# Biden?



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

If nothing else, this is going to make "change" a lot harder to sell.


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

Not a surprise really, it will be interesting to see how it plays out though.

Brian


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

For supporters of John McCain, Biden is a great choice.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

Relayer said:


> For supporters of John McCain, Biden is a great choice.


Who wouldn't have been?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Relayer said:


> For supporters of John McCain, Biden is a great choice.


Joe Biden is a great choice!


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

rgrossicone said:


> Who wouldn't have been?


Kaine or Bayh, to secure VA or IN.
Biden is a good choice for McCain notwithstanding all the obligatory accolades we will hear over the next few days.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*as opposed to HRC?*



Relayer said:


> For supporters of John McCain, Biden is a great choice.


I think that if McCain picks a Democrat, it would be Lieberman not Biden.

If someone can point out how Biden is a crazy liberal, please do so.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

I think that it is pretty well-established that Biden is a reliable liberal on domestic policy and a reliable moderate on foreign policy.
His treatment of Judge Robert Bork during the latter's Supreme Court nomination hearings was astonishingly dishonest, and shamefully so. Please feel free to read the transcripts -- I'm sure they are online somewhere.

And not a chance that McCain will select Lieberman, whose voting record is not all that different than Biden, but who is a far more principled and intelligent man.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I haven't seen anyone suggest Biden is a "crazy liberal". 

Obama's primary messages are the vague "change/hope" stuff. Biden hardly represents that. Instead, he represents 36 years of inside the beltway old time politics. 

Tme magazine pretty well states my reasons for liking Obama's choice:



""I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said, apparently oblivious to his implied slur of previous African-American politicians."

"The history of Biden's gaffes, however, show the risks of naming him to the ticket. He was forced out of the race for President in 1988 after Michael Dukakis' campaign leaked evidence that Biden had plagiarized a speech from British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock, and in doing so had misrepresented his own class background. In June 2006, Biden offended Indian-Americans when he claimed a great relationship with them thanks to the fact that in Delaware, "You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent." Six months later he made the infamous comment about Obama's cleanliness.

It's a measure of how badly the last month has gone for the once high-flying Obama campaign that they're willing to risk taking on board a shoot-from-the-lip running mate like Biden. And in a race that is growing tighter with every poll, that risk could make a real difference — for better or for worse."

Obama sees Biden as filling in some of Obama's many weaknesses. Maybe. Maybe the left is happy with the choice. All I can say, is, I am, too. When Biden goes into attack mode, he will invariably come up with more embarrassing gaffes. It should be entertaining, if nothing else.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

And don't forget this peach of a sound bite. I think being in the senate stunts the intellectual growth of many.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Seems difficult that anyone would pick him for VP. 

Perhapes he ought to retire from politics.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

biden was chosen for two reasons. 

1) to shore up obama on the nat'l security front
2) to rip mccain a new hole at every campaign stop


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> ...His [Biden's] treatment of Judge Robert Bork during the latter's Supreme Court nomination hearings was astonishingly dishonest, and shamefully so....


I am curious: shameful to whom? Biden clearly enjoyed himself and gained reward from his work while Bork managed to stay reasonably controlled and saved his vitriol for later books which were well received in many quarters. According to the media, it all made for great Senate theater. Perhaps you mean shameful to the legal profession, the institution of the Senate and its role in advice & consent or even to America as a whole?

Cordially,
Adrian Quay


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

a4audi08 said:


> biden was chosen for two reasons.
> 
> 1) to shore up obama on the nat'l security front
> 2) to rip mccain a new hole at every campaign stop


So a vote for Obama is a vote for Joe Biden's national security policy?


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

Do you think his handlers will stop him from wearing two-tone shirts, because of their negative connotations in mainstream circles?

(Gary Condit, movie villians, etc.)


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Quay said:


> I am curious: shameful to whom? Biden clearly enjoyed himself and gained reward from his work while Bork managed to stay reasonably controlled and saved his vitriol for later books which were well received in many quarters. According to the media, it all made for great Senate theater. Perhaps you mean shameful to the legal profession, the institution of the Senate and its role in advice & consent or even to America as a whole?
> 
> Cordially,
> Adrian Quay


I'm not sure I understand your question, but it was shameful in the objective sense. Lying about important matters is calumnous if it risks detracting from a person's reputation. Such conduct is shameful. Many of my law partners believe that there was no shame since there was no lie, insomuch as they believe Biden to be an idiot who actually believed the virtriolic nonsense he spewed. Perhaps, but I don't buy it.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Good choice for Obama, but not necessarily a surprise. Smart, articulate, snappy dresser, but a prima donna. He might help build Obama's international credibility (a bit) but it makes the whole "change" thing ring hollow now...as someone posted earlier.

Honestly, I've always liked Biden...if only because he's kind of a smart as*. His being on the ticket won't me make vote for Obama, though. For that matter, McCain's running mate choice probably won't make me vote for him either...unless it's someone like Tom Ridge or Christie Todd Whitman. Bob Barr is looking better day by day to me.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> I'm not sure I understand your question, but it was shameful in the objective sense. Lying about important matters is calumnous it it risks detracting from their reputation. Such conduct is shameful. Many of my law partners believe that there was no shame since there was no lie, insomuch as they believe Biden to be an idiot who actually believed the virtriolic nonsense he spewed. Perhaps, but I don't buy it.


Thank you for your reply -- the objective sense was what I thought you might mean but I wasn't sure if you had someone or someuch more particular in mind.

Senator Biden won his "case" and was certainly zealous, but at what overall cost? Even at the time I remember thinking that if one wanted to derail Mr. Bork there were better ways to go about it.

Cordially,
Adrian Quay.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

TMMKC said:


> ...Honestly, I've always liked Biden...if only because he's kind of a smart as*. His being on the ticket won't make vote for Obama, though....


Actually it already has, at least in South Carolina. Some of my regular Carolinian acquaintances are solid conservatives that don't think "Quick-Draw John" would be a good President, saying nowadays we need a fresh, strong leader not a good soldier. They've been waiting to see who Obama picked, flatly stating that if he picked "that woman" (i.e., Senator Clinton) they'd either hold their noses and vote for McCain or more likely stay away from voting at all. But now that Obama has picked Biden they're prepared to vote for him and will likely do so despite anyone McCain might choose for a running mate.

Politics does strange things to people. :icon_smile:

Cordially,
Adrian Quay


----------



## meister (Oct 29, 2005)

*Biden et al*



Relayer said:


> For supporters of John McCain, Biden is a great choice.


I agree - real East Coast Democrat spiv like Kerry without the dough thrown in. What with the Messiah on the way to nowhere (according to Zogby) and the Clintonistas at their most wilful and disruptive this can only help...but then McCain at 76 will need all the help he can get....


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Kaine or Bayh, to secure VA or IN.
> Biden is a good choice for McCain notwithstanding all the obligatory accolades we will hear over the next few days.


Has any one else noticed that Kaine looks just like Jimmy Hoffa?


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

a4audi08 said:


> biden was chosen for two reasons.
> 
> 1) to shore up obama on the nat'l security front
> 2) to rip mccain a new hole at every campaign stop


1. Having chaired a committee with "foreign" in the title doesnt guarantee that. After all, foreign relations, policy, and diplomacy is executive branch stuff, senators can blather all they want.

2. McCain is pretty good at same, and has a lot to work with

Biden is a walking case study for congressional term limits, much like Ted Kennedy, and is a bufoonish, gaff prone time bomb. Even to the half of the population that doesnt remember his '88 flame out over plagiarism, just his non PC comments on Obama.


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

Quay said:


> Actually it already has, at least in South Carolina. Some of my regular Carolinian acquaintances are solid conservatives that don't think "Quick-Draw John" would be a good President, saying nowadays we need a fresh, strong leader not a good soldier. They've been waiting to see who Obama picked, flatly stating that if he picked "that woman" (i.e., Senator Clinton) they'd either hold their noses and vote for McCain or more likely stay away from voting at all. But now that Obama has picked Biden they're prepared to vote for him and will likely do so despite anyone McCain might choose for a running mate.
> 
> Politics does strange things to people. :icon_smile:
> 
> ...


Your friends cannot be true limited government conservatives. I'm not even sure how nominally social conservatives could justify an Obambi vote unless they hope that after 4 years of Carter like governing, the next Reagan will emerge.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I don't remember what Biden did about Bork--I had moved to Vermont by that time, so my work focussed on Leahy and people in the community. Still, anyone who values our Constitution and our democratic principles owes a debt of gratitude for everything that Biden and anyone else did to keep that unhinged ideologue masquerading as an intellectual off the Court.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> I don't remember what Biden did about Bork--I had moved to Vermont by that time, so my work focussed on Leahy and people in the community. *Still, anyone who values our Constitution and our democratic principles owes a debt of gratitude for everything that Biden and anyone else did to keep that* *unhinged ideologue masquerading as an intellectual off the Court.*


I'm glad that you're able to maintain a modicum of objectivity to your analysis.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I don't remember what Biden did about Bork--I had moved to Vermont by that time, so my work focussed on Leahy and people in the community. Still, anyone who values our Constitution and our democratic principles owes a debt of gratitude for everything that Biden and anyone else did to keep that off the Court.


