Powell on Obama

It’s already old news for everybody, I’m sure, but I wanted to post this clip of Colin Powell’s endorsement of Obama today on Meet the Press:

The main reason I wanted to post that is that I’m curious to hear what Craig thinks of Powell’s reasoning. I’m not sure he’s said it explicitly, but the impression I’ve taken away from his recent comments here is that Craig intends to vote for McCain. Now, I know it’s easy to dismiss the partisan japery that gets posted here from some of the commenters, and even from myself. But Powell isn’t some lefty Internet troll; this is Colin Powell we’re talking about here. And he doesn’t just say, “I’m voting for Barack Obama because I happen to like the guy”; he offers specific reasons, specific incidents over the last few months that have shaped his thinking.

So as I said, I’m curious, Craig, what you think of Powell’s argument. Are you willing to state who you intend to vote for, and why? And if you are intending to vote for McCain, what do you say in response to the reasons Powell offers for voting for Obama?

Not trying to be snarky here; I’m actually curious.

33 Responses to “Powell on Obama”

  1. shcb Says:

    I know I’m not the “thinking man” conservative but, what is Powell talking about? He was impressed with how Obama has handled the banking crisis? What exactly has Obama done? The day before he met with Bush he said he hadn’t read the bill. Excuse me but he just might have to vote on it in a day or two, that instills confidence. By that time I had at least read the summary. It sounds like Powell switched parties a long time ago.

  2. knarlyknight Says:


    What exactly has Obama done? I’m sure Obama “read” the Bill before voting on it, although apparently most Congressmen do not read the Bills (especially the details) before voting on them (e.g. who read the Patriot Act?).

    Without getting into specifics, the main thing that Obama did was to remain presidential, instill a sense of calm and optimism that we will get through this for the public, and remained focused on the multitude of issues facing America.

    That contrasts to McCain’s flip-flops and flitterings-about by changing tactics daily (even hourly.)

    It’s all there in the Powell explanations. Too bad you didn’t hear what Powel had to say through your filters. It seems that all you heard was that Powell has turned-coat, and that he now is a Democrat heathen. That’s one way that a political party disintegrates, by ostracizing and ex-communicating dissenters and party icons who stray but yet still have lots to contribute.

    It’s bad enough what the voters are going to do to the Republicans on November 4, you Republicans don’t have to tear each other apart too.

  3. shcb Says:

    He looked presidential, well there you have it.

  4. Craig Says:

    I can understand some of Powell’s reasons. I think he believes that the Republican party is too narrow right now in its social issues stances ( a reasonable concern) and feels the pendulum needs to swing more toward the left for now. The good news is that he doesn’t have to pass some kind of political exam to be allowed to vote for a particular candidate or party. And neither does anyone else. Someone can have a powerpoint presentation of all their reasons for why they are voting a certain way, with their justifications listed as bullet points. Or you can be someone like the lady at McCain’s rally who thinks Obama is a closet Muslim, or the person in a diner recently who said she liked Obama because of how he spoke and that he seemed nice. I really don’t care about rationalizations or defenses for how people arrive at their decisions, as long as they vote and are making a decision based upon what is important to them.

    I’ve never been a straight-line Republican, although I trend that way (I actually voted for John Anderson in 1980 in my youthful days).

    I’m voting for McCain, not because he is someone I agree with on every issue. I would like to think the Party can, and will, do better with future candidates. Some of my preference is simply idealogical and some is on specific issues, like how best to wind down the Iraq war. But the great thing is that it is MY vote based upon my own preferences, just like everyone can do. That’s an awesome right that too many people discard or dismiss.

    So I’m not much into having people list their reasons and debate their validity. Ultimately, it is a personal choice for personal reasons.

    Actually, I’m more interested in Biden’s recent comments about how the Obama presidency will get tested with a big international issue within the first six months, and how his approval ratings may take a hit and people may get initially dissappointed in decisions that are made by him. Weird.

