Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"American Workers Can't Afford Barack Obama"
Hillary Clinton grabbed some weekend headlines when she waved an Obama campaign mailer that attacked her health care plan and NAFTA record and accused the now-frontrunner of "Karl Rove" tactics.
“Shame on you, Barack Obama,” Mrs. Clinton said at a news conference after a morning rally, holding the fliers and shaking them in the air as she spoke. “It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That’s what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio. Let’s have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign.”
If you suspected that the "valedictory" handshake at the Texas
debate was a ruse, congratulations! Clinton's taking the high road
by attacking Obama for being a
scary free trader.
He said the United States benefits from exports! He praised the WTO
and NAFTA! And check out this damning Obama quote:
The simple fact is, nations with free-market systems do better. Look around the globe: Those nations which have lowered trade barriers are prospering more than those that have not.
I'm kidding, of course. That wasn't Obama: It was Hillary Clinton in 1997, year 24 of her "35 years of experience making change."
We can expect an avalanche of trade pandering in tomorrow's Ohio debate, but I'm increasingly sympathetic to Obama on this stuff. Clinton can either bask in the glow of her husband's administration or she can reject its unholy works: Claiming she was for all the stuff that Democrats like and against all the stuff that Democrats don't is ridiculous.
|2.25.08 @ 11:39AM|#
Well, at least when she loses this presidential race, she can still use New York to puff-up her plumage. Maybe, just maybe, she'll get a job somewhere in the Obama administration and she can leave us alone :)
Shannon Love|2.25.08 @ 11:48AM|#
I find this ad rather odd given the fact that Obama is about as
big of a protectionist and economic nationalist as you will find at
the national level.
All the excised free trade quotes in the ad attributed to Obama
were no doubt in the original statement followed by a pregnant
"but" that would conjunct a phrase that places so many qualifiers
on "free" trade that it effectively guts the entire idea.
Perhaps, she seeks to turn Obama relatively specifics free approach
against him. With Obama running on charisma and emotion, it might
be easy for an opponent to plant false specifics in the minds of
voters.
|2.25.08 @ 12:05PM|#
Those who have been following the race know that Hillary and
Obama's positions on Free Trade are pretty close - they both
support free trade deals for the GDP boost created by lowering
trade barriers, but want worker and environmental protections as
part of those deals. (Ohnoes, NOT LIBERTARIAN ENOUGH!!!) Obama has
been trying to create some daylight between the two of them where,
frankly, it doesn't actually exist. This Hillary barrage isn't an
attempt to differentiate herself as less-Free-Tradey, but to
dispell his differetiation.
As far as "protectionist" Obama, there actually were
Congresscritters who voted against the Peru deal. Barack Obama
voted for it. So, no, he is not even close to "as big a
protectionist and economic nationalist as you will find at the
national level." He is about 1/16 of a Dobbs.
|2.25.08 @ 12:08PM|#
Yup, between this, the "shame on you" the Muslim outfit picture, etc, she's clearly gone nuclear negative. Her campaign is in its last throes, not Dick Cheney last throes, but real last throes.
|2.25.08 @ 12:09PM|#
It's kind of funny how they both use rhetoric in front of the midwest industrial unions that would make you think they're itching to put tarriffs on everything, but if you look for policy proposals, they both use "eliminate tax-breaks for offshoring" as an applause line, and that's it.
|2.25.08 @ 12:10PM|#
I think Hillary's "Shame on You" event about the mailers was the
only clean punch she's landed on him the entire campaign.
It's not a bad line of attack, but it's too little too late.
|2.25.08 @ 12:13PM|#
Hillary attacking NAFTA?! Ummm....wasn't NAFTA a product of her first copresidential term?
|2.25.08 @ 12:19PM|#
What's sympathetic about Obama's position here? He's attacking
the Clintons (both past president and wannabe president) for being
pro-NAFTA and pro-free trade, while weaseling out of any direct
statement of where he stands on NAFTA and free trade.
