I am so rich, I spit on you! (in Off-topic)


{cb2}Dinh November 4 2008 10:57 PM EST

What if I make more than 120K a year?? Gee this is a big question today. I guess people that aren't good at math have an issue with it. But here it is. Read it slowly if you need to. The Facts Obama has said throughout the campaign that families making less than $250,000 a year will not see a tax increase. Those making less than $200,000 will get a tax cut, he says. "If you make less than a quarter of a million dollars a year, you will not see a single dime of your taxes go up," Obama said during an October 7 presidential debate in Nashville, Tennessee. "If you make $200,000 a year or less, your taxes will go down." The campaign ad McCain refers to, titled "Defining Moment," does have a graphic appear on the screen that says, "Families making less than $200,000 get tax cut." Obama says, "If you have a job, pay taxes and make less than $200,000 a year, you'll get a tax cut," which is, again, consistent with the plan he has laid out. Biden was speaking Monday, October 27, in an interview with WNEP in Scranton, Pennsylvania. He said, "(An) $87 billion tax break doesn't need to go to people making an average of $1.4 million. It should go like it used to. It should go to middle class people οΎ— people making under $150,000 a year." Biden never says that tax breaks should "only" go to such people. The Obama campaign says he was merely using that figure as an example and that the statement does not represent a change in policy. The Verdict: False. What McCain is doing here, in part, is comparing apples and oranges. He compares two different aspects of Obama's tax plan as if they were the same. And Biden never said people making less than $150,000 are the "only" people who would get a tax cut under Obama's policies. link - <a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081101052913AAHw6JV">Here</a><br><br>Obama '08

QBOddBird November 4 2008 11:02 PM EST

Just as an aside


Why does it matter how much a person makes before everyone else in the country deserves a cut of it

I thought when a person earned a salary, it was THEIR salary

not everyone else's


socialism ftw

Cube November 5 2008 1:13 AM EST

^In terms of economics it's more useful for those with less.

That's why we have half socialism.. the arguments are of course, how much?

Flatcap [East Milwaukee Devival] November 5 2008 4:47 AM EST

"Why does it matter how much a person makes before everyone else in the country deserves a cut of it"

Ever hear the phrase it takes money to make money? These are income taxes they're talking about. There are separate taxes for dividents and capital gains as well as bonuses. I suppose you dont remember when taxes on divident income were removed during the first year of the Bush term? I don't know about you but I dont get divident income, because I'm poor. and those who it actually helps are those with millions invested not the average joe with 20 grand in an IRA.

The wealthy currently pay a very small amount in taxes compared to the poor shmucks like me. Every year I watch almost 40% of my income go to taxes, social security and medicare. Joe Millionare gets off with a 15% capital gains and a tiny tiny divident tax, as well as massive deductions for "Charitable works" and "Investment loss" All around your average millionaire can get off with 5% with a decent accountant.

Underage Drinking November 7 2008 6:39 PM EST

so the lesson of the day would be either become an accountant or get a new best friend XD

AdminJonathan November 7 2008 6:43 PM EST

> I suppose you don't remember when taxes on dividend income were removed during the first year of the Bush term? [spelling corrected]

Only for low-income people, basically, retirees with not much savings.

Everyone else pays 15% on dividends, same as the capital gains rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend_tax#United_States

QBRanger November 7 2008 7:55 PM EST

So those of us who busted our butts to get an education, go to professional school, apprentice for 5 years making 25k a year deserve to give up more of our earnings to those that put no effort into doing a darn thing each day?

I spent 13 years with college, medical school, residency and fellowship to get where I am now.

Yes, I make a good living and someone wants to take more of my earnings and give it to Joe Schmuck sitting on his couch contributing nothing to society?

Right now the top 5% of wage earners pay over 70% of ALL income taxes.

And 33-40% of all people in the US (those of working age) pay ZERO tax.

So please spare me the song and dance about how the "rich" need to give up more. And calling people rich by them making over 250k a year is complete laughter. My dad never made more then 50k a year and was happy as hell to have a family, a house and drive a relatively decent car to and from work 5 days a week.

I busted my behind getting an education and making it work. Sacrificed years of my life to get where I am today. And some young punk wants me to pay for his Starbucks coffee each day.

And now some Socialist wants me to "spread the wealth". What a piece of crap!!! Spreading the wealth will lead to a disincentive to work, leading to America losing its place as a leader in innovation.

The American dream is out there, you just have to want to put in the time and effort to make it happen.

Now, most young people want it handed to them, along with their welfare check.

QBRanger November 7 2008 8:02 PM EST

"The wealthy currently pay a very small amount in taxes compared to the poor shmucks like me. Every year I watch almost 40% of my income go to taxes, social security and medicare. Joe Millionare gets off with a 15% capital gains and a tiny tiny divident tax, as well as massive deductions for "Charitable works" and "Investment loss" All around your average millionaire can get off with 5% with a decent accountant."

And that is a lie spewed by Socialists wanting your vote.

I know, I have friends that make close to that number and they pay over 35% of their income to the government.

I have no idea where "Charitable works" comes about. Our new VP made 2.3M last year and gave a whopping 6k to charity.

So please stop this propaganda spewed by those wanting "change" and power. Chat with someone actually making over 250k a year and see how they feel. Before you assume things that are complete falsehoods.

Rawr November 7 2008 8:49 PM EST

Agreed with Ranger!

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] November 7 2008 9:40 PM EST


Is there a line somewhere to get the free Starbucks from the U.S. government? I'll take that offer!

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 7 2008 10:42 PM EST

change is bad!

http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSTRE4A60GV20081107

TheHatchetman November 7 2008 11:08 PM EST

dude, how is that relevant to change being bad? :P It would seem that the way things currently are has caused big problems... The only part where Obama was mentioned in the articale was at the beginning where it said:

"The unemployment rate shot to a 14-1/2 year high last month as employers slashed jobs by an unexpectedly steep 240,000, suggesting President-elect Barack Obama will face a deep recession when he takes office."

So his only role in this article is "the guy that got elected" ~_^


Yes, the new tax plan is socialism to a degree... But most of those against that were all for allowing the little $700,000,000,000.00 bailout plan in hopes of saving the stock market (that's not socialism?)... Yes, the top 5% of wage earners may pay over 70% of all income taxes, but what % of all income is it that they make?

(And now for a line of epic proportions!)

A coin has two sides my friends. When the flip lands heads or tails up, one side is happy, the other is not. End result, less than spectacular. But, the time that coin lands on it's edge with both faces showing... Amazing.



With that said, I'm not taking any further part in this discussion, as both sides are right, but soooooo filled with fallacy...

QBOddBird November 7 2008 11:12 PM EST

Hatch: I'm also not a fan of paying to dig everyone else out of their financial holes.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 7 2008 11:31 PM EST

it was sarcasm. i just found it silly that people are up in arms because the candidate for change won when the economy is doing what it is doing. then they pick apart one comment made regarding redistributing wealth and cry socialism after the government bailout of private financial institutions was just passed.

Lochnivar November 7 2008 11:50 PM EST

Ok... I can't believe I'm getting into this one but:

Ranger is right (sort of).
The taxation in the US is progressive and does take a higher percentage from the wealthy. The 35% of income figure is actually about bang on correct.

Ranger is wrong (particularly regarding his tone and starbucks implications)
For the record...
Welfare expenditure for the US Gov't is less than 9% of all government spending.
This is well behind Pensions, Health Care, Education, Defense... and not much ahead of interest payments (6.5%)

Incidentally, US tax burden (taxes/GDP) is fairly low overall by OECD rankings for developed nations. The tax rates, however, are more progressive (higher on high incomes) so there is a high implication of redistribution entailed.
That said, US social spending is near the bottom of developed nations in OECD standings and US poverty rates are near the top.

Maybe instead of harping on phantom starbucks purchases you should question how your government manages their affairs. It seems most evidence suggests that your extra cash output is most definitely NOT solely going to some schmuck on the couch.

Also, the same OECD study suggests that there is lower social mobility in the US these days than elsewhere... the poor stay poor.

Honestly, I think change may be good for your country.
(but it really is going to depend on how the change is done)

*editor's note: at no point in time is the word 'change' meant to imply a raise on taxes on anyone.

Lochnivar November 8 2008 12:04 AM EST

Addendum:

Upon re-reading I feel my comments may be construed as an attack on Ranger. This is not the case. I do take exception to some of his more severe characterizations but I mean no personal offense nor do I discount his opinion that hard work should be rewarded.

/me wishes for edit post capabilities to smooth out some of the above phrases.

Mojo Patroneus [My2ndClan] November 8 2008 1:25 AM EST

For anyone that has gone to a public school, driven on a road, taken a public transit system, had their house (or life!) saved by a fireman or policeman, taken a book from the public library, etc, etc - these are paid in part by TAXES!!!

Taxes as a social construct are socialistic. If you agree with the idea of taxes at all, then you tacitly support socialism to a degree, otherwise have fun calling 911 when the home-invasion begins or your spouse falls down due to a heart attack.

