cyrena—Havent heard from you in awhile—hope you living situation worked out.

Are you saying that “tax cuts for everything” is NOT part of supply side capitalism? I am sure you are not.

No, I dont think any part of our tax-paying society needs cuts, right now. We are at war, and , we are at the precipice of a huge depression. If you make enough money to pay taxes—do it. Like Biden said, it’s patriotic.

The $1000 for every middle class taxpayer was no different than the ones proposed by Sen. Clinton or others in teh Senate. The last one helped the economy—-how?? Wal Mart? China? It would be far better spent on programs to help people get back to work, further extending unemployment, etc.

PE Obama has said, in response to “consrvatives” complaints about how rich people had already “made plans for their tax cuts”, that they should not be concerned, as the rollback, to tax levels of the 1990s would “take about a decade to implement”.

That is what I was referring to..I think that the Dems can help the (former?) middle class much more with programs, giving money to states, etc. , than by giving them $1000.

KDelphi,
I’m confused here, and it might be me. So, thought I’d try to verify..
On this..

“..As to Obama’s “turn to more conservatives”—I have seen Obama as conservative/moderate all along.He is certainly a capitlist and wants to further cut taxes. How in the world will we implement any of the programs he talked about with tax cuts? We need revenue!! Now, he also says it might take “ten years to implement the tax roll backs”..there is no logical reason as to why.”

*****

I know that you’ve always perceived Obama as conservative/moderate. (they aren’t exactly the same though you know..just thought I’d throw that in).But then you say that he is ‘certainly’ a capitalist, and in the same breath that he wants to further cut taxes.

This is very confusing. Is there some direct connection to the idea of capitalism and tax cuts? Or, is it me? More importantly though,  (for resolving my confusion), where in the hell did you come up with the idea that Barack Obama…

“…wants to FURTHER CUT TAXES????”

WHY would you say or think that, unless you’re confusing the taxes paid by the middle and working classes, (what might be left of them) that he (Obama) intends to cut, with the next to nothing that the ones with all the money pay.

I think you don’t understand that if the top 5% of the rich begin paying their fair share of taxes, (which hasn’t happened in nearly a decade) then the taxes the rest of us are paying CAN be reduced!! You might also consider that $10billion a week in Iraq and Afghanistan. Can’t you think of anything to do with all of those extra billions, if the jillionaires just start paying standard income taxes, (they literally pay nothing now, thanks to Dick Bush Doctrine) and we stop spending it on so-called “defense” (which is really OFense) and wars in the Middle East and elsewhere?

So, what’s your real complaint here on this one KDelphi? Do we need revenue? Yeah. Do you know where/how we should get it? Apparently you don’t.
Should we raise or lower taxes KDelphi? Don’t you think it should depend on WHO and how much? How reasonable is it that the working poor are paying more taxes than the jillionaires? Where SHOULD the revenue come from?

boredwell—could you please link us to your reference on single payer health care?

I have used the nhs in Denmark, Italy , and Canada, so I am very curious…

Very odd of you, objecting to Hillary , but none of Clinton;‘s other cronies..sounds personal on Hillary to me.

I hadnt thought of all the crap the Senate would dish out in the hearing, and withdrew any tentative support I had for Hillary as SOS. Because, personally, I just dont think it will matter all that much. The Clinton years look great, compared to now,—-and, for young people, who have mostly known only Bush—it will seem good to have “Clinton back again”!

But, if Obama hires any more Clintonites, pretty soon, criticizing Clinton will BE criticizing Obama!

Dear PE Obama and transition team: John Palfreman, in his Frontline piece, Sick Around the World, offers a sobering view of national healthcare. His examination includes, Britain, Germany, Taiwan, Japan and Switzerland. Watch it and decide how the information provided will be of service to Americans in their quest for universal healthcare. Frankly, Hillary Clinton would best be able to redeem herself as Health Secretary rather than taking on the most wholly American Redeemer of the World slot.

To begin work on the economy is akin to hitting the books at the last minute to cram for your finals. Since Goldman Sachs(GS)was the largest contributor to Obama’s campaign ($700k plus),Obama has within his camp to many who would profit by championing GS’s charms rather than manifold excesses. Therein resides Corzine, the former CEO-cum-NJ governor, considered for treasury secretary. I mean, c’mon, exchanging one former GS CEO (Paulsen) for another!? And Buffet, now in possession of $5billion preferred shares of GS will be a cheerleader for that “change”! Maybe it’s all about management style, eh?

