ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC Political Researcher



Oh-eight (D): New crush for ObamaGirl?

Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 9:05 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under:

Democrats “brandished their labor credentials and tried to outdo one another with political promises as they competed for the support of two powerful labor unions,” the SEIU (Service Employees International Union) and LIUNA (Labor International Union of North America). The SEIU may make its endorsement in October.

EDWARDS: Promising to be the "best union president in the history of the United States," Edwards received a warm reception yesterday from SEIU members as he took the stage at the end of the day, NBC’s Lauren Appelbaum reports. Edwards signs flooded the ballroom in the Hilton in Washington DC. An "Edwards" chant broke out seven times during Edwards' speech, with union members jumping to their feet and clapping loudly. At other times, cheers and applause drowned out what Edwards was trying to say.

Edwards did have a quieter moment, though. "All of you know about some of the challenges we faced in my family with Elizabeth," he said, recounting the day he and Elizabeth had to reexamine how they were going to live their lives after her cancer returned. "This is the cause of my life," Edwards continued, explaining why he decided to press on for the nomination. "Standing up for the men and women that you fight for everyday is what my life is about."

The AP adds that “Edwards told union activists … that his first act as president would be to introduce a law taking away health care from Congress, the vice president and the Cabinet in July 2009 if universal health care was not passed first.” 
 
Following his SEIU speech, Edwards sat down with NBC's Kevin Corke. On Clinton’s health-care plan, Edwards said: “Her plan substantively is very similar to mine … so I guess I should be flattered that it’s pretty close to a copy of mine. I did this in February a month or a month and a half after I announced my campaign.” More: “Senator Clinton would like to give drug companies and insurance companies and their lobbyists a seat at the table. I believe if you give them a seat at the table, they’ll eat all the food.” And: “We don’t have health care coverage today because of the drug companies, insurance companies and their lobbyists. And if negotiation and compromising with them would work, we would have had universal health care decades ago.”

OBAMA: Barack Obama today will put forward the first of a series of economic proposals that are designed to create a new financial safety net for Americans, NBC/NJ’s Aswini Anburajan notes. In a speech on his tax policy in DC, he will unveil a plan to modernize the tax code, so that it provides tax relief to more Americans, his campaign says.

The AP has the details: “Obama is proposing more than $80 billion in annual tax relief for workers and seniors funded by an increase on wealthier investors. Obama wants to give 150 million working Americans a $500 tax credit, expand relief for homeowners, eliminate income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 and simplify tax returns so millions of Americans can file in less than five minutes, according to a summary document provided by his campaign.”

Covering his economic speech on Wall Street yesterday, the New York Times says Obama “chastised Wall Street executives yesterday as failing to protect middle-class interests and called for increased federal oversight of credit rating agencies, including a government investigation. In an appearance at Nasdaq offices in Midtown Manhattan, Mr. Obama, a Democratic presidential candidate, praised America’s free-market impulse but lamented what he characterized as its recent toll on the middle class.”

The Boston Globe adds: “Obama invoked FDR's post-Depression leadership in calling for corporate reform, saying the mortgage lending crisis shows how the deck is stacked against American consumers.”

Obama’s campaign has been plagued by doubts about his inexperience in Washington, but the Chicago Tribune reports that he is backed by a policy team loaded with years of experience and grizzled policy pros. Campaign aides say “he has assembled a personal think tank that easily outsizes any of the established Washington policy institutes that provide intellectual fodder for the political war of ideas,” with 200 experts arranged into 20 subgroups, including former members of the Bill Clinton administration, to advise on foreign policy issues alone. On domestic issues, campaign aides say he has more than 500 policy experts contributing advice.

And it seems that Obama Girl has a new crush, the New York Times notes. “In a new video released today, Obama Girl (played by Amber Lee Ettinger) re-appears dancing and lip-syncing to a new song, ‘I Like a Boy,’ a tribute to members of the United States military.”