    Is this just another one of those “cringe factor” comments that Joe makes from time to time, or is he trying to damp down some sky-high expectations from the main base of supporters? At first I thought he may be preparing their supporters for the chance that Obama may start fudging on the withdrawal of troops once he gets a better grip on the dynamics of events in the area (my personal hope!). But I think Biden mentioned a “generated” crisis, that will be created to test Obama. Maybe Putin? Kim Jong?

    Just seems to be a very curious thing to say.

  5. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb, Yes, looked like the POTUS. McCain was trying to put forth that persona too, but failed.

    Re: Craig’s comment, I wonder if Lefty has checked out prisonplanet yet to see what Biden’s comment about a manufactured crisis means?

  6. shcb Says:


    I’m not criticizing Obama, I think he did the right thing by looking presidential. He doesn’t come from an economics background and doesn’t have a lot of legislative experience or at least isn’t very successful. Out of the almost 300 pieces of legislation he has sponsored only 2 have became law, one was to outlaw the sale of elemental mercury, I know I stayed up late worrying about that one. Most of his legislation has either stalled in committee or was struck down at the desk. He also doesn’t have any executive experience like a governor would have so he doesn’t have the skills to even run the discussions. So the best thing he could do was wait for the Senate leadership to tell him how to vote, which is probably the reason he didn’t bother to read the bill. This is exactly how a junior legislator should act in a situation like this, observe and learn from more experienced men.

    I’m just surprised that Powell would see that as an attribute. With all of Powell’s military experience you would think he has seen enough officers that look wonderful in their dress blues but can’t think their way out of the mess hall.

  7. shcb Says:


    I don’t think you have to worry about Obama changing his mind on finishing the job in Iraq.

    Fighting a resurgent Taliban. Targeting al Qaeda. Persevering in the deserts and cities of Iraq. Training foreign militaries. Delivering humanitarian relief. In this young century, our military has answered when called, even as that call has come too often. Through their commitment, their capability, and their courage they have done us all proud.

    But we need to ease the burden on our troops, while meeting the challenges of the 21st century. That’s why I will call on a new generation of Americans to join our military, and complete the effort to increase our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines.

    It seems by this quote that we are going increase our presence in the area or there would be no need to increase the size of our military by something like ten percent.

  8. knarlyknight Says:


    Interesting points, let me add that, in regard to the economic crisis that nearly had McCain AWOL for the debates, (a) Obama had the humility to listen to advisors on the subject of which you say he has little expertise before putting forth a five (or was it seven?) point plan for legislators and the public to consider; and, (b) McCain had the arrogance to rush bullying other Republicans to get on-side with the Paulson bill and cry out proclamations that his immmediate involvement was critical – when, in fact, he himself had admitted (more like boasted) prior to the crisis that he knows very little about economic issues.

    As for your Powell / dress blues observation, I think it fits perfectly when applied to McCain: he looks good when things are going well but when ambushed by the financial crisis in the middle of the night, well McCain just jumped up into a frenzied “ATTACK!!!” mode and ran off into the jungle like a crazy man with a few of his soldiers while the rest stood scratching their heads wondering what the hell they could do now. In contrast, Obama, the lanky less experienced foot soldier was the one who kept his cool, advanced his platoon in formation with clear lines of fire and a couple of search and destroy teams scouting the flanks.

    No wonder Powel sided with the young, smart, healthy, cool headed, popular and highly respected foot soldier rather than the lousy pilot with a POW induced psychosis whose own troops are concerned that he is a mega-ego-maniacal archaic bomb with a 1/4 inch fuse.

  9. shcb Says:

    No, McCain wasn’t for the Paulson/Bush plan, he was more in line with House Republicans which is what stalled it in the Senate. If he had not stepped in the bad aspects of the plan like giving ACORN part of the profits if there are any and giving the fed complete control of all the money without any congressional oversight would have sailed through the Senate and probably the House. The only people who were raising red flags were House Republicans, McCain listened to them and gave them a voice in the Senate which saved a lot of time. That is a little exaggerated but not much. I don’t remember Obama’s seven points what were they, I’m not being coy here, I really don’t remember.

