http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/22/AR2006102200220. html

OK. Really. I have to be missing something here. Or maybe I am just not giving Herb some kind of benefit of the doubt.

Herb, are you saying this this is GOOD news for Democrats or BAD news?

We will have a choice, possibly? Is that what the article is saying?

How is that bad for Democrats? Or are you even saying that it is bad. You usually are saying that - so I guess I'm making an incorrect assuption. But clear this one up for me. Maybe you are saying " SWEET! I will vote for one of these people! "

Wow! We'll have a CHOICE! Yayyyy! Choices!

"Wow! We'll have a CHOICE! Yayyyy! Choices!"

As Mrs. Clinton would say "Not so fast."

First comes the democrat battle royal.

We'll see who escapes the least crippled to run in '08.

Given the extremely high negative numbers Mrs. Clinton has earned, it will be a very brutal battle, indeed.

Herb

I'll be it won't be as brutal as the GOP nomination process. You bring up an issue as if it's unique to Democrats, yet Republicans face the same issue. Nice going, you're a regular genius.

We'll see the democrats debate the abortion issue.

Now that there are social conservatives to contend with within their party, this should be VERY interesting.

Mrs. Clinton is STILL disliked in many democrat circles because she voted for the Bush administration's policies on Iraq.

Try finessing that one in '08 with the Michael Moore crowd.

Herb

The Dems are gonna let this lie for the time being. There are more pressing issues to address first.

Abortion, flag burning and the three G's are divisive distractions that harm all of us, if persued before putting the matters that affect us all more directly in order first.

Let's clean up the democracy, undo Bush power grab legislation that trashes the bill of rights and limits our ability to actually prosecute potential terrorists, get health care running in a sane manner more Americans can afford, put the minimum wage in line with actual work value, make sure our medical research is permitted and ethical and address the growing body of corporate written legislation that is anti-citizen in a lot of ways.

Having done that, a debate on the other divisive matters is perfectly appropriate.

"The Dems are gonna let this lie for the time being. Abortion, flag burning and the three G's are divisive distractions that harm all of us, if persued before putting the matters that affect us all more directly in order first."

Yeah, like protecting innocent human life is a back-burner issue.

But you're correct about one thing: Were I to support the right for a woman to kill the unborn, I'd want to side-step it too.

Herb

Actually, protecting life is a biggie. However we really should pay some attention to the lives already known viable and suffering before we let everything go to crap over those unborn and not known viable.

Like I said, it's a damn good thing you are in the minority view right now. The clear majority of Americans prefer to address the issues that really matter right now in the order they really matter.

The only ones tooting the horn you are, are those divisive, legislate morality types, that have essentially pissed everyone else off.

That's why we saw a sweep this last election.

If your view was more in line with the reality we face today, we would have not seen that sweep.

I clearly remember you talking up the fact that Democrats (you called them the left) can't win elections because they don't support the values most important to Americans.

Looks like you missed that one huge Herb. Kind of takes most of the bite outta your bark doesn't it?

Unlike the extreme right wing, no Democratic candidates are going to make a platform out of making abortion illegal, no matter what their stance on the issue. But, I do look forward to how the GOP will handle pro-choice Republicans like Rudy G.

A majority of Americans believe abortion should continue to be safe, legal, and rare. If you don't believe this, then please move to a third world country like Nicaragua where you can revel in your anti-abortion stance and suck in all that third world country thinking will provide you.

"That's why we saw a sweep this last election."

Right.

51-49 if you count Mr. Lieberman.

Hardly a sweep. More like a typical mid-term giveback.

Herb

The GOP lost 2 out of the 3 branches of goverment. A sweep by the demos.

So marginal as to be a joke.

Good luck getting anything through without Republican support.

You need 60.

Herb

Am I the only one here enjoying Herb's constant paddling up that river in Egypt?

Andrew

Oh man, it's been a long time coming.

Pass the Popcorn please!

Ha, Herb is sore than NOTHING can get done without the Democrats approval.