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

The way the democrats are going after the rich people, one has to wonder why any of the rich people would give to any democrat candidate?  If you tax the rich and blame the rich for everything, why would they invest in this country?  Why would they want to expand their business's and add jobs?  I'll bet anything if a democrat gets elected president and the libs take over congress totally and completely, you will see unemployment a year after the 2008 elections at 8% or higher.  With all the taxes and the new rules being added, sounds like the democrats are punishing the American public rather then helping them.
That economic speech was excellent.  Too bad Obama never gets the kind of coverage on his policy speeches that Hillary does everytime she sneezes.
One reason she is leading in the polls is that you guys and especially the cable news programs cover everything Hillary says and does like it's performing of miracles while Edwards and Obama are usually either ignored or criticized.
I'll bet the average voter has no idea about the health care plans Edwards and Obama put out MONTHS ago while Hillary, dragging her feet and reluctantly puts out a warmed over Edwards plan and calls it hers, is touted as the second coming.
Senator Obama has put out some of the most well thought out and detailed policy plans and the media totally ignores it.  
this morning C. Todd is upset because Obama did not spend his time on the Williams interview taking cheap shots at Hillary.  When are you going to understand that Obama is not going to behave like every other pol.
The republicans looks like idiots taking shots at democrats when they are running against each other.  and there are times and places to bash.
Obama trashed Hillary at the SEIU but, on a nightly news he is going to want to talk about his policy and not look petty taking cheap and easy shots.  
Maybe if your network would quit obsessing on Hillary and making it seem everything she does is walking on water and quit always finding reasons to put down or take swipes at the other two, the polls would reflect this.
The polls are only reflecting the coverage.  You give the impression of Hillary is god and Obama and Edwards are immature and foolish.

I'm just curious why there were no links to these articles ...or more talk about the SEIU was it because Obama out shone everyone?

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=09&year=2007&base_name=post_4955

POOR BILL RICHARDSON. Even after Obama left the stage here at the SEIU forum, the crowd continued chanting his name: "Oh-ba-ma! Oh-ba-ma!" Andy Stern had to get up and remind, "We have other candidates here. A lot of friends!"
In the ladies' room, a middle-aged white woman, hands clasped, exclaimed, "He is just so inspiring! He's gonna bring a change!"


• Here's Goldstein's previous blog entry during Obama's speech:
TOP-FORM OBAMA. Barack Obama is a natural in front of this crowd. He's shouting, they're standing, the room is roaring. He says he's walked on picket lines since his days as a community organizer after college, and that as president, if he hears workers rights are being compromised, "I'll have to find a comfortable pair of shoes."
He shouts, "I'm not new to this!" He imitates a candidate embracing labor for the first time: "Oh, you organize? The SEIU wears purple shirts?" Laughter. The implication is pretty clear: John Edwards, despite his work of recent years, doesn't have as long of a history with the SEIU. Now Obama's receiving another standing ovation as he criticizes Congressional Democrats for taking too much money from big business.
This speaking style is exciting. Obama sounds more like a civil rights leader today and a lot less like an overly cautious presidential candidate. He's doing call and response, and his one-liners are cutting... if you don't see this Obama, the Obama today completely at home rabble-rousing among labor activists, you can't comprehend the fervor some of his progressive supporters

BY LYNN SWEET Sun-Times Columnist

WASHINGTON -- White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) earned thunderous applause Monday speaking to Service Employees International Union political activists meeting here. He's facing an uphill fight to snag one of the nation's most prized labor endorsements.

...

...

