MERGED: The Politics Thread

[3deroticer]

I take back Sargent, and replace with this

[CarlTL]

I take back Sargent, and replace with this

Archie Bunker?

Opinionated? Yes. Old School Conservative? Yes.

Spouting other peoples mindless drivel? No, he read the paper when that meant something.

I think something like this...

[TheZookie007]

I take back Sargent, and replace with this

No way would JJ ever allow this to happen. His white sheet brigade would have his guts for garters:

[pedonbio]

Going way back in the thread...

With regards to the definition of "Middle Class"... So the upper limit is an income of $250,000, and the lower limit is presumably the poverty threshhold (around $25,000 for a household of four people)? That's one hell of a big range. Where does anyone get the idea that the Middle Class is being squeezed?

The definition is, of necessity, arbitrary As the numerous scholars among the membership will know, the most widely-accepted definition of the "middle class" is more complex and not dollar-based. For purposes of the current political debate in the United States regarding tax policy, that is the spread. I certainly agree with you, rtpoe, that a lot more of us are near the bottom of that range than the top; but whenever some right-wing loon asks "whatcha mean by middle-class", that is what is meant.

Everyone's circumstances may differ, but part of that more complex definition I referred to is to ask the question, "what would happen if this person was unemployed for a year?" While someone with a $200K income would probably be less affected by that than would you or I, they would almost certainly be expriencing a lot of the losses that we would--Foreclosure, repossession, what-not.

[Shara]

don't forget that Archie Bunker is awesome

[Shara]

and then there's the division between legit and off-the-record income

[gOOber]

Q: Why did god create economists?

A: To make weather forecasters look good.

[SamV]

How very true, G.

But then meteorologists only have to deal with the complexities of nature, and the physical principles that govern them.

Economists have a much tougher time cause they have to deal with people, and the arbitrary nature of their wants and desires. So what the universities should do is insist that every student pursuing a degree in economics, also get a degree in psychology, then when they graduate and start in their chosen profession, they might have fighting chance of making accurate predictions. 

But I still wouldn't bet the family fortune on what they say.    

[Siria]

Q: Why did god create economists?

A: To make weather forecasters look good.

Hey! You may think economists aren't very good at predicting things, but let me tell you something-- Economists have accurately predicted nine of the last five recessions!

Economists have a much tougher time cause they have to deal with people, and the arbitrary nature of their wants and desires. So what the universities should do is insist that every student pursuing a degree in economics, also get a degree in psychology, then when they graduate and start in their chosen profession, they might have fighting chance of making accurate predictions. 

Accurate forecasting has very little to do with understanding individual human behavior unless you're trying to forecast a specific individual's behavior. (See: Behavioral economics, and its implications for consumer theory.)

Sociology is more relevant to forecasting, because the economy is a result of the interaction of social forces. Accurate forecasting relies on quantizing the magnitudes of social forces. The problem is the fact that some social forces are very difficult to quantize and there's often a lack of historical data from when those forces were at different strengths.

Also, if you understand statistics at all, another problem is that even when you can quantize social forces many of them are correlated with each other, and that same lack of historical data makes it very difficult to separate them.

[JJ]

NEWS FLASH -  The BAMA Man goes to WISCONSIN.  

'Nother NEWS FLASH -  2 term US Senator RUSS FEINGOLD goes away?

==========================================================

Why?   Darn, all the hard questions fall on our side here at the BEA I guess.

Could it be that liberal Senator Russ Feingold, a 12 veteran of the U.S.Senate doesn't want to be see anywhere with the man in the White House?

Nah, that's not it.  Must be something else.  

[onion_writer]

I'd vowed not to engage JJ, but I have to come out of retirement to slam this one down. Congress is in session and Feingold is in Washington to continue representing his state in the Senate. Any President can continue to work from Camp David or Air Force One, but a senator has to be on the hill.

Duh.

[JJ]

to Palomine,

I'd rather not get into a political tussle with a long time friend.  We know in real local life how that works out.  In recent years, many friendships have been tarnished over whether this way or that way was the right way in political circles.

I recently sent the same message to another long time friend of mine here at the BEA whose political views are in line with your own.  And he agreed that our friendship wasn't worth burying over national politics.  We come here for BEA, not politics.