The issue is not so much is it socialism, but how much do we as a nation chose to pull the bottom rung up at the expense of the top rung.

Before you make a decision, consider that the best ways to judge a people's commitment to equality under the law and compassion is to see how they treat the poorest among them and how they confine their prisoners.

I personally hate to pay too much in taxes, but if I could be assured that they went directly to help me fellow man, pay for my child's education, and fulfill essential services, and NOT line the pocket of a greedy corporate contract or a crooked politician, I can be ok with it.

Zaekyr November 8 2008 1:36 AM EST

Well, I'll make this point again about income taxes.

The original idea behind the 16th amendment was to tax unearned income because the wealthy land and large business owners in 1913 were raising prices for extra profit and people were feeling the squeeze.

As it turned out the 16th amendment was so loosely phrased and undefined that it was assumed everyone must pay these extra taxes.Since it's inception the U.S. supreme court has ruled on many cases both for and against the 16th amendment as written with many of those being cases of determining whether it was a legal tax due to a difficulty in interpreting whether income taxes were direct or indirect.There is also quite a few cases involving whether or not income can be taxed as far as its identification as property.And finally the U.S. supreme court has in many cases ruled that the definition of income is income unearned and that wages "cannot be counted as income for purposes of income tax since wages/salaries are an employment transaction where workers are compensated for their time and skills".

So my opinion is that "income taxes" should not be collected from workers simply because they are working and contributing to society.And please don't try to tell me that those that make in excess of 100k a year without lifting a finger for it are contributing simply by ownership.

Besides,the one thing that so many economists have been ignoring for the past 30 years is the reduction of Americans to consume.As Jobs ship overseas and so many corporations downsize and the lack of pay increases commensurate to inflation the power of American consumers has been crippled.All the time we are hearing about companies "needing to reduce" their workforce or rework their business strategy ect.It comes down to the bottom line that without the capability to purchase the incomes of business go down,peoples income goes down,and so on and so on.The money used for the bailout shouldn't have been given to the businesses.It should have been given to those that needed to pay their home loans.With enough of those home loans paid off,those same people would have found other things to spend their money on.Which would have boosted our economy far more than giving it away to companies that could care less whether it's customers were homeless or not.

Tyriel [123456789] November 8 2008 1:51 AM EST

"Our new VP made 2.3M last year"

I'm curious; what is your new VP going to spend that much money on in a single year?

AdminJonathan November 8 2008 5:45 AM EST

> Incidentally, US tax burden (taxes/GDP) is fairly low overall by OECD rankings for developed nations.

It's actually close to the median when you add in corporate taxes (also 35%, which is higher than average), making tax revenue almost 27% of GDP. Although depending on where you draw the line for "developed" the US could even be considered on the high end.

http://knol.google.com/k/alexander-emilfaro/government-spending-and-tax-revenue-as/kpxsjkpzgwux/8#

Andy November 8 2008 9:14 AM EST

Please America do not turn into an England! Then I would have nowhere to go and live ='(

Over here in England lazy bottomed people get a house to live in and food to eat because of hard working people like my parents are paying the taxes, which then go into unemployed people.I do not want America to turn into that, cuz then I won't be able to move there ='(

Cube November 8 2008 9:15 AM EST

"So my opinion is that "income taxes" should not be collected from workers simply because they are working and contributing to society.And please don't try to tell me that those that make in excess of 100k a year without lifting a finger for it are contributing simply by ownership."

Yeah, penalize only the people who work hard and get an education. You may not care, but plenty of people work their butt off in order to make just that much. As well as owners, if they invested they should get paid, or else there is no reason to invest. Ownership is a risk that we want people to take, so yes they should be compensated. This is the worst argument I've ever heard.

Lochnivar November 8 2008 10:36 AM EST

Jon,

I was using the OECD stats which are limited to 30 (developed) countries.
http://www.oecdobserver.org/cp/4/databank%20revenue.jpg
As you can see this pegs the US fairly low on the list.

This does, however, give an excellent opportunity to remind our readers to be aware of what it is they are reading and the context it is presented in.

QBRanger November 8 2008 11:15 AM EST

I know the problems of society right now.
But they were caused by both Democrats and Republicans.

Take a look at Clinton and Carter's fair lending acts made and propagated during their presidency. That was some of the main contributors to Fannie and Freddie's failure.

So instead of electing a centrist Republican, we elected one of the top 3 liberal Democrats. Someone with unclear ties to radical thinkers.

In a time we need to join together to pull the country out of its problems, we decided to be more partisan and elect someone who wants to tax the "Rich" more and give more money to those who contribute nothing to society.

So when my taxes go up, I let my nanny go, fire my pool guy, and cut back on my lawn service. Those people will then pay a lot less taxes as they will make a lot less money.

Now I understand there are those who really want to contribute but other factors prevent them from doing so. Those are the people that really need help. But the "tax the rich and spread the wealth" is one of the most divisive things I have heard from a presidential candidate in a long time.

Tell me, where is the incentive to work snatch the American Dream when Obama will just take more of your money away and give it to people who want to do nothing.

And for those who think we are at the worst economic place since the Depression, look at the Carter years. Mortgages at 12% etc... What did the new president due to stimulate the economy? He lowered taxes to stimulate growth. Not raise them to stifle it.

I am someone who went to college like OB. Sacrificed for my goals of the American Dream. And now, some Socialist wants to take it away. I have no wonder he won. There are plenty more people who do not contribute to society then do.

I find it amazing that he only won the popular vote by 7+ million out of over 100M votes cast.

BTW:

Loch, its cool, no hard feeling at all.

And for those who think I am a Right Wing Conservative I believe in the following:

Woman's right to choose Abortion. It is her body.

Gun Control. Not the inability to buy a handgun if one wants, but the prevention of assault weapons sales. And background checks at gun shows. One does not need an AK-47 to kill a deer, that is plain stupid. But if I want to buy a handgun or shotgun for HOME protection, darn right it should be my right to do so.

Limited Government. Yes, some people need help. But too many get it that do nothing and want to do nothing.

Stop illegal immigration. Make a border fence and staff it. Electrify it. But make it easier for people who want to come to America to get here and contribute. And an amnesty program and a track for them to get citizenship if they are already here.

Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan only when the time is right. Not a date withdrawal but a goal based one.

And lastly... Free Starbucks for everyone. 2 for Bast.

QBOddBird November 8 2008 11:32 AM EST

"For anyone that has gone to a public school, driven on a road, taken a public transit system, had their house (or life!) saved by a fireman or policeman, taken a book from the public library, etc, etc - these are paid in part by TAXES!!!

Taxes as a social construct are socialistic. If you agree with the idea of taxes at all, then you tacitly support socialism to a degree, otherwise have fun calling 911 when the home-invasion begins or your spouse falls down due to a heart attack.

The issue is not so much is it socialism, but how much do we as a nation chose to pull the bottom rung up at the expense of the top rung."

There's a difference between taxes paid to fund state affairs and taxes paid to be handed out in $1000 increments and put into welfare. There is a BIG difference between redistribution of wealth and taking care of state affairs.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 8 2008 11:36 AM EST

i would have to add that it does seem counter intuitive when a liberal democrat seems more moderate to a majority of voters than a centrist republican. that is almost as amazing as the fact that the republican party was seen in this election as less fiscally responsible than the democratic party. these here are crazy times!

how much of it though is a backlash to the choice of the current president to represent the republican party. many supporters of the republican party feel that the party has moved away from them rather than them moving away from the party. the real question now is will the republican party do some soul-searching and actually change course.

perhaps if they do they will also question their campaign tactics of using fear to drive peoples emotions to fever-pitches and do nothing other than dividing the country after the election is over as shown by many posts in this very thread.

Cube November 8 2008 11:39 AM EST

Ranger's points pretty much summed up all my political views, nearly exactly.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 8 2008 11:45 AM EST

from the article i linked above:

"So far this year 1.2 million U.S. jobs have been lost, with 651,000 in the past three months alone as the slide in the national labor market picked up in intensity."

with those kind of figures and losses in jobs in our country, it might take a bit more than just incentive to find a job or work, might it not?

Cube November 8 2008 11:47 AM EST

And I have to say I think most of Obama's support was a recoil from Bush's unpopularity. Unfortunately, that seems to be the way politics works.. keep going with one party until something bad happens. No one cares about the issues. No one wants moderation. It annoys me that the slogan's people come up with are far more important in an election than the actual issues at stake.

I see people supporting Obama, and I ask them why, half the time it's cause he's Black, half the time it's cause he's for change...

QBRanger November 8 2008 11:52 AM EST

Dudemus:

Your points are 100% valid.

I think there was a perfect storm for Obama to get elected.

1) His race helped. He got over 96% of the black vote compared to about 93$ for Kerry.

2) He is an excellent orator. I have heard very few his peer.

3) The current financial crisis. Note that the Democrats control both sides of the Congress. And did nothing to stop it.

4) The war in Iraq. However, the Iraqi people are far safer now then with Saddam.