It's a shame to hear Hillary backtracking from that 1997 statement,
but everything in their respective careers indicates that her
economic policies would be more pro-free trade & less
screw-the-evil-corporations than Obama's.
|2.25.08 @ 12:23PM|#
I can't believe she thinks this is effective. Like, "Yes, my
husband and I negotiated a failed trade agreement that put all of
you out of work, but Obama (who didn't negotiate this agreement
that ruined all of your lives) sorta kinda supports free trade,
too. So there!"
How old is she? Lately, she sounds like a 3-year-old, stomping her
feet, grasping at straws, and throwing a tantrum!
Click \'n\' Learn|2.25.08 @ 12:27PM|#
Those who have been following the race know that Hillary and
Obama's positions on Free Trade are pretty close - they both
support free trade deals for the GDP boost created by lowering
trade barriers, but want worker and environmental protections as
part of those deals.
In other words, they'll both do what those behind the "free"
traders (what I like to call the "globalist scum") want, they'll
just fluff up the pillows for those affected by the deal. That
"FalseOpposition" is neatly summarized
here. (Note: both links are Not Safe For Cosmos)
As for Obama, he's on record as offering the same FalseOpposition
to Bush's SPP (spp.gov). Details
here.
When it comes to things like this, it's like ProWrestling, with one
fake taking on another.
|2.25.08 @ 12:28PM|#
...they both use "eliminate tax-breaks for offshoring" as an
applause line, and that's it.
Somebody help out this poor, ignorant voter. What tax breaks are
there for "offshoring"?
If I ship 20 cystomer service rep jobs to India, how much does this
reduce my taxes? Since it makes my company more profitable,
wouldn't my taxes go up?
I humbly bessech you all, please tell me what legislation
encourages outsourcing by giving tax breaks?
|2.25.08 @ 12:33PM|#
J sub,
For one thing, relocation costs and construction costs in other
countries related to relocating to another country can be written
off. This tax break was originally created to make it easier for
companies to expand their operations and create more jobs in the
U.S., before there was a great deal of offshoring going on.
|2.25.08 @ 12:40PM|#
Do we really want all kinds of manufacturing jobs back if we're just going to turn around and send everyone to college anyway?
|2.25.08 @ 12:45PM|#
Kevin Carson said it well, Reinmoose: we may not want to protect the buggy whip makers, but should we really be investing resources to speed up the obsolesence of their jobs?
|2.25.08 @ 12:47PM|#
For one thing, relocation costs and construction costs in
other countries related to relocating to another country can be
written off. This tax break was originally created to make it
easier for companies to expand their operations and create more
jobs in the U.S., before there was a great deal of offshoring going
on.
Wow, business expenses are not taxable income. I'm assuming moving
the Kmart headqurters to Chicago from Troy, was a write off as
well. What's the difference?
|2.25.08 @ 12:49PM|#
Do we really want all kinds of manufacturing jobs back if
we're just going to turn around and send everyone to college
anyway?
Manufacturing jobs pollute the environment. We should encourage
their offshoring. It's for the children's health.
|2.25.08 @ 12:51PM|#
Kevin Carson said it well, Reinmoose: we may not want to
protect the buggy whip makers, but should we really be investing
resources to speed up the obsolesence of their jobs?
So government "investments" in alternative energy technologies are
bad? joe, I warmly welcome you to the libertarian movement.
|2.25.08 @ 12:53PM|#
You know what the difference is. Stop playing dumb.
You also know that modern manufacturing practices produce much less
pollution, and are much more likely to be used here than in
newly-industrialized countries.
You must surely be confident in your position to come at the issue
in such an open and straightforward manner.
|2.25.08 @ 12:53PM|#
Ok, I was going to post something else, but I do believe J sub D made my point with that last comment.
|2.25.08 @ 12:54PM|#
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.