You and I go back, supporting each other even before 2000, to the old, original BEA.  And while I knew instantly that you were on the far left, (you were never averse to putting in digs at Bush, Cheney or Gingrich) I never let that stop me in getting to know and respect you as a fellow BEA member of solid stature, one that has led you to a Moderator position with the present BEA.  I simply never said much in any way political here at the BEA.  Interesting that if national elections were held here today ONLY among the BEA members, Democrats would win in a landslide?

You make a very strong point in regard to states receiving equal value for their taxes.  Assuming the listed figures are correct, I find a number of problems with your assertion.

First, the states you list as receiving too much are an equally mixed bag of Republican AND Democrat states?  That throws off your argument.

Second, not even all of the states you list as getting less back than they pay are Democrat states.  A few are Republican.   But let's go past this problem.

Third, if you are saying that this imbalance is the totality of the problem in states such as California and New York, that I must say is a giant leap in accountability.  Surely there are other factors.  Let's move on using your two home states as examples, California and New York.

Fourth, if what you say is the entirety of the problem in California and New York, why is this problem not addressed during the eight years of Clinton/Gore and during the past two years of Obama?  Why is this problem not addressed by the respective Governors, U.S. Senators and Congressmen from the two states? They should have been hollering and screaming about this for decades?  Yet I've never heard Barbara Boxer mention it and brother, this is one woman who can scream and carry on when she has a bad day, which is most every day.

The founding fathers knew that some States would be better off than others, more populated than others, more blessed with natural resources than others, etc.  That is why they gave but two Senators to each state, but left the House to represent the various sizes of each state.  The problem you cite must have other mitigating factors in explaining who gets how much, or we'd be hearing more about it.

I must respectfully disagree with your premise then.  It is each states mission to deal with the resources they have in balancing their budgets.  California and New York are possibly the worst two in the nation facing up to this responsibility.  And much of not all of the blame must fall to the men and women who represent the people in local, state and federal government.  Since the Democrat Party stands for tax and spend policies, they shoulder more than their "share" of the blame for the current fiscal crisis.

What did the various European governments, faced with a fiscal melt down, do over the past two years?  In France, Germany, Greece, Britain and other countries they threw out the Social Democrats and put in more Conservative governments.  They did not ask that they start receiving a dollar for a dollar in taxes.

Throwing out the rascals who continue to tax and spend is what is about to happen here in the USA, big time, thanks to the leadership of Pelosi, Reid and Obama.

Wake up Palomine and think for yourself... just for a change... who knows, you might like it!  

[JJ]

I'd vowed not to engage JJ, but I have to come out of retirement to slam this one down. Congress is in session and Feingold is in Washington to continue representing his state in the Senate. Any President can continue to work from Camp David or Air Force One, but a senator has to be on the hill.

Duh.

====================================
Wrong!

Even Russ Feingold, saint that you want him to be, is no different than any other Senator, Republican or Democrat in Washington.

Russ Feingold's modus operandi IS TO GET REELECTED.

He's BEEN running away from Obama for months since he's behind in his reelection bid.





Knew I'd getcha back.  

Duh!

[onion_writer]

Yes, Palomine, think for yourself! Do as JJ does, by cutting and pasting (and sometimes editing) myriad obscure articles by shrill tea party suck-ups.

[onion_writer]

====================================
Wrong!

Even Russ Feingold, saint that you want him to be, is no different than any other Senator, Republican or Democrat in Washington.

Russ Feingold's modus operandi IS TO GET REELECTED.

He's BEEN running away from Obama for months since he's behind in his reelection bid.





Knew I getcha back.   

Duh!

You're right. I made a mistake. I tried to engage a teatard in mature debate.

[Palomine]

to Palomine,

I'd rather not get into a political tussle with a long time friend.  We know in real local life how that works out.  In recent years, many friendships have been tarnished over whether this way or that way was the right way in political circles.

I recently sent the same message to another long time friend of mine here at the BEA whose political views are in line with your own.  And he agreed that our friendship wasn't worth burying over national politics.  We come here for BEA, not politics.

You and I go back, supporting each other even before 2000, to the old, original BEA.  And while I knew instantly that you were on the far left, (you were never averse to putting in digs at Bush, Cheney or Gingrich) I never let that stop me in getting to know and respect you as a fellow BEA member of solid stature, one that has led you to a Moderator position with the present BEA.  I simply never said much in any way political here at the BEA.  Interesting that if national elections were held here today ONLY among the BEA members, Democrats would win in a landslide?