Gridlock.

Bring it on!

Herbert Milhous

Gridlock will make things worse for the GOP, because they will appear to be obstructionists.

Oh, you mean like the democrats?

At least the Republicans might save a few babies and the unborn.

Herb

LOL!!!

The difference is Democrats blocking piss poor leadership. Now it's piss poor leadership blocking a clear referendum for change from the American people.

Bush looks like an ass either way.

LOOKS like an ass? He IS an ass.

Herb said>>>
Hardly a sweep. More like a typical mid-term giveback.

LOL! After what 14 years of neo-CONer suckbags holding the MAJORITY of the Senate...

Totally Skep.

Consider me duly corrected!

Gotta give credit where due. Herb totally knows how to use just the right phrase to Pimp and Crimp™ all in one nice package!

I've learned from democrats, the masters of the Bash N' Dash™ [by Ronco].

Herbert M.

Nobody's the Master of that more than you, Herb!

Andrew

I've been taught well.

Herb

Started with Reagan and went into GDUHbya's regin and now with DUHbya in office you have a lot of material.
We've ALL been taught well and the voters spoke LOUD and CLEAR in Nov 7th that all that teaching has sucked!

"the voters spoke LOUD and CLEAR in Nov 7th"

Oh, you mean by electing Mr. Lieberman, an Independent, over his democrat opponent?

Don't get too sure of yourself, Trixter. As I've found out myself, pride cometh before a fall.

Herb

No, we mean by putting Democrats in the majority in both the Senate AND the House, AND a majority of governorships AND state legistlatures across the country.

For all intents and purposes, Lieberman IS a Democrat, and I don't know if I would brag too much about a situation where a lot of Republicans voted in the incumbent Democrat over their own nominee. That's about at slick as bragging that Clinton got impeached but Nixon didn't.

McCain-Lieberman.

It could happen.

Now there's a war on terror that even the most ham-fisted lefty will begrudgingly concede.

You saw it here first.

Herb

And last.

OK - I'm starting to get you now. It took a while. You just try and be right. I mean, correct. It gives you joy to be right In the face of others being wrong. Or that you are FIRST! It does something for you that makes you feel like you've accomplished something.

Hey, there are worse ways to motivate yourself. I just didn't recognize it.

You should start a " Karnac " thread, make some specific predictions and keep a record. It makes you happy - so why not? I'd watch it.

Seriously - give it a shot. It's too hard to keep track of them all when they are in different threads.

Thanks for the compliment, CJ, back-handed though it might have been.

You may be correct in your assessment of my motivation. I never really thought about it.

I know that a lot of my motivation has to do with my personal beliefs.

These include the wish to stand up for the 'little guy' like small business owners, taxpayers and non-union members, although I think unions can be ok, too.

I also like teachers. However, it's groups like the NEA that really stick in my craw with their generous pensions, whilst the kids are supposedly 'going without' in schools. It's all about bargaining, while kids and taxpayers take the hit.

Herb

Herb writes:

These include the wish to stand up for the 'little guy' like small business owners, taxpayers and non-union members, although I think unions can be ok, too.



Then why in hell do you run after the republicans? They aren't looking after the 'little guy' as you put it. Your thinking is inconsitent.

Seriously!

All of this shifting of the burden onto people, harms the small business just as much as it does the ordinary citizen. Infrastructure, and I mean more than roads and such, is the playing field upon which business plays.

If we strip that all down, then the little guys end up carrying too high of a burden to make dealing with them make sense.

There is taxes and there is waste. The two are different. Raising a tax, to cure an infrastructure problem, benefits the smaller business. So does a regulation of a necessary resource.

Any small business owner that values his market, should be voting Democrat until the GOP decides to once again demonstrate fiscal responsibility and be willing to keep the elite class businesses and people in check.

herd sez: "These include the wish to stand up for the 'little guy' like small business owners, taxpayers and non-union members"

"little guys" is factually incorrect. There are FAR more non-union members than union members, far more taxpayers than non-taxpayers -- BOTH of these groups can EASILY put their voting power to get what they want, and finally, this is a nation of small business owners -- far more of them than "big" businesses. "Little guys" they are most certainly not.