SEIU members also gave standing ovations to Edwards and Clinton, though Obama's response was at an even higher pitch. Each rival has strong pockets of strengths in states with large SEIU memberships: Obama in Illinois, Clinton in New York and Edwards in California. Obama's team would rather the SEIU stay neutral than endorse a rival. Tom Balanoff, an influential SEIU vice president and president of the SEIU Illinois state council is lobbying for Obama.
diane, how dare you say immature and foolish and not include jerri
amen diane!
Especially in regards to foreign policy speeches Obama has provided over the last two months.
"one has to wonder why any of the rich people would give to any democrat candidate? "

Why is Warren Buffett, the third richest man in the world, raising money for the Democrats? Why is Wall Street swinging behind the Democrats? Perhaps these people realize that what makes America so strong is its meriotcracy. Buffett said doing away with the estate tax, as championed by the Republicans, would be like automatically awarding gold medals to the first born sons of past Olympic winners. The Republicans want the wealthy to accure more wealth through no effort of their own. The Democrats want to reward hard word and competence, not cronyism and party affiliation. Thats why the truly successful support the Democrats.
I really hope Obama wins because he is the best candidate for the job. We really need change in this country because my party the GOP have turned their backs on the middle class and he is the only hope this country has.
hillary and obama are both corporate owned entities, just as well vote for rudy the outcome will be the same, those same corporations own him as well.

edwards is the only one that backs up his words with action
I don't see how anyone can worry about Obama's inexperience when they were willing to vote for George Bush for President.  At least Obama has a modicum of intellect.  I don't think anyone could be as incompetent as this Administration has been, filling government posts with political hacks and cronies, and then blaming every miscue on either the other political party or the need to fight 'terrorists.'  This was supposed to be the 'corporate-type run government.  Truth of the matter is any CEO which had run his company into the red and made as many incompetent blunders as the President had, would be out of a job.  Of course, one similarity is true: when Bush leaves office he will go with an obscene benefits package that the average American citizen could only dream of.
Oh Rich Gossip, Jerry! Go Girl!

You go with your Girly Gossip!

Gossip more with me Jerry!
It's unclear to me why ANY UNION would endorse Hillary Clinton. Hillary's top advisor is Mark Penn, a union buster from the word go.

Remember (how could you forget?) Edward's haricut ? Couldn't read a story about Edwards without hearing about his haircut.

But, what about Hillary's top advisor, Mark Penn ?
Not a word about him. He's a union buster !!
It might be an appropriate topic when dicsuccing union endorsements. Not a word about him.

Thank you, First Read !!
I was sure the Repub's dirty tricks dept would get more mileage than this out of the $400 haircut. I guess his haircut don't generate that much attention alongside Bush's trillion dollar blunder. Huh? Get Rove back on this case. He can probably think of something, if they can get him pried loose from his inflatable woman. Try that with your Obamagirl.
Diane you must be new in politics the front runner is always attacked and always gets more news coverage.
Should Obama get a double digit lead over Hillary he would be the one in the limelight.
If Edwards can get congress to kill their health coverage maybe he can convince them to work for minimum wage, that should assure us all of a living wage.
jerri, hard as it is to believe, some rich people might actually love their country and want to give back after having received so much from the opportunities our country provides.  There is a long history of many rich people doing just that.
For those who doubt Obama's crossover appeal, he just got *Jerry from Texas* in his corner.  It really makes you think that if Obama is not the nominee in the general election, primary voters are hopeless and self-destructive idiots; there won't be another one like Obama in our lifetime.
Amy - The Republicans want the wealthy to accure more wealth through no effort of their own.

Really?  Will assume you are talking about investments.  So investing in [you pick] and risking it all, day in and day out, doesn't require effort?  Investments pay for the buildings people work in, the computers they use, the roads they travel on, and the cars they drive.  And, at last look, not only Republicans make investments.  Take the Clintons and the cattle futures market for an example.


Amy - The Democrats want to reward hard word and competence, not cronyism and party affiliation.

Oh, please.  Democrats reward hard work by taxing the living bejeeezus out of any one that has worked their way to success.  Successful people are also known as cash-cows to Democrats. And then, rather then let the offspring inherit any wealth while mom and/or dad were away from the family all those years building their business, the government throws a death tax of 50% on the grieving children. That is how Democrats reward all the hard work and competence required to build the wealth.
hard as it is to believe, some rich people might actually love their country and want to give back after having received so much from the opportunities our country provides.

--------------

Wouldn't you agree though that there is a difference in someone giving it back, and the government taking it back?