You make a very strong point in regard to states receiving equal value for their taxes.  Assuming the listed figures are correct, I find a number of problems with your assertion.

First, the states you list as receiving too much are an equally mixed bag of Republican AND Democrat states?  That throws off your argument.

Second, not even all of the states you list as getting less back than they pay are Democrat states.  A few are Republican.   But let's go past this problem.

Third, if you are saying that this imbalance is the totality of the problem in states such as California and New York, that I must say is a giant leap in accountability.  Surely there are other factors.  Let's move on using your two home states as examples, California and New York.

Fourth, if what you say is the entirety of the problem in California and New York, why is this problem not addressed during the eight years of Clinton/Gore and during the past two years of Obama?  Why is this problem not addressed by the respective Governors, U.S. Senators and Congressmen from the two states? They should have been hollering and screaming about this for decades?  Yet I've never heard Barbara Boxer mention it and brother, this is one woman who can scream and carry on when she has a bad day, which is most every day.

The founding fathers knew that some States would be better off than others, more populated than others, more blessed with natural resources than others, etc.  That is why they gave but two Senators to each state, but left the House to represent the various sizes of each state.  The problem you cite must have other mitigating factors in explaining who gets how much, or we'd be hearing more about it.

I must respectfully disagree with your premise then.  It is each states mission to deal with the resources they have in balancing their budgets.  California and New York are possibly the worst two in the nation facing up to this responsibility.  And much of not all of the blame must fall to the men and women who represent the people in local, state and federal government.  Since the Democrat Party stands for tax and spend policies, they shoulder more than their "share" of the blame for the current fiscal crisis.

What did the various European governments, faced with a fiscal melt down, do over the past two years?  In France, Germany, Greece, Britain and other countries they threw out the Social Democrats and put in more Conservative governments.  They did not ask that they start receiving a dollar for a dollar in taxes.

Throwing out the rascals who continue to tax and spend is what is about to happen here in the USA, big time, thanks to the leadership of Pelosi, Reid and Obama.

Wake up Palomine and think for yourself... just for a change... who knows, you might like it!  

JJ, you either didn't read my post or are unable to understand it. The only other explanation I can come up with for your reply quoted above is that your position is so feeble and indefensible that you resort to a straw-man argument even though you should know by now that folks here know that played-out attempt all too well (as does anyone else on the internet with an IQ of more than 85). You assert that I've made points I did not make and then proceed to take those fictional points apart. That's just amateur hour and you resorting to it is frankly an insulting waste of my time.

Per the figures I quoted (and the lists and the map) the overwhelming majority of states in the top 10 of those giving much more to the Fed than they get back ARE blue states and the overwhelming majority of those getting much more aid than they pay in taxes ARE red states. Heck, I even went to the trouble of coloring the names of the states per how they voted in '04 as a visual aid. So: no 'mixed bag' as you claim. That strikes down the first part of your straw-man argument.

Next, you accuse me of claiming that this factual imbalance (or taxes paid vs aid received and how that disparity brakes down re: red vs blue states) to be the 'entirety' of the cause of the state budget woes. Had you read my post you'd have seen that I specifically stated that this was NOT the case: "I'm not saying this is the sole determinant/contributing factor to any particular state budget situation, but to ignore it..." (quoting myself). So, that eradicates the other part of your straw-man argument rendering your entire reply moot.

When you essentially lie about what your opponent says in a debate, you are not 'disagreeing, respectfully' or otherwise: you're just lying in an obvious attempt to win an argument by other means (since you don't seem able to win it by the use of facts). I suggest that you change your policy of Faux Nooz parroting and reposting of editorial cartoons if you'd like to ever be taken seriously in these discussions, since every time you mimic Beck, Hannity and Co., etc... or resort to straw-man lies, you're 'arguments' are torn to shreds minutes later. Again: your straw-man attempt is DISrespectful (and amateurish) in the extreme.

By the way, you're no better at or more qualified to speak for the goals of the 'Democrat Party' than you are at speaking for me: so why not stop making such silly 'tax and spend' proclamations? If you're going to be such a Dittohead, at least get some fresh material, ok?

[onion_writer]

NEWS FLASH -  The BAMA Man goes to WISCONSIN.  

