The Republican Thread

[Rex Kickass]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin

 

Anybody notice that the footage of Obama playing basketball in the ad is of him playing basketball with soldiers in Afghanistan?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49hC9TpP_rY

[bmags]

Seriously, someone run through this visit/non visit and tell me how it should influence someone's vote? What insight does this offer on Obama and how he would be as President?

 

Well, he didn't throw up on any of the foreign ministers or trip coming out of the helicopters...so kudos.

[southsider2k5]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1217287624...emEditorialPage

 

Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession

By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN

July 29, 2008; Page A17

 

 

What if I told you that a prominent global political figure in recent months has proposed: abrogating key features of his government's contracts with energy companies; unilaterally renegotiating his country's international economic treaties; dramatically raising marginal tax rates on the "rich" to levels not seen in his country in three decades (which would make them among the highest in the world); and changing his country's social insurance system into explicit welfare by severing the link between taxes and benefits?

[Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession]

AP

 

The first name that came to mind would probably not be Barack Obama, possibly our nation's next president. Yet despite his obvious general intelligence, and uplifting and motivational eloquence, Sen. Obama reveals this startling economic illiteracy in his policy proposals and economic pronouncements. From the property rights and rule of (contract) law foundations of a successful market economy to the specifics of tax, spending, energy, regulatory and trade policy, if the proposals espoused by candidate Obama ever became law, the American economy would suffer a serious setback.

 

To be sure, Mr. Obama has been clouding these positions as he heads into the general election and, once elected, presidents sometimes see the world differently than when they are running. Some cite Bill Clinton's move to the economic policy center following his Hillary health-care and 1994 Congressional election debacles as a possible Obama model. But candidate Obama starts much further left on spending, taxes, trade and regulation than candidate Clinton. A move as large as Mr. Clinton's toward the center would still leave Mr. Obama on the economic left.

 

Also, by 1995 the country had a Republican Congress to limit President Clinton's big government agenda, whereas most political pundits predict strengthened Democratic majorities in both Houses in 2009. Because newly elected presidents usually try to implement the policies they campaigned on, Mr. Obama's proposals are worth exploring in some depth. I'll discuss taxes and trade, although the story on his other proposals is similar.

 

First, taxes. The table nearby demonstrates what could happen to marginal tax rates in an Obama administration. Mr. Obama would raise the top marginal rates on earnings, dividends and capital gains passed in 2001 and 2003, and phase out itemized deductions for high income taxpayers. He would uncap Social Security taxes, which currently are levied on the first $102,000 of earnings. The result is a remarkable reduction in work incentives for our most economically productive citizens.

 

The top 35% marginal income tax rate rises to 39.6%; adding the state income tax, the Medicare tax, the effect of the deduction phase-out and Mr. Obama's new Social Security tax (of up to 12.4%) increases the total combined marginal tax rate on additional labor earnings (or small business income) from 44.6% to a whopping 62.8%. People respond to what they get to keep after tax, which the Obama plan reduces from 55.4 cents on the dollar to 37.2 cents -- a reduction of one-third in the after-tax wage!

 

Despite the rhetoric, that's not just on "rich" individuals. It's also on a lot of small businesses and two-earner middle-aged middle-class couples in their peak earnings years in high cost-of-living areas. (His large increase in energy taxes, not documented here, would disproportionately harm low-income Americans. And, while he says he will not raise taxes on the middle class, he'll need many more tax hikes to pay for his big increase in spending.)

 

On dividends the story is about as bad, with rates rising from 50.4% to 65.6%, and after-tax returns falling over 30%. Even a small response of work and investment to these lower returns means such tax rates, sooner or later, would seriously damage the economy.

 

On economic policy, the president proposes and Congress disposes, so presidents often wind up getting the favorite policy of powerful senators or congressmen. Thus, while Mr. Obama also proposes an alternative minimum tax (AMT) patch, he could instead wind up with the permanent abolition plan for the AMT proposed by the Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D., N.Y.) -- a 4.6% additional hike in the marginal rate with no deductibility of state income taxes. Marginal tax rates would then approach 70%, levels not seen since the 1970s and among the highest in the world. The after-tax return to work -- the take-home wage for more time or effort -- would be cut by more than 40%.

 

Now trade. In the primaries, Sen. Obama was famously protectionist, claiming he would rip up and renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). Since its passage (for which former President Bill Clinton ran a brave anchor leg, given opposition to trade liberalization in his party), Nafta has risen to almost mythological proportions as a metaphor for the alleged harm done by trade, globalization and the pace of technological change.