It's sad how widely snarks that aren't even believed by the people
making them pass for thought on the internet.
|2.25.08 @ 12:56PM|#
You know, it is possible to both disagree with a position and acknowledge that you are familiar with it.
|2.25.08 @ 12:58PM|#
Nearly any time the government intervenes in the market to speed up development in a certain sector, it indirectly puts the old sector out of work.
|2.25.08 @ 1:00PM|#
Joe, I'd be fine with doing away with the tax breaks for "offshoring" if the US did what practically every other country in the world does. Namely, tax corporations only on their domestic profits.
stuartl|2.25.08 @ 1:06PM|#
Obama has been trying to create some daylight between the
two of them where, frankly, it doesn't actually exist. This Hillary
barrage isn't an attempt to differentiate herself as
less-Free-Tradey, but to dispell his differetiation.
I think this is backwards. Hillary's big strategic mistake was to
think Obama was catching up and pulling ahead because of what he
said and his policy positions. She missed that he is much more
likable (who on her staff would be brave enough to tell
her?).
When she started imitating Obama ("change", Iraq, trade,...), she
lost whatever experience/knowledge advantage she had. The closer
she was to him, the easier it was to pull the lever for the more
likable candidate.
It is to Obama's advantage for there to be no daylight between
them.
|2.25.08 @ 1:06PM|#
Those who have been following the race know that Hillary and Obama's positions on Free Trade are pretty close - they both support free trade deals for the GDP boost created by lowering trade barriers, but want worker and environmental protections as part of those deals.
No, absolutly not. Here is their position of Free Trade: "I know
that without free trade, U.S. standards of living will drop, and I
will lose my next election. But I also know that people don't like
free trade, because it ties into their fundamental fear of scary
foreign people. Therefore, I need to create some token issues to
negotiate into free trade agreements that won't really have any
effect on free trade, but at the same time will allow me to make
anti-free-trade pandering sound bites".
Both Hillary and Obama will sell out in a second on the issue, and
support free trade as they always have. However, in this case,
their "corruption" is actually a good thing. Thank god they are
corrupt bastards, if they actually lived up to their rhetoric, it
would be a disaster for America.
we may not want to protect the buggy whip makers, but should we really be investing resources to speed up the obsolesence of their jobs?
What is this "we" stuff? What is good for one trick manufacturing
towns in the mid-west isn't good for everyone... so there really
isn't a "we" here.
|2.25.08 @ 1:08PM|#
Reinmoose @ 12:58: true enough. I'd say that such interventions
could only be justified if there is some important benefit to
obtain above and beyond the new jobs. The solar thing, for example
- obviously it wouldn't be good for the employment of coal miners
to carry out Scientific American's plan to cover the southwest in
solar panels, but the environmental and health gains would be
enormous.
Isaac B., there's a lot that could be done about corporate taxes. I
like the strategy in Sweden - they don't have corporate taxes, but
have higher marginal rates for the upper tax brackets to make up
the foregone revenue. It has the advantage of encouraging corporate
officers to put more money back into growing and improving the
business, rather than taking money out of it.
|2.25.08 @ 1:12PM|#
Very insightful, stuartl. But what's Hillary supposed to do?
There honestly isn't that much daylight between those two
center-leftists on policy. Where there is, such as Iraq and foreign
policy in general, his policies are more popular than hers with, at
least, the Democratic primary electorate.
She's tried, with her universal health care plan, but there isn't
that much to work with.
|2.25.08 @ 1:15PM|#
"This tax break was originally created to make it easier for
companies to expand their operations and create more jobs in the
U.S., before there was a great deal of offshoring going on."