  10. knarlyknight Says:

    I didn’t keep track of the details of whose plan did what, so I stand corrected. Thanks a lot. ;-)

    FYI, here is the Obama “Rescue” plan, released Oct 13 I believe. I suggest we not debate its merits or those of McCain’s plan here as it is off topic to this thread. http://obama.3cdn.net/009ff9aad4fd7f3acf_58l3mvzb2.pdf

  11. shcb Says:

    ok, I’ll look at your length, and comment briefly (yeah right:-), this thread is already several deep. we can yield if somone wants to continue on topic.

  12. shcb Says:

    link, not length, i’m machining parts today, had diminsions on my mind

  13. knarlyknight Says:

    OMG do you realize that you are living proof of a manufacturing job still existing in the USA?

    Be forewarned (or fore-encouraged) that I am not inclined to respond in defence of Obama’s financial plan. I’m getting awefully bored of these topics.

  14. knarlyknight Says:

    i.e. Why don’t you guys just move up the November 4th date and hold the election already, we all know what the results will be anyway.

  15. shcb Says:

    only because I’m so old I’m the only one left that knows how to run a machine without a computer on it (although mine does have a computer)

    thanks for the warning I won’t spend much time commenting on the Obama thing. I may have a more interesting topic anyway. It seems our homeowners association is in a bit of a pickle. They landscaped the main street coming into our development. This street is about ¾ mile long, maybe a mile. They put white three rail plastic fence the length like all the homes have around our properties. We use non potable water for our yards, so the water is straight from the Platte River and has 100 years of agricultural chemicals in it, great for the yard but it turned the plastic fence brown. So they brought in a crew with really nasty chemicals to clean it up. Cost a fortune. So now the association wants the home owners with their property backing the street (22 homes) to pay the bill in the future. Great lesson in an over reaching government. They say the property technically belongs to the homeowners (the 22) and not the development (400 or so homes). Of course the land belonged to the association when they did all the landscaping, I’m sure the association didn’t ask the 22 homeowners permission to enter their land while they were planting trees and grass. Anyway the meeting is tonight, I’m taking a pitchfork!

  16. J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:

    Good luck, don’t take any guff from them. Homeowners associations are rough.

  17. knarlyknight Says:

    Good luck shcb, lifes too short for battles like that (then again, if you like those kinds of squabbles, enjoy your evening!)

    For whatever it may be worth to you, here’s a suggestion from Canada, the land of compromises: paint the friggin fence brown.

  18. shcb Says:

    Thanks guys :-)

    I’ve always thought the people that run these HOAs are the kids that were the hall monitors in jr high all grown up

  19. shcb Says:

    I agree with you Knarly, this is the first one i’ve been to in 7 or 8 years and it wouldn’t take much to talk me out of going tonight

  20. shcb Says:

    Well the HOA meeting was actually quite good. It seems we have an actual problem and no easy solution but everyone there with one exception seemed willing to work toward a solution in the coming months. I won’t bore you with it further unless you are for some perverted reason interested.

  21. knarlyknight Says:

    Thanks, I don’t want details and I’m guessing that a brown fence would be a non-starter.

    But I do have some questions.

    1. Is the brown on the fence a form of algae?

    2. why does the fence need to be white?

    3. why does the landscaping consist of water intensive plants instead of plants more native to the area that don’t require watering or other drought tolerant varieties from other regions?

    4. was the landscaping designed with any thought to plantings that would enhance the natural food sources or habitat for local fauna?

    5. instead of paying to clean the fence with expensive and harsh chemicals (which sounds like it will only be adding to the poor groundwater quality) is your association considering investing in a lower profile spray system or setting up partially buried simple drip irrigation system(s)?