 

Yet since Nafta was passed (relative to the comparable period before passage), U.S. manufacturing output grew more rapidly and reached an all-time high last year; the average unemployment rate declined as employment grew 24%; real hourly compensation in the business sector grew twice as fast as before; agricultural exports destined for Canada and Mexico have grown substantially and trade among the three nations has tripled; Mexican wages have risen each year since the peso crisis of 1994; and the two binational Nafta environmental institutions have provided nearly $1 billion for 135 environmental infrastructure projects along the U.S.-Mexico border.

 

In short, it would be hard, on balance, for any objective person to argue that Nafta has injured the U.S. economy, reduced U.S. wages, destroyed American manufacturing, harmed our agriculture, damaged Mexican labor, failed to expand trade, or worsened the border environment. But perhaps I am not objective, since Nafta originated in meetings James Baker and I had early in the Bush 41 administration with Pepe Cordoba, chief of staff to Mexico's President Carlos Salinas.

 

Mr. Obama has also opposed other important free-trade agreements, including those with Colombia, South Korea and Central America. He has spoken eloquently about America's responsibility to help alleviate global poverty -- even to the point of saying it would help defeat terrorism -- but he has yet to endorse, let alone forcefully advocate, the single most potent policy for doing so: a successful completion of the Doha round of global trade liberalization. Worse yet, he wants to put restrictions into trade treaties that would damage the ability of poor countries to compete. And he seems to see no inconsistency in his desire to improve America's standing in the eyes of the rest of the world and turning his back on more than six decades of bipartisan American presidential leadership on global trade expansion. When trade rules are not being improved, nontariff barriers develop to offset the liberalization from the current rules. So no trade liberalization means creeping protectionism.

 

History teaches us that high taxes and protectionism are not conducive to a thriving economy, the extreme case being the higher taxes and tariffs that deepened the Great Depression. While such a policy mix would be a real change, as philosophers remind us, change is not always progress.

 

 

[kapkomet]

This right here, if McCain could learn to explain it in common terms, would win him the election. Unfortunately, I don't think it's going to happen.

 

[southsider2k5]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/080...ng.html?showall

 

House Dems turn out the lights but GOP keeps talking

 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats adjourned the House and turned off the lights and killed the microphones, but Republicans are still on the floor talking gas prices.

 

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders opposed the motion to adjourn the House, arguing that Pelosi's refusal to schedule a vote allowing offshore drilling is hurting the American economy. They have refused to leave the floor after the adjournment motion passed at 11:23 a.m. and are busy bashing Pelosi and her fellow Democrats for leaving town for the August recess.

 

At one point, the lights went off in the House and the microphones were turned off in the chamber, meaning Republicans were talking in the dark. But as Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz..) was speaking, the lights went back on, and the microphones were turned on shortly afterward.

 

But C-SPAN, which has no control over the cameras in the chamber, has stopped broadcasting the House floor, meaning no one is witnessing this except the assembled Republicans, their aides, and one Democrat, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who has now left.

 

Only about a half-dozen Republicans were on the floor when this began, but the crowd has grown to about 20 now, according to Patrick O'Connor.

 

"This is the people's House," Rep, Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) said. "This is not Pelosi's politiburo."

 

Democratic aides were furious at the GOP stunt, and reporters were kicked out of the Speaker's Lobby, the space next to the House floor where they normally interview lawmakers.

 

"You're not covering this, are you?" complaining one senior Democratic aide. Another called the Republicans "morons" for staying on the floor.

 

Update - The Capitol Police are now trying to kick reporters out of the press gallery above the floor, meaning we can't watch the Republicans anymore. But Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) is now in the gallery talking to reporters, so the cops have held off for a minute. Clearly, Democrats don't want Republicans getting any press for this episode. GOP leaders are trying to find other Republicans to rotate in for Blunt so reporters aren't kicked out.

 

Update 2 - This message was sent out by Blunt's office:

 

"Although, this Democrat Majority just Adjourned for the Democrat 5-Week Vacation, House Republicans are continuing to fight on the House Floor. Although the lights, mics and C-SPAN camera's have been turned off, House Republicans are on the Floor speaking to the tax payers in the gallery who, not surprisingly, agree with Republican Energy proposals.

 

All Republicans who are in town are encouraged to come to the House Floor."

 

Update 3 - Democrats just turned out the lights again. Republicans cheered.

 

Update 4 - Republican leaders just sent out a notice looking for a bullhorn and leadership aides are trying to corral all the members who are still in town to come speak on the floor and sustain this one-sided debate.

 

Also, Republicans can thank Shadegg for turning on the microphones the first time. Apparently, the fiesty Arizona conservative started typing random codes into the chamber's public address system and accidentally typed the correct code, allowing Republicans brief access to the microphone before it was turned off again.

 

"I love this," Shadegg told reporters up in the press gallery afterward. "Congress can be so boring...This is a kick."

