Now the truth (starts to) comes out on Obama

[Sister Fracas 5]

[Peikko 1,575]

Perhaps you can ask your teacher associates who objects to Christian celebrations. When I look at that, those that self-identify as atheists merely pulled their kids out of any school-sanctioned activities. Most parents would care less.

Now those parents that raised objections to the celebration of particular religious holidays did so out of fear of indoctrination of religious doctrine of their children. Parents that subscribed to differing religious views. Not atheists.

Kind of silly since most public school curricula do not have in place religious teaching as a method of indoctrination. But certain sectors of society who hold firm religious beliefs seem to think that their religious doctrine is the one of choice to impose on the rest of society. Which is why we have laws to separate church and state.

It is called inclusion and teaching kids to be tolerant of others beliefs and differences. Indoctrination is far fetched and simply paranoid propaganda. Like the government is out to get me because of the Patriot Act. If America was the highest ranked country in terms of living standards and so forth I would say fair enough. You guys are right the rest of the world is wrong. But you guys are not. Far from it actually. So one has to look at the American society, system of government and constitution and then compare it to those who are kicking ### and ask what is the difference. The difference is quite clear. Tolerance, Morality and civility have gone out the window here. As has looking out for one another. This has been replaced with the I am not going to be like my parents f--k em! attitude. Do as one pleases, live for the moment, #### your way to the top, spend your way to happiness, kill or be killed 3rd world behavior.

Look at the streets of Chicago. Is this Sudan where murders are so common that people don't even bother calling the cops? Clearly another Epic Fail. Thanks for the saying SVRT..

I don't live in the same America that you do, period.

[HAL 9000 96]

Perhaps you can ask your teacher associates who objects to Christian celebrations. When I look at that, those that self-identify as atheists merely pulled their kids out of any school-sanctioned activities. Most parents would care less.

Now those parents that raised objections to the celebration of particular religious holidays did so out of fear of indoctrination of religious doctrine of their children. Parents that subscribed to differing religious views. Not atheists.

Kind of silly since most public school curricula do not have in place religious teaching as a method of indoctrination. But certain sectors of society who hold firm religious beliefs seem to think that their religious doctrine is the one of choice to impose on the rest of society. Which is why we have laws to separate church and state.

It is called inclusion and teaching kids to be tolerant of others beliefs and differences. Indoctrination is far fetched and simply paranoid propaganda. Like the government is out to get me because of the Patriot Act. If America was the highest ranked country in terms of living standards and so forth I would say fair enough. You guys are right the rest of the world is wrong. But you guys are not. Far from it actually. So one has to look at the American society, system of government and constitution and then compare it to those who are kicking ### and ask what is the difference. The difference is quite clear. Tolerance, Morality and civility have gone out the window here. As has looking out for one another. This has been replaced with the I am not going to be like my parents f--k em! attitude. Do as one pleases, live for the moment, #### your way to the top, spend your way to happiness, kill or be killed 3rd world behavior.

Look at the streets of Chicago. Is this Sudan where murders are so common that people don't even bother calling the cops? Clearly another Epic Fail. Thanks for the saying SVRT..

Absolutely- inclusionary teaching methodologies do start at home.

To be honest... the underlined above is not as simple as finding one cause though. Selfishness is and has been inherent in our self-gratifying society for quite some time. And is more universal than in just one country.

As for the Hudson case... totally sad. I do think that this is the proper place for that tangent- I think it is ridiculous to have an Oscar winner keep her family in Englewood of all places. BUT, and here's a big one. Some people have a sense of home that all the money in the world doesn't replace. As for the neighbors... not calling the police... is sickening. And commonplace in a neighborhood like Englewood where not even suburbanites go to for their smack.

[Heracles 417]

I don't live in the same America that you do, period.

Ph I don't think we live on the same planet. let alone reality.

[Heracles 417]

Absolutely- inclusionary teaching methodologies do start at home.

To be honest... the underlined above is not as simple as finding one cause though. Selfishness is and has been inherent in our self-gratifying society for quite some time. And is more universal than in just one country.

As for the Hudson case... totally sad. I do think that this is the proper place for that tangent- I think it is ridiculous to have an Oscar winner keep her family in Englewood of all places. BUT, and here's a big one. Some people have a sense of home that all the money in the world doesn't replace. As for the neighbors... not calling the police... is sickening. And commonplace in a neighborhood like Englewood where not even suburbanites go to for their smack.

I will say this though, Obama does seem to be the kind of guy who gets that responsibility and education begins at home. Schools are there to teach culture, maths science, English etc.

Not how to behave and function as a normal human being. If it needs to be taught because people no longer get it, then so be it. I consider this an investment.

Edited October 27, 2008 by Aficionado

[Peikko 1,575]

Absolutely- inclusionary teaching methodologies do start at home.