  22. knarlyknight Says:

    One more question, if you can stand it, as it sounds naive to me…

    6. How would the numbers crunch out if instead of paying for the upkeep of the fence or maintenance of the pretty landscaping, your association built a single wind-powered generator and/or solar collectors to supplement the electricity requirements of the 400 homes in your subdivision?

  23. shcb Says:

    To answer all your questions, the landscaping is done in the most environmentally unfriendly way possible, Kentucky bluegrass belongs in, wait for it… Kentucky. We live on a treeless high desert (I hope that word isn’t the chocolate cake). Plastic fence only comes in white and it is wonderful stuff, it is made from recycled material (sort of) and it needs no maintenance.

    The problem is that the developer put in the landscaping on private property without telling the homeowners who were just moving in at the time. For the last ten years everyone just assumed the Association owned the property. Our bylaws state the Association can’t pay for the upkeep of private property, for obvious reasons. Everyone there was in agreement that the association should pay the upkeep. So I suggested that the homeowners simply deed the strip of land to the Association. Everyone was in favor of that but we will have to hold an election and that will cost about $15,000 to change the bylaws. So we have a few hurdles but I think we just have to find a way to get an election held cheap.

    Windmills are prohibited by our covenants :-) (Seriously!)

    We’re only talking about $12,000 per year so, no a windmill couldn’t be purchased for that, I don’t think, and you would still have the same problem. Although it is an interesting concept. We are fairly cutting edge with our two pipe watering system so providing our own power may be worthwhile. Especially since Vestas is putting in a huge plant here (1300 new manufacturing jobs). They make the windmill blades. As I’ve said many times you can only produce about 10% of your power from wind but we are only producing 0.2% of Colorado’s power from wind now so there is room for a bunch more.

  24. shcb Says:

    I read the Obama plan. It started out as a bunch of Bush bashing platitudes, I thought oh boy here we go, but was pleasantly surprised by the detail through most of it, the end was a little puffery but it’s written by politicians so what do you expect. The plan is complete balderdash from an economic standpoint with a very few bright points. It is however a look into what is to come, it is a scary look into the man and his plan for America.

  25. J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:

    I’m asking the room here, because I’ve read a lot about both candidates tax plans and I feel that maybe there is something fundamental I’m missing about the current situation.

    I’m also trying to approach this without an ideological bias on what should or shouldn’t be but anyway…

    We have this ‘redistribution of wealth’ tax argument going on currently. On one hand we’ve got the Republican view, which seems to still be trickle down economics, and we have the Democrat view which is arguing for a more ‘progressive’ tax policy.

    This is what I’m failing to understand about the Republican view. I get that in theory that there needs to be money at the top to build things like factories and invest in business startups. The problem I’m having with this is on a couple levels. First of all we’re talking a lot about taxes, but not differentiating between capital gains and income taxes. We do have a progressive rate currently, what I see Dem plan doing with income tax is skewing it more, 3% for over 250k and I’m not sure what it hits with the people that have more money than God.

    For income tax, I’m not sure this is a bad thing. When I talk about this to people in conversation I use the phrase ‘economic viability’ to describe what someone can do in the market. Now, I just lost my job due to the general downturn in retail sales, but I was making 37k a year in Ohio, which isn’t bad for the region and my job/level of experience. I had on my budget about 4k a year that was unallocated. This is my total money to spend anything past paying all my bills. Now, in terms of income tax policy, raising my income tax is going to effect my economic viability a lot, raising someone’s who makes 250k is going to effect them less so (unless they have 15 kids or something) and raising someone’s who makes 1m is going to effect them even less. As you talk about higher incomes, you’re talking about fewer and fewer people, to the point where you’re talking about that top 400 people (I don’t know if its exactly 400 or not) that hold all the wealth. Giving them an income tax break isn’t going to do much in terms of increasing consumer spending or stimulating job growth, where on the bottom you’re upping an individual’s economic viability considerably.