Obama is exactly what the country needs. He’s about as different as you can get when it comes to being a president. And I DON’T mean color, either. That should be a moot issue by NOW! It appears that he is trying to juggle all the components knowing full well that ideas not ideals are what effect critical mass. He’s not above cronyism,favoritism and the transparent more-than-likely Rahm-isnpired offer to Hillary. That Bill’s entaglements may preclude her acceptance is the perfect foil to any of her former female constituents from groaning. We tried, Obama will say. It will give the appearance of fence mending. The Health Services cabinet will have taken and thus Hill will have received her comeuppance and be relelgated to the senate chamber. Nice work. I’m looking forward to this administration.

Jim C—No new keyboard—-I wish!~ Just days when my RA is acting up, and days when it is not.(Also, months I can afford my medicine and mos that I cannot) I wasnt sure anyone was paying any attention… I agree with your stats on Kennedy and taxes. I guess it just depends on whether you are a capitalist. I guess you might know that I am not.

The tax system was more progressive before Kennedy…

As to Obama’s “turn to more conservatives”—I have seen Obama as conservative/moderate all along.He is certainly a capitlist and wants to further cut taxes. How in the world will we implement any of the programs he talked about with tax cuts? We need revenue!! Now, he also says it might take “ten years to implement the tax roll backs”..there is no logical reason as to why.

I listened to the GOP (and Dems) in the Big Three auto hearing today—the GOP were so anti-union I was screaming at the tv. But, union s in the uS are so bought out—they are practicaly useless.They grilled them some—-but they wil both give them money with few strings attached anyway..I hate the duoppoly—I hate GOP more…

It seems that the Obama Team is backing a form of the health insurance care plan submitted by Max Baucus—it is market/insurance/tax based and wont help most people. It wil be bureacratically heavy and, wil fail. I dont believe in “incremental” plans. No civilized democracy does. WE NEED HR 676!! I hear that, sadly, even Kennedy is backing Baucus. Most groups that back single payer do not

...http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/november/doctors_citing_mand.php

Think of this—if we had natl health care, public pensions, funded social security—woudl the auto cos be bankrupt?? I submit—no! Of course socialism delivers services better, and, further, “capitalism”(moneyism) does not even “give” that the people deserve any services from their govt. It just need to “get out of out lives”.

Until they need a bailout…what bs..

KDelphi , he ( Kennedy ) stopped the steel industry from arbitrarily raising steel prices which would have slammed the automobile industry and hurt the economy in general . He told them that if they did he would get them regulated . The top tax rate was 90% , it was reduced to about 60% but he also closed loopholes so fat cats actually had to pay taxes . Before with the 90% rate there were so many holes most of the wealthy didn’t pay any or little tax .
I am getting a bit concerned about Obama’s warm fuzzy attitude with the republicans and conservative wingnuts . I would hope he realizes they are nothing but the political arm of corporations and plutocrats . They could care less about whats good for the country or the middle class . Their aim is to serve their corporate masters plain and simple , that’s who they work for . The idea of putting republicans in the administration makes me want to throw up , I thought we voted them out . The apparent fact that he is just going to give bush and his scummy crew a pass and let them walk away makes me sick also . They’re responsible for over a million unneccessary deaths , they looted the treasury and wrecked our economy and he is just going to let them walk away ? Not to mention we’ll be paying their bills for the rest of their useless lives . What happened to the old BS about ” nobodys above the law , even the president ” ?I guess this shows it’s just that , BS , bad precedent also , the next time the republicans slither into office they’ll know they’res nothing to fear from trashing the constitution and looting the country . I’m very concerned about all the DLC types Obama is surrounded by . We’ll know where this is going shortly , if he picks Sommers or Rubin for treasury we’ve been had , if it’s Volker or someone in that mold I’ll feel better , we’ll see . He is making me a bit nervous . By the way , did you get a new keyboard or maybe cut down on the starbucks , no typo’s ?

troublesum:

Re McCain, aren’t you aware of the old adage to “keep your friends close, and your enemies closer?”  LOL.  Besides, Obama also campaigned on a promise of TRUE bipartisanship (to the degree it is possible).  So not only am I encouraged by his reaching out to McCain, I will actually be annoyed if Obama does NOT appoint at least a couple of Repugs to Cabinet-level positions.