5) McCain's age and cancer history had a few people very worried, esp with his pick of Palin as VP. A very dubious pick I personally believe.

6) The media. It was obvious from day 1, that Obama was their messiah. All the coverage was pro Obama and anti Clinton, then anti McCain. The only new station that gave some decent McCain coverage was Fox. All the problems Obama could have had with Reverend Wright, Akers, etc.. were swept away by the left wing media.

And still McCain was within 7 Million votes.

I really hope Obama succeeds. If the economy grows, my paycheck grows and even with more taxes, I will take home more money.

However, I doubt his financial plans are valid especially in these times. $1000 checks to Joe Schmuck sitting on his couch is going to do nothing to stimulate the economy as much as it is needed.

And as I stated above, when I fire my nanny, poolman and cut back on other luxuries, many people will certainly pay less taxes, since they will be making far less income.

QBRanger November 8 2008 11:59 AM EST

Dudemus,

To your post about jobs in the economy:

The loss of jobs is related to the stock market and the home mortgage debacle.

In such times, when businesses are firing people do you want to:

A) Tax business and "rich" people more? To let them have more of a financial squeeze and have to fire more people to keep afloat.
My wife's grandmother owns a kennel in St. Louis. A rather large one. With the Obama plans, she will have to fire 3 of her 12 employees. That propagates the unemployment figures.

B) Lower certain taxes, trying to keep businesses in America making more jobs for those that WANT to work and contribute to society?

Everyone got on McCain's plan to lower corporate taxes. He was trying to keep jobs in America.

Yes, certain companies are abusing things, such as Exxon. But in general it is smaller businesses that will go under with Obama's tax the "rich" plans. And they are the backbone of society. They are everyperson dream.

In such an economy in 1980, what did Ronald Reagen do?

Certainly not a "Spread the Wealth" type of plan.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 8 2008 12:01 PM EST

the rest of that story is that if the economy does turn around, just like with the blame, people will credit who they want to credit. most of us are set in our ways and even irrefutable evidence to the contrary will not sway our opinion.

as far as fiscal responsibility though, that is fairly easy to track especially with the period that republicans had control of both the executive and the legislative branches. did they control spending and attempt to cut our deficits or were they more like children in the proverbial candy store?

from the graphs i have seen, if we had a dd that followed the same linear progression, then mages would truly be overpowered. ; )

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 8 2008 12:16 PM EST

reagan attempted to apply a scientific principle, the theory of gravity, to economics. money tends to trickle up more than down though. the problem with it trickling down is that the wealthier people in america tend to invest a much larger percentage of their income than the poor. so while in effect it does trickle down, the amount gets progressively smaller.

the trickle up theory works much better due to the fact that people who are near the poverty zone tend to spend most of their money. therefore a larger percentage of it is passed up than the amount being trickled down to them.

i also put myself through college, as did my wife. she is a public middle school teach while i own my own small business. i don't want to foot the bill for others laziness or lack of effort in life either. the difference here is that i am willing to wait it out and see what actually happens rather than buying into campaign rhetoric that hurts only myself through a rise in blood pressure.

there does have to be a happy medium somewhere between unregulated corporations reaping the benefits of wars on isms and socialism. this election came down to who do you think can get us closer to that happy medium. it was a close race, but the public has spoken and we will all have to live with the consequences.

on a side note, all of you that feel the u.s. is going to hell in a hand-basket after this election now understand just what many of us felt when george w. bush was elected with republican control of the legislative branches. for my part though i certainly hope the new administration will do better than the last one.

i have a truly hard time seeing how they could do worse!

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 8 2008 12:25 PM EST

sometimes i get verbose and my point gets lost.

i believe that most americans tend to want the same goals for the country. we didn't vote for socialism, or war for that matter, they weren't on the ballot.

all of us can only vote for the candidates we think will get our country closer to where we want it to be. our elections have gotten amazing close in the last decade. i really don't think that is an indication that we want two radically different americas though. i think it is more an indication of the fact that we are unhappy with each party and that is the cause of the pendulum swings back and forth.

there is no real america other than the whole of america.

QBRanger November 8 2008 12:37 PM EST

Please do not get me wrong.

I really do hope Obama succeeds. For everyone's sake.

However, I strongly disagree with the methods and theories he is saying to get us there.

Marlfox [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 8 2008 1:57 PM EST

Like usual, I agree 100% with what Ranger is saying. Although, I should probably shut my mouth, because I doubt anyone wants to take advice from a 13 year-old...

(P.S., Ranger, your posting again! YIPPEE!)

Colonel Custard November 8 2008 2:02 PM EST

I think I'm with Ranger, here.
I don't think that Obama's stated plans will be effective. That said, he is the President-elect and I can no longer do anything to prevent him from taking office. I hope he uses his new authority responsibly and successfully, for all our sakes.

Most of what's being said here sounds very reasonable to me. I'm not sure I have much of anything new to contribute.

ResistanZ November 8 2008 2:06 PM EST

Ranger, I see a few words you repeatedly use, one being "Joe Schmuck" and the other people "doing nothing". I don't understand why you seem to think the only people who Obama plans to help are people who live on welfare and don't have jobs.

No one in my family makes over $250,000 a year but does that mean every single person in my family is a lazy "Joe Schmuck" living on welfare? Just because you're not making over a quarter of a million dollars a year or more doesn't mean you don't work your butt off. I understand you have your own opinions, I just don't see why you can't state them without being offensive.

Lochnivar November 8 2008 2:52 PM EST

Op,

I am quite sure that is not Ranger's intent (nor is it actually what he said)

The comments were directed at people (ab)using the welfare system.
Ranger's comments regarding rewarding hard work would suggest the opposite of what you concluded.

That said, I personally do favour some redistribution of wealth. However I am dissatisfied with how it is done. I would like to see education and social programs designed to stop cyclic poverty rather than monthly hand outs that may just get used on booze and drugs.
And no, I am not implying that everyone on social assistance is a drunken drugged out loser, merely that the possibility exists.

Yukk November 8 2008 3:54 PM EST

This is a pretty good debate. Probably one of the most balanced and well argued ones I've seen on CB. I have to agree with Ranger etc. on the lazy welfare slobs who do nothing. I say people on welfare should work for it. There is a lot of unskilled work out there that cities need done. If there's no medical reason someone can't work, then why should they get paid to be lazy. A whole family of lazy people brings home more than someone busting their bones as a waitress or getting minimum wage.
I am a personal believer that those who work and pay for unemployment insurance should receive a benefit for a short while if the worst happens. Ranger probably works for himself, but just say he was a doctor working at a hospital and taking home $500k. One would think nothing could happen to him, but the more money one makes, the more one tends to spend, so say he just got a promotion. Congratulations and his wife decides they need a bigger mansion to suit the new prestige and then it turns out there was massive fraud at the hospital and it goes bust. Now that's a huge mortgage he has and nobody is buying used Ferraris right now so he's burning up his hard-won savings and selling his stock portfolio at 10% of what he paid for it.
For most people losing their job means the risk of losing everything, so give them the bridge they need to find a new job and keep up their payments, keep their hose and keep food on the table.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 8 2008 4:09 PM EST

then we come to the tough questions though. if we are losing jobs at the rate quoted in that article. even though most of us agree that full-blown socialism is very bad, does the government then bail out financial companies to perhaps lessen the impact, or does it play the hard line and say, you made your bed now lie in it?

did the government do the correct thing with the bailout? even if they did, did many politicians lose their seat because of it?

i fail to understand all the perceived fear regarding a possibility of socialist tendencies based on campaign rhetoric and out of context quotes when we have some of the most sweeping socialist legislation in decades that has just occured.

Yukk November 8 2008 5:53 PM EST

That's just the thing Dudemus, it's rhetoric. Each candidate tries to scare/trick the populous into voting for them by twisting the words of the other. A little bit of socialism isn't a bad thing; as someone else said earlier, anyone who has driven on a road (etc.) can testify to that. It's finding a balance that's hard. No particular point on the scale will make everyone happy, but depending on "the people", there are levels that outweigh the unhappy with the benefits.

QBRanger November 8 2008 6:43 PM EST

Op,

Read my posts above.

I value hard work and people who try to contribute to society.
The Joe Schmuck is the non working person collecting the welfare check, and I see plenty each day at the hospital.

I did state above some programs are needed, to help those who WANT to succeed have that chance.

But there are so many people who do not even try or want to try and to those is where most of my money is going.

QBRanger November 8 2008 6:48 PM EST

IMO the government did NOT do the right thing with the bailout.

It was a political move designed to "help" the markets.

Who did it really help? The banks and investment companies who made the crappy decisions that got them there.

A better thing would have been to let those bank fail, and the government assume the mortgages and investments and guarantee them.

I know that is more towards socialism, however, in severe cases it has to be done.

Then in the future the g'vt can divest and sell off to the private sector again.

Or some type of system like that.

But the current "bailout" is nothing more then the continued cycle of abuse and greed we see in government.

And who did we elect again?