What you are saying here is the end justifies the means in order to maintain the "Constitution and our democratic principles".

Interesting.

Speaking of "unhinged ideologue masquerading as an intellectual" on the court, I can only imagine the horrors of Supreme Court nominations by Obama.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Relayer said:


> What you are saying here is the end justifies the means in order to maintain the "Constitution and our democratic principles".
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Speaking of "unhinged ideologue masquerading as an intellectual" on the court, I can only imagine the horrors of Supreme Court nominations by Obama.


Far from it. Whatever else happened, what we know for sure is that Mr. Saturday Night Massacre was not Borked. It was when the truth of his positions became known that the people and then the Senate rejected him.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Far from it. Whatever else happened, what we know for sure was that Mr. Saturday Night Massacre was not Borked. It was when the truth of his positions became known that the people and then the Senate rejected him.


Bork's positions were principled and mainstream according to mainstream liberal scholars such as Wm. Van Alstyne. His positions were distorted and deliberately so, for one reason and one reason only. He, like most constitutional scholars, understood that Roe was a rogue decision. Liberal groups distorted and lied about Bork's appellate opinions re civil rights in order to torpedo his nomination. There is no use arguing about it. Anyone who cares about the truth can read the transcript and decide for themeselves what kind of man Joe Biden is.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Going back to Joe Biden, my problems with him go beyond his politics. He has a history of exaggerating his own importance or mis-stating facts much in the same manner as Clinton did when she talked about running from sniper fire. Some of these comments he has made will start coming out I suspect.

In addition, are we forgetting the past incidents of plaigarism. In the mid-80's he was caught plaigarising a speech. While this was being debated it was learned that he had failed a course in law school after he submitted a paper in which he heavily plaigarised someone else's work. This seems to be a pattern with him.

At least John McCain got his bad grades the old fashioned way, drinking and chasing women instead of studying. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> Going back to Joe Biden, my problems with him go beyond his politics. He has a history of exaggerating his own importance or mis-stating facts much in the same manner as Clinton did when she talked about running from sniper fire. Some of these comments he has made will start coming out I suspect.
> 
> In addition, are we forgetting the past incidents of plaigarism. In the mid-80's he was caught plaigarising a speech. While this was being debated it was learned that he had failed a course in law school after he submitted a paper in which he heavily plaigarised someone else's work. This seems to be a pattern with him.
> 
> ...


Quite right (the plagiarism issue is part of my earlier post in this thread).



> At least John McCain got his bad grades the old fashioned way, drinking and chasing women instead of studying.


That's the way I did it (at least, until I finished high school).


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I guess it depends on whether you value the Constitution and democratic principles, or you value "our Constitution" (meaning one made up the liberals) and "Democratic principles" (meaning the Democratic party's principles).

Because it seems strange to me to invoke the left-wing "constitution" (i.e., the courts have broad authority over evolving "rights" notwithstanding what the people want) and democracy (the elected branches of government have the authority to decide for example what the "national consensus" is, rather than five unelected octogenarians) in the same sentence.

Not that I'm surprised or anything.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

If you guys recall, they started looking into Biden's educational background when he awkwardly boasted about having a "higher IQ" than someone who asked him a question, and lied about his grades and having received a full scholarship in law school.

Here it is right here: https://dummiefunnies.blogspot.com/2008/08/blowhard-biden-boasts-about-having-high.html

Hilarious!


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Literide said:


> Your friends cannot be true limited government conservatives. I'm not even sure how nominally social conservatives could justify an Obambi vote unless they hope that after 4 years of Carter like governing, the next Reagan will emerge.


Oh they certainly are "true" in that respect. They've been so furious at the vast, unprecedented and continuous expansion of the federal government and its powers over the last eight years that it has nearly ruined our golfing outings. If the current administration comes up even in passing on the first nine the back nine becomes a game of golf and volcanos, so to speak.

They see a vote for Obama as a potential reign on federal spending as he actually wants to reduce the federal deficit rather than continue its expansion. Tighten the purse strings, reduce the size of government.

These acquaintances of mine are several generations older than I am and all retired so they have a longer experience. Of the four, one is a Navy Captain, one an Army Colonel, one an executive with IBM and one a long-time Senate aid whose stories of how Washington actually attempts to work are either hilarious or hair-raising.

They also see Biden, with MBNA as his biggest backer, to be solidly corporatized and despite his rhetoric not much of a true "liberal" threat to their interests.

Now if Obama had picked Congressman Kucinnich I'm sure my golfing aquaintances would be organizing a march on Washington complete with reserve forces. 

Cordially,
A. Quay


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Quay,

Your friends see an Obama administration tightening the national purse strings and reducing the size of the federal government?

You (or they) must be kidding, right?


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Relayer said:


> Quay,
> 
> Your friends see an Obama administration tightening the national purse strings and reducing the size of the federal government?
> 
> You (or they) must be kidding, right?


As odd as it sounds and even given the fact they've never voted for a Democrat (with the exception of Fritz Hollings) they are not kidding, given the two current viable choices. Obama talking about reducing the federal deficit and reigning in the current expansive and unsustainably costly war operations as opposed to McCain who talks about how good the last eight years have been in terms of all the money spent on foreign operations, has no plan to balance the books and is looking forward to a continuation of the expansive federal powers acquired. Yes, it all sounds utterly odd coming from these gentlemen and even more odd as I've known two of them for almost twenty years. (All four sent substantial money to New York to defeat Hillary Clinton in the senate race and consider her to be evil incarnate.) But they're far from being odd men out in this as I've also heard many of the same sentiments from lifelong conservatives who can't stand what Bush has done and see McCain as a likely continuation of all that.

I can speculate that they may be hoping that an Obama administration would repeal some of the federal expansion but get stalled in trying to add more social programs to the government. They may further hope for a four-year hiatus from continued federal power grabs and then onto someone who is an actual conservative instead of one who has supposedly come around to that position for more expedient reasons.

Believe you me, I'm as flabergasted as anyone when I hear such talk, but such is the ire of those who believe Bush to be no conservative, especially in terms of federal powers. Two of these men have direct experience in what has happened to our military and they cannot forgive those currently in power for what they have wrought. Could be a case of anger trumping reason, but they truly see Obama and Biden as much less dangerous than Quick-Draw John and whomever he picks.

Cordially,
A. Quay


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Quay said:


> I can speculate that they may be hoping that an Obama administration would repeal some of the federal expansion but get stalled in trying to add more social programs to the government. They may further hope for a four-year hiatus from continued federal power grabs and then onto someone who is an actual conservative instead of one who has supposedly come around to that position for more expedient reasons.
> 
> Cordially,
> A. Quay


If you think that by raising taxes the deficit will be reduced, think again. As for a power grab, what are you talking about? The more money the federal government gets, the more power it gets over our lives. What do you call the nationalization of the health care industry, or as a few have suggested the oil & gas industry? What do you call using the coercive power of government to steal the profits of private individuals and corporations for a redistribution scheme that for the past 40 years has failed at every turn. Now that's a power grab.

I don't think that trying to modernize our intelligence community and the way we conduct national security a power grab.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

pt4u67,

As noted I was reporting on the perplexing sentiments of others and speculating, based on my association with them, on what they might be thinking beyond what they recently said in regards to the Obama-Biden matter. I can't further speculate on all the other matters you bring up.

Cordially,
A. Quay


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Quay, you are one gullibe person. For over 40 years the Democrats could have at least once as a party done there promis of lowering taxes for the poor and middle class. Back in the 60s I heard Democrat voter after Democrat voter belive the lie of the Democrat party that they will lower taxes for the poor, but they, the Democrat party, never does. Anybody that has hope for the Democrat party on lowering taxes is obviousely asbsolutely decieved. Clinton with the help of the Republicans in both houses is the only Democrat that ever lowered taxses for the poor and middle class since jfk. Oh, the Democrats have lowered taxes for some of their rich friends, but being for the poor- what a joke. The Republicans have done by far more for the poor than the Democrats. I don't know how people can vote for over 40 years of empty promises. 

When it come to the Constitution Bork was for it and Biden was not. Only a fool could vote against Bork for judge, because only a fool does not understand nor recognize the value of our Constitution. Anybody who is against the Constitution does not belong in the White House. Biden should go out and get a real job instead of stealing my tax money.