Peace.

Obama wassn’t elected to “govern from both sides”; he was elected to make good on the promises he made.  He has already reneged on many of them.  He is being told by his wall street friends that the country cannot afford health care reform.  I’m a little confused by his buddying up to John McCain.  Is this the same John McCain of whom Obama said (quoting the Washington Post) that he ran the most negative campaign in history and wanted to continue most of the Bush administrations policies?  If so what is there to cooperate on?

You make a good point KDelphi.

Sure—we need to give PE obama some time—but “cutting him some slack” is not our job…all of you that convinced “doubters” to vote for him, because YOU were going to “move him to the Left” and “hold his feet to the fire”—with the cabinet appointments he seems to be considering—you cannot “undo” those any more than you can FISA or the Wall St Bailout.(those remain to be seen)

When would it be appropriate to hold him to his promises? At the end of his term?

Jeremy—If Obama pulls too far to the Right—he will lose the progressive vote in 2012. It is as simple as that. Maybe he would pick up some conservative votes. Fine. The Dem Party has been conservative for a long time. Perhaps it is time for them to admit it.

Another point to be made is, the praise of JFKs programs—Reagan/Bush and the GOP have so severely de-funded them, that they may well cease to exist. The Peace Corps has been so de-funded that people are living in dangerous , violent neighborhoods without medical care. While we want volunteers to get a flavor for,and live like the people they help—this has gone too far. There are also reports of them being infiltrated by govt spies. The GOP has refused to even fund Special Olympics, saying it was “their program” (the Kennedys)_. JFK cut taxes, not exactly Bush/Reagan supply side, but close.We could have also done without his “facing down the steel industry” here in the Rust Belt.Maybe you would propose Obama “facing down the auto industry” in the same way. But who will “face down Wall St”? NO one funded by them, I can tell you that..

That Obama continues to be compared to JFK is no accident.It was heavily promoted by the Kennedys, I believe.. I have heard all kinds of young people say taht he is “their JFK”. Maybe he is—for better and worse.

Comparing any president, in these economic times to FDR , would be to give people, ..oh what is the word I am looking for,...hope? If we go the “Reagan route”—the middle class is doomed, without which , our republic wil further deteriorate. But, this is probably inevitable, and we might as well bring them down here with us “po folks”! Defending teh middle class is an exercise is masochism for the poor—when the bailouts and tax rebates come, they never give a damn about us.

Welcome to complete finanacial insecurity, lifelong debt, and subsistence living!

I don’t really care - it was a relative term. If you call a 6-7% margin a landslide because it’s historically significant - fine. But I think it’s a slap in the face of the very large 46% that voted the other way. That’s nearly half!

The point I made was that Obama is taking the center road to try and lead both sides. The previous Republicans have taken advantage of their position in office to push their agenda regardless of what the American people as a whole want. Obama is interested in hearing all points of view - this is nothing to sneer at. In fact we hassled McCain for doing the opposite. I refuse to give Obama a hard time for doing something for the conservatives that we begged Bush/McCain to do for us (assuming most of you are liberal).

That’s my point - I’m not here to argue the definition of “only” and “landslide.”

Jeremy:

“Try 60-70 percent or higher.”

Surely you jest.  In modern history (post-1900), not a single candidate has won with 70%.  And only four won with 60% - exactly (i.e., none have gotten b/w 60 and 70): Harding over Cox in 1920, FDR over Landon in 1936, LBJ over Goldwater in 1964, and Nixon over McGovern in 1972.

Although it is true that a number of races since 1900 were won by larger popular majorities than 2008 (seven of them, to be exact), the ongoing comparisons between FDR and Obama get stranger: Obama won by exactly the same amount that FDR won in 1944 (his last campaign): 53 to 46.

And from now on I’m going to start charging for doing everyone’s research for them…LOL.

Peace.

J K Hammond
Obama won by more than 7 million popular votes and 193 electoral votes.  I wouldn’t call that a close election.  Bush won by a million votes the second time around and called it a mandate.