A left wing liberal instead of a centrist Republican. One of the top 3 liberal in all Congress.

And he talks about bring the country together. I suspect it will make the "class warfare" we have currently even worse.

But as our new VP says: "it is our duty to give". Poppycock. It is my duty to succeed. Given time and effort to do so.

Sort of reminds me of a game I used to play. Time + Effort = success.

But some get the benefit of having to do less work/effort to get to the same place.

Colonel Custard November 8 2008 8:07 PM EST

""it is our duty to give". Poppycock."

The government's duty is not to give, but I would argue that it is ours. For you to succeed is your own concern if for no other reason than the fact that people's perceptions of what success is vary subjectively. It is no one's duty to succeed; who do you owe it to to be successful? Under a "greater good" mentality, it becomes a duty to society to be productive, or else there is simply the duty to better society (by providing whatever help you can to advance it, whether by vocation or charity work).

Colonel Custard November 8 2008 8:17 PM EST

"Sort of reminds me of a game I used to play. Time + Effort = success.

But some get the benefit of having to do less work/effort to get to the same place."

And I remember that you used to let those in a less prosperous position than yourself borrow your things at little or no charge. Obviously in-game situations are much different than real life, but in both cases you can help someone else better their own situations through comparably small actions. But if Jon or Slayer were to say "Hmmm... PandaMan's strategy could really use a BoM. Oh look, Ranger's got one sitting around!" and re-distributed it as they saw to be fit, that would in no way be fair.

I think societies do need an aspect of socialism in order to function effectively, but the government ideally shouldn't have to provide that element of socialism. Actually, government ideally shouldn't involve itself in society at all. The purpose of government is to protect the rights of its citizens, isn't it? That's different than regulating social class.

{cb2}Dinh November 8 2008 9:03 PM EST

Ranger was saying something about lazy schmucks who are lazy and do nothing, but the tax cut isn't for ANYONE who doesn't have a job...You have to have a job to get the tax break, and like Vine was saying, just because you don't make 250K a year does not mean you don't work harder...I could probably argue that those who don't make a lot of money work a LOT hard than those who do...but we will leave it at that, Obama '08

AdminG Beee November 8 2008 9:11 PM EST

Guys, you're talking about politicians.
They're even more motivated in their career choice than the "normal" person. Politicians as a general rule of thumb will say whatever it takes to get them into office, and say whatever it takes to keep them there. Once there, they'll do whatever it takes to maintain the perception that they're actually working for you and not for their legacy and paycheck when the voters realise the next guy is the genuine article. Every last President was the "next guy and genuine article" when he was President Elect. Vicious circle...

Generalisations FTW !

On a side note. How many jobs would have been created if the obscene amount of money used to "sponsor" this election had been put to a more productive use..?

The President, or any politician for that matter, won't get anyone out of the current credit crunch any more than they got anyone into it. The same old faceless people in the background who make the money will get everyone out of the mess that they themselves created - eventually...

QBRanger November 8 2008 10:52 PM EST

Dinh,

I am not just typing about the tax break.

I am typing about the 1 TRILLION dollars Obama wants to add in more social programs/spending. That will benefit the typical Obama supporter.

Yukk November 8 2008 11:08 PM EST

One thing I hope that Obama does during his term is to inspire more of the African Americans to follow his example (and his wife's) to do better than settle for a minimum wage job or join a gang. It may be a generalisation, but from what I saw, the dangerous/bad/poor parts of U.S. cities are predominantly black.Even if he does no better on average than any other president, maybe just by being there he'll convince more of them to stay in school, go back to school, get a better job and society wins.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 8 2008 11:24 PM EST

ranger, with 53% or 65,425,954 popular votes, who exactly is this typical obama supporter you referred to above? i am guessing you are referring to the average american?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 8 2008 11:25 PM EST

i would also love to see some references on your continued statement that he is the 3rd most liberal as that is a very subjective title to hold. also, the 1 trillion you quoted for social services, i never heard that figure and would love to see the context for that one as well.

Zaekyr November 8 2008 11:29 PM EST

Ranger:

I never mentioned a need or desire to raise any taxes.I don't think any new taxes are necessary.In fact I think taxes should go down all around.But working people legally shouldn't have to pay income taxes, and realistically it would be more benefit if they did not.After that I think the corporate gains taxes should be applied and increased or decreased relative to welfare/societal health needs.I live in Michigan and I definitely do not like the concept of welfare.(I see it well since we have the highest output of welfare and the highest unemployment).Fact of it is,there aren't enough jobs to go around so welfare is a necessity unless you want several million people walking around on the streets/living in cardboard shacks(consequently creating a public health risk with the new strains of TB and influenza about).Besides what is wrong with someone who makes enough to not have to work to continue to live,paying 10% more than others in taxes.To them it is free money requiring no effort on their part.Sure people might be less inspired to achieve but unless you can eliminate the already existant greed of the corporate/inherited wealthy (to which I would argue that at least 80% of millionaires are from "old money"),our economy will decline into a very long depression.Case in point is a simple task:Look up what the average cost of living like price of a loaf of bread,gallon of gasoline,average rent/house payment ect.for 1960,70,80,90---2000 and then look at average pay for typical types of jobs in those same times.you'll find on average the prices have gone up 400-500 percent while the pay has only increased by 200% average at best.I have heard a lot of rhetoric about the cause of the disparity but none of it has any logical basis.

If anyone really wants to understand all that is going on now you just have to look into history.The last great president we had was Teddy Roosevelt.

QBRanger November 9 2008 7:29 AM EST

Dude:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/31/625886.aspx - how liberal he is

New spending:

If Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) Could Enact All Of His Campaign Proposals, Taxpayers Would Be Faced With Financing $1.297 Trillion In New Spending Over One White House Term:

Obama's Second Stimulus Plan Includes $50 Billion For States And Infrastructure Projects. "Obama advisers put the cost of Mr. Obama's full economic stimulus plan at $175 billion, including $60 billion for the steps announced Monday. Of the earlier $115 billion, $50 billion would be used to help states and to speed construction of roads and other infrastructure projects that create jobs." (Jackie Calmes and Jeff Zeleny, "Obama Details Plan To Aid Victims Of Fiscal Crisis, The New York Times, 10/14/08)

Obama Will Provide Loans For Struggling Small Businesses At A Cost Of Approximately $5 Billion. "Mr. Obama's proposal from last week to allow struggling small businesses to apply for loans from the Small Business Administration's disaster funds would cost more than $5 billion." (Jackie Calmes and Jeff Zeleny, "Obama Details Plan To Aid Victims Of Fiscal Crisis," The New York Times, 10/14/08)

Obama Will Cover Loan Guarantees For The Auto Industry At A Cost Of Approximately $4 Billion. "Senator Barack Obama proposed new steps on Monday to address the economic crisis, calling for temporary but costly new programs to help employers, automakers, homeowners, the unemployed, and state and local governments. ... The expense of covering additional loan guarantees for the auto industry would mean more than $4 billion more." (Jackie Calmes and Jeff Zeleny, "Obama Details Plan To Aid Victims Of Fiscal Crisis," The New York Times, 10/14/08)

Obama's Energy Plan Will Cost $150 Billion Over 10 Years, Equal To $15 Billion Annually And $60 Billion Over Four Years. "Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid." (Obama For America, "The Blueprint For Change," www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 25)

Obama's National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank Will Cost $60 Billion Over Ten Years; Equal To $6 Billion A Year And $24 Billion Over Four Years. Obama: "I'm proposing a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Economic Policy, Janesville, WI, 2/13/08)

Obama's Early Education And K-12 Package Will Cost $18 Billion A Year; Equal To $72 Billion Over Four Years. "Barack Obama's early education and K-12 plan package costs about $18 billion per year." (Obama For America, "Barack Obama's Plan For Lifetime Success Through Education," www.barackobama.com, 11/20/07)

Obama's Home Foreclosure Prevention Fund Will Cost $10 Billion. Obama: "I've put forward a $10 billion home foreclosure prevention fund. We're going to help families who have been hoodwinked by deceptive practices and predatory loans so that they can work out the terms, stay in their home, keep paying their mortgage." (CNN's "CNN Newsroom," 3/2/08)

Obama's National Service Plan Will Cost $3.5 Billion A Year; Equal To $14 Billion Over Four Years. "Barack Obama's national service plan will cost about $3.5 billion per year when it is fully implemented." (Obama For America, "Helping All Americans Serve Their Country: Barack Obama's Plan For Universal Voluntary Citizen Service," www.barackobama.com, 12/5/07)

Obama's Health Care Plan Will Cost $150 Billion; Equal To $600 Billion Over Four Years. CBS' Steve Kroft: "The most expensive part of the Obama program is the health insurance plan, which would make coverage for children mandatory, and promises affordable government subsidized insurance to all Americans, with premiums based on a percentage of their income. How much is it going to cost? $150 billion it's going to cost, right?" Obama: "It is." (CBS' "60 Minutes," 9/21/08)