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

Quay said:


> Oh they certainly are "true" in that respect. They've been so furious at the vast, unprecedented and continuous expansion of the federal government and its powers over the last eight years that it has nearly ruined our golfing outings. If the current administration comes up even in passing on the first nine the back nine becomes a game of golf and volcanos, so to speak.
> 
> They see a vote for Obama as a potential reign on federal spending as he actually wants to reduce the federal deficit rather than continue its expansion. Tighten the purse strings, reduce the size of government.
> 
> ...


I too am disapointed with Bush (and Congress) on fiscal matters, but an Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Biden government will be an even worse nightmare. And dont even get me started on judges and social issues.
That Biden is a corporate whore and a DC insider gives me little comfort. Tell your military friends the only way to restore constitutional government may be another revolution and we will need guys like them to lead it. My musket is ready over the mantlepeice.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

After the unmitigated disaster that has been the Bush and GOP managed economy of the last 7 years or so, I'm not so surprised that some traditionally fiscal conservatives may gravitate towards Obama. And if you think that Bush's handling of the economy was terrible, there is nothing to suggest that McCain would be any better. In fact, considering he has made it explicitly clear that there will be "more wars" (read Iran), and that we will not be leaving Iraq anytime soon, it's fair to assume that he may drag us down beyond a recession into depression.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

A lot of you guys really love you that Republican Kool-Aid, I'll give you that. If you believe the myth that Bork was in favor of the Constitutions and Republicans cure, rather than cause, deficits, there is really nothing they can't sell you.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

What's with the taxes all the time every day? Don't you have to have income in the hundreds of millions to be affected by a Democratic tax plan? You guys that rich? Bunch of tycoons on this forum. The people you exploit may be more productive if they have some health care to make 'em feel good. Maybe it will increase revenue to make up for the few more percentage points you pay in taxes.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Over in the Fashion Forum we have a bunch of guys talking about how rich Joe Biden is at $200k a year.

I'm still interested in the first executive who can meet Warren Buffett's challenge: prove that they pay a higher tax rate than their secretary. So far, no takers.
https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/1126/042b.html


----------



## meister (Oct 29, 2005)

Literide said:


> Biden is a walking case study for congressional term limits, much like Ted Kennedy, and is a bufoonish, gaff prone time bomb. Even to the half of the population that doesnt remember his '88 flame out over plagiarism, just his non PC comments on Obama.


Wasn't there some involvement with the Countywide mortgage crisis aka a cheap 'for the mates' loan on the QT?



SkySov said:


> What's with the taxes all the time every day? Don't you have to have income in the hundreds of millions to be affected by a Democratic tax plan? You guys that rich? Bunch of tycoons on this forum. The people you exploit may be more productive if they have some health care to make 'em feel good. Maybe it will increase revenue to make up for the few more percentage points you pay in taxes.


Where do the find these blokes in the Democratic Party??...no wonder they lost the last 2 Presidential elections and nearly the Clinton 50% 1996 fiasco except for Bill's little friend from Texas...with the IT contracts...nyuk nyuk nyuk...


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Over in the Fashion Forum we have a bunch of guys talking about how rich Joe Biden is at $200k a year.
> 
> I'm still interested in the first executive who can meet Warren Buffett's challenge: prove that they pay a higher tax rate than their secretary. So far, no takers.
> https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/1126/042b.html


I'm a senior partner in a major national law firm. I'm more than happy to accept Mr. Buffett's challenge, as would be any of my 200-plus partners. Buffett is a shrewd investor, but like lots of self-made rich people he thinks he knows stuff outside of his expertise, such as tax policy (and apparently you, Jack, on constitutional law). The reason that Buffett's assertion is often true, but only for the most senior corporate execs (such as CEO, COO, CFO) of large public companies, is because of three factors: (i) those senior execs are paid disproportionately via stock options and other rights, (ii) capital gains rates applicable to stock holdings are lower than ordinary rates, and (iii) he is counting social security, which is nothing more than a defined benefit plan with a bias toward lower paid workers. 
It is not cricket to count the last item, since the taxes are in substance nothing more than savings contributions. Social security contributors receive post-retirement distributions based on those contributions.
The first and second items are really just a function of the disparate rates applicable to cap gains versus ordinary income. First, one must remember that long-term cap gains often represent phantom inflationary gain, which should not be taxed at all. Second, most cap gains relate to corporate securities the value of which is already significantly discounted due to the corporate income tax. Finally, cap gains were actually taxed at the same rate as ordinary income (28%) after the 86 Act, which was high by historic standards but did result in the unprecidented advantage of non-discriminatory treatment of income. This didn't last long because Bush I agreed to higher ordinary rates leading to a de-coupling. That de-coupling occured because there was widespread agreement that increasing capital gains rates to match ordinary rates would significantly impair revenue. Indeed, once that de-coupling occurred the cap gain rate question became a function of two policy objectives: (i) economic growth and (ii) tax revenue. Economists agree that lower cap gain rates spur economic growth but that objective must be balanced against the need for revenue. But higher cap gain rates do not necessarily lead to higher revenue because of the lock-in effect. As long as there is a tax on the realization of an investment, investors will take into account the amount of the tax when deciding when and whether to realize. The higher the tax the more likely they will simply stay locked into the investment. This phenomenon is provable insomuch as it has been well-established that higher cap gain rates have resulted in less revenue. Now, it is admittedly very debatable as to what rate would maximize revenue at any given time, but certainly one cannot raise rates without considering the risk of decreased revenue. Of course, there are some people who favor raising rates even if it retards growth and diminishes revenue. These people are class warriors and would be quite content to make everyone worse off it income distribution were more equalized.
Finally, Jack, I taught constitutional law for 8 years at a law school. When it comes to the constitution and Bork it is you who are suffering from serious Kool-Aid over-dosage.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> I'm a senior partner in a major national law firm. I'm more than happy to accept Mr. Buffett's challenge, as would be any of my 200-plus partners. Buffett is a shrewd investor, but like lots of self-made rich people he thinks he knows stuff outside of his expertise, such as tax policy (and apparently you, Jack, on constitutional law). The reason that Buffett's assertion is often true, but only for the most senior corporate execs (such as CEO, COO, CFO), is because of three factors: (i) those senior execs are paid disproportionately via stock options and other rights, (ii) capital gains rates applicable to stock holdings are lower than ordinary rates, and (iii) he is counting social security, which is nothing more than a defined benefit plan with a bias toward lower paid workers.
> It is not cricket to count the last item, since the taxes are in substance nothing more than savings contributions. Social security contributors receive their money back in the form of distributions after retirement.
> The first and second items are really just a function of the disparate rates applicable to cap gains versus ordinary income. First, one must remember that long-term cap gains often represent phantom inflationary gain, which should not be taxed at all. Second, most cap gains relate to securities that have already been subject to tax at the corporate level. Finally, cap gains were actually taxed at the same rate as ordinary income (28%) after the 86 Act, which was high by historic standards but did result in the unprecidented advantage of non-discriminatory treatment of income. This didn't last long because Bush I agreed to higher ordinary rates leading to a de-coupling. Once that de-coupling occurred the cap gain rate question became a function of two policy objectives: (i) economic growth and (ii) tax revenue. Economists agree that lower cap gain rates spur economic growth but that objective must be balanced against the need for revenue. But higher cap gain rates do not necessarily lead to higher revenue because of the lock-in effect. As long as there is a tax on the realization of an investment, investors will take into account the amount of the tax when deciding when and whether to realize. The higher the tax the more likely they will simply stay locked into the investment. This phenomenon is provable insomuch as it has been well-established that higher cap gain rates have resulted in less revenue. Now, it is admittedly very debatable as to what rate would maximize revenue at any given time, but certainly one cannot raise rates without considering the risk of decreased revenue. Of course, there are some people who favor raising rates even if it retards growth and diminishes revenue. These people are class warriors and would be quite content to make everyone worse off it income distribution were more equalized.
> Finally, Jack, I taught constitutional law for 8 years at a law school. When it comes to the constitution and Bork it is you who has overdosed on Kool-Aid.


Thanks for the 5 star response!


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> It is not cricket to count the last item, since the taxes are in substance nothing more than savings contributions. Social security contributors receive post-retirement distributions based on those contributions.


The payroll tax isn't a tax? I hope you're not advising your tax clients that they are not required to remit those payments to the IRS.



Mike Petrik said:


> Finally, Jack, I taught constitutional law for 8 years at a law school. When it comes to the constitution and Bork it is you who are suffering from serious Kool-Aid over-dosage.


