Sandy Berger, who stole highly classified terrorism documents from the National Archives, destroyed them and lied to investigators, is now an adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

On several occasions, Berger stuffed highly classified documents into his pants and socks before spiriting them out of the Archives building in Washington, according to investigators. On one occasion, upon reaching the street, he hid documents under a construction trailer after checking the windows of the Archives and Justice Department buildings to make sure he was not being watched.

Berger came back later and retrieved the documents, taking them home and cutting them up with scissors. Two days later, he was informed by Archive employees that his removal of documents had been detected.

http://www.examiner.com/a-977346~He_s_back__Sandy_Berger_now_advising_Hillary_Cl inton.html

Herb

Oooh, Berger is one of your old favorites that you haven't trotted out recently!

You should probably go lock yourself in the bathroom and give yourself a....um...a cold shower!

This is nuts!! I don't know all the details about this guy, but just the idea of it really does not sit well. We see this crap all the time. Why?

I think we need a coupla new rules:

-if you hose things up so badly there is no going back, you can't be called an expert on those matters any more. Consultant, advisor, etc... but no expert status and no pay on that basis. In fact, we really need a list of "not experts" and what they hosed up.

-if you've been caught dirty dealing, that's it. No more public service period.

I'm not going to entertain how bad this is for Hilary. Big discussion with points on all sides. It's really easy to bring up all kinds of this crap, the whole government is guilty as hell. At the root of it, this is a non-partisan issue we all should be united on.

(given the last two cycles, haven't we had enough already?)

What is really needed are some dead simple and transparent accountability measures. Let public pressure do it's thing, and we will be highly likely to be better off no matter who is in charge at any given time.

There should be no matters, other than those defensible and approved by some court or committee national security matters, that are not just public, easily tabulated and published within a very reasonable amount of time.

We also need some new blood more involved than it is now. This is my biggest Hilary negative. There is a lot of cruft, banging around the government, that just does not have sufficient incentive to engage in proactive change. This is a prime example of that cruft.

Which is exactly why I like Edwards, Paul, Dennis K, etc...

Actually, I still think Paul would really do us some good. Everybody would be upset with the guy, but we would get a nice and solid reset and I think that's good at this point --if only for a wake up call.

Paul is smart as hell and principled. Either the American people debate him, and do it in a solid way, or some stuff really would change. We need that. --He would entertain that more than any other candidate, IMHO.

Sorry to meander on your thread Herb. This just set me off this morning!

How come it's excusable for Herrbocrite's hero's henchmen to steal documents after breaking and entering but Berger should be decapitated by Castro and the Terrorists? Ye olde double standard, eh?

(BTW, this is an astronomically dumb move by HRC)

"Sorry to meander on your thread Herb."

That's not a problem.

What IS a problem is Mrs. Merkin's oblivious attitude toward such crooked, highly illegal and dangerous cronyism.

So her standard modus operandi is to attempt to point to some other bad behaviour to justify her her own party's illicit dealings.

It doesn't wash.

When a guy like Larry Craig shows himself unfit, I admit it and want the guy booted. Sandy Burglar stole classified documents and was not simply playing footsie in some bathroom.

Herb

"What IS a problem is Mrs. Merkin's oblivious attitude toward such crooked, highly illegal and dangerous cronyism."

That statement sounds like a review of the Bush Adminstration more than anything else. And if we're going to talk about illicit dealings, we'll need to spend the first few weeks of discussion reviewing the last 7 years of Bush's crooked, highly illegal and dangerous cronyism.

Seriously, you can't make this stuff up!

Hillary is entitled to the advisers she is most comfortable with, however, she will be judged on who she chooses.

What IS a problem is Herrbocrite's oblivious attitude toward such crooked, highly illegal and dangerous cronyism.

My M.O.? Hah! Your post is just clearly a dodge of how YOU justify your hero's bad behavior!

BTW, Read my post again, slowly...I don't carry water for Berger, and I have never said I'm voting for HRC, because unless she is the lesser of two evils, I'm not.