Obama Will Increase Foreign Assistance Funding By $25 Billion. "Obama will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and he will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal." (Obama For America, "The Blueprint For Change," www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 53)

Obama Will Provide $2 Billion To Aid Iraqi Refugees. "He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven." (Obama For America, "The Blueprint For Change," www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 51)

Obama Will Provide $1.5 Billion To Help States Adopt Paid-Leave Systems. "As president, Obama will initiate a strategy to encourage all 50 states to adopt paid-leave systems. Obama will provide a $1.5 billion fund to assist states with start-up costs and to help states offset the costs for employees and employers." (Obama For America, "The Blueprint For Change," www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 15)

Obama Will Provide $1 Billion Over 5 Years For Transitional Jobs And Career Pathway Programs, Equal To $200 Million A Year And $800 Million Over Four Years. "Obama will invest $1 billion over five years in transitional jobs and career pathway programs that implement proven methods of helping low-income Americans succeed in the workforce." (Obama For America, "The Blueprint For Change," www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 42)

Obama Would Close The "Doughnut Hole" In The Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program. "Barack Obama wants to close the 'doughnut hole' in the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program ..." (Obama For America, "Barack Obama: Helping America's Seniors," www.barackobama.com, Accessed 3/3/08)

Based On Estimates From The Congressional Budget Office, Closing The "Doughnut Hole" Would Cost Approximately $39.18 Billion In The First Fiscal Year Of Obama's Administration; Equal To $156.72 Billion Over Four Years. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost of eliminating the 'doughnut hole' in Medicare's Drug Benefit design at $39.18 billion for FY 2010. (Congressional Budget Office, "Budget Options," www.cbo.gov, 2/05, p. 204)
"Closing It Would Roughly Double The Cost Of The Medicare Prescription Drug Program, However, And Obama Offers No Way To Pay For It." (Andrew Taylor, "Expensive Campaign Promises Would Face Deficit Reality Check," The Associated Press, 2/24/08)
Obama Would Repeal The Social Security Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) And Government Pension Offset (GPO). "Protect the Social Security Benefits of Public Employees and their Families: Barack Obama cosponsored the Social Security Fairness Act, which would repeal the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset. ... Barack Obama believes that we have a responsibility to take care of workers who have devoted their lives to public service and that we shouldn't be discouraging our young people from working in these essential jobs." (Obama For America, "Barack Obama: Helping America's Seniors," www.barackobama.com, Accessed 3/3/08)

Eliminating The WEP Would Cost $32.7 Billion Over 10 Years; Equal To $3.27 Billion A Year And $13.08 Billion Over Four Years. "The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that full repeal of the WEP would cost approximately $32.7 billion between 2006 and 2015. According to the Office of the Actuary of the SSA, elimination of the WEP would cost 0.06% of taxable payroll (causing an increase in Social Security's long-range deficit of about 3%)." (Laura Haltzel, "Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)," Congressional Research Service, 3/8/07, p. 4)
Eliminating The GPO Would Cost $38.1 Billion Over 10 Years; Equal To $3.81 Billion A Year And $15.24 Billion Over Four Years. "According to estimates provided by CBO and the Social Security actuaries, elimination of the GPO would cost $38.1 billion over 10 years, and in the long run would cost 0.06% of taxable payroll, which would increase Social Security's long-range deficit by about 3%." (Laura Haltzel, "Social Security: The Government Pension Offset (GPO)," Congressional Research Service, 3/9/07, p. 14)
Obama Would Implement The Lugar-Obama Legislation To Crack Down On The Smuggling Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction. "[Obama] also will fully implement the Lugar-Obama legislation to help our allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world." (Obama For America, "Barack Obama: The War We Need To Win," www.barackobama.com, Accessed 3/3/08)

According To The Congressional Budget Office, Implementing The Lugar-Obama Legislation (S. 2566) Would Cost $2.2 Billion Over Five Years, Which Averages Out To $440 Million Per Year And $1.76 Billion Over Four Years. "CBO estimates that implementing S. 2566 would cost ... more than $2.2 billion over the 2007-2011 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts." (Congressional Budget Office, "S. 2566: Cooperative Proliferation Detection, Interdiction Assistance, And Conventional Threat Reduction Act Of 2006," www.cbo.gov, 5/31/06)
Obama Has Proposed Creating "A National Network Of Public-Private Business Incubators" At A Cost Of $250 Million Per Year; Equal To $1 Billion Over Four Years. "Barack Obama will support entrepreneurship and spur job growth by creating a national network of public-private business incubators. Business incubators facilitate the critical work of entrepreneurs in creating start-up companies. ... Obama will invest $250 million per year to increase the number and size of incubators in disadvantaged communities throughout the country." (Obama For America, "Changing The Odds For Urban America," Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 3/3/08)

Obama Says He Will Restore Funding To The Community Development Block Grant Program. "The important Community Development Block Grant program ... has been cut by an astonishing 31 percent since Bush took office. ... The Community Development Block Grant is an important program that helps strengthen cities and towns throughout the nation by providing housing and creating jobs primarily for low- and moderate-income people. The Bush Administration has consistently attempted to cut funding for the Community Development Block Grant, by $1.2 billion next year and $6.9 billion over the next five years. Barack Obama has fought against these cuts, and as president will restore funding for the CDBG program." (Obama For America, "Changing The Odds For Urban America," Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 2/26/08)

Returning CDBG Program Funding To FY 2000 Levels Would Require $2.447 Billion In Additional Spending Per Year, Equal To $9.788 Billion:

The Fiscal Year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Bill Provided $3.593 Billion For The Community Development Block Grant. "For assistance to units of State and local government, and to other entities, for economic and community development activities, and for other purposes, $3,865,800,000, to remain available until September 30, 2010, unless otherwise specified: Provided, That of the amount provided, $3,593,430,000 is for carrying out the community development block grant program under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 ..." (H.R. 2764, Enacted On 12/26/07)
In Fiscal Year 2000, The Community Development Block Grant Was Funded At $4.8 Billion, Which Is Equal To $6.04 Billion In 2008 When Adjusted For Inflation. "For grants to States and units of general local government and for related expenses, not otherwise provided for, to carry out a community development grants program as authorized by title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (the `Act' herein) (42 U.S.C. 5301), $4,800,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2002 ..." (H.R. 2684, Enacted On 10/20/99; Bureau Of Labor Statistics, "Inflation Calculator," www.bls.gov, Accessed 3/10/08)
Obama Has Proposed A Credit Card Rating System, To Be Implemented By The FTC. "Barack Obama will create a credit card rating system, modeled on five-star systems used for other consumer products, to provide consumers an easily identifiable ranking of credit cards. Under the Obama plan, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will assess the degree to which credit cards meet consumer-friendly standards. The FTC will test for a set of credit card features that are deemed the most dangerous for consumers, including the underwriting standards used to issue the card, the card's interest rate spread between the introductory rate and the maximum rate allowed, and transaction fees. The FTC will assign ratings so that consumers can easily understand if a credit card agreement meets or exceeds standards of safety. Credit card companies will be required to display the rating on all application and contract materials, enabling consumers to quickly understand all of the major provisions of a credit card without having to rely exclusively on fine print in lengthy documents. Credit card companies will also be required to disclose in simplified, clear language all of the major features of the card in addition to their FTC rating to provide consumers with additional information to compare credit card products." (Obama For America, "Barack Obama's Economic Agenda," www.barackobama.com, Accessed 2/26/08)

Obama Co-Sponsored Legislation That Proposed This Rating System, At A Cost Of $10 Million Per Year, Equal To $40 Million Over Four Years. Obama is a co-sponsor of S. 2411, "[a] bill to require the establishment of a credit card safety star rating system for the benefit of consumers, and for other purposes." The text of the legislation authorizes $10 million a year to carry out this program. (S. 2411, Introduced 12/5/07)
Obama Would Expand Loan Programs For Small Businesses, As Specified In The Small Business Lending Reauthorization And Improvements Act He Co-Sponsored. "Expand Loan Programs for Small Businesses: Access to capital is a top concern among small business owners. Barack Obama cosponsored the bipartisan Small Business Lending Reauthorization and Improvements Act. This bill expands the Small Business Administration's loan and micro-loan programs which provide startup and long-term financing that small firms cannot receive through normal channels. Obama will work to help more entrepreneurs get loans, expand the network of lenders, and simplify the loan approval process." (Obama For America, "Barack Obama's Plan For Small Business," www.barackobama.com, Accessed 3/7/08)