» Continue reading House Dems turn out the lights but GOP keeps talking

 

Update 4 - The scene on the floor is kind of crazy. Normally, members are not allowed to speak directly to the visitor galleries, or visitors are prohibited from cheering. But in this case, the members are walking up and down on the floor during their speeches, standing on cheers, the visitors are cheering loudly. Some members even brought in visitors, who are now sitting on the House floor in the seats normally filled by lawmakers, cheering and clapping. Very funny.

 

Democrats faced a choice here - should they leave the cameras on and let Republicans rip Pelosi & Co. on C-Span, or should they leave the cameras off and let the Republicans have their "tantrum," as one Democratic aide characterized it, with the cameras off. So the cameras are off, but Republicans, and the crowd, are clearly enjoying the scene.

 

Uodate 5 - Republicans are literally hugging each other on the House floor. Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Ill.), not normally known as an distinguished orator, just gave a rousing speech, accusing Democrats of stifling dissent. He referenced President John Quincy Adams, who returned as a House member after being defeated in his bid for re-election as president. Waving his arms and yelling, Manzullo brought the crowd (including a lot of staff shipped in by GOP leaders to fill up the place), and he left the floor to hugs from his colleagues. You don't see that up here every day.

 

Update 6 - Rep Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) just pretended to be a Democrat. He stood on the other side of the chaber and listed all of the GOP bills that the Dems killed.

 

He then said "I am a Democrat and here is my energy plan" and he held up a picture of an old VW Bug with a sail attached to it. He paraded around he house floor with the sign while the crowd cheered.

[NorthSideSox72]

Interesting that Kucinich was the one Dem who stuck around for a while. As I've said before, dude us bats*** crazy, but I admire him for being a little more genuine than most in Congress.

 

[lostfan]

You would be surprised how often that happens though, I mean people who stick around after hours and start ranting in front of the camera etc. with nobody else on the floor.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/flo...0,4215307.story

 

Opponent calls for investigations of U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler's residency

Wexler's opponent calls for state, federal investigations

 

By Scott Wyman and Brittany Wallman | South Florida Sun-Sentinel

July 26, 2008

 

One of U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler's election opponents is seeking state and federal investigations into questions surrounding his residency in Florida.

 

Former Broward County Mayor Ben Graber wants to know if Wexler has violated any tax or voting laws and whether he is even qualified to run for office. The Democratic congressman owns only a home in Maryland and uses his in-laws' house in a Delray Beach seniors-only community to meet residency requirements.

 

"I see a pattern of betrayal by Congressman Wexler that is continuing," Graber said during a Friday news conference. "He does not represent his constituents. He may well have been falsely representing them for 11 years."

 

Graber, who is running with no party affiliation, wants Florida elections officials to determine if Wexler meets residency requirements to be registered to vote and run for office. He also wants Maryland tax officials to investigate if Wexler has violated that state's income tax laws. And he wants Congress to explore if Wexler has abused any of its housing or travel perks.

 

Wexler's office said he does not use the housing write-off that members of Congress can receive on their taxes and noted there is a federal law that says members of Congress have to pay income tax only in the state they represent. His office also said Wexler meets Florida's residency requirements, citing a 1879 opinion of the state Supreme Court.

 

"Courts have ruled over and over that a member of Congress is automatically a resident or inhabitant of their state," said Eric Johnson, Wexler's chief of staff.

 

Jennifer Davis, a spokeswoman for Secretary of State Kurt Browning, said the office usually forwards complaints about a voter's residency to state law enforcement to investigate and that each case must be reviewed based on its own circumstances. A 1993 opinion from the office said a person's intent to be a resident is not good enough to meet the voting requirement, but that there must be evidence such as a state driver's license, tax receipts, a local bank account, relocation of personal items or the purchase or rental of a home.

 

Scott Wyman can be reached at swyman@sun-sentinel.com or 954-356-4511.

[Balta1701]

You would be surprised how often that happens though, I mean people who stick around after hours and start ranting in front of the camera etc. with nobody else on the floor.

There was a classic example back in 2005 of the Dems holding a hearing on the Iraq debacle in a windowless basement room reminiscent of the office I'm in as a grad student. Quite classic. At one point someone accidentally turned off the lights. At another someone knocked over one of the flags.

 

At least they let the Republicans use the normal room.

[lostfan]

There was a classic example back in 2005 of the Dems holding a hearing on the Iraq debacle in a windowless basement room reminiscent of the office I'm in as a grad student. Quite classic. At one point someone accidentally turned off the lights. At another someone knocked over one of the flags.

 

At least they let the Republicans use the normal room.

They do it so they can go make videos for their campaign and they can go "hey, look what I'm doing over here in Washington for our district!"

[Texsox]

Just wondering, if the voters in a state wished to "outsource" their representation to someone from out of state, shouldn't those voters have that right?