KDelphi , I am also sick and tired of this reverence of the drooling dumbass , give it a rest Barack . Reagan was a clueless boob that was just as vacuous as Palin and proved it every time he escaped from his handlers . They didn’t keep him on a short leash reading from 3by5 cards for nothing , he was an idiot . I am also getting a bit sick of some of the ignorant , disparaging comments about JFK . For the short time he was in office he accomplished much in many areas , civil rights for one , the peace corp , he faced down the steel industry , reworked our tax system , got us through the Cuban missile crisis which was dropped in his lap by Eisenhower and the CIA , pulled the country out of its doldrums . We had pretty much stalled by the end of the Eisenhower administration , he got the country reinvigorated and feeling good about ourselves again , did I mention the space program , he said we would go to the moon and we went to the moon . So you limbaugh lemmings might want to actually study the history of the period before you post blather about a president and a period you obviously know little to nothing about . Oh , don’t start yammering about Vietnam , Eisenhower put the first advisors in and Kennedy would have never allowed it to escalate like it did . That was Johnson and Nixons work .

I’m not sure why my posts have warranted so much nit-picking about my (apparently poor) choice of words - which is a bit superficial IMO. “Only” was a relative term to troublesum’s “Landslide.” 53% is not a landslide - ESPECIALLY with only 2 major candidates. Try 60 - 70 or higher. Is 53% significant (particularly historically speaking)? Yes. Is it a landslide? At least not in my opinion.

jc—how about you—could YOU be a little more specific?

I mean, sure, he is not even sworn in yet.But, his ardent supporters seem to have some very definite ideas about what he is going to do. I just wondered how you had interpreted his words.

I mean “Yes He Will”, what? Whatever he wants to do?

That seems to be what you are saying.

Jeremy:

“[H]e only got 53% of the popular vote. No matter how much we may disagree with them - the 47% that voted otherwise is still a large constituency that deserves representation.”

“Only?”  That is the second largest precentage in the past 50 years!  True, Obama will be president of that other 47% as well.  But you might want to look at your electoral history before you suggest that 53% is “only.”  It represents the most sweeping mandate since Reagan.

Peace.

While TD continues its cheerleading for Obama democracynow.org is doing a good job giving us the truth.  http://www.democracynow.org

troublesum:

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary-

reb·el:
1 a: OPPOSING [or taking arms against] a government or ruler

(emphasis mine.)

I think the left most definitely “opposed” the Right-wing “government/rulers” when they voted them out of office just this November. I chose to use the word for flavor - I’m sorry.

None the less - The president must do his best to compromise with those he disagrees with. It’s what makes a good diplomat. McCain/Palin lacked prudence - that’s one reason why they weren’t elected.

Obama and Clinton both liked Doris Goodwins book on Lincoln and they think they can acquire Lincoln’s wisdom by imitating him.  These days American politicians have shit for brains.  They don’t understand that the best presidents didn’t imitate anybody.  Do people understand now what Gore Vidal meant by the term “slaves”?

Hammond:
“...the left rebelled.”  Hello?  Hand wringing is not rebellion.

It is very difficult not to “like” Barack and Michelle Obama. They are intelligent, beautiful people.I did not see the interview, but I have heard it all day in parts, on news, internet, etc.

I still think that he is being non-specific.(Well, not about GITMO or torture)Phrases like “I will do whatever is necessary to fix the economy”, as good as it sounds, is very non-specific. And, he should be.He is not even sworn in yet. If he WOULD try to “take charge”, he would have to take “credit” for a bunch of Bush blunders.

Being too partisan would be a mistake,but, I also feel that pretending that there is no one to blame for where we “find” ourselvse would be a mistake also.

I, too, would like more FDR, less Lincoln, and NO REAGAN!

(Also, fewer homo-eroticisms like “warm honey all over me”—it is just too “out there”)

Watching that interview was like having warm honey poured all over me.  And how it brought into relief (as if we needed any more) how benighted and deprived we have been these last eight years. 
Of course, he’s not the Second Coming, but at least we’re starting out with someone who’s got a brain, who can speak, who is human all the way to his core.

Send him a letter, Mitchjf, or go to http://change.gov or one of his other websites like http://obamacto.org .