The Congressional Budget Office Estimated The Cost Of The Small Business Lending Reauthorization And Improvements Act Of 2007, A Bill Co-Sponsored By Obama, At $3.4 Billion Over Five Years; Equal To $680 Million Per Year And $2.72 Billion Over Four Years. "Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing S. 1256 would cost ... $3.4 billion over the 2008-2012 period." (Congressional Budget Office, "S. 1256: Small Business Lending Reauthorization And Improvements Act Of 2007," www.cbo.gov, 9/10/07)
Obama Would Assist High School Students With Obtaining Access To College-Level Courses. "Give More High School Students Access to Rigorous College-Level Courses: Students who participate in Advanced Placement (AP) programs, which give students the opportunity to take college-level courses in high school, are much more likely to enroll and succeed in college. While enrollment in AP courses has nearly tripled over the past decade, many students attend schools that do not offer AP classes. Barack Obama, with Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), introduced a bipartisan plan to allow students who do not have access to college-level courses at their high schools to apply for need-based grants and seek credit at local colleges or community colleges." (Obama For America, "Barack Obama: 21st-Century Schools For A 21st-Century Democracy," www.barackobama.com, Accessed 3/10/08)

Obama Co-Sponsored Legislation To Achieve This, Which Authorizes $50 Million Per Year, $200 Million Over Four Years. "Amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to authorize the Secretary of Education to award grants to low-income secondary school juniors and seniors for the cost of taking nonremedial courses offered by institutions of higher education which award such students transferable postsecondary credits for such courses." The text of the legislation authorizes $50 million per year for the five fiscal years following the bill's enactment, equal to $200 million for fiscal years 2010 - 2013. (S. 3995, Introduced 9/26/06)
Obama Would Double Federal Funding For Basic Research. "Invest in the Sciences: Barack Obama supports doubling federal funding for basic research, changing the posture of our federal government ... to one that embraces science and technology." (Obama For America Website, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 3/7/08)

According To The Congressional Research Service, Federal Basic Research Funding For FY 2007 Was $28.2 Billion; To Double This Funding Level Over Four Years Would Equal $112.8 Billion. "[T]otal federal basic research funding for FY2007 would be flat at $28.2 billion (in real dollars)." (Michael E. Davey, et al., "Federal Research And Development Funding: FY2007," Congressional Research Service, 10/26/06)
Obama Would Enact The Responsible Fatherhood And Healthy Families Act Which He Co-Sponsored. "Barack Obama has re-introduced the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support payments, and ensure that payments go to families instead of state bureaucracies. The legislation would also fund support services for fathers and their families, including domestic violence prevention efforts. As President, he will sign this bill into law and continue to implement innovative measures to strengthen families." (Obama For America, "Barack Obama: Fighting Poverty And Creating A Bridge To The Middle Class," www.barackobama.com, Accessed 3/9/08)

Obama's Responsible Fatherhood And Healthy Families Act Would Cost $528 Million Over Three Years. (S. 1626, Introduced 6/14/07)
Obama Would Ensure Full Health Care Enrollment Of "Priority 8" Veterans. "Barack Obama is committed to ending the unfair ban on healthcare enrollment of certain groups of veterans, including 'Priority 8' veterans who often earn modest incomes. He has voted to end this unfair policy, which has resulted in the VA turning away nearly one million veterans since 2003. As president, one of Barack Obama's first acts will be signing an executive order reversing this ban." (Obama For America, "Fulfilling A Sacred Trust With Our Veterans," www.barackobama.com, Accessed 3/10/08)

The Cost Of Enrollment For "Priority 8" Veterans Was Scored By The Congressional Budget Office At Approximately $8.8 Billion Over 5 Years, Equal To $1.76 Billion A Year And $7.04 Billion Over Four Years. "After adjusting for expected inflation, CBO estimates that implementing this provision would increase VA health care costs by ... almost $8.8 billion over the 2008-2012 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts." (Congressional Budget Office, "S. 1233: Veterans Traumatic Brain Injury And Health Programs Improvement Act Of 2007," www.cbo.gov, 8/23/07)
Obama Supports Creating A National Catastrophe Fund, Similar To The One Passed By The House - Which Authorized $20 Million Per Year For The Fund; Equal To $80 Million Over Four Years. Q: "The U.S. House approved a national catastrophe fund in November. Do you support that bill?" Obama: "I think it's a good start. I think that we need a national catastrophe fund. The key is to make sure that it's run efficiently, that its adequately funded and that we build in smart incentives to assure that developers are mitigating risk when they're making decisions on where to locate homes or businesses." (Michael C. Bender, "Obama's Talk With The Palm Beach Post," Palm Beach[FL] Post, www.palmbeachpost.com, 5/23/08)

The House Legislation Authorized $20 Million Per Year To Establish The National Catastrophe Risk Consortium. "H.R. 3355 would authorize the appropriation of $20 million for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 to establish the National Catastrophe Risk Consortium." (Congressional Budget Office, "H.R. 3355: Homeowners' Defense Act Of 2007," www.cbo.gov, 10/30/07)
Obama Would Spend $500 Million A Year For Religious Organizations To Help The Disadvantaged; Equal To $2 Billion Over Four Years. "Democrat Barack Obama said yesterday that if elected president he would set aside more than $500 million a year in federal funds for religious organizations to help the disadvantaged, sharply expanding a Bush administration program that has strong support from evangelical Christians." (Joseph Williams, "Obama Vows $500M In Faith-Based Aid," The Boston Globe, 7/2/08)

Obama Proposed Spending $90 Million A Year To Double The Manufacturing Extension Partnership; Equal To $360 Million Over Four Years. "In a new initiative, Obama proposed spending $90 million a year to double the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. The 20-year-old program has helped manufacturers improve efficiency and growth, he said, but has been underfunded. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, his Democratic rival, made a similar proposal months ago." (Charles Babington, "Obama Woos Working-Class Voters In Michigan," The Associated Press, 5/14/08)

Obama Proposed Creating $10 Billion In Additional Mortgage Revenue Bonds, At A Cost Of $50 Million To The Federal Government. "Barack Obama will provide $10 billion in additional Mortgage Revenue Bonds, at a cost of $50 million to the federal government, to help families facing foreclosure refinance and to enable low- and moderate-income first time homebuyers purchase a home." (Obama For America, "Protecting Homeownership & Cracking Down On Mortgage Fraud In Texas," www.barackobama.com, Accessed 7/14/08)

Obama Would Extend Trade Adjustment Assistance To Service Industries. "To help all workers adapt to a rapidly changing economy, Obama would update the existing system of Trade Adjustment Assistance by extending it to service industries, creating flexible education accounts to help workers retrain, and providing retraining assistance for workers in sectors of the economy vulnerable to dislocation before they lose their jobs." (Obama For America Website, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 7/14/08)

The Cost Of Extending Trade Adjustment Assistance To Service Industry Workers Was Scored By The Congressional Budget Office At $2.5 Billion Over 10 Years; Equal To $250 Million Per Year And $1 Billion Over Four Years. "CBO estimates that provisions in S. 1309 to include workers involved in the provision of services in the class of workers eligible for TAA benefits would increase outlays by $2.5 billion from 2006 through 2015." (Congressional Budget Office, "S. 1309: Trade Adjustment Assistance Equity For Service Workers Act Of 2005," www.cbo.gov, 9/19/05)
Obama Would Double Funding For The Jobs Access And Reverse Commute (JARC) Program. "Obama will double the federal Jobs Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program to ensure that additionally federal public transportation dollars flow to the highest-need communities and that urban planning initiatives take this aspect of transportation policy into account." (Obama For America, "Changing The Odds For Urban America," Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 7/14/08)

According To The U.S. Federal Transit Administration, The JARC Program Was Authorized $156 Million In FY 2008; To Double JARC For Four Years Would Cost $624 Million. (U.S. Department Of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration Website, www.fta.dot.gov, Accessed 7/14/08)
Obama Supports Funding The National Science Foundation's Advanced Technological Education Program At $100 Million. "As president, Barack Obama will support authorization of the National Science Foundation's Advanced Technological Education program at $100 million, a critical program that has helped support STEM programs in community colleges." (Obama For America, "Barack Obama: Preparing America For 21st Century Jobs," www.barackobama.com, Accessed 7/14/08)

In FY 2008 This Program Was Authorized At $52 Million, According To The National Science Foundation's Budget. That Means An Additional $48 Million Is Needed Per Year To Reach $100 Million, Equal To $192 Million Over Four Years. (National Science Foundation, "National Science Foundation Current Authorizations," www.nsf.gov, Accessed 7/14/08)
Obama Would Provide $25 Million A Year For States To Develop Early Assessment Programs To Increase College Readiness; Equal To $100 Million Over Four Years. "Some states have developed an Early Assessment Program that enables 11th graders and their families to ascertain if they are on track to be college ready by the time they graduate. ... This program will increase college readiness and is voluntary. Barack Obama will provide $25 million annually in matching funds for states to develop Early Assessment Programs." (Obama For America, "Barack Obama: Making College Affordable For Everyone," www.barackobama.com, Accessed 7/14/08)

Obama Would Provide $250 Million To "Bring Quality Teachers Back To The Gulf Region." Obama: "Many heroic, high-quality teachers have returned to New Orleans - but we need more. That is why I have called for $250 million to bring quality teachers back to the Gulf region. Any teacher or principal who commits to come here for three years should receive an annual bonus; and those who teach in subject areas where we face shortages - such as math and science - should receive an additional bonus." (Obama For America, "Barack Obama To Lay Out Program To Rebuild New Orleans And The Gulf Coast Region," Press Release, www.barackobama.com, 2/7/08)