Does anyone have the numbers for how many people send the IRS more then they owe?
Don,

From the IRS's own website:

"... only total taxable estates and lifetime gifts that exceed $1,000,000 will actually have to pay tax.
(The Estate Tax.) In its current form, the estate tax only affects the wealthiest 2% of all Americans."

And its very interesting that men like Warren Buffett, who actually earned his wealth, wants his heirs to pay the Estate Tax.
I can hardly contain myself!  What is going on?  Why all this attention on Hillary Clinton?  Has anyone  broken down for the public the health plans of Barack Obama and John Edwards like they have for Hillary?  Please, please give the other candidates a break! I'm particularly impressed with the well thought out plans of Barack Obama, Health, Economic, Foreign Policy, etc. The public needs to know.  Come on, mainstream media, if you want some credibility, compare these plans fairly for the American people!
We all need to stop responding to the idiotic rants from folks like jerry.  After all, do we not currently have a Republican president, and are we just now not coming out of a decade plus of a Republican-ruled congress.

Yes, both of those situations sure have helped the economy of this country.  The president and the previously-in power Republicans have been selling this country out.

jerry's comments are evidence of a greater problem for the Republicans - no ideas, so let's blast the other guy/lady.  Sad and pathetic.
hmmm - didn't Greenspan just knock the Repubs and Bush for their irresponsible fiscal management?

Or, is he now a liberal too?
What's discouraging is that when I was volunteering for the Obama at the Minnesota State Fair, I had DEMOCRATS coming up to me and asking if I really thought the country is ready to elect a black president.  Needless to say, I found this really discouraging, especially in the wake of the Tenessee senate election.  Sadly, though I support Obama, I secretly fear that many whites will somehow lose their nerve to vote for the first black president when they reach the ballot box.  

I just hope America proves to me and a lot of other skeptical african americans that this fear is largely unfounded.
Obama is the ONLY one who has the ideas and judgment to be President.
He may not have all that bad experience of making mistakes like the other candidates, but he will have lots of time to do that after he gets elected.He makes people so excited that many have to go to the bathroom, and he has the best plan for health care, without a doubt, and no one can deny it. His charisma is shinier than Edwards' hair, prettier than Mitt Romney's wife and more colorful than Hillary's pants suit, and he's Bi-Racial! What more could you want?

He's even been a senator of a state, now he's a real senator and they make great Presidents, which is impossible to deny. He has a guy so smart with him now that nobody can pronounce his name, forget about spell it!
The MSM just doesn't tell you how people can't stop yelling when they see him, or how many people have to go to the bathroom, or about the guy who's name nobody can pronounce, or that he's the only one who can bring us together and he went to AFRICA! What more could you want?
He doesn't even wear a tie a lot of the time! His health care plan is the best and he was against the war before anyone else, go ahead and ask him and he will tell you!
He doesn't need a tie and he's not tied to the special interests or the past! Whatever you think about him, he thought of it first and you are just copying him!
ASK HIM! I dare you.
Kucinich IS much more smarter, has the best health care plan, which is impossible to deny, and the best diet too.
You don't see him wasting his money on an expensive suit or a professional haircut, because he knows what's important and he is the perfect weight for his height and at his age even! What more could you want?

He voted against the war when he was actually in the congress, and he's NEVER APOLOGIZED for it either, he voted against funding the war, in fact he voted against EVERYTHING(!) which is why you should vote for him!
His suit is shinier than Edward's hair, prettier than Mitt Romney's wife, and more inexpensive than anyone else's.
He doesn't even eat meat, for crying out loud and he has the best health care plan and his wife is even younger then  Fred Thompson's, even after you do the math! Nobody has more experience being against the war and everything else, a better diet, or a more conservative budget for campaign clothing.
He's got a website, a cool wife and eats his vegetables. You can call him when he's not too busy and he will even tell you himself. He also has recipes.
I always seem to come to the same problems with Democrats, and if someone can answer me how I could get over them, I might actually vote for more than the rare few.