I discarded my Bork file a while ago, but my recollection is that he took several positions that are way beyond the mainstream (although they may pass without objection around here). You may consider these views normal, but I think that the vast majority of the American public would be pretty surprised at the idea that the government has the right to tell them whether they can use contraception, for instance:

_Over the years, Bork criticized many Supreme Court decisions. In a 1963 article in The New Republic, Bork attacked the proposed Public Accommodations Act-which became title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 2441, 42 U.S.C.A. §2000a)-as an infringement of the right of free association. Eight years later, in an article in the Indiana Law Journal, Bork summarized his view of the Constitution and pointed out Court decisions that, in his opinion, were unconstitutional. He declared that the Constitution provided no unwritten protections, and therefore guaranteed no right to privacy, contrary to what the Court had established in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965). Privacy, Bork said, was a free-floating right not derived in a principled fashion from the Constitution. If no right of privacy existed in Griswold, then, according to Bork, the landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 [1973]) was wrongly decided.

Similarly unprincipled, said Bork, were the decisions of the Warren Court that affected voting practices and established the principle of "one person, one vote." Bork also said poll taxes (devices often used to keep poor blacks from voting in the South) were not necessarily unconstitutional. In addition, according to Bork, the First Amendment should protect only political speech. When he was solicitor general, Bork criticized Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 68 S. Ct. 836, 92 L. Ed. 1161 (1948), a landmark civil rights decision that outlawed the enforcement of restrictive covenants in the courts. Finally, Bork publicly expressed his belief that it would be healthy to reintroduce religion into the public schools._

https://www.answers.com/topic/robert-bork


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I discarded my Bork file a while ago, but my recollection is that he took several positions that are way beyond the mainstream (although they may pass without objection around here).


You don't understand why out government is set up the way it is do you? It is set up so that one generation of "mainstream" does not destory our country. 51% vote in the House of Representives and 60% vote in the Senate and the President vote to change the Constition and Bill of Rights is to prevent permant damage from "mainstream thinking". The purpose of the courts is to keep out country intac by keeping the Constition and Bill of Rights. Why do you want judges to make up laws? Do you want judges on the right to make up laws? If you are not a hypocrite, then, why do you expect me to go along with judges from the left making up laws? This is a serious problem with the Democrat party. Especially, since so many of them have gone to law school. How many Republicans have gone to law school? Most went to Business School, economics and anything but law school. Since they understand business (which employees people) they are by far better in politics than a bunch of lawyers who don't understand business or eonomics at all. In fact we have so many laws now from the Democrats it seems like were tied in knots, which is not beneficial at all for the US.

We don't need another 4 years of Jimmy Carter taxes. Or, the taxes the Democrats got Bush 1 to sign in, which brougth a reccesion where many small businesses went out of business.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WA said:


> Anybody who is against the Constitution does not belong in the White House.


Oh the irony. :icon_smile:


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Jack,
1. I never characterized FICA as not a tax, so your silly cheap shot misses the mark. It is a governmental levy and therefore a tax, but its character makes it inappropriate for purposes of examining the tax system's vertical equity -- which was Mr. Buffett's topic.

2. The problem with your criticisms of Bork's commentary regarding various cases is that your criticisms are aimed at policy results, not legal reasoning. Let's take a few examples:

(i) Griswold: This case overturned an unenforced Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives and in so doing discovered the new constitutional right of marital privacy. Now, I'm all in favor of such a right, and I'd even support amending the Constitution to secure one, but the suggestion that such a right is secured by the Constitution as it is currently written is a fabrication, as was pointed out by those loony "outside the mainstream" jurists Potter Stewart and Hugo Black. Both Black and Stewart regarded the law as "offensive" and Stewart characterized it as "uncommonly silly," but both understood that the fact that a law is silly or even personally offensive does not render it constitutionally infirm -- a fact lost on the majority who seriously relied on various vague "penumbras" and "emanations" in their meandering opinions. Most constitutional scholars, while plainly favoring the result on policy grounds, were disturbed that the opinion seemed to represent a naked exercise of judicial power reminiscent of long-discredited substantive due process. Bork was correct to criticize the decision.
(ii) Roe: Builds on Griswold's quicksand to create an even shakier decision. People have their views on abortion, but it is not a matter the Constitution speaks to. But the beauty of discovering a phony Constitutional right of privacy is that its contours and meaning are whatever you want them to be. No doubt right-to-lifers can find penumbras and emanations supporting their position too, but there is little chance that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, or Alito will indulge it -- they, like Bork, are too principled. There are a few Constitutional scholars who believe that Roe was rightly decided (Tribe and Chemerinsky come to mind), but you can count them on the fingers of a single hand. 
(iii) Shelley: Restrictive covenants are odious things, and for that reason legislatures should render them void. But such is not the role of courts to void contractual and similar provisions simply because they don't like them. 
I could go on but the bottom line is that the role of the judicial branch is to adjudicate disputes by applying and interpreting the Constitution and the laws as they are -- not as they wish them to be. While there will always be difficult cases, of course, such fact does not present a license for judges to do whatever they wish. Biden blatantly confused Bork's legal reasoning with his policy preferences and in doing so unfairly ridiculed an honorable man. He distorted Bork's appellate opinions (ignoring that they had been affirmed by the Supreme Court) for one reason and one reason only. Roe. Period. Everything else was posturing.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Let's just talk about Griswold and Roe. I have said for many years that the "penumbras and emanations" language is infelicitous. Nevertheless, if you can read the Bill of Rights, with its prohibition of quartering of soldiers; "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"; the right of the people to the freedom of political and religious thought, and to peaceably assemble; the prohibition of taking of private property without due process of law; and the explicit statement that the rights enumerated in the Constitution "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"; and conclude that the Framers did not intend to protect the right of privacy, then you just don't understand the Constitution.

Similarly, if you line up with Bork in saying that the First Amendment protects only political speech, you're doing nothing but substituting your political wishes for the clear statement of the Amendment.

Oh, and you say you could go on and on. Please do, and explain why poll taxes are constitutional.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Sorry, Jack, don't you mean that abortion is protected under the clause which says that the government can't take _liberty_ without due process of law--or does that just sound too silly even for you? Are you going to defend Dred Scott next (which, by the way, stands on much more solid ground than _Roe, _since one doesn't have to make the ridiculous baby murder = liberty leap).

As to the 10th amendment argument, you have to admit that it's a rather odd that abortion was illegal when those words were written, and stayed illegal for almost 200 years, before the right was "rediscovered" by the Supreme Court.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Jack,
> 1. I never characterized FICA as not a tax, so your silly cheap shot misses the mark. It is a governmental levy and therefore a tax, but its character makes it inappropriate for purposes of examining the tax system's vertical equity -- which was Mr. Buffett's topic.


What you said was that it's "nothing more than a defined benefit plan with a bias toward lower paid workers."


----------



## meister (Oct 29, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> Bork's positions were principled and mainstream according to mainstream liberal scholars such as Wm. Van Alstyne. His positions were distorted and deliberately so, for one reason and one reason only. He, like most constitutional scholars, understood that Roe was a rogue decision. Liberal groups distorted and lied about Bork's appellate opinions re civil rights in order to torpedo his nomination. There is no use arguing about it. Anyone who cares about the truth can read the transcript and decide for themeselves what kind of man Joe Biden is.


Amen to that! Todays little revelation about the dodgy son and other forms of influence peddling (oops...lobbying) by Daddy Biden and his brother should be a wake up call to even the most recalcitrant Democrat....hence my earlier point about spivs and the Democrat Party being synonymous.

The fact that they couch their opposition to black letter (aka authentic to the Founding Fathers) law judges in ridiculous and venomous attacks on their personal charachter (call me Anita) and crap on about "supporting the words of the US Constitution" whilst taking a baseball bat to it shows just how dangerous these people are to maintaining what's left of Western Civilization.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> What you said was that it's "nothing more than a defined benefit plan with a bias toward lower paid workers."


Jack, you are being obtuse. FICA is a tax that in substance represents contributions to a defined benefit plan with a bias toward lower paid workers. The fact that this levy represents a forced savings plan no more renders it something other than a tax legally than the fact that the levy is a tax renders it something other than a defined benefit plan substantively. Indeed, my initial statement was that these "taxes" were such a "plan." If one asserts that a certain commentator is no more than a shill for the left, only an astonishingly obtuse observer would suggest that the statement stands for the proposition that such alleged shill is therefore not a commentator. Are you really this dense or simply argumentative?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Jack, you are so obtuse. It is a tax that in substance represents contributions to a defined benefit plan with a bias toward lower paid workers. The fact that it is a forced savings plan does not render the levy not a tax, and indeed I first stated that these "taxes" were nothing more than such a plan. Are you really this dense or simply argumentative?


