.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"by reducing taxes to corporations and to smaller businesses, you actually create jobs (or in an under-performing economy, keep them)... the tax cuts are here to keep the cash flows going back into the economy."

Hmmm that must be why the smartest woman in the world wants even more tax incentives to keep businesses in the US.

[David M]

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 04/15/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

http://thunderrun.blogspot.com/2008/04/web-reconnaissance-for-04152008.html

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"Don't be so sure that all of us REALLY want to vote for McCain." (Or wont be voting for Obie.)

Seek you must remember that unless you're in 100% agreement with the dems and also agree that every wrong direction the country has taken since 1774 is GWB's personal fault.....you must be a robotic repugnican. See, to these people you either follow any and all government policies without hesitation or you're an idiot. They will not tolerate you thinking on your own.

[Worst President Ever]

No, multiple polls show him in the same range - see below. The ARG poll was way out-of-line with the other polls in Pennsylvania. It also went from a dead heat a week ago to a 20 point advantage for Hillary this week - seveb days, 20% change - hard to believe. It may be right, but it certainly looks suspicious.

"Recent polls from Gallup and AP/Ipsos put approval at 28%, a new low for the Gallup poll. Harris recently found approval at 26% while CBS News put approval at 28%. Pew similarly has approval at 28%..."

Cutting taxes without associated cuts in expenditures is irresponsible. REAL fiscal conservatives pay for what they buy, they don't just borrow, borrow, borrow and pass it on to someone else.

[seekeronos]

For Willie:

"--- Harpie, are you discussing deficits or debt, please make up your mind. How the hell can you have a surplus when you're still in debt? ---"

I believe the distinction lies in "budget deficit" she is referring to is the annual overrun of the set budget for a given fiscal year for the US government; the national debt is the overall accumulation of these deficits (decreased by any budget surpluses), along with some other voodoo that somehow gets jiggered into the mix (devaluation or imbalances in currency markets, T-bill issuance or buybacks, and other Fed.Reserve shenanigans)

The biggest piece of propaganda (and confusion) Dems like to say is that Clinton reduced the deficit to zero, and then ran surpluses up to the end of his term, hoping to obfuscate the fact that Clinton never substantial reduced the national debt, much less cashed it out to zero ( I am not even sure that that would be possible, short of reducing nearly all government spending to zero for the next dozen years and simply collecting taxes).

What more truthfully occurred is a _slowing_down_ of the accrual of the national debt; and to the degree that Bush erred by allowing the United States to be steered into another UN mess, we are paying that additional $4Tn debt to keep Iraq from coming completely unglued.

"--- Cheney's ninjas ... forget sneaking thousands of pounds of explosives into three buildings downtown NYC. ---" Hard to believe, that one is. I saw some of the footage of the 9/11 truthers who say that Real Estate Developer Larry Silverstein ... (Ruh Roh! Rich Jew Conspiracy Alert!!) ... blew down the towers and likely had a little tête-à-tête with Mr. OBL, while not particularly or necessarily cluing in Bush, Cheney, or his ninjas.

Not saying that I agree with this view, but I wouldn't put it completely out of the question either. Some folks with huge piles of cash and massive investments that look like they are tanking (Silverstein had secured a lease on the WTC complex, and was facing an extensive repair bill to remove stuff like asbestos, and a dearth of tenants to pay for the upgrades...) such folks tend to get some very squirrelly ideas when they see that their nut might be in danger.

"--- sunni and shia would be ganging up on us NOT KILLING EACH OTHER. Saddam kept them from murdering each other (mostly) and we f**ked up the balance. Within weeks after we leave they wi9ll be sawing each others heads off and burning little girls alive in the streets. ---"

Sad, and quite true this is.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

Trust polls all you want friend...........

"Cutting taxes without associated cuts in expenditures is irresponsible. REAL fiscal conservatives pay for what they buy, they don't just borrow, borrow, borrow and pass it on to someone else."

Man you're cool when you actually make sense.