Dodge on!

"...Bush's crooked, highly illegal and dangerous cronyism."

Nice attempt at changing the topic with no specifics, just ham-fisted accusations. Care to back your statements up? I didn't think so.

You actually DID make stuff up, and your problem is that Mr. Bush has not been found to have done anything illegal. Indeed the democrats even authorized the military spending for Iraq. So try going after your own party who paid for your so-called 'illegal war.'

Sandy Burglar, however, was convicted of his dangerous and illegal activities.

Prattle on.

Herb

That's a given.

I guess my point was more about raising awareness of the core issue. Until that is done, really what is the point? Considering the matter otherwise is just divisive and that hurts all of us really.

So this bozo ends up in the Hilary camp? Does that make her unelectable? No. So it chaps our ass, but otherwise means nothing.

Until we really start pushing hard (and that means all of us as Americans) for some core reform to address the dirty dealings, it's factored out, leaving us to vote our self interest and take the good with the bad, right?

Given the current field of choices, the potential for self interest gain is higher on the Democratic side of the aisle. Some losers mixed in changes nothing. Not getting our way, whatever it is, on some divisive issues also means nothing, because we are going to continue to see this crap, no matter what, until we get to a point where it's important enough to address.

I'm gonna vote self interest this time around, period. That means a choice where I'm gonna see net gains in areas that matter. Let's get healthy, employed and free as we used to be, then work on the divisive stuff.

Bush's Iraq war speaks for itself. Dangerous, illegal, and filled with croynyism, and MUCH WORSE than anything that occured under Clinton's watch. Sandy Berger is small potatoes compared to King George and his henchmen, and history will judge him so.

This liberal is with Herb on this one. She does not need that baggage. She has enough already.

Yep. Poor choice all around.

Could the Dems be working any harder to make it close?

It could get interesting, because one of the terms of his plea deal, was he lost his security clearance. However, a President Clinton can give a clearance to anyone she wants.

Several of Bill Clintons appointees failed background clearances, for all sorts of reasons, but were granted clearances anyway, because President Clinton waived the requirements.

And while I don't know of any specifics, I wouldn't be suprised to find out President Bush, both of them, did the same thing.

A few things that can block a clearance, any drug use, more than marijuana, and that has to be waived. Financial problesm, Known associates with certain people. Traffic tickets, excessive amount, gambling problems, sexual deviance, and a lot more.

>>>"That statement sounds like a review of the Bush adminstration more than anything else."

Quick, quick change the subject. Divert attention to Bush. Don't talk about anything negative regarding a Democrat.


>>>"And if we're going to talk about illicit dealings, we'll need to spend the first few weeks of discussion reviewing the last 7 years of Bush's crooked, highly illegal and dangerous cronyism."

We've already done that. New guys always want to start over.

"Quick, quick change the subject."

We learned that from the master: Herrbocrite.

He still hasn't explained how or why it's OK for Nixon's buddies to steal stuff, but not for HRH's pals...

Wring on!

I assume your talking about the watergate burglers, and they went to jail.

And they wern't stealing national defense papers.

Touche' Nwokie.

"..how or why it's OK for Nixon's buddies to steal stuff.."

ONCE MORE: Unlike the left, I'm on the record in stating that any illegal activities by anyone should be condemned. This includes Mr. Nixon. But unlike socialist appeasers such as Mr. Carter and Mr. Clinton, Mr. Nixon performed an outstanding service to his country in standing toe-to-toe against our arch-enemies, the commies.

Herb

But yet he resigned in disgrace.

President Nixon and his staff members all paid a price for their transgressions, Clinton and his group of crooks paid small fines.

Now Mrs Clintons hires one of the Bills crooks, it would be like President Bush hiring G Gordon Liddy for a NSC post.

Nothing shows Mr. Nixon knew about Watergate but if it makes you feel better to say he resigned in disgrace, Fine.