Joe, I don't see how this could be correct. Every expense a
business makes subtracts from the NET income it is taxed on. This
is true whether the expense is fuel, business lunch, or toilet
paper. I'm not seeing what is special about expenses related to
offshoring.
|2.25.08 @ 1:15PM|#
Or executive power: she clearly believes in a stronger executive than he does. You wanna design the mailer going out to Democratic households trumpeting THAT one?
|2.25.08 @ 1:16PM|#
"For one thing, relocation costs and construction costs in other
countries related to relocating to another country can be written
off. This tax break was originally created to make it easier for
companies to expand their operations and create more jobs in the
U.S., before there was a great deal of offshoring going on."
Joe, I will stipulate to being dumb and say that I can't find
anything to support this claim, namely, that there are specific tax
breaks for the activities you describe. Where can I find it?
|2.25.08 @ 1:18PM|#
The problem comes in how that "important benefit" is defined,
and who defines it. Does legislation that would take away business
from payday loan businesses count? Does anything that will get us
more high-tech jobs count?
I consider moralism to be something of a terrible excuse for
screwing with people's lives (whether it be religious moralism or
social moralism). It is not the government's job to seek out ways
to compel us to make our or anyone else's lives better by someone
else's standards.
|2.25.08 @ 1:19PM|#
"I didn't say it was special. I said it exists."
Then it's not a "tax break". You write about it previously as if it
were a tax break--"This tax break was originally created to make it
easier for companies to expand their operations and create more
jobs in the U.S., before there was a great deal of offshoring going
on." I'm confused.
|2.25.08 @ 1:20PM|#
For one thing, relocation costs and construction costs in
other countries related to relocating to another country can be
written off.
So, really, there's no tax break for off-shoring. You can deduct
your business expenses regardless of whether they are incurred here
or overseas.
I'd say that such interventions could only be justified if
there is some important benefit to obtain above and beyond the new
jobs.
Like no-show jobs for your relatives and big fat campaign
contributions?
PC|2.25.08 @ 1:25PM|#
"Do we really want all kinds of manufacturing jobs back if we're
just going to turn around and send everyone to college
anyway?"
Should we really consider college higher education anymore if any
idiot can go? I saw someone write somewhere that baby boomers are
the best educated generation alive or something of that sort. That
is because they made us all dumber by meddling in education. If we
want to help this country we actually need less people going to
college, they just gum up the works for more intelligent and
hardworking people with their idiocy and are a waste of
resources.
|2.25.08 @ 1:26PM|#
Then it's not a "tax break".
Yes, it is, Jeff S. It's a tax break that corporations can write
off their expenses - one that applies to offshoring expenses as
well.
Does it make sense for this tax break to cover relocating out of
the country as well? That's a policy question.
Reinmoose, I think you're misusing the term "moralism." I'm pretty
its common usage would include statements like "it is better to
have clean air" or "it is better to avoid global warming" or "it is
better to have lower unemployment."
Also, the existence of cases that fall near the line does not
demonstrate that the category does not exist.
|2.25.08 @ 1:26PM|#
"Ask the boys at Lilly and Merck whether there are tax
advantages to offshoring."
This is different than the U.S. giving a company a tax break to
offshore.
|2.25.08 @ 1:27PM|#
I'd say that such interventions could only be justified if
there is some important benefit to obtain above and beyond the new
jobs.
Carrying that back to buggies and autos. would the government have
been justified in giving Ford, Chrysler, REO, Nash etc. tax breaks
for the important benefits of the automobile over the horse and
buggy? Only a luddite like Nader would deny the overwhelming
health, and economic advantages of the automobile over the horse
and buggy. IOW, when do the wise folk in DC intervene, and what
criteria should they use?
stuartl|2.25.08 @ 1:31PM|#
But what's Hillary supposed to do? There honestly isn't that
much daylight between those two center-leftists on policy. Where
there is, such as Iraq and foreign policy in general, his policies
are more popular than hers with, at least, the Democratic primary
electorate.