To be honest... the underlined above is not as simple as finding one cause though. Selfishness is and has been inherent in our self-gratifying society for quite some time. And is more universal than in just one country.

As for the Hudson case... totally sad. I do think that this is the proper place for that tangent- I think it is ridiculous to have an Oscar winner keep her family in Englewood of all places. BUT, and here's a big one. Some people have a sense of home that all the money in the world doesn't replace. As for the neighbors... not calling the police... is sickening. And commonplace in a neighborhood like Englewood where not even suburbanites go to for their smack.

I will say this though, Obama does seem to be the kind of guy who gets that responsibility and education begins at home. Schools are there to teach culture, maths science, English etc.

Not how to behave and function as a normal human being. If it needs to be taught because people no longer get it, then so be it. I consider this an investment.

See, some of the time you are totally zoned into reality. This is one of those times.

[mawilson 2,133]

His campaign has run from the label of wanting to "redistribute wealth".

36% tax = capitalism

39% tax = socialism / wealth redistribution?

[HAL 9000 96]

Absolutely- inclusionary teaching methodologies do start at home.

To be honest... the underlined above is not as simple as finding one cause though. Selfishness is and has been inherent in our self-gratifying society for quite some time. And is more universal than in just one country.

As for the Hudson case... totally sad. I do think that this is the proper place for that tangent- I think it is ridiculous to have an Oscar winner keep her family in Englewood of all places. BUT, and here's a big one. Some people have a sense of home that all the money in the world doesn't replace. As for the neighbors... not calling the police... is sickening. And commonplace in a neighborhood like Englewood where not even suburbanites go to for their smack.

I will say this though, Obama does seem to be the kind of guy who gets that responsibility and education begins at home. Schools are there to teach culture, maths science, English etc.

Not how to behave and function as a normal human being. If it needs to be taught because people no longer get it, then so be it. I consider this an investment.

He's publicly stated the opposite of what you just said. Its a pretty big part of his campaign on education reform.

And THAT, exactly THAT, is where behavior modification comes into play. Where its legal and criminal, involve law enforcement. Where its psychological and or developmental, involve mental health services and develpmental education do their job. Where its clearly a lack of substantial home values, involve social services. When its a lack of classroom management, involve effective teaching strategies or get better trained teachers.

His campaign has run from the label of wanting to "redistribute wealth".

36% tax = capitalism

39% tax = socialism / wealth redistribution?

Imagine 42% tax = communism!

[rclouse 0]

His campaign has run from the label of wanting to "redistribute wealth".

36% tax = capitalism

39% tax = socialism / wealth redistribution?

They're grasping at straws. The polls show either a clear win for Obama, or perhaps even a landslide. All they've got left is fear, and since Republicans are so adept at playing that hand, that's what we're gonna get for the last week.

It'll be so nice to have a smart President!

[IAMX 3,055]

Too much of a conservative nutjob video to take seriously. Some of us are beyond falling for the unintelligent rants of anti-socialist McCarthy'ist morons.

Edited October 27, 2008 by SRVT

[Danno 1,228]

His campaign has run from the label of wanting to "redistribute wealth".

Is Obama really a socialist leaning kinda guy?

Listen to another unearthed recording of Obama discussing...not "if" we should have been redistributing the wealth.. but how to go about it.... in a radio interview.

In fact he calls it a TRAGEDY THAT 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' NOT PURSUED BY SUPREME COURT .

I have always said, Obama is a nice guy but way to liberal for me.

Danno, read here on Reagan's tax policies and you'll realize that your argument that Obama's tax proposal is socialism is silly. The truth is in the facts right there.

Example: On the Earned Income Tax Credit: Ronald Reagan heralded it as "the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress."

The problem with reading "your stuff" is; so often the facts are just wrong, wrong wrong.

in another post you claimed Reagan was the master behind the Earned income credit.

( I thought it was Bush 1), when I checked, I found it was first enacted in 1975, half a decade before Reagan was even in office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Credit

[HAL 9000 96]

History of the credit

The earned income credit grew out of the welfare reform efforts of the early 1970s (Forman 1988: 45-58). The credit was originally added to the Internal Revenue Code by the Tax Reduction Act of 1975. Over the years, the credit has been expanded, and it is now one of the principal antipoverty programs in the federal budget.

As originally adopted in 1975, the earned income tax credit was intended to offset the Social Security taxes of low-income workers with children and to provide those taxpayers with an increased incentive to work. An eligible taxpayer could claim a refundable credit equal to 10 percent of the taxpayer's earned income for the taxable year, which did not exceed $4,000 (a maximum credit of $400). That $400 maximum credit was reduced one dollar for each 10 dollars of income in excess of $4,000. Thus, the credit was completely phased out at an income level of $8,000. As enacted, the original earned income tax credit was available to taxpayers only for calendar year 1975.