'Nother NEWS FLASH -  2 term US Senator RUSS FEINGOLD goes away?

==========================================================

Why?   Darn, all the hard questions fall on our side here at the BEA I guess.

Could it be that liberal Senator Russ Feingold, a 12 veteran of the U.S.Senate doesn't want to be see anywhere with the man in the White House?

Nah, that's not it.  Must be something else.  

NEWS FLASH FOR JJ: Sen. Feingold is indeed at the Obama rally. He called any other reports "a crock."

[3deroticer]

LOL! Palomine manage to get "JJ" to dictate his own thought, feeble or otherwise! At least it wasn't a 100% cut and paste rebuttal. Straw man rebuttal, yes! his own straw man rebuttal, well......yes.

But I just have to add, that this unbalance Federal earmark for the state didn't go unheard, if anything this was long notice, and I have several time have mention that GWBush seemingly had a retaliation for the Blue state in funding, and was one of the first 100 day act that Obama did was to restore a more balance federal assistance to all of the state. 

[JJ]

Attention Liberals, Democrats and so-called Progressives -

Raising taxes on the wealthy doesn't work.

Just another reason why you and the President don't get it.
==========================================================


September 29, 2010
Taxing the Rich
By John Stossel

Progressives want to raise taxes on individuals who make more than $200,000 a year because they say it's wrong for the rich to be "given" more money. Sunday's New York Times carries a cartoon showing Uncle Sam handing money to a fat cat. They just don't get it.

As I've said before, a tax cut is not a handout. It simply means government steals less. What progressives want to do is take money from some -- by force -- and spend it on others. It sounds less noble when plainly stated.


That's the moral side of the matter. There's a practical side, too. Taxes discourage wealth creation. That hurts everyone, the lower end of the income scale most of all. An economy that, through freedom, encourages the production of wealth raises the living standards of lower-income people as well as everyone else.

A free society is not a zero-sum game in which every gain is offset by someone's loss. As long as government keeps its thumb off the scales, the "makers" who get rich do so by making others better off. (When the government allocates capital or creates barriers to competition, all bets are off.)

Of course, this is not the prevailing view among the intelligentsia. Columbia University Professor Marc Lamont Hill tells me, "Those who have more should pay more."

But is there a point where they stop producing wealth or leave altogether?

"The rich have always cried wolf like that," Hill says.

But the wolf is here. Maryland created a special tax on rich people that was supposed to bring in $106 million. Instead, the state lost $257 million.

Former Gov. Robert Ehrlich, who is running again for his old job, says: "It reminds me of Charlie Brown. Charlie Brown was always surprised when Lucy pulled the football away. And they're always surprised in Washington and state capitals when the dollars never come in."

Some of Maryland's rich left the state. "They're out of here. These people aren't stupid," Ehrlich says.

New York billionaire Tom Golisano isn't stupid, either. With $3,000 and one employee, he started a business that processes paychecks for companies. He created 13,000 jobs.

Then New York state hiked the income tax on millionaires.

"It was the straw that broke the camel's back," he says. "Not that I like to throw the number around, but my personal income tax last year would've been $13,800 a day. Would you like to write a check for $13,800 a day to a state government, as opposed to moving to another state where there's no state income tax or very low state income tax?

He established residence in Florida, which has no personal income tax.

Now Gov. David Paterson may have even seen the light.

"We projected that we would get $4 billion, and we actually got well short of it," he says.

Art Laffer, the economist who has a curve illustrating this point named after him, isn't surprised.

"It's just economics," he says. "People don't work to pay taxes. People work to get what they can after tax. They'll change where they earn their income. They'll change how they earn their income. They'll change how much they earn, when they receive the income. They'll change all of those things to minimize taxes."

We can see it in the statistics. In 1960, federal revenues were 18.6 percent of total output. Over the next 50 years, that percentage has rarely exceeded 20 percent or fallen below 17 percent. As Laffer says, people adjust their activities to the tax burden.

Donald Trump, who knows something about making money, says of course the rich will leave when hit with higher taxes. "I know these people," he told me. "They're international people. Whether they live here or live in a place like Switzerland doesn't really matter to them."

You haven't left, I told him.

"I haven't left yet. ... Look, the rich people are going to leave. And other people are going to leave. You're going to end up with lots of people that don't produce. And then that's the spiral. That's the end."

And that's another good reason for us to get on with reducing the size of government.