    Now in terms of talking capital gains issues, here is my big problem. I hear over and over that you need wealth at the top to create the structures for people near the bottom to have wealth. A company needs to build a factory to give people jobs. The aforementioned big problem seems to me that it’s not happening anymore. In the interest of maximizing profits, a lot (not all, I know) of companies are moving their businesses overseas. We’ve all seen that since the 80s, and you know, growing up in the rust belt, its really really apparent (they call it that because of all the rusting plants, you know) So we have more and more Americans having to take Walmart jobs. Now this is one of the things that aggravates me. Jobs are not jobs. What we don’t have is that reinvestment from the top, we just have huge CEO bonuses and Chinese high-fiving over their success, which is arguably displaced American success.

    Now, going back to what Obama said he would try to do is encourage jobs to come back with tax credits, and isn’t raising the capital gains on small business. Realistically, I don’t see why say Microsoft or other huge companies can’t pay a higher tax, they aren’t really doing anything in terms of stimulating growth in America anyway.

    So that is really the problem I have in a nutshell, nothing seems to be trickling down and continuing to support that style of economics doesn’t seem to make any sense.

  26. knarlyknight Says:

    Sorry to hear about the job, but it sounds to me that you were under-employed because your comments here alone are worth more than 37 k p.a..

    I think your comments are valid, but would just like to add to your comments the concepts of the law of diminishing returns and the 80/20 rule.

    In a highly centrally planned and highly regulated socialist economy, introducing free market reforms and reducing tax rates on the rich will have tremendous benefits, providing many multiples benefits compared to the initial cost of making those changes.

    Under a fascist regime (perhaps “oligarchy” is a better term) where the rich and powerful people already benefit about as much as possible from the economic structure and the workers barely eke out their survival, all that giving the rich more – i.e. by reducing their taxes – will do is provide tiny positive effects on the economy relative to the larger initial costs of the measure.

    On the flip side, within the same kind of economy (i.e. in an oligarchy where a few people have enormous wealth and the masses are poor) if your were to take ing a piece of rich folks’ incomes and distribute it to the poor then that will generate enormous gains in the economy as increased spending in shops generates increased investment by the merchants and so on.

    The preceeding is not controversial. Here is where it gets controversial. It seems to me that there is a balance to be struck, and an economy whose structure sits somewhere in the “normal” zone, i.e. between 80% oligarchy / 20% socialism and 20% socialism / 80% oligarchy, can benefit from either approach: (a) trickle down economics or (b) more socialism, but the relative benefits of either solution depend on where the economy rests in relation to that 80/20 (or 20/80) cut-off.

    Trickle down economics can be argued to have worked in the 1980’s because the US economy was probable still operating within the “normal” zone. Since then however, I would argue that the USA has moved outside that zone to the point where giving more to the rich (tax breaks) only serves to enrich the rich further and has very minor if any benefits to add to the economy as a whole and does virtually nothing to add to the economic health of the society in general.

    We will all have different opinions about where America stands on the 80/20 scale, but given that CEO’s now have something like 500 times the earnings of an average worker (and 50 years ago it was about 20 times the average worker income) I would argue that giving more to the rich now is making matters worse and that anything to bring America back into the 80/20 zone will benefit the most people.

    Including, ironically, the rich; because, although oligarchs can insulate themselves from the crime and desperation of the poverty stricken and the environmental degradation as society cuts corners to make ends meet, there is a short term cost for such insulation and there are catastrophic long term risks to everyone from ultra extreme disparities in income.

  27. NorthernLite Says:

    Hi Jayson,

    I have actually gone through the same analysis has you have. My conclusion was this:

    If you look at the last 8 years that used the trickle down, give more tax breaks to the wealthy policies, what has been accomplished? The worst economic growth in American history.

    Then I took a look at the previous 8 years that used economic policies favouring the lower and middle classes. What was accomplished? The largest economic growth in American history.

    I realized that putting more money in the hands of millions of people works far better then putting it into the hands of only a few. When more people have money to buy things, they actually buy things, which increases business for companies, which provides them with more income to build more factories, grow their business, provide higher wages to their workers, etc.