"Then why in **** do you run after the republicans?"

The Republican party IS the party of the little guy.

Did you guys know that small businesses employ MORE people than all the large ones combined?

That means that collectively, the small town insurance agent, dry cleaner, locksmith, etc. is every bit as vital as GM.

Taxes hit these people hard. And Republicans are for low taxes.

Herb

Despite your sappy apple pie rhetoric, Herb, the truth is, most of Bush's tax cuts didn't go to the small town insurance agent, the dry cleaner, or the locksmith - they went to Bill Gates and Paris Hilton as well as the Bush family. Because the US government is in deficit, every new tax cut for Paris Hilton must be BORROWED, and the small town insurance agent, the dry cleaner, and the locksmith (or their kids and grandkids) will all be paying the interest on Bill & Paris's tax cuts FOREVER. That means either they pay higher taxes later on or they get less for their tax money.

It's honestly not clear to me whether you really believe this false tax cut claptrap you and your Republican buddies spew out or whether you know the truth but are repeating the lies anyway. In any case, the facts contradict you, no matter how many times you repeat it.

I'm all for tax cuts for everyone, as soon as we pay down the national debt and fund other priorities like higher education and healthcare (including Medicare soundness). This would all be a whole lot easier to achieve without the crippling burden of the Iraq War and Bush's big tax cuts for the wealthy, so it's probably not going to happen in my lifetime.

Andrew

Herb is a Republican for one reason, and that is because they are anti-abortion. Talking taxes is just a facade, because if you really cared about the "little people" you wouldn't be voting Republican. The Republicans serve the wealthy at the little people's expense.

Nailed it.

Nothing else matters but fighting terror and getting those rightie court appointments --Herb.

I support Republicans for a lot of reasons.

The Republican party is the party of freeing citizens from
bureaucracy,
taxes,
soft-on-crime judges & attorneys,
gun confiscation
and
marginalization of life via abortion & euthanasia
..just to name a few.

Because of these important facts, the following groups are the ones I respect:

*National Federation of Independent Businesses
*Crime victims united
*Right to Life
*National Rifle Association [2nd Amendment].

Wealthy people pay plenty in taxes because they make more and employ more. Take away their incentive and they'll simply outsource their capital. Anything else is mere socialism and is destined to failure in a free market economy.

Herb

P.S. I DO enjoy rightie court appointments and fighting terror, too.

So, you don't really care about the little people then.

"So, you don't really care about the little people then."

I guess maybe it has to be explained a little more for you.

If by little people you mean abortionists, union thugs and God-hating ACLU attorneys, yeah, I DON'T really care about THEIR agenda.

When it comes to the card-carrying union member who has been sold down the river with WTO, NAFTA and GATT by his or her bribed union boss, that's another matter. I do care. They've been swindled.

Speaking of swindled, do I care about the little people when it comes to kids who don't have enough money for their classrooms? ABSOLUTELY.

But do I care about mismanaged education dollars that are thrown down a padded PERS rathole by educrats who don't give a rat's behind about anything but their own perks and 401k? Not at all. Besides, most Americans never get a pension.

I suppose you're going to call Dr. Tiller, the Kansas abortionist who kills the unborn up until birth a 'little guy' too? But seems the left doesn't care one whit about the little guy or little girl who gets it in the head with scissors.

And you guys DEFEND this stuff?

Herb

Herb writes,
The Republican party is the party of freeing citizens from bureaucracy,

Even though the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress have expanded government bureacracy beyond any liberal's wildest dreams???

taxes,

You mean, taxes on the WEALTHY citizens. The rest of us will either be paying higher taxes later or getting fewer services later to pay the interest in the Paris Hilton/Bill Gates tax cuts from this era as well as the Iraq War.