McCain had the same problem with the Republican primary electorate,
but was able to undermine his opponents much better and grab
independent voters. I don't know if it would have worked, but she
could have tried to paint Obama as naive on Iraq and other foreign
policy issues. Make subtle "not presidential" jabs early. Her "we
will leave in 60 days no matter what" was just stupid. It gave away
any advantage of appearing to understand nuance in foreign policy.
On trade she could have run on her husband's economic record.
Instead of dissing NAFTA, why not sing the praises of the jobs and
good times Bill brought us?
She needed to play up that she was electable by grabbing voters
from the middle, not trying to run to the left of Edwards and
Obama.
|2.25.08 @ 1:32PM|#
"Yes, it is, Jeff S. It's a tax break that corporations can
write off their expenses - one that applies to offshoring expenses
as well."
Joe, maybe I don't understand what you mean here. It is certainly
not preferential treatment to for a corporation or any business to
be able to deduct expenses from revenue to determine taxable
profits, even offshoring expenses.
It is not a tax break in any common sense of the term, any more
than it is a tax break for me to deduct expenses from my revenues
to determine taxable profits.
Brandybuck|2.25.08 @ 1:33PM|#
But which candidate is more tolerantly cosmopolitan? It doesn't
matter what their actual position on free trade is, so long as
their platitudes regarding it match the wish-fulfilment fantasies
of the Orange Line libertarians.
Obama will be the most socialist candidate (non-third-party) to
make it to the general election, yet I suspect most cosmotarians
will be voting for him. Many of them won't even be holding their
noses when they pull the lever for him.
|2.25.08 @ 1:36PM|#
Joe,
You could have brought up the repatriation of profits issue to get
to a policy level discussion of the economics of offshoring.
matt|2.25.08 @ 1:43PM|#
joe: "it is better to have clean air" or "it is better to
avoid global warming" or "it is better to have lower
unemployment."
Better than what?
I can say "it is better to avoid rampant inflation," and you would
probably agree, but that would be in conflict with your last
statement above.
These things are nuanced, and presenting them as switches to be
turned on and off is disingenuous.
|2.25.08 @ 1:44PM|#
I think everyone is clear on the issue contained in the phrase "tax breaks for offshoring" - the use of the expensing of business costs when those costs are the price of relocating jobs to another country - and there is nothing to be gained from arguing over the semiotics of the term "tax break."
|2.25.08 @ 1:45PM|#
Joe: "As far as "protectionist" Obama, there actually were
Congresscritters who voted against the Peru deal. Barack Obama
voted for it. So, no, he is not even close to "as big a
protectionist and economic nationalist as you will find at the
national level." He is about 1/16 of a Dobbs."
Do you have a link to his vote on the Peru Free Trade Act, I looked
it up on the Library of Congress, and it said that neither he nor
Clinton showed up for the vote. Can you clarify?
|2.25.08 @ 1:47PM|#
matt,
Since I was referring only to the benefits, no, it is not
disingenuous to talk about them as benefits.
If it costs a billion dollars a year to improve air quality, that
improved air quality is a benefit, regardless of whether it is
worth a certain cost or not.
|2.25.08 @ 1:51PM|#
NC Voter,
No, I cannot. I don't have the miniutae of committee votes and
procedural votes in front of me.
I've seen him discuss voting for it during the debates, even
defending his vote. I have no idea what SR numbers those votes
were, or other details of the course it took to passage.
matt|2.25.08 @ 1:53PM|#
joe,
Benefits and costs don't exist in a vacuum, though. You can't
separate the two because at some point, the marginal benefits will
be grossly outweighed by the costs.
10% less pollutants in the air would be better. But what do we have
to give up to get there? If it's 50% of GDP, the resulting
situation wouldn't be better. You can't consider one without the
other.
|2.25.08 @ 1:56PM|#
thanks Joe,
I researched this vote at length yesterday and found that neither
one of them showed up for the vote. I can't even remember the link,
it was like searching for a needle in a haystack. But thier votes
would not have made a difference, it passed by a huge margin. Just
letting you know.