Unlike Mr. Carter and Mr. Clinton, Mr. Nixon wasn't impeached, nor did he allow our hostages to be held for 444 days [Iranian terrorists got wise in a hurry before Mr. Reagan was in office for a single day], nor did Mr. Nixon strip our military.

Sure, he resigned in disgrace. Fine. He kept us strong and free, unlike your guys who weakened us.

Herb

Had Nixon not resigned, he would have been impeached AND convicted. So what's your point??

Nixon harmed this country way more than Carter or Clinton ever could.

>>>"Nixon harmed this country way more than Carter or Clinton ever could."

All posts like this prove is that the poster has no grasp of reality.

Name one area President Nixon "harmed" the country, lets see he ended the vietnam war honorably, which the demos then threw away, he opened up relations with China, set the stage for the Soviet Unions downfall etc.

Anybody remember our economy after Nixon? Nuff said.

Hillary teams with Hamburglar, tags Mayor Mc Cheese as running mate. Bill is pleased!


now, some news tags.......

Complete news on the hour or if it happens.

If it's news to you then it's news to us.

Live weekly updates.

Prerecorded from the newsroom friday afternoon before we closed, This is your weekend report, featuring outdated stories and day old sports scores.

When you don't really need to know first, tune to us.

Headlines on the half hour, news on the hour, if the morning guy on the FM side had time to record it.

We play the best news every hour on the hour.

Join us at noon for your all request news hour. your favorite stories from earlier newscasts. email us your lunchtime request @ nobodyishome.com

never miss a story again we play the same newscast every hour from 6am to 6pm, then join us at noon saturday for Best of the news. Your favorite stories from the week repeated from noon to 3..........

This pointless post has been brought to you by me, but I would like to give the credit to someone more deserving so I choose to have Darktemper get the credit for this posting.

(;-) jes funnin' ya DT. Yes, as a matter of fact I am bored it's to frickin hot out to do yard work..... 95.

Economy?

You wanna talk misery index during the Carter years? 21% Interest rates? Stagflation? High unemployment? Gas lines, with our country held hostage by Iran?

I didn't think so.
Spin on.

Herb

Vitalogy is clearly out of the philosophical group that believes if you spread enough incorrect information enough of the time, people will actually begin to believe it.

Economy after Nixon, you mean when the demos were in control?

Yes. So what's your response to that?

Speaking of getting things wrong...the most infamous gas shortage in the US happened in 1973 during Nixon's presidency not during Carter's presidency.

As far as interest rates, they were much higher during Reagan's presidency in the 80's than during Carter's.

"As far as interest rates, they were much higher during Reagan's presidency in the 80's than during Carter's."

Yeah, it took Mr. Reagan a year or two to undo the fiasco he inherited from Mr. Carter.

Herb

>>>"As far as interest rates, they were much higher during Reagan's presidency in the 80's than during Carter's."

I don't remember when they started down, but I remember in the late 70s when Carter was in office, they were something like 21%-22%. I don't think they went higher under Reagan.

Talk about disinformation.

I just looked it up, interest rates in Reagons first year, were about what they were duing carters last, but then they dropped a lot.

Where in carters first yesr, they went up, and kept going up.

It's not like Carter was handed the keys to a smooth running economic engine when he became president. The gas shortage created by OPEC happened on Nixon's watch, and combining that with the residual effects of Watergate and the Vietnam War and Carter was in a no win situation. Unfortunately, he wasn't able to change course of the snowball he was given.

As far as disinformation goes...sometimes the way things are remembered isn't really the way it was. Here's a fairly comprehensive table of interest rate data and you can see that across the board the rates were higher throughout the early and mid 80's than they were during the the latter part of the 1970's.

http://econstats.com/r/r_em1.htm

As Mr. Nixon would have said, "That's all very well and good."

But why is it....when Sandy Burglar is tapped to work with Mrs. Clinton....is Mr. Nixon trotted out to assail?