[TheZookie007]

John Stossel? You're citing John Stossel???

Now I know that JJ is coming to a gunfight with a pocketknife. Sheesh.

What is your annual income, JJ? Are you earning more than 250,000 dollars a year (and are therefore rich)? If not, why are you such a shill for rich people by lying about the effect of taxes on the rich? Because that is exactly what you are doing: to quote that infamous member of Congress, YOU LIE!

[JJ]

Feingold defies predictions, joins Obama at rally
By Elise Viebeck - 09/28/10 04:57 PM ET

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) tweeted Tuesday afternoon that he had "made it" to Wisconsin and will attend a rally in Madison where President Obama will speak to thousands of college students.

"Great day to be in Wisconsin!" Feingold said. "Finished voting and am proud to join President Obama at my alma mater."

The senator had originally said he would be in Washington Tuesday afternoon, prompting observers to wonder whether he was avoiding appearing with Obama because of his fragile position seven points behind GOP challenger Ron Johnson.

Some also noted that Feingold had not shown at a Labor Day rally in Milwaukee that featured Obama
================================================

Andrew said -

Democrats are so pathetic. They have to search at the bottom of the barrel to find votes now. College students are, on average, idiots and incredibly unreliable. Few will show up to vote as they'll be more concerned with sex, drinking, or drugs. The only ones at this event were going to vote for this idiot and his minions anyhow.

=========================================

Wickerman said -

This just in…Feingold now trailing his opponent by 10 points…more to come…   

[3deroticer]

John Stossel?  er ....umh.......oh hey! how about that Russ Feingold!    *Deflect*

[JJ]

They said it!    WAITING FOR CHANGE WHILE LOSING HOPE.

====================
The Wisconsin State Journal

A Wisconsin State Journal editorial | Posted: Monday, September 27, 2010 7:46 pm



President Barack Obama promised Wisconsin and the nation a new direction two years ago during his history-making campaign.

So far, he has failed to deliver.

Washington remains mired in partisan, ideological squabbles.

The economy is sluggish, and stubborn unemployment remains high.

Our nation's debt is soaring out of control, with little to show for all of the stimulus money spent.

In short, Wisconsin is still waiting for change - and losing hope that it's coming.

When Obama visits Madison today for a campaign rally on the UW-Madison campus, he should offer renewed focus on getting things done. Rhetorical jabs at the Republicans won't cut it.

Obama has showed some toughness in pushing to transform public education. But the one big thing he has accomplished - health care reform - still fosters huge questions and unease.

Moreover, what happened to getting America off its addiction to foreign oil? What happened to government transparency? When will Washington right its sinking financial ship?

Obama inherited a mess when he took office, including two wars and the "Great Recession." And minority Republicans in Congress have done little to extend a hand toward reasonable compromise.

But Obama is the guy in charge. He sets the tone. He is the one who is most responsible for results.

He can't fix everything in less than two years. But he should have accomplished more by leading Congress toward the sensible center of the political spectrum where real change gets done. Instead, Obama has spent too much time following the Democratic Congress down a partisan path to gridlock.

Obama today surely hopes to find some of the old campaign magic that rocketed him into the White House. Madison will undoubtedly give him a warm reception.

But even Madison has doubts about Obama's potential. Our president needs to chart a new course toward shared goals and workable solutions.

[Cheviot]

Attention Liberals, Democrats and so-called Progressives -

Raising taxes on the wealthy doesn't work.

Just another reason why you and the President don't get it.
==========================================================

Yeah! The 50 to 86% maximum tax rate of the past is why J.P. Morgan, Nelson Rockafeller, Joseph Kennedy, William Randolph Hearst. Andrew Carnegie and every other real rich guy from the past you can think of didn't make any money, donate to charity or invest in their business interests. Damn those taxes!

[Shara]

mmm making $40,000 a year with a 20% tax rate or making $1,000,000 a month with a 85% tax rate... I know what i'd pick

[JJ]

More Liberal outrage  (Do as I say, not as I do.)....................
============================================

First Lady Michelle Obama Requires More Than Twenty Attendants

1. $172,200 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
 3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G.  (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 -  Medina   , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
11. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary to The First Lady)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special=2 0Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide to The First Lady)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. $43,000 - Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. $35,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)

(This is community organizing at it's finest.)
There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President's own pocket.

Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to   Europe .

THESE SALARIES ADD UP TO SIX MILLION, THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS ($6,364,000) FOR THE 4 YEARS OF OFFICE??   AND WE ARE IN A RECESSION!  WELL....MOST OF US ARE.  I GUESS IT'S OK TO SPEND WILDLY WHEN IT'S NOT YOUR OWN MONEY?

Copyright 2009 CanadaFreePress.Com<http://freepress.com/>  
 

[3deroticer]

More Liberal outrage  (Do as I say, not as I do.)....................
============================================

First Lady Michelle Obama Requires More Than Twenty Attendants

1. $172,200 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
 3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G.  (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 -  Medina   , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
11. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary to The First Lady)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special=2 0Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide to The First Lady)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. $43,000 - Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. $35,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)

(This is community organizing at it's finest.)
There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President's own pocket.

Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to   Europe .

THESE SALARIES ADD UP TO SIX MILLION, THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS ($6,364,000) FOR THE 4 YEARS OF OFFICE??   AND WE ARE IN A RECESSION!  WELL....MOST OF US ARE.  I GUESS IT'S OK TO SPEND WILDLY WHEN IT'S NOT YOUR OWN MONEY?

Copyright 2009 CanadaFreePress.Com<http://freepress.com/>   
 

Okay, now you are just being a total macho pig! You have little knowledge of Michelle's past work and her intensive community service that she put together before Barack political career. You also have no knowledge of the potential that being the first lady can do for the country. I wouldn't be surprise that she'll go down in history as the best first lady. Should we post a forum topic just for Michelle? I think at first you should stick to racism, and anti-Semitics, before branching off to chauvinistic macho tendency.

[onion_writer]

Why don't we just get it over with, and rename this the JJ thread?

[Palomine]

Why don't we just get it over with, and rename this the JJ thread?

Because that would connote a level of respect that, in my opinion, JJ hasn't earned. 90%+ of his posts are copy/paste jobs sans original thought. When 'sourced facts' are provided, they're almost instantly disprovable. Add to that he demonstrated reluctance to actually engage in rational dialog to defend his positions and his willingness to indulge the most chi1dlike straw-man tactics, etc... and you get a record unworthy of even the lip-service 'respect' that he feigns to offer. None of these are his biggest sin though IMO... the worst thing about his posts is that DUE TO all of the factors mentioned above, THEY'RE BORING!

It was my mistake to give JJ the benefit of the doubt and think that he might have an original thought in his head and also be capable of expressing it coherently. 

[Shara]

harsh words from the golem himself

[SamV]

Three things regarding JJ's list about Mrs. Obama's staff.

First off the median income in the US current is about $50,000 per year; which in case anyone is interested, is down almost 3 % from the prior year, because of the effects still being felt from the recent economic contraction. Anyway from the salaries listed they all appear to fall out about that median, some above and some below, so it appears no one on her staff is seemingly being paid that exorbitantly.

Second one has to question how big were the staffs prior first ladies had, and the salaries (adjusted for inflation) they received. Also keep in mind, that since the '08 campaign Michelle Obama, despite whatever her husband's poll numbers might be, has been one of, and remains one of the most popular and sought after first ladies ever. So I imagine the size of the staff she has reflects the amount of work need done to handle this amount of requests she receives along with the scheduling for meetings, appearances, interviews, etc. not only in this country, but around the world too. (With JJ calling them attendants, perhaps he think they lounge around together with the first lady all day, drawing Michelle's bath, and peeling grapes for her, and perhaps doing the same for her girls too? )

And finally this list is coming from CanadaFreePress so I gotta ask, "Why the hell do Canadian journalists (if they truLEE are such) care about the costs of running the office of an American First Lady? Don't they have their own "first lady" in Ottawa, not to mention a queen too, to grouse about instead of picking on ours?"

[CarlTL]

I'm going to ask a simple four word question JJ, I hope you answer it without a single copy/paste:

"What do you want?"

[JJ]

handing it over..........................

[JJ]

Because that would connote a level of respect that, in my opinion, JJ hasn't earned. 90%+ of his posts are copy/paste jobs sans original thought. When 'sourced facts' are provided, they're almost instantly disprovable. Add to that he demonstrated reluctance to actually engage in rational dialog to defend his positions and his willingness to indulge the most chi1dlike straw-man tactics, etc... and you get a record unworthy of even the lip-service 'respect' that he feigns to offer. None of these are his biggest sin though IMO... the worst thing about his posts is that DUE TO all of the factors mentioned above, THEY'RE BORING!