[jharp]

Warren Buffet Pays 17.7% Tax Rate; His Employees Pay 32.9%

Warren Buffet complained that he paid a 17.7% tax rate on his $46 million of taxable income in 2006, while his employees paid an average 32.9% tax rate (his receptionist's tax rate was 30%).

[jharp]

Warren Buffet Pays 17.7% Tax Rate; His Employees Pay 32.9%

Warren Buffet complained that he paid a 17.7% tax rate on his $46 million of taxable income in 2006, while his employees paid an average 32.9% tax rate (his receptionist's tax rate was 30%).

[seekeronos]

WPE sez:

"--- Cutting taxes without associated cuts in expenditures is irresponsible. REAL fiscal conservatives pay for what they buy, they don't just borrow, borrow, borrow and pass it on to someone else. ---"

Actually, I agree. End the occupation, bring home the troops and the equipment in a staged, not chaotic withdrawal; bring home the troops stationed overseas in Germany, Japan, and South Korea by 2012 (when our SOFA agreements lapse) save only for a few naval stations and reservations to air bases we might need in light of Asian defense commitments, and that more like the nature of the Cold War era REFORGER exercises, just in case China and Russia get uppity.

Might look into Single Payer, so long as the existing health care channels and options are generally kept available (and not try to extend the VA system out to everyone) ... if the savings are really as grand as the libs make them out to be.

Shut down the Dept. of Ed and numerous other useless branches of government, or try to consolidate them into more meaning Cabinet agencies.

We don't need a dashed "drug czar" or a "poverty czar" or a "racial relations czar". In fact, czarism and monarchy as a whole is about as outmoded as the bustle is for women.

And appoint Ron Paul as the Secretary of the Economy (merging the treasury and commerce depts.) -- or someone else from the Ludwig von Mises Institute to bring our monetary systems back into something more manageable - a gold standard.

[Lala]

Buffet is always free to make out a check to the US Treasury.

His receptionist must make a lot of money. If line 43 (taxable income) is 100.000.00 and you are single the tax is $22,104.00. That's only 22 percent.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"Warren Buffet Pays 17.7% Tax Rate; His Employees Pay 32.9%"

"COMPLAINED"?!!!! He freekin' bragged. Just like m, you and everyone else Warren is more than welcomed to send all the money he wants to DC. Apparently, left leaning "I dont pay enough" whiners have encouraged a Cali congressman to write a bill called "put your money where your mouth is" that if passed would give these idiots a check box on their 1040. And the best part. They can actually say where the money will b spent. Cool huh? Now WB can help us with the debt. Oh and the 17% is on the salary he gives himself.........not the interest on his billions.

Look I am all for taxing hell out of people like him, forcing him to live on his 100k salary. I especially want to see actors and atheletes forced to live on what they're actually worth. Dont it piss you off that boob rides around in his beemers and apparently contributes nothing to the welfare of his fellow man? Buffet's over paid secretary needs a bit o cumuppance too.

[Worst President Ever]

See Seek, we're about 75% in agreement. Kinda scary, huh?

The point Buffet's making is the tax system is inherently unfair. Why should someone who doesn't work but just invests get a better tax rate than someone who gets up every morning and puts in 8 to 10 hours on the job?

[jharp]

"COMPLAINED"?!!!! He freekin' bragged. Just like m, you and everyone else Warren is more than welcomed to send all the money he wants to DC.

It's all how you look at it.

My take? The middle class is paying more than their fair share. That was the point I was trying to make.

Somehow the republicans have hoodwinked the middle class into believing they are the rich. Todays republican's, living middle class - voting rich.

[seekeronos]

"--- Warren Buffet complained that he paid a 17.7% tax rate on his $46 million of taxable income in 2006 ---"

And yet did we hear any news of Warren Buffet cutting a check for the difference of 15.2% of his $46M 2006 income to the government (approx. $7M) ...?

If he is so civic-minded, let him cut a big fat check to the IRS. Or better still, let him give it to the charit(y/ies) of his choice.

[Fred Beloit]

Harpo writes: "Was out working in the yard.

My days might be numbered her[e]."