Obama Would Spend $1 Billion A Year In Autism-Related Funding By The End Of His First Term. Obama: "My administration will not only work to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the Combating Autism Act, but will add to that a commitment of $1 billion dollars a year in autism-related funding by the end of my first term." (Obama For America, "Obama Statement In Support Of World Autism Awareness Day And Awareness Month," Press Release, www.barackobama.com, 4/2/08)

Obama Would Add "65,000 Soldiers To The Army And 27,000 Marines," Which Would Cost Approximately $11.04 Billion Per Year, Equal To $44.16 Billion Over Four Years. Obama: "That's why I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks To The Chicago Council On Global Affairs, Chicago, IL, 4/24/07)

It Costs Approximately $1.2 Billion A Year For 10,000 Soldiers. "Every additional 10,000 soldiers would cost about $1.2 billion a year, according to the Army." (Peter Baker, "U.S. Not Winning War In Iraq, Bush Says For 1st Time," The Washington Post, 12/20/06)
Obama Would Provide An Additional $1 Billion Per Year In Non-Military Assistance To Afghanistan, Equal To $4 Billion Over Four Years. Obama: "Moreover, lasting security will only come if we heed Marshall's lesson, and help Afghans grow their economy from the bottom up. That's why I've proposed an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance each year, with meaningful safeguards to prevent corruption and to make sure investments are made - not just in Kabul - but out in Afghanistan's provinces. As a part of this program, we'll invest in alternative livelihoods to poppy-growing for Afghan farmers, just as we crack down on heroin trafficking." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Iraq And National Security, Washington, DC, 7/15/08)

Obama Plans To Implement Legislation That Would "Triple Non-Military Aid To The Pakistani People." Obama: "It's time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people. That's why I'm cosponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Iraq And National Security, Washington, DC, 7/15/08)

It Would Authorize $7.5 Billion Over Five Years, An Increase Of Approximately $5 Billion In Spending, Equal To A $1 Billion Increase Per Year. "The bill triples non-military aid to Pakistan and sustains it over five years. Specifically, the legislation authorizes $7.5 billion over 5 years in aid that can be used for development purposes, such as building schools, roads and clinics. ... Authorizes $7.5 billion over the next 5 fiscal years ($1.5 billion annually) in non-military aid. Advocates an additional $7.5 billion over the subsequent 5 years." (Sen. Joe Biden, "Biden, Lugar Introduce Landmark Legislation On Pakistan," Press Release, biden.senate.gov, 7/15/08)
Obama Would Spend $5 Billion Over Three Years To Create A Shared Security Partnership. Obama: "To strengthen our efforts with friends and partners, I've proposed a Shared Security Partnership that invests $5 billion over 3 years to forge an international intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure to take down terrorist networks." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 7/16/08)

Obama Would "Lead A Global Effort To Secure All Nuclear Weapons And Material At Vulnerable Sites Within Four Years." "Barack Obama will lead a global effort to secure all nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites within four years." (Obama For America, "Barack Obama: The War We Need To Win," www.barackobama.com, Accessed 7/15/08)

Obama Said This Could Be Funded By Ending The War In Iraq, At A Cost Of $10 Billion Over Four Years. Obama: "We are spending $10 billion a month in Iraq. ... For the amount of money that we are spending in Iraq in one month, if that same amount of money is spent over the course of the next four years, we could lock up all the loose nuclear material that exists out there. That strikes me as a good investment to make. (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 7/16/08)
Obama Proposes Doubling Funding For The Consumer Product Safety Commission. "As President, Obama will enact a plan to protect Americans from unsafe products. In addition to banning lead-tainted toys and increasing fines for companies that fail to disclose known safety hazards with their products, Obama will: ... Double the funding for the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and make sure it has the inspectors it needs to ensure that the goods we're buying are safe." (Obama For America, "Obama Vows To Protect Kids And Ban Toys With Lead," Press Release, 12/23/07)

In FY 2008, The CPSC Was Funded At $80 Million. Doubling Funding Would Cost An Additional $80 Million Per Year, Equal To $320 Million Over Four Years. (Thomas H. Moore, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commissioner, Statement Submitted To The Subcommittee On Financial Services And General Government, House Committee On Appropriations, www.cpsc.gov, 3/11/08)
Obama Has Proposed $2 Billion In Additional NASA Funding. "Sen. Barack Obama has detailed a comprehensive space plan that includes $2 billion in new funding to reinvigorate NASA and a promise to make space exploration and science a significantly higher priority if he is elected president." (Marc Kaufman, "Obama Suggests $2 Billion In New Funding For NASA," The Washington Post, 8/19/08)

Obama Will Increase The Maximum Pell Grant To $5,400 And Ensure The Grant Keeps Pace With The Rising Cost Of College Inflation. "Two decades ago, the maximum Pell Grant covered 55 percent of costs at a public four-year college, compared with only 32 percent today. The first bill Barack Obama introduced in the U.S. Senate would have helped make college more affordable for many Americans by increasing the maximum Pell Grant from the limit of $4,050 to a new maximum of $5,100. Obama has worked in a bipartisan way on the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee to achieve an increase in the Pell Grant to $5,400 over the next few years. As president, Obama will continue to work to ensure that the maximum Pell Grant award is increased for low-income students. Specifically, he will ensure that the award keeps pace with the rising cost of college inflation." (Obama For America, "Barack Obama: Making College Affordable For Everyone," www.barackobama.com, Accessed 7/14/08)

The National Taxpayers Union Estimated This Would Cost $7.08 Billion Per Year, Equal To $28.32 Billion Over Four Years. "Cost: $7.08 billion ($35.401 billion over five years). Source: Obama is a cosponsor of S. 359 (110th Congress): A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide additional support to students. Section 2 of the bill increases the maximum Pell Grant award and authorizes additional funds." (National Taxpayers Union Foundation, "Democratic Presidential Primary Spending Analysis - Barack Obama," www.ntu.org, 6/3/08)
Obama Would Spend $200 Million A Year To Develop "Regional Clusters" To Spur "Smart-Growth Strategies," Equal To $800 Million Over Four Years. "Sen. Obama says his administration would shift urban-policy making to so-called smart-growth strategies that synchronize transportation, commercial and housing needs for entire regions, rather than following the tradition of focusing first on fighting poverty and crime. He would fund $200 million in annual grants to develop 'regional clusters,' such as the high-technology-focused area known as the Research Triangle in North Carolina." (Corey Dade, "Obama Promotes Plan For Urban Development," The Wall Street Journal, 8/25/08)

Obama Would Spend $5 Billion Over 10 Years To Protect And Restore The Great Lakes, Equal To $500 Million A Year And $2 Billion Over Four Years. "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is promising to push for $5 billion in new funds to protect and restore the Great Lakes if he gets elected in November. The money would come over a 10-year period from rolling back tax breaks for oil and gas companies, and it would flow toward things such as sewage system treatment repairs, toxic cleanups and wetlands restoration, according to a Great Lakes restoration plan the Obama campaign is expected to release today." (Dan Egan, "Obama Plan Calls For $5 Billion To Protect, Restore Great Lakes," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 9/15/08)

Obama Would Increase PEPFAR Funding By $2 Billion. "President Bush created the $15 billion President's Emergency Program for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which helps treat and prevent HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean. The program was reauthorized this year, bumping U.S. contributions up to $48 billion over the next five years. Obama has pledged to increase funding for PEPFAR to $50 billion and plans to revise the bill to include Southeast Asia, India and Eastern Europe." ("Platform Review: Candidate Positions On Science And Tech Issues," elections.foxnews.com, 9/18/08)

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] November 9 2008 9:00 AM EST


Under which of these initiatives does the free Starbucks fall?

FailBoat[SG] November 9 2008 9:21 AM EST

QBBast 9:00 AM EST

Under which of these initiatives does the free Starbucks fall?

Love you Bast.


To kinda peel this away slightly, I've only partially followed the election, I didn't much care either way.

What has me confused is how this will affect those of us unable to work. I have petite mal epilepsy and short term memory loss. I'm in the process of getting on Unemployment and will be unable to work until they find a type of medicine that prevents my seizures. So how does any of this affect someone like me?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 9 2008 9:48 AM EST

here is a snopes article that has one paragraph devoted to the most liberal senator appellation.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/blackwell.asp

i have never read the national journal to know whether or not i trust their judgment, do you read it ranger or just use that quote?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 9 2008 10:00 AM EST

the other seems to be a direct copy and paste from www.gop.com

http://www.gop.com/obamaspendometer.htm

Paid for by the Republican National Committee
Not Authorized By Any Candidate Or Candidate's Committee

www.factcheck.org tends to have a pretty fair assessment of matters and seems to be very non-partisan. they also tend to give the context of most issues that i find necessary to get the big picture rather than letting someone else make up my mind for me.

here is an example from each side:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/closing_arguments_obama.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/closing_arguments_mccain.html

thanks to whoever it was who clued me in to factcheck this election, it has proven to be the kind of informational site that i find very useful!