Thanks for letting me know that I shouldn't take what you say seriously.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Let's just talk about Griswold and Roe. I have said for many years that the "penumbras and emanations" language is infelicitous. Nevertheless, if you can read the Bill of Rights, with its prohibition of quartering of soldiers; "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"; the right of the people to the freedom of political and religious thought, and to peaceably assemble; the prohibition of taking of private property without due process of law; and the explicit statement that the rights enumerated in the Constitution "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"; and conclude that the Framers did not intend to protect the right of privacy, then you just don't understand the Constitution.
> 
> Similarly, if you line up with Bork in saying that the First Amendment protects only political speech, you're doing nothing but substituting your political wishes for the clear statement of the Amendment.
> 
> Oh, and you say you could go on and on. Please do, and explain why poll taxes are constitutional.


Jack,

Out of courtesty I will indulge you, at least to a point.

First, I do not recall Bork's First Amendment jurisprudence other than his position that the First Amendment does not protect porn. Perhaps you can share the source for your proposition regarding Bork's position. In any event, the language of the amendment itself is modestly vexing, since it superficially appears absolute but arguably, at least literally, prohibits only absolute impairments. Indeed, the Court has always permitted impairments that are less than absolute, such as time, place, and manner restrictions; and it has in fact allowed government much greater latitude in regulating commercial speech than political speech. Indeed, my recollection is that the functional dichotomy between commercial and political speech is that which has been adopted by liberal icon Larry Tribe in his First Amendment jurisprudence, but my recollection could be wrong on that.

Regarding state poll taxes (federal poll taxes are prohibited via the 24th Amendment), they were long upheld by the Supreme Court. Bork's only statement regarding such taxes was a single instance of criticism directed at Court's reasoning in Harper v. VA Board of Elections which invalidated a small poll tax. In order for a tax to be constitutionally invalid one must point to the constitutional provision that in violates. In Harper the Supreme Court held that it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, reversing longstanding authority to the contrary. Bork's criticism was simply that the 14th Amendment was designed to address governmental racial discrimination and there was no evidence submitted in Harper that suggested racial discrimination was involved; indeed, racial discrimination was not even alleged. From this surgical criticism of the Court's legal analysis came dishonest assertions from the Norman Lear crowd that Bork favored poll taxes.

In the end, Jack, you favor a court that will construe the Constitution in whatever way is necessary to advance your policy preferences. Bork sees a more modest role for the judiciary. One that is constrained by the words of the Constitution and laws it is being assigned to interpret and apply. That is why Bork (and most Constitutional scholars) are troubled by the idea that one can take several discrete articulated rights and conclude they stand for a larger undefined unarticulated right. Such reasoning is dishonest and simply result-oriented. You are comfortable with that, and so is Biden. I'll bet you'd feel differently if the Court abused the 14th Amendment to fashion protection for the unborn.

You may now have the last word -- I have work to do.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Thanks for letting me know that I shouldn't take what you say seriously.


For the record, my edits to the post quoted by Jack in connection with this comment occured prior to me reading this comment. In any event, I'm content to let the record stand.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> Jack,
> 
> In the end, Jack, you favor a court that will construe the Constitution in whatever way is necessary to advance your policy preferences. Bork sees a more modest role for the judiciary. One that is constrained by the words of the Constitution and laws it is being assigned to interpret and apply. That is why Bork (and most Constitutional scholars) are troubled by the idea that one can take several discrete articulated rights and conclude they stand for a larger undefined unarticulated right. Such reasoning is dishonest and simply result-oriented. You are comfortable with that, and so is Biden. I'll bet you'd feel differently if the Court abused the 14th Amendment to fashion protection for the unborn.


Well, Mike, you finally get to the bottom line, here (not that you did not realize that all along). Exactly why these discussions, while necessary to a degree, are ultimately an exercise in futility. That notwithstanding, your well educated and reasoned replies (not to mention your ability to remain focused on the real issue) made for enjoyable reading. Well done.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Jack,
> 
> In the end, Jack, you favor a court that will construe the Constitution in whatever way is necessary to advance your policy preferences. Bork sees a more modest role for the judiciary. One that is constrained by the words of the Constitution and laws it is being assigned to interpret and apply. That is why Bork (and most Constitutional scholars) are troubled by the idea that one can take several discrete articulated rights and conclude they stand for a larger undefined unarticulated right. Such reasoning is dishonest and simply result-oriented. You are comfortable with that, and so is Biden. I'll bet you'd feel differently if the Court abused the 14th Amendment to fashion protection for the unborn.


Actually, if you're looking for a court that will construe the Constitution in whatever way is necessary to advance the political preferences of its members, look no further than _Bush v. Gore._ It is conservatives who are dishonest, claiming that they are looking for some kind of strict construction of the Constitution, while what they really want is just to enshrine their own political views.

My position is much more principled and text-based: when the Framers wanted to use words that admitted of no interpretation, such as the minimum age necessary to serve as president, they amply showed themselves able to do so. When they chose words that were obviously subject to interpretation, there is no reason to think that the interpretation of those words should be fixed as of the date of ratification. For example, "cruel and unusual punishment": if they had simply intended to protect all punishments in existence at the time, and to prohibit all others, they could have done so; instead, they chose a word, cruel, that is by its nature subject to evolving interpretations. The same is true with such words and phrases as unreasonable searches and seizures and due process of law. To ignore this is to discard Wechsler's neutral principles in favor of the result-oriented jurisprudence that Nixon, Reagan, and Bush have been trying to establish for decades.


----------



## meister (Oct 29, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Actually, if you're looking for a court that will construe the Constitution in whatever way is necessary to advance the political preferences of its members, look no further than _Bush v. Gore._ It is conservatives who are dishonest, claiming that they are looking for some kind of strict construction of the Constitution, while what they really want is just to enshrine their own political views.


Jack I think you have got this one backside up. Political views masquerading as jurisprudence is the domain of the Democrats and their flunkeys on the Court see Roe v Wade as a prime example but their are thousands most of which the everyday American is unaware until it hits them in the face like a wet fish.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

meister said:


> Jack I think you have got this one backside up. Political views masquerading as jurisprudence is the domain of the Democrats and their flunkeys on the Court see Roe v Wade as a prime example but their are thousands most of which the everyday American is unaware until it hits them in the face like a wet fish.


So you're saying you haven't read Bush v. Gore. I see.

The fact that the conservatives have been spouting the same line since the 1960's doesn't make it any more true now than it was then.


----------



## Droog (Aug 29, 2006)

I heard one commentator relate his discussion with a democrat insider in which the insider said that it was Vladimir Putin who actually selected Biden, meaning that the Russians going into Georgia raised the ante on the Dem veep needing to have foreign policy cred.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

A difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans acknowlege they are wrong sometimes. But, when do Democrats acknowlege they are wrong sometimes? 

Reading what Jack says is like he believes the Democrats can do no wrong. Jack, there must be more than kool-aid in your drink, like something that starts with an M.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

WA said:


> A difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans acknowlege they are wrong sometimes. But, when do Democrats acknowlege they are wrong sometimes?
> 
> Reading what Jack says is like he believes the Democrats can do no wrong. Jack, there must be more than kool-aid in your drink, like something that starts with an M.


Milk? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

SkySov said:


> What's with the taxes all the time every day? Don't you have to have income in the hundreds of millions to be affected by a Democratic tax plan? You guys that rich? Bunch of tycoons on this forum. The people you exploit may be more productive if they have some health care to make 'em feel good. Maybe it will increase revenue to make up for the few more percentage points you pay in taxes.


You're right, an increase in the capital gains tax only affects the super rich. Too bad 90% of all capital gains taxes are reported by people making less than $100k/year. That increase in the FICA taxes affects people from $98k a year to wherever he wants to set the cap. Not only will increasing the FICA tax will cost the people making $100k/year more money, it will also likely reduce their pay when the companies who pay them have to pay more in the FICA tax. It will likely also cost people jobs when the companies suddenly have to start shelling out more money for all their employees. Or repealing the Bush tax cuts that cut rates at all tax brackets. Good idea.

Maybe the corporate tax should go up and add some windfall profit taxes. You still haven't answered my question on that SkySov. If 10% profit is "windfall profits" should we impose that tax on Apple who's profit margin was 33%? Because those taxes won't be imposed on consumers, who are tax payers, and 50% of consumers are the bottom 50% of the country's economic ladder.

Somehow I bet those congressmen find a way to increase their pay for next year while keeping their tax burden lower than most.



a4audi08 said:


> After the unmitigated disaster that has been the Bush and GOP managed economy of the last 7 years or so, I'm not so surprised that some traditionally fiscal conservatives may gravitate towards Obama. And if you think that Bush's handling of the economy was terrible, there is nothing to suggest that McCain would be any better. In fact, considering he has made it explicitly clear that there will be "more wars" (read Iran), and that we will not be leaving Iraq anytime soon, it's fair to assume that he may drag us down beyond a recession into depression.