First, I don't like a large amount of social welfare programs.  I hate to say it, but I'm a middle class citizen that has a job with health insurance.  Why should I pay for the uneducated and unemployed?  I believe in a most basic service of healthcare that provides needed service to public health risks.  I know it sounds cold hearted, but every time someone gets a sniffle, why do some have to go to the emergency room?  I don't.  Don’t get me wrong, I believe that there is a need for a basic health service in this country, the problem as I see it is that it is too expensive.

Second, I believe that money is better spent by the individuals in this country than by the government.  Yes, the rich get richer if we don’t tax them, but how do the rich get richer?  By investing it.  Low and behold, the company they just invested in is now able to hire 20 new people and expand!  Wow, so you’re telling me there’s 20 new jobs and they made 10% off their investment?  That’s 20 new people paying taxes, or at least more than they previously were (assuming they weren’t demoted).  While it isn’t a quick turn around of government funds, think of it as ‘investing in our economic superstructure’.

Third, I really don’t like being in Iraq, but I feel that if we aren’t pressing somewhere in the Middle East (an OBVIOUS region sensitive to Islamic Extremists), they’d be that much more keen to be pressing us here.  I do wish we would have waited until we had more international support, but let’s also be honest.  Every president in my lifetime has had the U.S. embroiled in some conflict outside of our borders where we had little business truly being, not that it wasn’t the morally right thing to do; Serbia & Mogadishu (Clinton), Panama & Iraq (Bush Sr.), Lebanon & Grenada (Reagan).  Obviously, some were more serious than others, but the point is, every president finds a war(-like) conflict somewhere.  I’m not opposed to it, but I’d like to get some benefit out of it.  While we may be making extremists more angry with us, at the same time, we may be building allies in THEIR backyard by rebuilding Iraq.  If a Democrat supported the war, I’d be considerate of them.

If someone can answer my three points/questions, and show me a Democrat that is open to those points, I’d compromise and consider other, more minor differences with them.   Until then, I keep finding myself voting Republican or Libertarian.
Another great post Amy B. People who love money for money itself apparently go back to biblical times, and Jerrie seems to think Obama would be easy to beat like they did it to Harold Ford in the 04 election.
Amy - it doesn't take much to get to million when you own your own business.  2%, 20%, or 100%, Democrats want that money when you checkout.  They think it's their's.

Your argument that the Democrats are so pious really rings hollow.

Though they smile and tell us all of us our brothers, never was it true this side of Jordan.
hmmm - didn't Greenspan just knock the Repubs and Bush for their irresponsible fiscal management?

Or, is he now a liberal too?


No.  Just someone with Alzheimers.
blah blah blah hillary blah blah blah obama, People the election is stil a YEAR away, The new obama girl video however is worthy of discussion.  She took her five minutes and she built on it and did something positive, and non-partisian. Good for her I'm backing OBAMA GIRL in 08, she is better than anything the dems or republicans are offering.
Amy.

Just a small amendment.  Under present law, for tax years 07 and 08, I believe 2 million is the estate tax limit and if Dad/Mom or Grand Dad/Grand Mom can last til 09, the number for estate tax exemption rises to 3.5 million.  The 1 million is the current lifetime number for gifting with a 12,000 bucks/year limit to individuals without paying gift tax.

I consider that a person with 2 million is rich and 3.5 even richer. With skyrocketing real estate prices, personally the previous 1 million estate limit didn't bother me that much.  Seems to me the rich are doing quite well under current law, pretty generous at 2 million and and seemingly too generous at 3.5, without any need to eliminate the estate tax.

I'm shocked at how ignorant most Republicans are about the limits.  Virtually all of the middle class ones I know are initially lockstep and regurgitate the party line on "eliminate the unfair death tax" until I tell them what the actual limits are. Boy do they change their tune.  Less than 1% would be taxed at 3.5 and probably even at 2, I believe even among Republicans.