    A historical analysis of economic policies supports this view as well. I think it’s been mentioned here before that markets and economies grow more – and more fairly – under progressive governments. This is at least true for Canada and the USA.

  28. shcb Says:


    I too am sorry to hear your plight, good luck and let me know if there is anything I can do to help. I know you’re hurting and want to blame someone, and that is natural, but in a few days you are going to have to dust yourself off and do something, it may even entail moving to a less depressed area or change professions.

    To the subject, I’m going to ease into this so I don’t put anyone off. To start with I agree with Knarly’s analysis pretty much. I even agree that CEO pay is way out of hand, but that is a matter best left out of government’s hands. I’ll stop there or that is all we will discuss. The only real gripe I have is that the rich are paying much more in taxes now than in the ‘80s. Here is the breakdown.

    Top 1% 1981 17.6% of tax burden, 2006 39.9%
    Top 5% 1981 35.1%, 2006 60.1%
    Top 10% 1981 48% 2006 70.8%
    Top 25% 1981 72.3% 2006 86.3%
    Top 50% 1981 92.6% 2006 97%
    Bottom 50% 1981 7.5% 2006 3%

    So that takes care of Knarley’s assertion, as to NL’s the Bush tax cuts helped the lower incomes more than the upper levels on a percentage basis. Now we as a society can decide who to tax how much but let’s get the facts straight, the rich pay more now than thirty years ago, by a bunch.

    You touched on many areas in your question, so many that they overlap into many areas, some of which aren’t relevant to your general question. First “trickle down economics” is a prerogative for supply side economics that is meant to pit the haves against the have nots. Detractors of capitalism paint it as the rich guy buys a new car and the little guy gets to polish it for him, but it really deals more with companies and corporations, which of course in some cases are owned by rich guys, in most they are owned by a whole bunch of little guys with 401k’s run by the afore mentioned over paid CEO.

    You are also mixing capital gains with companies moving offshore, I’m not sure why. Companies move manufacturing around for a variety of reasons with taxes being one. But that has more to do with corporate taxes, America has the second highest corporate taxes on earth, second only to Japan. Now those taxes are passed on to consumers but if a company can pay 17% in Ireland as opposed to 34% in America it gives them a competitive advantage as long as other factors don’t outweigh it. Another tax we have is a tax on monies companies make overseas and want to bring back into this country that is 40%, so they just leave the money over there, wherever over there is.

    You mentioned Obama doesn’t want to charge capital gains on small business. Small business doesn’t make a profit to tax. If you are a sub s or an LLC all your profits are transferred to your personal return, then he will apply capital gains there, smoke and mirrors. This is also where small business will get burned on the $250k limit for raising taxes. Suppose you have a small business and you have a really good November and December and take in orders with large down payments for say $400,000. That goes on your personal return and you get the hell taxed out of it, then the next year you only make $100,000 because you spent the bulk of the year building the product you received the $400k for. See how that works?

    You simply never get anywhere being vindictive with the tax structure.

  29. knarlyknight Says:

    First off, you needn’t have worried about easing into the subject in your 2nd paragraph so as not to put people off, as I for one was put-off by your first pararaph. You probably meant well, but Jayson doesn’t need your suggestions as to when to get back to work or where to find work – he’ll dust himself off whenever he wants or feels like he needs to do so. Your offer of help was sweet though, and from what I’ve come to know about you I’m sure it was sincere.

    Second, if you are going to address me directly, the least you can do is spell my name wrong. It’s k-n-a-r-l-y without an “e”. I realize convention would suggest it be spelled with an “e – y”, but it isn’t and misspelling is important, just ask Enk.

    Third, that was a cute breakdown but it did nothing to deal with that “Knarley” character’s assertion. The wealthiest are paying more taxes because they are so much more wealthy than before. It’s twisted logic and crocodile tears to suggest the rich are worse off now because they are covering a greater relative share of total taxes. That may be entirely apropriate considering the incomes and total assets of the richest relative to everyone else are surely at highs not seen since the 1920’s. Where’d you get your figures, off of the McCain campaign website?