Andrew

Herb ignorantly said>>>
The Republican party IS the party of the little guy.

WTF?

The ULTRA RICH top 1% of the population is the little guy? Where the F have you been living?? Cuba??? ALL my fathers friends are VERY wealthy and they are ULTRA REICHERS! Little guy? That Fin makes me bust a gut.....
Herb you should be a stand up comedian right after Micheal Richards some night at the laugh factory.

Nice selective response, guys.

Remember that next time when you complain that others don't address the issues at hand.

Herb

Your version of "the little guy" is quite different from the majority of society.

The radical left has class envy and cannot understand that unless one wants the government to employ everyone [socialism], private enterprise will.

I've never seen a poor man hire others.

Herb

The neo-CONer REICH has class envy and cannot understand that unless one wants to take freedoms away and make people live in FEAR they can't get their agendas passed under everyone's noses....

It's easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle then a RICH man to get into heaven.

Most small business people are not rich.

They simply want to be left alone and not hampered by excessive taxation.

Last time I checked, democrats Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Gore, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kennedy were among the wealthiest of the wealthy.

Is it any easier for THEM to get through the eye of a needle, Trix?

Herb

The point is, Herb, you never talk about "the eye of the needle" or feeding the poor or tending to the sick - for some reason, you are fixated on cutting taxes and banning gay marriage and abortion. Why? Why are those things so much more important to you, as a Christian, than those things about which Jesus talked so much? Don't you think there's a huge problem with poverty in our world today? I don't think you've said one word about that in any post you've written in this forum.

Andrew

"Don't you think there's a huge problem with poverty in our world today?"

Sure. But again, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Gore, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kennedy are among the wealthiest of the wealthy.

I don't see them giving more of THEIR money away, ONLY OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. It is thievery. And they [along with democrat minions] have the gall to point fingers at OTHERS?

I'll trust the majority of businesspersons, large and small, over the majority of politicians.

Herb

"Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Gore, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kennedy are among the wealthiest of the wealthy."

But, I don't see ANY of those above trying to cut taxes for the rich. I don't see any of those above trying to eliminate the estate tax. And I don't see any of the above trying to reduce taxes on capital gains and dividends. So, by being wealthy and NOT supporting these tax cuts, they are by definition WILLING giving their money away. But, the GOP would rather put more money in their pockets, run up the deficit, and cut the programs the "little guys" rely on.

And if you want to talk thievery, lets talk about the Defense Dept budget and the hundreds of billions that we are wasting on Iraq! Do you think it costs less to borrow that money and pay it back later? You'll be worm food by the time that bill comes due, but I'll be here paying for it!

And, I trust the voters, who just told us they don't believe the GOP way of doing things is working. Putting billions of dollars on an open ended credit card each month is not a sustainable practice. So if people want to waste our money on things like Iraq, the wealthiest citizens better be prepared to fork over more of their money!

You don't get something for nothing!!

C'mon Reinstate.

These democrat senators use all the loopholes they can.

Do you actually believe Mr. Kennedy pays much in taxes? Of course not!

http://www.punditreview.com/2005/05/10/ted-ks-tax-loophole/

People like him use loopholes like trusts to prevent them from paying what you or I would pay.

The wealthiest senators are democrats:

Senate millionaires
John Kerry, D-Massachusetts: $163,626,399
Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin: $111,015,016
John Rockefeller, D -West Virginia: $81,648,018
Jon Corzine, D-New Jersey: $71,035,025
Dianne Feinstein, D-California: $26,377,109

And you actually defend these people?

Herb

Pundit Review is a right wing rag.

Sounds to me like you're trying to vilianize people that have done well for themselves. And you talk about class envy??

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but trusts are NOT illegal and in fact highly suggested by financial planners, and I would expect that anyone that could use them, SHOULD use them, just as Dick Cheney used tax loopholes last year to reduce his tax burden by millions.

I'll ask you again, which one of those people you've listed SUPPORT cutting taxes for the wealthy? Which one of those listed is on record as supporting an elimination of the estate tax, which by the way would benefit all of them?