I wonder if Don belongs to that minute number of people, that is grieving children, who would get at least 2 million free/soon to be 3.5 and pay tax on the rest. Plus whatever can be gifted to kids, their wives/husbands, grandkids and other assorted favored relatives, up to a million. Guess he aspires to be one of the idle rich.  I think I could get along quite well on either number.  

In any event, under the great tax reform/rape by Reagan, much of this nation's wealth is already allowed to be sheltered by trust and other devices. That wealth will never see the light of day on an estate tax form.  It's all a shell game and the middle class/upper middle class Republicans are biting on it like bass on a dragonfly.  Talk about brainwashed.

If you get stuck by estate taxes, Don, your family or any other, is either filthy rich, you aren't paying your tax accountant/attorney enough, or they need to be fired.
Brad / #1, your currently paying for those unnecessary visits by the un-insured now through taxes, would it not be cheaper to insure those people so they could go to a private practice instead of the emergency room?

#2, companies used to invest the money they made in the u.s. creating jobs for american workers, now they send that money out of the country to invest in they're "economic superstructure" while americans are put out of jobs, which by the way is a contributing factor in the insurance problem, no job, no insurance.
so yes the rich get richer and contribute nothing to the u.s.

#3, we are in the wrong country if our intent was fighting islamic extremists, actually when saddam was in power he done a good job of killing off the same extremist you think we should be fighting.
you may want to see some kind of return on your investmate in iraq, but you never will, we are fundamentally a different culture, they never liked us and never will thinking otherwise is foolish
Don, The working and middle class provide most of the soldiers who protect our great country. I think we can ask the top wealthiest 2% of the country to pay a tax when they inherit their fortunes.

The repeal of the estate tax would have the effect of creating a permanent aristocracy of the wealthiest. I honestly don't see how that could be good for America.

Brad,
If I could take a quick stab at your points:

First, Not everyone is fortunate enough to have a job to provide them health care or even fortunate enough to have the opportunity to be educated. Should the fortunate just shun those who can't provide care for their families? Should we expect the general public to willingly donate to private insurance companies that help the uninsured because you think money is better spent by the people than the government? I will concede that there are some people who abuse the system but lets not punish those who need it. And the current health care system in this country isn't working well for the people as it is.

Second, I don't trust the general middle class public to save their money and invest it for their future. People are spending their tax cuts at Walmart and on four wheelers. But their tax cuts can't pay for everything they want so they run their credit cards up.

Third, none of those were unilateral, full scale military confilts. The major problem for me with Iraq is that it was the unilateral invasion of another country who had never attacked us and posed no threats to us....with or without WMDs. The world is not ours to remake in our vision.
Brad-

"Why should I pay for the uneducated and unemployed?"  

If you think that those are who the 47 MILLION uninsured are, you should read a newspaper. Did you know that more than ONE HALF of all bankruptcies are health related now, or that the uninsured rack up HUNDREDS of millions of dollars of expenses in emergency rooms, and that you PAY for all of that with your middle-class taxes?

"Second, I believe that money is better spent by the individuals in this country than by the government." See above.
The largest entitlement program in the last fifty years was passed by your republican congress and president (the Medicare drug act) so it's a wonder that you voted for them in 2004.

Perhaps you would prefer privatized national defense, trash pick-up, police, fire, and highway and infrastructure maintenance too. Imagine how much more money would be in your pocket. Of course, you may not be able to walk out your own door...
There are some things that a central government does much better than the private sector, and those are the primary things worth paying for. There are many countries where the populace would love to have the chance to pay taxes for the services, safety and security we have here.
"
Third, I really don’t like being in Iraq, but I feel that if we aren’t pressing somewhere in the Middle East (an OBVIOUS region sensitive to Islamic Extremists), they’d be that much more keen to be pressing us here."..."If a Democrat supported the war, I’d be considerate of them."

I can't help you on this one. We are occupying a foreign country at a cost of 2 billion dollars a week and the guy in charge told John Warner, a Republican, that he couldn't say if our efforts over there were making us safer over here, so your feelings aren't tethered to any objective reality yet it's one that many republicans buy into.
A democrat does support the war. His name is Joe Lieberman, and he is also keen on invading Iran, if that helps. He isn't running this time.