Show where McCain wants more wars? Maybe you heard that the same time that he wants to war in Iraq for 100 years. Too bad he clearly said that he was for maintaining a presence in Iraq, like Japan or Germany if necessary for as long as it takes.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> Actually, if you're looking for a court that will construe the Constitution in whatever way is necessary to advance the political preferences of its members, look no further than _Bush v. Gore._ It is conservatives who are dishonest, claiming that they are looking for some kind of strict construction of the Constitution, while what they really want is just to enshrine their own political views.
> 
> My position is much more principled and text-based: when the Framers wanted to use words that admitted of no interpretation, such as the minimum age necessary to serve as president, they amply showed themselves able to do so. When they chose words that were obviously subject to interpretation, there is no reason to think that the interpretation of those words should be fixed as of the date of ratification. For example, "cruel and unusual punishment": if they had simply intended to protect all punishments in existence at the time, and to prohibit all others, they could have done so; instead, they chose a word, cruel, that is by its nature subject to evolving interpretations. The same is true with such words and phrases as unreasonable searches and seizures and due process of law. To ignore this is to discard Wechsler's neutral principles in favor of the result-oriented jurisprudence that Nixon, Reagan, and Bush have been trying to establish for decades.


Actually how is Bush v. Gore politically biased? Enlighten me.

I was under the impression that Bush v. Gore simply stated that the Flordia's law said the count had to be finished by a certain date, and that they had to count the votes based on the way prescribed the Florida legislature, and the Flordia Supreme Court was wrong for changing the rules in the middle of the game.

Seems like a pretty minimalist attitude to me.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> Maybe the corporate tax should go up and add some windfall profit taxes. You still haven't answered my question on that SkySov. If 10% profit is "windfall profits" should we impose that tax on Apple who's profit margin was 33%? Because those taxes won't be imposed on consumers, who are tax payers, and 50% of consumers are the bottom 50% of the country's economic ladder.


Sorry, I don't know what a windfall tax is. Sounds like something made up to anger people or has been taught to you out of context by an O'Reily type. I'm not sure. Maybe the tax system is messed up. Maybe that should be fixed. But who is _more likely_ to fix it so super rich pay their _fair_ share and the poor don't get screwed?


----------



## meister (Oct 29, 2005)

WA said:


> A difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans acknowlege they are wrong sometimes. But, when do Democrats acknowlege they are wrong sometimes?
> 
> Reading what Jack says is like he believes the Democrats can do no wrong. Jack, there must be more than kool-aid in your drink, like something that starts with an M.


Jack will be wailing and gnashing his teeth when the Dems go for a bigger dive this time than last. The way the polls are going the GOP is closing fast (McCain went up 10 states worth of EC votes according to Rasmussen this week). This is what happened last time for a 51% popular vote versus 49% + or -500 votes in 2000. The "on the street" talk from the Convention is "I am a Democrat but aw shucks Obama is inexperienced and I am voting McCain". Expect a solid victory by McCain of at least 20 EC votes (OH is already semi -solid for the GOP) including a better than expected Congress vote for the GOP. Put a bookmark in this post for December and tell me I was wrong.

The Dems are a minority left wing party...masquerading as a mainstream majoritarian party... they will have to change like Blair/Brandt/Rudd or face years of GOP wins.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

From the behavior exhibited by justices on both sides of the supreme court, it is obvious that politics and not a passion for the "truth" or the "true meaning of the constitution" drives all their decision making. 

Given that the supreme court operates in that environment, it is easy to imagine that the majority of the court wanted Bush to be the president and decided accordingly. They then just had to parse the facts to "justify" their opinion.

This comes from a person who is becoming more conservative as he gets older (although the center, not the right, is the place for me.) I'll admit to being one who thinks that Bush had no business even running for president as he has accomplished nothing in his life besides being Big George's first-born son. I have to admit that I wonder if Gore would have just damaged the country in a different way, though.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> Actually how is Bush v. Gore politically biased? Enlighten me.
> 
> I was under the impression that Bush v. Gore simply stated that the Flordia's law said the count had to be finished by a certain date, and that they had to count the votes based on the way prescribed the Florida legislature, and the Flordia Supreme Court was wrong for changing the rules in the middle of the game.
> 
> Seems like a pretty minimalist attitude to me.


Well, there you go, you just proved my point.

The key elements in the decision were:

1. the decision, by justices who never had any use for the Equal Protection Clause, to invalidate the method of counting votes as determined by the Florida Supreme Court, and

2. the statement that the principles underlying the decision would apply for just this one time, and never again in any other context.

In other words, once we've put our boy W into office we can all go back to what we were doing.

And for the most blatant example of thuggery we've seen in recent years, take Scalia's incisive comment: "Get over it".


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> You're right, an increase in the capital gains tax only affects the super rich. Too bad 90% of all capital gains taxes are reported by people making less than $100k/year.


You've made this point a couple of times, and it just displays your intellectual dishonesty. The issue isn't how many returns include some capital gains, is the distribution. I don't doubt that a lot of people report some capital gains. I think my capital gains in the last couple of years have been about $300. The great majority of capital gains received, however, have been to the rich and super rich, so they are the ones who predominantly benefit from the preferential treatment of capital gains.

Of course, you already know that.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

meister said:


> Jack will be wailing and gnashing his teeth when the Dems go for a bigger dive this time than last. The way the polls are going the GOP is closing fast (McCain went up 10 states worth of EC votes according to Rasmussen this week). This is what happened last time for a 51% popular vote versus 49% + or -500 votes in 2000. The "on the street" talk from the Convention is "I am a Democrat but aw shucks Obama is inexperienced and I am voting McCain". Expect a solid victory by McCain of at least 20 EC votes (OH is already semi -solid for the GOP) including a better than expected Congress vote for the GOP. Put a bookmark in this post for December and tell me I was wrong.


Oh good, things are looking up for the Republicans.



> The Dems are a minority left wing party...masquerading as a mainstream majoritarian party... they will have to change like Blair/Brandt/Rudd or face years of GOP wins.


You sure nailed it. This is a perfect description of Ted Kennedy "I make the laws and you obey, but I do as I please". People like that belong in one government position- behind bars.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Well, there you go, you just proved my point.
> 
> The key elements in the decision were:
> 
> 1. the decision, by justices who never had any use for the Equal Protection Clause, to invalidate the method of counting votes as determined by the Florida Supreme Court, and


What a cheat the Democrats have become, haven't they Jack? Move the goal post where ever they want, but not let the other team do so while playing so the Democrats can pretend to win.

Even some of the judges you like on the US Supreme court refused to cheat in that case, knowing they couldn't get away with it.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> Milk? :icon_smile_big:


I was thinking of something else (w, h, c, g all mean the samething).

But he probably had a big glass of milk first, then the kool-aid.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> You've made this point a couple of times, and it just displays your intellectual dishonesty. The issue isn't how many returns include some capital gains, is the distribution. I don't doubt that a lot of people report some capital gains. I think my capital gains in the last couple of years have been about $300. The great majority of capital gains received, however, have been to the rich and super rich, so they are the ones who predominantly benefit from the preferential treatment of capital gains.
> 
> Of course, you already know that.


If the tax system is giving the option to the rich to reinvest their money instead of taking it out how is that not helping the poor find jobs? It seems like you know nothing about where jobs come from. The old adage of "It takes money (invest) to make money" is very true. How do you think companies have money to buy equipment, buy or rent buildings, pay the newly hired workers, etc.? Is it loans or selling bonds or getting people to pool there money in the name of shares? This is all chance. Because, what if the epectitions don't work out? 1 out 5 new business make it. That means 4 out of 5 those people were better off spending there money on a new car or clothes, anythng but losing their money in a bad investment.

If you are on the side of the poor be glad the "rich" can make a profit worthy of taking the chance. What Jimmy Carter did was steal the profit in the name of taxes so it wasn't worth taking any chances and companies started laying people off like I never seen before and never want to see again. The same thing happened again when Bush 1 signed that foolish Democrat tax.

Another problem is when less money is being made there is less money to tax, and when people are layed off, how is government going to support them when it is bringing in less tax because of less to tax?

If the Democrat party wants to become a better party then it needs more than lawyers (who know nothing about business and economic) to be Senators and Representives and even President. The Democrat party needs business men and women among them so they can have common business sence. By wiping out what is taxable leaves less to tax. And when have Democrats lowered taxes for the poor? Or middle class? All they do is raise taxes and make new taxes. So they never help the poor by giving them a tax break. They promise and promise and promise, which are always lies. Only the Republicans have given tax breaks to the poor and middle class.