It was my mistake to give JJ the benefit of the doubt and think that he might have an original thought in his head and also be capable of expressing it coherently.  

=====================================================

The quality of your response was most disappointing.  Instead of a narrative discussion, I saw more of the same - name calling and back handed dismissal of facts you don't want to deal with.

It's been that way from day one.  It's either "oh, the Canadians, what do they know".  Or "John Stoessel, he's no expert in anything".  Or "if that's not original thinking, then it doesn't count."

It's nothing short of hilarious.   Of course, everything that's not far Leftist dogma is unacceptable here.

You posted a worthwhile statement.
I respectfully posted a rebuttal.
You come back calling me a liar, using "faux nooz"  sources, and best of all, a Dittohead.

This is becoming of a moderator here at BEA?
Shameful is what it is.
Surely we can do better!

A moderator should set a higher standard.  You were right the first time, you should have stayed out of it.

[JJ]

OBAMA NEEDS A MAKEOVER

By Don Campbell in USA Today


With his job approval rating sinking to the mid-40% range, Barack Obama needs a makeover.

I've never been a big fan of the president, and his ratings suggest a majority of Americans are coming around to my point of view. But as an independent who views the leadership of both major political parties with disgust, I'm going to offer Obama a formula for resurrection that is guaranteed to improve his popularity and place him in a stronger position for re-election.

I'd call it a post-midterm-election "to do" list, dated Nov. 3, and include several elements:

First, Obama should secretly celebrate the Republicans taking over the U.S. House — and shed a few tears if they don't — for several reasons. Voters prefer divided control of the White House and Congress, and the spectacle of the all-controlling Democrats ignoring public opinion for the past two years illustrates why. Obama also needs opponents with actual power to share the blame for the state of things — the current puny GOP minority in the House has been a pathetic political punching bag for him. Beyond that, Obama can almost surely count on a Republican majority to squander its "mandate" by elevating divisive fringe issues that most independent voters eschew.

Second, he should retool his Cabinet by replacing some of the career politicians, academics and think-tank alumni with business leaders, entrepreneurs and professionals who have been on the receiving end of federal dictates while running their organizations both private and non-profit.

Third, he needs a crash course in pragmatism. Three of the past four re-elected presidents —Nixon, Reagan and Clinton — had approval ratings in the high 50s when they won a second term. The fourth, George W. Bush, had a rating in the low 50s,but was lucky to draw the hapless John Kerry as his opponent. All had one thing in common — they were more pragmatic than ideological when it served their purpose.

Obama, by contrast, is the most hidebound ideologue to serve in the White House in my lifetime (witness his hell-bent determination to raise taxes on the most productive cohort of Americans in a recession despite advice to the contrary by leading economists, including one who used to work for him). Pragmatism means expanding his shrinking base beyond blacks, public union employees and academics; he can afford to offend the crazy left in order to broaden his appeal among moderates and independents.

Fourth, he needs to change his personal image. To me, Obama comes across as a narcissistic, condescending, elitist, pedantic scold who thinks he knows what's best for people who are too dumb to realize it.

Fifth, Obama needs to cut back on television appearances; they only remind people of why they've lost faith in him. I'd make a sizeable wager, in fact, that if he cut his public speeches and photo ops in half, his approval ratings would turn positive within weeks.

Last, he desperately needs to get a sense of humor.

The conventional wisdom, of course, is that the key to re-election for any president is the economy. I'd argue that a president's ability to influence the economy is overrated, but a more pragmatic Obama would embrace economic decisions that rely less on government solutions.

More important, voters are heavily influenced by their personal feelings about candidates. Most of those who early on drank the Obama Kool-Aid are still loyal, to be sure, but Obama's problem is that there are not nearly enough of them. He needs to change his perception among many millions of others.

And right now, Obama's biggest political obstacle is the man he sees in the mirror when he shaves each morning.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Don Campbell, a former Washington-based political reporter, columnist and editor, teaches journalism at Emory University in Atlanta and is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.


--------------------
And JJ said:

I concur with the above.
And I predict that Obama will not get the message for 2011 and 2012, his last two years as President.