Democrats, in general, support the concept of universal health care,  believe in a strong central government, and oppose the Iraq war and there is little compromise there. Who's running on the libertarian line in '08?


More straw man arguments from you Amy.  Now you got who supplies soldiers added to the mix.  More "yeah buts" then one can count.

Couple of things:

The top earners in this country pay well over 50% of the income taxes today.

Repeal of the death tax wouldn't even show up as blip at the IRS the amount is so little.

The tax code should not be used for social engineering.

And now back to this:

Amy - The Democrats want to reward hard word and competence, not cronyism and party affiliation.

And how is taking 50% of what someone earned a reward for their hard work?
The republicans who profess to have God on their side seem to have never read Matthew where Jesus told the rich man to go and sell all of his belongings give the money to the poor and pick up the cross and follow me. Also it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man get into heaven. I have heard more phony explanations for that than Carter (no not Jimmy) has liver pills. This sounds like the ravings of a bleeding heart liberal doesn't it?
I'm kind of bouncing around a bit, so please forgive the topic and response jumping...

First, I'll comment back to Jeff from Portland on his response to my second point.  He said that he believes the middle class will spend their saved tax money at walmart and buying four wheelers.  My response is that is fine as well.  It still puts the money back into the economy, because those products at Walmart have to be made (likely in China, but some in the U.S.) providing jobs, shipped to the store providing jobs regardless of where they are made, and sold by employees working at the store.  Granted, Walmart is one of the more, without sounding too anti-Walmart, greedy and 'thrifty'.  Not exactly pro-Walmart, but that's capitalism at its worst.  They will buy things at other places too, maybe going out to eat dinner more often, anything.  Consumerism drives America, and that pushes the economy.

I will say that on my third point to everyone, since most everyone has responded in similar ways, that Iraq was rushed.  We did go in on incorrect assumptions.  HOWEVER, there is no doubt that Saddam had made genocidal actions that rivalled Slobodan Milošević, the reason Clinton went to Kosovo.  I find it hard to believe that everyone would have honestly wanted Saddam (and more particularly his sons) to remain in power in Iraq.

George, you are correct in the I spoke a bit harshly of those who are uninsured.  I myself have not always been insured, nor do I have a college education.  I am currently attending college while working a full-time job.  So I say this, believing that getting the government involved will fix the problem is naivete at its best.  The government sponsored programs are likely to cause more paperwork than we already have.  As Hillary says, no new beuracracies will be created.  Does that mean she intends to add to the workload of another?  No new group, an old group will just grow larger.  A universal health care sounds great, but that money will have to come from somewhere.

The health care system is broke.  There's no easy fix.  Saying Universal Healthcare sounds like a magic word to fix it, but it just transfers who the blame of who messed up what.  I don't think that a wasteful government will save us all that much money.
Don,

Guess you missed my post above.  Why are you so keen on repealing a tax that affects so few and leaves a huge reservoir of untapped wealth as alluded to in my post.

After what Reagan did to create shelters for much of the wealth of this country, what must be paid in estate taxes is paltry.

You don't think there are enough lifetime devices that favor the rich?  You think a hardship is created or there is unfairness against anyone involved in a 2 million to 3.5 million estate in conjunction with the 1 million gift exemption, that is well able to legally defend themselves.  That's why anyone who has that much money engages in, believe it or not, estate planning. If they don't, they are morons and they and their heirs deserve the consequences.

You defend the 1 to 2% who have the means to ably defend themselves. I vote for the other 98 to 99% that
have little defense against a governmental system that protects the wealthiest among us.


Brad writes: "The health care system is broke.  There's no easy fix.  Saying Universal Healthcare sounds like a magic word to fix it, but it just transfers who the blame of who messed up what.  I don't think that a wasteful government will save us all that much money."

Exactly right.  I do question a wee bit with the "broken" part.  Health care needs to be improved, but the overall structure is sound.  But I digress . . . .
"The way the democrats are going after the rich people"

Is only fair after what Republicans did to the rest of us.  What about the majority of the people in this country?