Demonize the source all you want.

How about refuting the facts?

You obviously have no argument.

Herb

You know, there must be a reason Herb lists MRS. Clinton and not MR. Clinton. Could it be because MR. Clinton in his recent speeches has used his own new wealthy status as a centerpiece to illustrate how stupid tax cuts for the wealthy are? Clinton always says now how he does not need the Bush tax cuts...

Andrew

Herb has an answer for everything and it's ALWAYS someone else's problem. It's the LEFT'S fault! It's the TERRORISTS fault! It's the PINKO COMMIES fault!
When is it ever YOUR fault? Just wondering??? Has God made you perfect???? I hardly doubt it...
All your MIStruths show that you are just like everyone else here. Human!
START ACTING LIKE IT!

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy got hefty tax breaks on his $4.5 million Washington, D.C., mansion for at least two years - even though he never met the basic residency requirement for the deductions.

While Kennedy resides in Massachusetts, he received property tax credits in 2003 and 2004 on his home in a tony Washington neighborhood that were meant only
for homeowners who call D.C. their principal residence.

Of 22 senators who took the deduction, Kennedy stood to save the most money
in the coming tax year - about $7,700 off the tax bill for his $4.5 million
home, according to a review by the Kansas City Star of tax and real estate
records.

Called on the issue yesterday, the Bay State senator’s staff said Washington
officials gave him the deductions in error and without his knowledge - and vowed
he will reimburse the D.C. government for the property tax breaks. His
staff did not provide specifics on how much he owes or why he had failed to
previously notice the deductions being made.

Facts: This is a legal tax credit, was given to him in error, and he promissed to reimburse the $7700.

So, I'm not really sure what facts you want me to refute? The facts seem pretty clear that this is a legal tax credit that was given to him in error.

But, what I would like for you to tell me is which one of the wealthy Democratic senators supports Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy? If you're unable to answer this question, it's YOU that has no argument.

Let me spell this out for you.

Leftist senators can VOTE against tax cuts, because higher taxes don't affect them. These liberals make sure their money is legally protected in tax shelters and trusts. They also have PLENTY of accountants to ensure they can write everything off.

Ted Kennedy is well known for taking people for a ride.

Herbert M.

Oh yeah - this slug fest is TERRIBLE. I can't take it.

Wait. Has it started yet? Where is all the ugliness?

Herb, if the Social Security tax cap is raised from $90K to $120K, how many people making $50K per year does that affect? How many people making $85K does that affect?

If the percentage of tax on income of $188,450 to $336,550 goes from 33% to 34% and income over $336,550 goes from 35% to 37%, how many married couples earning $100K per year are affected? How many couples earning $160K does that affect? That's $13,333 per month.

Face the facts, taxes CAN be raised on the wealthy and NOT affect the average citizen. I just pointed out two very clear scenarios that should be considered, and would affect a very small percenatage of tax payers. The median income for a 4 person family in the US in is $65K. http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/4person.html How many families that make $65K will see a tax increase? How many families making $100K will see a tax increase? How many families making $150K will see an increase?

ZERO.

Does your household make more than that? The statistics say you don't, therefore, you won't see an increase. If you do, then you've got the money to pay.

Herb, what's your response to this? You can't refute it!

He won't because it doesn't matter.

What matters is fighting terror and getting those rightie tightie court appointments so he can feel saver and legislate his morality onto others becuase he thinks god says so.

Supporting tax cuts, in fact supporting anything GOP right now is his best option for getting that done.

Nothing else matters, that means you don't matter, I don't matter, even he does not matter.

It's simple and selfish.

Anything that strengthens his hopes of getting that morality legislated, he supports. Anything that doesn't he won't support and will attempt to devalue.

That's all he's about and it sucks huge.

I'll take a slug-fest over a Theocratic Dictatorship every time.

So would most people. --in fact, a clear majority of people.

That means gettin the word out is paramount.