This president-elect is trying to be as easily accessible as possible to the general public through his avid use of modern technology.

I too hope that he doesn’t “get captured by the money people and bring the health care, peace, jobs, and human decency & respect to this country.”

He will if we the people are loud enough - he can’t do it alone - he’s only one man.

Being old enough to have clear memories, I say that there hasn’t been anyone in the presidency as charming, quick on the repartee, witty, as attractive, and probably as sharp as Obama—since John F. Kennedy.

I fervently pray that there is a lot more substance than JFK had—in retrospect, little to none, but he charmed most of the country anyway.

And I certainly wish Obama two full terms in the White House—which JFK never got.

Michelle was wonderful, too.  They were both real people, articulate, funny, and genuinely caring for each other & their family (including Obama’s mother-in-law).

Please I beg you, Barack, don’t get captured by the money people and bring the health care, peace, jobs, and human decency & respect to this country.

That was a really refreshing interview.  It makes me feel a little better to know the ship is going to be helmed by such a level-headed and intelligent person.  I do think we are going to see things going in a much better direction.  I especially liked his honest assessment of our addiction to oil (not just foreign).  He even described it in terms of addiction, which was surprising and hopeful.  I also very much appreciated his no nonsense declaration that he will close Guantanamo and end torture practices, I believe him.  I think he is shaping up to be just what I hoped he would be, an intelligent and conscientious leader.

They seem like nice real people. Sure hope they don’t get shot by some lone nut gunman with unbelievable killing skills.

Troublesome , I agree . I also wish Obama would pay more attention to FDR rather than Lincoln . The problems FDR faced were much more relevant to the current situation than the ones faced by Abe . The current republican party is nothing more than the political arm of big business , corporations and a would be aristocracy . Their aim is to get things back to what they consider the natural order , a small elite ruling class that is served by the unwashed masses who will be forced to work in their factories , serve them and be used as cannon fodder to protect their interests. This conservative ( calvinistic ) idelogical mindset belives that the very idea of a ” middle class ” that can set rules on how they are treated and control the excess’s of their ” betters ” hereditory wealth and privilage is an abomination that must be stamped out by whatever means neccessary . To get an idea of this simply read the speeches of FDR versis Lincolns . Lincoln was trying to bring a fractured country back together , FDR was trying to break the grip of entrenched interests and plutocrats . Which situation is more relevant today ? I fear Obama doesn’t get it   , that he see’s things through the prisim of civil rights rather than the ideological struggle that it is . If he believes that he can bring the sides together by making nice , that is naive , the greedy and well born aren’t interested in sharing power and privilage with who they see as their inferiors . Bringing republicans into the administration is counter productive and only lends credence to their failed ideology ( conservatism ) yet again . This vile , failed trogen horse needs to be dragged out from under it’s rock , shown for exactly what it is , then religated to the trash heap of history . We will soon know if Obama’s the real deal . His pick for treasury will be very telling , if it’s , say Volker , very good , he gets it . But if it’s Sommers or Rubin we’ve been had . I am already concerned about all the DLC types ( republican lites ) he’s dragged in . This is not the time to ” make nice ’ it’s time to clean house .

Something else worthy of note: Obama won in an electoral college landslide - he only got 53% of the popular vote. No matter how much we may disagree with them - the 47% that voted otherwise is still a large constituency that deserves representation.

It’s called compromise. What happened when the Republicans took the partisan route? The left rebelled. What would happen if Obama took the partisan route? I’d like to think everything would be ok but the fact is there are a lot of people out there that disagree with the liberal left - and some of them are the ones with NRA membership cards and what they call “God” on their “side.”

It’s politics, baby!

What I got out of this article: He’s closing Guantanamo. That itself is grounds for celebration!

When republicans win by the slimmist of margins, even if it’s by a vote of the supreme court, they have a mandate to be partisan as hell.  They can shred the constitution, ignore international treaties, you name it.  But when democrats win by a landslide what do we hear from democrats themselves: “We must govern from the center… we must not lurch to the left… we must be bipartisan.”  If democrats cannot represent the people who elected them then we need a new party.  I’m sick of Obama already, we need somebody new.  Unfortunately we have to wait four years.

“Hank”