----------



## meister (Oct 29, 2005)

WA said:


> What a cheat the Democrats have become, haven't they Jack? Move the goal post where ever they want, but not let the other team do so while playing so the Democrats can pretend to win.
> 
> Even some of the judges you like on the US Supreme court refused to cheat in that case, knowing they couldn't get away with it.


Exactly the point is there are no rules for a left wing party just destruction of the satus quo.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

WA said:


> If the tax system is giving the option to the rich to reinvest their money instead of taking it out how is that not helping the poor find jobs? It seems like you know nothing about where jobs come from. The old adage of "It takes money (invest) to make money" is very true. How do you think companies have money to buy equipment, buy or rent buildings, pay the newly hired workers, etc.? Is it loans or selling bonds or getting people to pool there money in the name of shares? This is all chance. Because, what if the epectitions don't work out? 1 out 5 new business make it. That means 4 out of 5 those people were better off spending there money on a new car or clothes, anythng but losing their money in a bad investment.
> 
> If you are on the side of the poor be glad the "rich" can make a profit worthy of taking the chance. What Jimmy Carter did was steal the profit in the name of taxes so it wasn't worth taking any chances and companies started laying people off like I never seen before and never want to see again. The same thing happened again when Bush 1 signed that foolish Democrat tax.
> 
> ...


"Well said",could not have said it better myself.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

TBOWES said:


> "Well said",could not have said it better myself.


Really? For instance, you couldn't get the name of the party right either?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Really? For instance, you couldn't get the name of the party right either?


Why are you a child in politics? Being a bird brain parroting out what you have been told to believe means you have nothing to contribe here. Everything I wrote above is my own thoughts and knowledge of how things work and you have only read it from me. If you can't do your own thinking go back to your play pen and don't come back until you really start thinking. I don't want to hear Democrat robot garble from you again. If you do your own thinking about both partyies then you maybe worth reading, but I have no interest in dealing with somebody who is brainwashed.

Life is better when you do your own thinking.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Really? For instance, you couldn't get the name of the party right either?


Why pick on TBOWES instead of providing a direct response to the person who gave a logical response to your writeup?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

When WA provides a logical response to anything I write, I'll respond to it. I just doubt that it will ever happen.

In this case, my post was addressed to the bogus claim that cuts in the capital gains tax don't disproportionately benefit the rich. Notice how he didn't address that at all?


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

If someone can point out how Biden is a crazy liberal, please do so.[/QUOTE]

...But here is a representative sample, as culled from the invaluable Project Vote Smart. Although his "grades" have of course varied from year to year, overall we find-surprise!-that Biden is a garden-variety liberal.

NARAL - A [2006]
Planned Parenthood - A [2006]
National Right to Life Committee - 0% [2005-06]
National Taxpayers Union - F [2007]
Business-Industry Political Action Committee 8% [2007]
ACLU - 75% [2007]
NAACP - 100% [2005]
National Council of La Raza - 100% [2005]
Human Rights Campaign [gay rights] - 100% [2001-02]
American Conservative Union - 0% [2007]
National Education Association [teachers union] - A [2007]
Environment America - 100% [2008]
Family Research Council - 0% [2007]
Children's Defense Fund [a Hillary fave] - 100% [2006]
Gun Owners of America - F [2007]
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence - 95% [1988-2003]
NRA - F [2002]
English First - 0% [2007]
American Immigration Lawyers Association - 100% [2006]
AFL-CIO - 100% [2007]
American Bar Association - 100% [2001-02]
National Journal-Composite Liberal Score - 94.2% [2007] [Note: third most liberal senator, trailing only Whitehouse of RI and #1 . . . Barack Obama]
NOW - 91% [2005-06]


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> When WA provides a logical response to anything I write, I'll respond to it. I just doubt that it will ever happen.
> 
> In this case, my post was addressed to the bogus claim that cuts in the capital gains tax don't disproportionately benefit the rich. Notice how he didn't address that at all?


It is true that by dollar amount, the top 10% invest the most money. That does not mean everyone else doesn't benefit. In a close second the second quinitile invest heavily (pension plans, 401ks and IRAs primarily), and you can't argue that a household making $55k a year is rich. Well, you might...

Also, investments create jobs. People have to invest money to create companies to make jobs.

Also, it has been shown that as the capital gains tax decreases more revenue is collected by said tax. When the capital gains tax increases, revenue goes down. That revenue goes to those social programs like welfare to help the poor like all you liberals like.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> When WA provides a logical response to anything I write, I'll respond to it. I just doubt that it will ever happen.
> 
> In this case, my post was addressed to the bogus claim that cuts in the capital gains tax don't disproportionately benefit the rich. Notice how he didn't address that at all?


What do you mean by disproportionately? Another lie for a reason to raise taxes? When Reagan got those taxes cut (that you don't like cut) the government collected 3-5 times more tax, which would increase government spending 3-5 time more. Why do you always want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs? Is it greed? Is it because you don't like people doing better than you, so you try to hurt them? Jealousy? If you get a pay increase shouldn't you pay that in taxes? Jimmy Carter raised taxes which put people out of work, so he raised taxes again to help the newly unemployed which put more people out of work, so he raised taxes again, and so it went. Jimmy Carter was a disaster. There is nothing wrong with dreaming and trying the dream but, when the dream is not working, (and smart people pay attention) then end the dream.

Look at economic history with taxes and what do you see. Wrong taxes brings recession = lost jobs, lost business, loss revenues and yet you still hang on to fasle morality of it's wrong for the rich to get richer. Me, I don't care how rich the rich get as long as I keep my job, or can find one. Your backwards economics is foolish. The more people that get rich means that they retire which leaves openings for others to get a job. I was listening to this one economics professor on tv telling how he was against Reagonomics. He taught against it, with my tax money, then he started saying if he had been for it he would be retired now. The theories he believed were only words, but no evidence that they worked. We have the history of Reagonomics, and it works. Even the Democrats has said it works. They just don't like it because it proved them wrong. Cause and effect is part of life away from dreaming. Taxes is no different than building houses, bridges, planes, etc. If your smart you do what works best and throw out the dreams of make believe. Meaning well without paying attention to what is really happening is not meaning well at all. It is time to stop believing 'it supposed to be' and get on with real life.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

We do have the history of Reaganomics, AKA voodoo economics.

Reagan declared war on the poor, cut taxes on the rich, and created deficits that lasted until taxes were raised again. Clinton's budgets were well on the way to completely eliminating the national debt--not just create a budget surplus, but pay off the debt--until Bush came in, cut taxes primarily on the rich, and created unprecedented deficits.

You are right to reference Reagan, because one of the most pernicious effects of his entire corrupt presidency is that he convinced ordinary people that they can have what they want from government without paying for it. The Republican Party is not the party of responsibility at all, but the reverse--the party that wants all the goodies from government wile pretending they don't have to be paid for.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> We do have the history of Reaganomics, AKA voodoo economics.
> 
> Reagan declared war on the poor, cut taxes on the rich, and created deficits that lasted until taxes were raised again. Clinton's budgets were well on the way to completely eliminating the national debt--not just create a budget surplus, but pay off the debt--until Bush came in, cut taxes primarily on the rich, and created unprecedented deficits.
> 
> You are right to reference Reagan, because one of the most pernicious effects of his entire corrupt presidency is that he convinced ordinary people that they can have what they want from government without paying for it. The Republican Party is not the party of responsibility at all, but the reverse--the party that wants all the goodies from government wile pretending they don't have to be paid for.


You're right. Those Clinton budgets sure were great... except who makes the budget? Oh yeah, that's Congress.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> Really? For instance, you couldn't get the name of the party right either?


??????????????????????


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

TBOWES said:


> ??????????????????????


Reread your post.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> We do have the history of Reaganomics, AKA voodoo economics.
> 
> Reagan declared war on the poor, cut taxes on the rich, and created deficits that lasted until taxes were raised again. Clinton's budgets were well on the way to completely eliminating the national debt--not just create a budget surplus, but pay off the debt--until Bush came in, cut taxes primarily on the rich, and created unprecedented deficits.
> 
> You are right to reference Reagan, because one of the most pernicious effects of his entire corrupt presidency is that he convinced ordinary people that they can have what they want from government without paying for it. The Republican Party is not the party of responsibility at all, but the reverse--the party that wants all the goodies from government wile pretending they don't have to be paid for.


You are just a brain washed liberal. I admire the strength of anyone who can deal with you illogical, skewed ramblings.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

TBOWES said:


> You are just a brain washed liberal. I admire the strength of anyone who can deal with you illogical, skewed ramblings.


Figures. Let me know when you're ready to recognize reality.