"Knowledge is power"-School House Rock (hee-Hee)
|2.25.08 @ 1:59PM|#
stuartl,
What you're saying makes sense, and Hillary actually tried that
early on, but Iraq is so toxic in the Democratic primary that
showing greater maturity or nuance by being the more hawkish
candidate is a huge loser.
|2.25.08 @ 2:01PM|#
matt,
I agree, and of course any discussion of such a policy needs to
consider costs and benefits. I didn't mean to suggest
otherwise.
My point was just that, when looking at the benefits to justify the
cost of some kind of intervention, there need to be benefits beyond
just "more jobs in the new industry," since, as someone said
earlier, there will also be job losses in the old industry.
|2.25.08 @ 2:02PM|#
Sure it's a "tax break." The government owns 100% of your
revenue and earnings. Any rules that let you keep any of it is a
tax break!
By the by, corporates spend very little to move jobs overseas.
Typically, they build a new factory and offices, hire mostly
locals, and move next to nothing. By taxing a U.S. corporation's
world wide profits, it encourages re-incorporation in other
countries (not to mention gaming the sysstem), thus leaving the new
U.S. sub to pay only on its profits. This "tax gouge" encourages
off-shoring of high-paying headquarters management and support jobs
that would stay in the U.S. if only a corporation's U.S. profits
were taxed.
|2.25.08 @ 2:08PM|#
Has anyone found these quotes in an archive anywhere? I have looked all through the Herald and Review and found nothing, just wondering? I like to go directly to the source. Thanks
|2.25.08 @ 2:30PM|#
a bit off-topic:
what do people think of this
take on deregulation and a high-tax welfare state?
Namely that they should go together, the high wealth creation of
the former used to subsidize the latter, which will in turn lead to
a more free-market situation because the people will be receiving
tax-subsidized benefits like education/childcare/healthcare/etc and
will be less dependent upon holding a particular job, so truly
free-market reforms won't be as politically difficult to
implement.
He uses the model of Iceland, and I guess some
Nordic/Scandinavian/Northern European countries like Sweden. I'm
skeptical that anything like that could work here without being
hopelessly corrupted and mired in inefficiency, or that giving the
government that much to do is even truly feasible, but I don't know
enough about places like Iceland to say for sure.
|2.25.08 @ 2:41PM|#
"Obama will be the most socialist candidate (non-third-party) to
make it to the general election, yet I suspect most cosmotarians
will be voting for him. Many of them won't even be holding their
noses when they pull the lever for him."
I plan to hold my nose.
|2.25.08 @ 2:46PM|#
there is nothing to be gained from arguing over the
semiotics of the term "tax break."
joe, your surrender on this issue is graciously accepted.
|2.25.08 @ 2:57PM|#
My friend sent me the video this weekend. Here's my IM
back:
[15:28]: she's just lashing out because she's losing really bad
right now
[15:29]: it's because she's an emotional wowan
[15:29]: woman
[15:29]: that's why the voters want here finger as far from the
button as possible
[15:29]: I'm dropping sweet typos left and right
[15:30]: it ruins the elegance of the insensitivity I'm trying to
display
|2.25.08 @ 3:09PM|#
shame on you hilary.i'm disturb by your by what you a doing.someone who wanna be president can't do that.so shame on you
|2.25.08 @ 3:10PM|#
What issue?
Explaining to you what Obama was talking about?
Dude, Mission Accomplished!
|2.25.08 @ 3:44PM|#
Hmm. Interesting considering all the Hillary Lovers I know (
well I don't know any other than random internet
strangers)criticize Obama for being way "too socialist" compared to
their lady.
Or were they mcCain supporters? Is there a difference?
ChanceH|2.25.08 @ 4:16PM|#
So I've got a lemonade stand. I spend 5 dollars on lemons,
water, sugar and cups. I sell 10 dollars worth of lemonade, and all
supplies are exhausted.