Don't think that we will lose all our jobs and everything else if taxes go up for the rich.  What do you think they are going to do?  Just put their money in a regular savings account!  HA HA HA HA HA

I find it very interesting that in the first message posted, Jerry from Corpus Christi

The way the democrats are going after the rich people, one has to wonder why any of the rich people would give to any democrat candidate?  If you tax the rich and blame the rich for everything, why would they invest in this country?  Why would they want to expand their business's and add jobs?  I'll bet anything if a democrat gets elected president and the libs take over congress totally and completely, you will see unemployment a year after the 2008 elections at 8% or higher.  

With the damage that the current criminadminstration has done, that would probably be an economic miracle.  Why do I believe that he was declaring the recession at the beginning of Bush's first term was "inherited from Clinton", yet he would blame the Democrat in 2009 as if Bush's plundering of America didn't occur?
"The top earners in this country pay well over 50% of the income taxes today." When they asked Willie Sutton why he robbed banks he said "thats where the money is." Do you really expect tray aides in nursing homes and the guys who hold up caution signs at road construction sites to somehow contribute as many tax dollars to the kitty as hedge fund managers and professional ball players? If janitors pay as much money in taxes as the CEO's of the copany, what will the janitors have left to live on?

"The tax code should not be used for social engineering." Even the poorest nations on earth have a thin band of wealthy people at the top who live better than you do. The more resources concentrated
in the hands of the smallest percentage of the population, the weaker that nation is overall.

"Repeal of the death tax wouldn't even show up as blip at the IRS the amount is so little. " The estate tax brings about 30 billion into the tax coffers. Maybe thats a blip to you, but the way the Republicans have spent money the past six years, we need ever cent we can get. How many trillions spent on Iraq? And how long will we be there?

Sounds like Obama got a better reception than Edwards: "SEIU's members are temperamentally suited to Obama; he is a longtime friend of Chicago's SEIU Local 880 and worked closely with the union as an organizer and later as a state legislator.

Obama entered the ballroom to cheers, but he left to a sustained chorus of chants: “Obama!, Obama!” The SEIU president, Andy Stern, had to calm his members: ““Everybody take your seats, please. We have other candidates.”
from Atlantic Online

LITTLE j is as usual so far off his meds that he will perish into permanent oblivion.
The stock market and everyone else do MUCH better under a Democratic President. Keep the faith people life will be better when the mafia-admiistration is put out on the melting ice floe's.
Amy - Then what you are saying is your statement is not true?

  Amy - The Democrats want to reward hard word and competence, not cronyism and party affiliation.

Don,

I see you take issue with the idea that Republicans are now the party of cronyism and incompetence. You'd like to believe they represent free market ideals and personal initiative and responsibilty.

I can understand your wanting to believe that, but it is no longer true, as evidenced by the Republicans' policies the last six years. Don't get me going on no bid contracts and how the Bush administration punished civil servants who blew the whistle on government fraud. Under the guise of "privatising" services, the Bushies overspent billions of dollars in Iraq out sourcing support services traditionally done by the military, to private companies. I call that incompetence and cronyism.

The income gap now between the super wealthy and the merely rich is unprecedented, and indicative to me of policies set up to facilitate the transfer of wealth to a small group of people.

And yes, I think its important to realize that most of our military are drawn from working and middle class families. Alot of people signed up for the National Guard to supplement their families's income. I don't consider that a "straw man" argument because your defense of the repeal of the estate tax suggests you think the ability of a few to accumulate great wealth is what makes America strong. I disagree. How wealthy were the firefighters who rushed into the World Trade Towers to save people? How wealthy are the soldiers Bush sent to Iraq? How wealthy are the CNA's who care for your aged parents, or the child care workers who nurture our future? I am not a socialist or a communist but neither am I a royalist. It is not the American way to kow tow to the rich and disparage the lives of working people.  
Why do you have the same name as me.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=365831

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google