    See figure 4., it shows that just prior to Bush’s feed the rich schemes made things even more lopsided, the richest 1% has the largest share of wealth since 1929. http://www.sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

    And the second chart here shows that real family income of the top 5% richest people has increased 81% from 1979 to 2005 while the bottom 20% actually fell by 1%. Shouldn’t they pay a greater share of the burden? Not if thier incomes are decreasing relative to the rich!

  30. shcb Says:


    My spelling is legionary and it seems I have passed the trait to my granddaughter, I used to call you KK, and liked that it was easier. My numbers come from the IRS. We’re going on a mini vacation today buy I’ll look into your figures when I get back. I know Jayson will be fine, I had a good friend who was laid off a few months before me give some similar advice and it really helped, I was just doing the same. I hope it didn’t come off as pretentious. If it did I apologize.

  31. knarlyknight Says:

    You might try knar, it’s got that Viking ring to it.

    If your numbers come from the IRS, I’d expect there to be corresponding income figures. Match the two up and you’ll see that the rich have done remarkably well under Bush while the poor have barely kept their grip or have dropped off the charts. (And the disparity in incomes will go into record terrritory when the 2008 / 2009 recession and $750 Billion + $200 Billion + $80 Billion investment bank bailout packages get added into the statistics.)

    Arguing about who makes the greatest relative share of contributions toward income tax revenues when there is such enormous and growing disparity in incomes is like a passage straight out of of a Charles Dickens novel. Unbelievable that Republicans are even putting that argument forward, makes me think that McCain is a reincarnation of one of the heartless characters in Dicken’s novels.

  32. enkidu Says:

    I usually go w knarls (a shout out to gnarls biggie)

    jayson, I am from the Cinci area and still have friends and family in the area. If there is anything we can do, networking wise, I’d be happy to help. I have contacts in the fields of IT, medical imaging and healthcare (some legal and gov, but more peripheral). If you are in that area, pass your email to jbc and he’ll pass it to me and I’ll do everything I possibly can.

    I am a small business owner. In the last month or so my business is down over 50%. This summer was the slowest I’ve seen it since post 9/11. Yes, we’ll be having layoffs here too if things don’t improve soon (which I don’t think they will, despite me hitting the bricks trying to drum up new biz). We’ve dipped into our savings several times just to avoid letting someone we love and care about go. These folks have families and mortgages and the works of course.

    This discussion of tax policy is interesting. But we need to be real folks: the rich have had enormous income and asset growth for decades, while the middle class is slowly sinking into oblivion. The poor are even worse off (dramatically so under bush). I’d gladly pay an additional 3% in income tax. Gladly. There are two wars going on and all the pretzelnitwit has asked us to just keep shopping (that worked for a while when credit was too cheap). Well I think the rich better suck it up and the loopholes should be closed on sending jobs, profits and innovation overseas. Taxes by their very nature are a form of ‘spreading the wealth around’. The military gets the lion’s share of non-entitlement spending (one could argue the military industrial complex is a entitlement, but we’ll leave that for another day).

    I would gladly pay 3% (hell make it 10%) more taxes if we could go back to the Clinton era economy where we had the longest, strongest economic growth in modern history. I was hiring people and saving for the future in those years. The Bush years have been spending that savings and trying not to fire people. Sadly I may not have that choice any more.

  33. shcb Says:


    For what it’s worth I looked into those income numbers. I don’t know where your link got its information, I looked on the Census Bureau and couldn’t find anything that matched so they must be compiling numbers from several sets of data, which isn’t uncommon. I found one that gave a similar trend line but nothing that showed any negative growth in the lower group and nothing that showed that kind of disparity, from 81 to 07 the lower group gained 115% and the upper 136%. If you use the Bush years, I picked 2003-2007, the line is flat, everyone gained the same. Using ’97 to ’07 there was a huge increase in the second fifth with everyone else kind of flat.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.