[kapkomet]

Just wondering, if the voters in a state wished to "outsource" their representation to someone from out of state, shouldn't those voters have that right?

Absolutely f***ing not. Dismissed. Next?

[Texsox]

Absolutely f***ing not. Dismissed. Next?

Care to give a reason? We take residency for granted, but if voters in a town wanted to elect someone from out of town, it seems like it should be their right. After all, they can hire an out of towner for Police Chief, Administrator, etc. Why not hire the best person on the planet, not the best person in that district? Maybe then we would have better overall representation. And I'd scale it up all the way to Congress.

[NorthSideSox72]

Care to give a reason? We take residency for granted, but if voters in a town wanted to elect someone from out of town, it seems like it should be their right. After all, they can hire an out of towner for Police Chief, Administrator, etc. Why not hire the best person on the planet, not the best person in that district? Maybe then we would have better overall representation. And I'd scale it up all the way to Congress.

Actually, in many localities, you CANNOT hire police, teachers, administrators, councilpeople, etc, from out of town. For multiple reasons.

 

I agree with Kap. A representative for a district cannot realistically do so without living there, IMO.

 

[kapkomet]

Care to give a reason? We take residency for granted, but if voters in a town wanted to elect someone from out of town, it seems like it should be their right. After all, they can hire an out of towner for Police Chief, Administrator, etc. Why not hire the best person on the planet, not the best person in that district? Maybe then we would have better overall representation. And I'd scale it up all the way to Congress.

That is not how our country was set up, and I don't care for the fact that America is a "rent a (whatever)" society. There are some things that need to be held to a standard as much as possible, and this is one of them. I mean, I could carpetbag like Alan Keyes did (IDIOT), but that's just not the right thing to do, and I'm glad he got his ass handed to him, although, it ended up making our next president, didn't it?

[Texsox]

Actually, in many localities, you CANNOT hire police, teachers, administrators, councilpeople, etc, from out of town. For multiple reasons.

 

I agree with Kap. A representative for a district cannot realistically do so without living there, IMO.

 

Which is why *Kap, you, and I* would not vote for an out of town candidate. But while we may disagree on who would represent District 33 1/3 in Maine, it is the voters there that get to decide who is best to represent them not us.

 

I see major cities all the time hiring department heads from outside the department and they come from all across the country. They are required to move to the city, but they can be hired from outside the area. Are you saying that some cities will not interview anyone from outside their town for those positions?

[lostfan]

Which is why *Kap, you, and I* would not vote for an out of town candidate. But while we may disagree on who would represent District 33 1/3 in Maine, it is the voters there that get to decide who is best to represent them not us.

 

I see major cities all the time hiring department heads from outside the department and they come from all across the country. They are required to move to the city, but they can be hired from outside the area. Are you saying that some cities will not interview anyone from outside their town for those positions?

Technically, in a way, voters can decide whatever they want as long as it doesn't conflict with the Constitution and even that isn't ironclad.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't know where this should go, but, I felt like I had to post it. I was just checking my spam e-mail folder for a missing email, and one of the spam emails had this subject:

 

"Release of Nancy Pelosi sex DVD causes Mass Erecticle Dysfunction In Us"

 

Wow.

 

[kapkomet]

I don't know where this should go, but, I felt like I had to post it. I was just checking my spam e-mail folder for a missing email, and one of the spam emails had this subject:

 

"Release of Nancy Pelosi sex DVD causes Mass Erecticle Dysfunction In Us"

 

Wow.

 

Now that's funny. And, pathetic, whoever came up with it.

[EvilMonkey]

 

Now that's funny. And, pathetic, whoever came up with it.

You forgot 'frightening'. Especially with those eyes of hers.

[HuskyCaucasian]

"Release of Nancy Pelosi sex DVD causes Mass Erecticle Dysfunction In Us"

 

Wow.

What the e-mail doesnt tell you is the sex tape was filmed during her annual face lift and botox treatment.

[kapkomet]

What the e-mail doesnt tell you is the sex tape was filmed during her annual face lift and botox treatment.

You are disgusting. DO NOT GIVE PEOPLE THAT IMAGE!

 

 

[southsider2k5]

What the e-mail doesnt tell you is the sex tape was filmed during her annual face lift and botox treatment.

 

Its probably the most action she has seen since Woodstock.

[kapkomet]

Its probably the most action she has seen since Woodstock.

 

Wow.

 

[southsider2k5]

I have avoided this lately, but this one was too good to pass up...

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

 

By Mark Leibovich

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, February 24, 2005; Page C01

 

There's nothing exotic or complicated about how phenoms are made in Washington, and, more to the point, how they are broken.

 

"Andy Warhol said we all get our 15 minutes of fame," says Barack Obama. "I've already had an hour and a half. I mean, I'm so overexposed, I'm making Paris Hilton look like a recluse."