Oh I forgot--you're a Republican. In other words, immune to reality.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

WaWa said:


> If the tax system is giving the option to the rich to reinvest their money instead of taking it out how is that not helping the poor find jobs? It seems like you know nothing about where jobs come from. The old adage of "It takes money (invest) to make money" is very true. How do you think companies have money to buy equipment, buy or rent buildings, pay the newly hired workers, etc.? Is it loans or selling bonds or getting people to pool there money in the name of shares? This is all chance. Because, what if the epectitions don't work out? 1 out 5 new business make it. That means 4 out of 5 those people were better off spending there money on a new car or clothes, anythng but losing their money in a bad investment.
> 
> If you are on the side of the poor be glad the "rich" can make a profit worthy of taking the chance. What Jimmy Carter did was steal the profit in the name of taxes so it wasn't worth taking any chances and companies started laying people off like I never seen before and never want to see again. The same thing happened again when Bush 1 signed that foolish Democrat tax.
> 
> ...





TBOWES said:


> *"Well said",could not have said it better myself.*


That is a joke, isn't it? Isn't it?

Buzz


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> Figures. Let me know when you're ready to recognize reality.
> 
> Oh I forgot--you're a Republican. In other words, immune to reality.


No, I am not a republican. But I am open minded unlike you.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Mike Petrik said:


> Bork's positions were principled and mainstream according to mainstream liberal scholars such as Wm. Van Alstyne. His positions were distorted and deliberately so, for one reason and one reason only. He, like most constitutional scholars, understood that Roe was a rogue decision. Liberal groups distorted and lied about Bork's appellate opinions re civil rights in order to torpedo his nomination. There is no use arguing about it. Anyone who cares about the truth can read the transcript and decide for themeselves what kind of man Joe Biden is.


An alternative perspective:

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/opinion/27rosen.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> We do have the history of Reaganomics, AKA voodoo economics.
> 
> Reagan declared war on the poor, cut taxes on the rich, and created deficits that lasted until taxes were raised again. Clinton's budgets were well on the way to completely eliminating the national debt--not just create a budget surplus, but pay off the debt--until Bush came in, cut taxes primarily on the rich, and created unprecedented deficits.
> 
> You are right to reference Reagan, because one of the most pernicious effects of his entire corrupt presidency is that he convinced ordinary people that they can have what they want from government without paying for it. The Republican Party is not the party of responsibility at all, but the reverse--the party that wants all the goodies from government wile pretending they don't have to be paid for.


Who holds the purse strings? Congress. How can you blame Reagan? As far as getting rid of the deficits it was a Republican Congress and Clinton agreement, so how come when Clinton had Democrat Congress the first two years they blew it? Don't you believe history?

If you go look at the history of taxes, which goes back before Reagan, Carter and Ford, you will see when certain taxes are put in place that jobs and the poor and middle class get hurt. It becomes more obvious with Reagan and Bush 1. Bad taxes begin to hurt the economy about 4 months after they become law. Any youngster who is getting a degree in economics this would be a good subject for a thesis.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

_The Budget of the United States Government is a federal document that the President submits to the U.S. Congress. The President's budget submission outlines funding recommendations for the next fiscal year, which begins on October 1st. Congressional decisions are governed by rules and legislation regarding the federal budget process. House and Senate Budget committees each develop budget resolutions, which provide spending limits for the House and Senate Appropriations Committees' subcommittees, which then approve individual appropriation bills to allocate funding to various federal programs. After Congress President submits to the U.S. Congress. The President's budget submission approves an appropriations bill, it is sent to the President, who may sign it into law, or may veto it. A vetoed bill is sent back to Congress, which can pass it into law with a two-thirds majority in each chamber. Congress may also combine all or some appropriations bills into an omnibus reconciliation bill. In addition, the President may request and the Congress may pass supplemental appropriations bills or emergency supplemental appropriations bills._

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Laxplayer said:


> _The Budget of the United States Government is a federal document that the President submits to the U.S. Congress. The President's budget submission outlines *funding recommendations* for the next fiscal year, which begins on October 1st. Congressional decisions are governed by rules and legislation regarding the federal budget process. House and Senate Budget committees each develop budget resolutions, which provide spending limits for the House and Senate Appropriations Committees' subcommittees, which then approve individual appropriation bills to allocate funding to various federal programs. After Congress President submits to the U.S. Congress. The President's budget submission approves an appropriations bill, it is sent to t*he President, who may sign it into law, or may veto it*. A vetoed bill is sent back to Congress, which can pass it into law with a two-thirds majority in each chamber. Congress may also combine all or some appropriations bills into an omnibus reconciliation bill. In addition, *the President may request *and the Congress may pass supplemental appropriations bills or emergency supplemental appropriations bills._
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget


The important words are bolded.

The President's budget is just a recommendation. It is otherwise treated like any other bill.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> The important words are bolded.
> 
> The President's budget is just a recommendation. It is otherwise treated like any other bill.


You're right.

Any idea how many times Reagan sent a balanced budget to Congress, even with David Stockman cooking the books?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> You're right.
> 
> Any idea how many times Reagan sent a balanced budget to Congress, even with David Stockman cooking the books?


Remember the Line Item Veto power that he wanted but never got. The Democrats added so much pork and wanted him to sign it all into law. What is your defense now, Jack?

When taxes were cut for the rich then the jobs opened up so the poor could get some work and pay, and yet you find fault with that. When Jimmy Carter was Pres. he raised taxes until lay offs were huge and continuouse, and yet you find Jimmy Carter massive unemployeement good.

Jack, can you show me taxes cuts to the poor from the Democrats? How far back do you have to go, JFK? If the Democrats are really for the poor then there would be many taxes cuts from the Demorcrats to the poor. Now Reagan gave the poor tax cuts by double and he wanted even more, whereas, at the same time the Democrats wanted to raise taxes on the poor. Go look at the history.

Why are there so many super rich who are Democrats who make millions and pay out some of the lowest wage? Look at the huge amount of donations given to Obama which can only come from the super rich. Are you really sure the Democrats are for the poor?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

WA said:


> Remember the Line Item Veto power that he wanted but never got. The Democrats added so much pork and wanted him to sign it all into law. What is your defense now, Jack?


The lack of the line item veto didn't prevent Reagan from proposing balanced budgets.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> The lack of the line item veto didn't prevent Reagan from proposing balanced budgets.


What is your point when the Democrats took his budget and added humongously to it, which explains why he wanted line item veto.

You still haven't pulled up one tax cut to the poor from the Democrat party, which would have help the poor enormously.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Jack likes to just accuse others of not addressing the issues.

He sounds like a coworker who keeps claiming we're in a recession, despite the fact that the economy has had positive growth.

Europe would love 3% growth like us, perhaps we should try their policies.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

*Vacation in Ratbangistan.*

You guys are lucky you even get to have a bleeping election, let alone one where the candidates are not certified idiots. A lot of countries would love to advance to where thay are as screwed up we are. You could be a lot worse off -- you could be eating dirt in Ratbangistan. And loving it...


----------



## meister (Oct 29, 2005)

Terpoxon said:


> If someone can point out how Biden is a crazy liberal, please do so.


...But here is a representative sample, as culled from the invaluable Project Vote Smart. Although his "grades" have of course varied from year to year, overall we find-surprise!-that Biden is a garden-variety liberal.

NARAL - A [2006]
Planned Parenthood - A [2006]
National Right to Life Committee - 0% [2005-06]
National Taxpayers Union - F [2007]
Business-Industry Political Action Committee 8% [2007]
ACLU - 75% [2007]
NAACP - 100% [2005]
National Council of La Raza - 100% [2005]
Human Rights Campaign [gay rights] - 100% [2001-02]
American Conservative Union - 0% [2007]
National Education Association [teachers union] - A [2007]
Environment America - 100% [2008]
Family Research Council - 0% [2007]
Children's Defense Fund [a Hillary fave] - 100% [2006]
Gun Owners of America - F [2007]
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence - 95% [1988-2003]
NRA - F [2002]
English First - 0% [2007]
American Immigration Lawyers Association - 100% [2006]
AFL-CIO - 100% [2007]
American Bar Association - 100% [2001-02]
National Journal-Composite Liberal Score - 94.2% [2007] [Note: third most liberal senator, trailing only Whitehouse of RI and #1 . . . Barack Obama]
NOW - 91% [2005-06][/QUOTE]

overall we find-surprise!-that Biden is a garden-variety liberal. Garden variety? Time to get out a bit of Roundup...!



WA said:


> You still haven't pulled up one tax cut to the poor from the Democrat party, which would have help the poor enormously.


Mistake number one about left wing parties = hand out not hand up ...errr sorry Mr Clinton suh!


----------