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 9 2008 10:05 AM EST

on a humorous side note, in the gop link, if you replace the obamaspendometer with mccainspendomoter that page does not exist, i wonder why? ; )

QBRanger November 9 2008 10:21 AM EST

I stated 3rd most liberal due to the average of most of the site/people I have read/heard.

Some say 1st others up to 10th.

The spending is from that site, however, I have yet to find where any of those "promises" were in error.

Either way, there is no doubt Obama is a very liberal left wing senator and his opponent was far more centrist.

So I believe that we will have a more divided nation as those who "have" will become rather bitter at having to give to those who "do nothing".

And Bast, your right. I was mistaken. Starbucks are closing quite rapidly and likely more will due to the down turn in the economy and the additional taxes Obama will enact on businesses to give to the "underprivileged" AkA, those that do not contribute to society or even try to.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 9 2008 10:33 AM EST

here is a link to back up the statement that i made earlier regarding the fact that many now view the democratic party as the more fiscally responsible party. i like to look at past track records as opposed to campaign promises to determine who is the more fiscally responsible party and hope like hell that correlates to a certain candidate. we will see.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

the growth of the national debt during the current administration, especially the first six years when they had full control tells me, and many others apparently, much more than cute spendometers on gop web sites forecasting doom and gloom that may never occur.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 9 2008 10:48 AM EST

"So I believe that we will have a more divided nation as those who "have" will become rather bitter at having to give to those who "do nothing"."

the fact that we are having this discussion is proof of your theory, i however lay the blame on fear tactics used during the campaign...i believe that form of campaigning only fans the flames of divisiveness within our country and the emotions built by such tactics don't just disappear after the election, especially for the ones who were outvoted.

Yukk November 9 2008 12:39 PM EST

Ranger:
"Obama Would Provide $250 Million To "Bring Quality Teachers Back To The Gulf Region." Obama: "Many heroic, high-quality teachers have returned to New Orleans - but we need more. That is why I have called for $250 million to bring quality teachers back to the Gulf region. Any teacher or principal who commits to come here for three years should receive an annual bonus; and those who teach in subject areas where we face shortages - such as math and science - should receive an additional bonus." (Obama For America, "Barack Obama To Lay Out Program To Rebuild New Orleans And The Gulf Coast Region," Press Release, www.barackobama.com, 2/7/08) "

Have you seen the state of your educational system lately ? Even in well-off areas, it's not so hot, and in depressed areas like New Orleans they could benefit greatly from better education.

With initiatives such as "No child left behind" dragging everyone down and other genius ideas such as any answer supported by religion can not be failed or even no mark less than a C ever even for just showing up once, someone needs to look at education.

Besides, $250M is about a buck from your paycheck. You'd need 4x that just to offer Bast a single coffee from FourBucks.

Lochnivar November 9 2008 12:48 PM EST

> Taxpayers Would Be Faced With Financing $1.297 Trillion In New Spending

For that kind of money you could always invade Iraq (wait, that's 3 trillion and counting...)

As far as taxpayers financing this all?

Please remember that an increase in spending does not necessarily induce an increase in taxes. (yes I realise that Obama has commented on tax increases)

The following link shows Government spending and revenues as a percent of GDP.
http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_away/images/economics/u.S.%20Spending%20And%20Revenue%20In%20Relation%20To%20GDP.GIF

Since taxation accounts for roughly 95% to 98% of government revenue it would be fair to substitute the word 'taxation' for 'revenue'.

A review of the graph shows that, since 1975, there is a surprisingly poor correlation between spending increases and 'taxation' increases. These trends more closely resemble an inverse correlation. Obviously there are confounding factors (such as wars) that may explain this variance. However, the fact remains that in the last 30 yrs government spending should not be considered an indication of taxation rates (or vice versa).

Furthermore, as there is no requirement to balance budgets, nor inclination to do so (Clinton administration aside), there is no inherent need to raise taxes to pay for extra spending. Keynsian economic theories actually suggest that a government can, and possibly should, engage in deficit spending to combat economic downturns.

So to conclude (and get back on topic):
Obama does not necessarily have to up hold his pledged tax increases to support his pledged spending increases. Whether or not either (or both) come to fruition is sheer speculation at this point. However, the implication that the money for these programs will have to be garnered by a fresh grab at the tax payers is a tad spurious.

Lochnivar November 9 2008 12:59 PM EST

oops...

Forgot to mention, that given the current economic climate the notion of raising taxes at all seems ill advised.

"On 30 September 2008, the total U.S. federal debt passed the $10 trillion mark for the first time"
An extra 10% on millionaires' income isn't solving that anytime soon.

Relic November 9 2008 1:24 PM EST

Cutting spending across the board, eliminating worthless expenditures, and paying down our national debt should be our primary concern. Everything else is noise.

People that default on their home loans, should not have the government step in rescue them. Where is the idea of self-reliance that used to exist in America?

As a nation we live far above the means of almost any other nation. A little belt tightening might actually do some good, especially to the younger generation who are of the "I want it now, and I am entitled to that" state of mind. The fiscal discipline that our parents and grand-parents learned and lived needs to once again become a staple in our own lives.

"You mean I might actually have to save for what I want to purchase without going into debt for it?" A novel and crazy idea I know.

The government spending boatloads of money will not fix the heavy installment of consumer debt that hangs over the head of our nation. Nor will it alleviate the tremendous national debt, it will only exacerbate it.

Colonel Custard November 9 2008 2:39 PM EST

"Cutting spending across the board, eliminating worthless expenditures, and paying down our national debt should be our primary concern."

Yes, yes, and no.

As Loch stated, there is no real incentive (nor, as far as I know, any real advantage) to paying off our national debt. Yes, of course get rid of useless spending and balance the government's budget... but I think stopping the year-to-year increase of our debt is plenty for now, while reducing it to zero can wait.

Lochnivar November 9 2008 3:12 PM EST

I did not say there was no benefit to getting rid of debt...
In 2007 the US government paid $243.7 billion in interest on debt.

That is 243.7 billion!!

The much maligned UI and welfare only got $294.0 billion.

I agree entirely with Relic regarding some fiscal responsibility being needed in the US... apparently there is $2300 (approx) in credit card debt for every man, woman and child in the country *Canada is just as bad).
Just because you want it doesn't mean you should be able to get it NOW.

Colonel Custard November 9 2008 3:47 PM EST

I guess I somewhat misquoted/misinterpreted this: "Furthermore, as there is no requirement to balance budgets, nor inclination to do so (Clinton administration aside), there is no inherent need to raise taxes to pay for extra spending. Keynsian economic theories actually suggest that a government can, and possibly should, engage in deficit spending to combat economic downturns."

"No requirement nor inclination" to balance budgets sounded to me like you were saying it doesn't matter all that much. It does matter, yes, but is it a top priority? I mean, can we pay 294 billion in interest for a couple of years while we cut down on wasteful spending to balance the government budget even if we don't actually reduce our deficit?

Yes, I'd rather the government not be $10 trillion in debt... but what are we gonna do? Raise taxes to provide $2.5 trillion in extra government revenue for 4 years until we've got it all paid off? I think it's best (and most feasible at the moment) that we keep up with our interest payments for a while and increase the national debt as little as possible while we cut down on wasteful programs and work to fix the American economy. The government working to fix the economy isn't really socialist in the negative manner that people have been using in this thread, because a successful action to restore to economy benefits everyone, rich and poor. A failure to fix the economy hurts everyone, no matter how much money they have. If money becomes worthless, who cares what your bank account says?

Relic November 9 2008 4:40 PM EST

I would strongly favor a tax increase, IF, and only if the government used that money to pay off our national debt. We are paying ludicrous amounts of interest needlessly and thus weakening our currency globally. China all but owns us or will very soon if we don't course correct and start having a much more stringent approach to government spending.

I can't remember offhand where I heard that we are something like 10 years away from not being able to even pay the interest on our debt. What do you think all the countries who "own" our debt will do? The same thing credit card companies do, they will raise our interest rate and force our hand in trade negotiations and other foreign affairs.

Zaekyr November 9 2008 8:47 PM EST

Unfortunately Relic,debts to foreign nations only account for about 1 trillion of that at best.Most of our national debt we owe to the federal reserve which is privately owned and without operational influence from our government.The only hand our government plays in the federal reserve is in selection of its board of which all of the members can be traced in one way or another to the original owners.

Wizard'sFirstRule November 9 2008 8:57 PM EST

there is 2 side to the "rich" coin. There are those that work hard to early 250k or whatever a year, and those that have millions and sit on their couch, paying their accountants (I might be one of those people in a few years - the ones getting paid. :P) and basically pays no tax. However, would it be fair to tax people on their savings? I mean, the share porfolio is their savings over the years, and already paid tax on them... It doesn't matter what the policy is, someone will complaint, someone will find loopholes, and someone will bare the burden.
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002a9n">I am so rich, I spit on you!</a>