Oh joy what a boon. "..Thy gifts...from Thy bounty..." We thank Thee. May Harpo soon depart to plague much smarter slobs than we, say oh, at Kos or Huff.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"Somehow the republicans have hoodwinked the middle class into believing they are the rich."

And the dems have played on class envy until it's sickening...all the while protecting their rich friends. It looks as if WPE might open his eyes once in a while, but I worry for you harpie. Man you're going to be sooo disappointed if you think we're going to do anything more than switch parties. The rich will still be rich and the dems who need the power will do all they can to keep the poor down. Has it completely escaped your attention that all the people complaining about bad tax policy are the one's most benefitting from it? Do you think favors wont be repaid? Screw it, it's a usless argument.

[Worst President Ever]

The problem, again, is the tax system is unfair.

People that sit at home but let their money work for them get taxed at about half the rate that people that actually work for their money do. Work in a factory, get taxes at twice the rate someone that just invests money does.

Buffet cutting a check - he already gave pretty much all his money away - isn't going to do anything about that basic problem of unfairness.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"Work in a factory, get taxes at twice the rate someone that just invests money does."

Sounds good when you consider WB's billions but where is the line? Some retiree manages to save 1m in 60 odd years. Retires at 62 and begins drawing 10% PY of that 1m that is making him 13% PY. Is you "fairness" system graduated or does this retired factory worker owe your government a big ole chunk of his retirement savings? I mean, he's "rich", just "investing" his money.

[seekeronos]

"--- The point Buffet's making is the tax system is inherently unfair. ---"

"--- My take? The middle class is paying more than their fair share. ---"

Life is not fair™.

Yet we are all endowed by our Creator with a brain and a pair of hands and feet with which to improve our lot.

[Worst President Ever]

I'm sure there's more equitable solutions that could take into account a person's total income rather than taxing investment income at lower rates than money earned the old fashioned way. Obviously a complex problem, but the current system heavily favors the rich over the working stiff.

The point is, the tax system needs to be fair, and not seen as rewarding classes of people - investors in this example - at the expense of others.

Nice Seek. Shut up, suck up and like it. I thought you were a Christian. And not everyone has the tools or opportunity to improve their lot.

[seekeronos]

"--- Nice Seek. Shut up, suck up and like it. I thought you were a Christian. And not everyone has the tools or opportunity to improve their lot. ---"

Heh, and that's what I get for trying to make a shorter statement than the long thing I had originally prepared.

I never said that the disadvantaged should have to "suck it and like it". That is actually quite a perverse to say, and demeans the condition of those who are genuinely unable to improve themselves.

Forgive me if I was not clear enough. Those who are able to find work, earn money, and take the time to learn how to properly invest their money should do so whilst avoiding debt.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"Obviously a complex problem, but the current system heavily favors the rich over the working stiff."

While I mostly agree you still act like there's no difference between WB and my retired factory worker. The latter made his money "the old fashioned way" and does not want to depend on S.S. (being smarter than a box of rocks and all) So should he pay the same percentage on his monthly withdrawls from savings as a person making as much still working? He's already being taxed on the interest/dividend on his life savings.

"And not everyone has the tools or opportunity to improve their lot." The only exclusion would be the infirm. Everyone else, especially this day and age can improve their lot in life.

[seekeronos]

A lower capital gains tax is beneficial to everyone, as it keeps the markets healthier with reinvested dividends, and the Republic generally wealthier.

[Worst President Ever]

My Mom's a retired factory worked - believe me, I know the difference between her and one of the richest guys in the world.

It would depend on how much the retire is making. If he's raking in millions, yeah, he should pay. If he's squeaking by, his rates should be low, if anything at all.

It's nice to say anyone can improve his lot. The whole American Dream thing. Truth is, it's gotten harder. When you cut programs to train the poor, cut their educational opportunities, but social programs to help them, guess what happens? Fewer of them can fight their way out of poverty:

"But for most of the poor, the United States is no longer the land of opportunity. Economic research in the past decade has found that upward mobility has faded; most of the children of rich parents stay rich and the children of the poor remain poor."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0127/p21s01-coop.html