Subsequent revenue acts extended the credit, and it was made a permanent part of the Internal Revenue Code by the Revenue Act of 1978. The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 increased the maximum amount of the earned income tax credit and renumbered it to its current location in the Internal Revenue Code (U.S. Code, Title 26, Section 32). The credit was expanded significantly by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, and it has been indexed for inflation since 1987. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 also expanded the credit and added a supplemental credit amount for families with two or more children.

Link.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

His campaign has run from the label of wanting to "redistribute wealth".

Is Obama really a socialist leaning kinda guy?

Listen to another unearthed recording of Obama discussing...not "if" we should have been redistributing the wealth.. but how to go about it.... in a radio interview.

In fact he calls it a TRAGEDY THAT 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' NOT PURSUED BY SUPREME COURT .

I have always said, Obama is a nice guy but way to liberal for me.

Danno, read here on Reagan's tax policies and you'll realize that your argument that Obama's tax proposal is socialism is silly. The truth is in the facts right there.

Example: On the Earned Income Tax Credit: Ronald Reagan heralded it as "the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress."

The problem with reading "your stuff" is; so often the facts are just wrong, wrong wrong.

in another post you claimed Reagan was the master behind the Earned income credit.

( I thought it was Bush 1), when I checked, I found it was first enacted in 1975, half a decade before Reagan was even in office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Credit

It existed before Reagan was in office, true, but don't ignore the forest for the trees here, Danno...the fact is that Reagan beefed up the EIC and called it, "the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress."

Seriously, look into the cold hard facts of Reagan's legacy and you will see that comparatively - he was just as much a socialist as Obama is being...by your logic. Now granted, it's silly logic, and that's my point. We can go on and on with this...as long as the GOP and McCain's Camp keep up this silly claim, I'll keep bringing up the naughty facts about Reagan and even McCain himself with regard to both of their attitudes towards 'redistribution of wealth' programs like progressive tax and EIC.

You can start here (Lew Rockwell)...An anti-state/pro-market site on the net run by the president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Edited October 27, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[HAL 9000 96]

History of the credit

The earned income credit grew out of the welfare reform efforts of the early 1970s (Forman 1988: 45-58). The credit was originally added to the Internal Revenue Code by the Tax Reduction Act of 1975. Over the years, the credit has been expanded, and it is now one of the principal antipoverty programs in the federal budget.

As originally adopted in 1975, the earned income tax credit was intended to offset the Social Security taxes of low-income workers with children and to provide those taxpayers with an increased incentive to work. An eligible taxpayer could claim a refundable credit equal to 10 percent of the taxpayer's earned income for the taxable year, which did not exceed $4,000 (a maximum credit of $400). That $400 maximum credit was reduced one dollar for each 10 dollars of income in excess of $4,000. Thus, the credit was completely phased out at an income level of $8,000. As enacted, the original earned income tax credit was available to taxpayers only for calendar year 1975.

Subsequent revenue acts extended the credit, and it was made a permanent part of the Internal Revenue Code by the Revenue Act of 1978. The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 increased the maximum amount of the earned income tax credit and renumbered it to its current location in the Internal Revenue Code (U.S. Code, Title 26, Section 32). The credit was expanded significantly by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, and it has been indexed for inflation since 1987. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 also expanded the credit and added a supplemental credit amount for families with two or more children.

Link.

In support of Jabber's very correct observation about Reagan's influence over the EIC. Bump and Bold.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

History of the credit

The earned income credit grew out of the welfare reform efforts of the early 1970s (Forman 1988: 45-58). The credit was originally added to the Internal Revenue Code by the Tax Reduction Act of 1975. Over the years, the credit has been expanded, and it is now one of the principal antipoverty programs in the federal budget.

As originally adopted in 1975, the earned income tax credit was intended to offset the Social Security taxes of low-income workers with children and to provide those taxpayers with an increased incentive to work. An eligible taxpayer could claim a refundable credit equal to 10 percent of the taxpayer's earned income for the taxable year, which did not exceed $4,000 (a maximum credit of $400). That $400 maximum credit was reduced one dollar for each 10 dollars of income in excess of $4,000. Thus, the credit was completely phased out at an income level of $8,000. As enacted, the original earned income tax credit was available to taxpayers only for calendar year 1975.

Subsequent revenue acts extended the credit, and it was made a permanent part of the Internal Revenue Code by the Revenue Act of 1978. The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 increased the maximum amount of the earned income tax credit and renumbered it to its current location in the Internal Revenue Code (U.S. Code, Title 26, Section 32). The credit was expanded significantly by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, and it has been indexed for inflation since 1987. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 also expanded the credit and added a supplemental credit amount for families with two or more children.

Link.

In support of Jabber's very correct observation about Reagan's influence over the EIC. Bump and Bold.

Hal, if it doesn't have a picture of the 'ol Gipper next to it or doesn't mention his name, then they won't hear you.