Joe claims that by default, I should be taxed on all 10 dollars of
the sale, and the 5 dollar "deduction" for supplies is a "tax
break", granted to us by our benevolent masters.
When you make comments like that, it flushes several weeks of
"reasonable liberal guy" cred right down the drain.
economist|2.25.08 @ 4:19PM|#
I'll ban the importation of competing goods! I'll raise the minimum wage! I'll give you free healthcare! free education! a pony!
economist|2.25.08 @ 4:21PM|#
"I'll be holding my nose".
And I probably won't be voting. Or I'll write in Ron Paul. And I
guess I can always vote for the Libertarian candidate.
|2.25.08 @ 4:27PM|#
"I think everyone is clear on the issue contained in the phrase
"tax breaks for offshoring" - the use of the expensing of business
costs when those costs are the price of relocating jobs to another
country"
Joe, it's not semiotics (sic). "Tax break" has a generally accepted
meaning. What you describe is not within that meaning.
Further, when Obama rails against tax breaks for offshoring, most
people do not think about the expensing of relocation costs to
reduce the corporate tax bu
|2.25.08 @ 4:28PM|#
Sorry...
...to reduce the corporate tax burden. They think that the
corporation has been given a tax preference to offshore jobs, which
makes the action doubly bad.
|2.26.08 @ 12:40PM|#
Here is a quote by Shannon Love:
"Perhaps, she seeks to turn Obama relatively specifics free
approach against him. With Obama running on charisma and emotion,
it might be easy for an opponent to plant false specifics in the
minds of voters."
Equally, with Obama running on charisma and emotion, it might be
easy for him to be just unclear enough that it is hard to pin him
down on anything. Words, emotions, filling our souls (compliments
of Michelle Obama). It's hard to get mad at this guy. In fact, with
his running on charisma and emotion, and avoiding specifics, as
President (should he be elected) it might still be hard to get mad
at him -- or hold him accountable for broken promises. He can say,
what promises? And we'll look back at the campaign and find it hard
to put our finger on just what we think he said that he may or may
not have said that he didn't do.
|2.26.08 @ 1:20PM|#
What a strange little chat room this article has produced. Who are you people? Anyone actually from OH? Anyone actually seen these OH cities, their aging schools, crumbling infrastructure? We don't have to care about our fellow Americans? Take it somewhere else, or go write another check for Ron Paul and celebrate your irrelevence and callous self serving arrogance.
|2.26.08 @ 5:05PM|#
Anyone actually from OH? Anyone actually seen these OH cities, their aging schools, crumbling infrastructure? We don't have to care about our fellow Americans?
Let them fix a bed of their own making. It is neither callous nor
self-serving for us to demand they exercise responsibility for
themselves. If they want charity, let them make a case for being
deserving of it. It is, on the other hand, extremely selfish and
greedy for you or them to demand, at the point of a tax collector's
gun, we bail them out. Do not assume that because I don't want to
be forcibly enrolled in your grand scheme that my heart is
uncaring, my mind weak, my habits contemptible. I reserve the right
to join your collective effort, just as I will never force you to
join mine. I will not presume you are less of a person if you
refuse to join my cause.
Thanks to Don Boudreaux.
|2.27.08 @ 5:33AM|#
Am I the only person who can see the trap that Republicans are setting in the US? They have raped us repeatedly over the past 8 years, and now they want the chance to do it some more. THEY are the ones who are supporting Obama because THEY know he could never win the presidency, even if Dubbya could run again. THEY know that Hillary is the real threat to the White House, so THEY are doing their level best, behind the scene skullduggery to get the Democratic nomination for Obama. This country would not put that man in office, and I don''t care how many fanatics out there disagree with me. I''m not saying it''s right, but I''m saying it''s so. Want to know where all the Obama support is coming from???? Look to the Grand Old Party. And the worst part is, their scam is working. We are such a gullible country.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245