Are you so bereft of substantive material that in order to shift focus from the all too recent criminal activities of Mrs. Clinton's confidant, that you go back 35 years to attack a great, although flawed leader like Mr. Nixon? As Mr. Mondale used to say, 'Where's the beef?'

Herb

Oh yes the gas shortage, I guess you think the US should have abandoned israel, when about all the arab states attacked it, with the intent of killing all of the Israeli's.

And carter had a solid democratic congress, and he still couldn't do anything.

Wow. Have we worn a path around the mulberry yet?

Yes, Hillary is a disaster. She is a long flaming spiral into the trees. All hiring her old partner in crime does is pull her campaign down to the level of the parade of corrupt dinks that have competed for the keys to the kingdom for over thirty years. This country is never served well by an out of touch yuppie with delusions of grandeur. The weak illusion that she gives a tinker's damn about any of us is simply residual from the "D" next to her name on the television. She will do as corporate America instructs, just like her better half did.

Our economy has been various shades of lousy for working people since I was born in 1970. Blaming the head shill in a given moment does not change the endemic problems of a corporate controlled government, or make any given economic situation merely partisan. During the Depression it was clear cut and black & white: Republican mess -- Democratic cleanup. These days are not as simple. Since most major companies bet large sums of money on both horses, whoever is the best liar wins. In the end, it has little to do with our needs as a country at all.

I said it months and months ago, but I will say it again. Hey Democrats, are you gonna wow me? Or will you just trot out more tainted people who owe favors to everybody? Both parties are riddled with corrupt career handshakers who do not deserve to run, but are being lauded as all there is to offer. If this is actually true, we are at a mighty pathetic point in the history of this proud nation. Time is running out for Democracy. In fact, one wonders if it has already disappeared into the theoretical fancies of the idealistic few. Perhaps, we are simply holding on to an illusion that was once real and dear to us, but is now a tired vaudeville number.

Many good points have been made already, so my rant is just what it is, a rant. No leading candidate of either party has earned my vote -- yet.

"But why is it when Sandy Burglar is tapped to work with Mrs. Clinton is Mr. Nixon trotted out to assail?"

Man, if you can't figure that one out, you are losing it. Are you really that thick-sliced-ham-headed? And you were the one who started the thread, Mr.-I-Love-Living-In-The-Past!

Burglars are burglars. HRC now has a RMN role-model. You should be proud!

"Nixon harmed this country way more than Carter or Clinton ever could."

I would think that most, especially older, Americans who are somewhat familiar with US history and curent events would agree with that statement.

However, the current Resident is probably running neck-and-neck for that (dis)honor.

DJ said>>>>
All posts like this prove is that the poster has no grasp of reality.

Just shows that in YOUR eyes that there is NO middle ground. It's YOUR way or the highway. That's why YOUR EXTREME views are been shed by millions of American's every single day.

Quick!!! Blame it ALL on Clinton.... Blame all America's woes on Clinton... Didn't DUHbya the 1st have anything to do with it?? Reagan??? 20 out of the last 28 there has been a Republican sitting President. 8 years of that caused ALL of America's woes??? COME ON!!!!!!!!
Listen for the pop people your heads or so far up your asses it's laughable.
Did I agree with Slick Willy and everything he did??? HELL NO! Do I disagree with everything that DUHbya has done... Nope! But Reagan and GDUHbya have been the most EXTREME RIGHT Presidents we have had. So look at yourself in the mirror when you want to blame everything on ONE guy that was ONLY there for 8 years....
Nice try...
NEXT!
IT'S ALL CLINTON'S FAULT!!!!!!!!!!
Hear that shit for 7 1/2 years when are you RADICAL EXTREME RIGHT WINGED nutbags.....

Carter inherited a POS economy thanks to Nixon and Ford, just the same as George HW Bush inherited a POS economy from Reagan. And both lost re-election for bad economies. The next president will certainly have their work cut out for them. Our economy has been propped up by low interest rates and deficit spending and the party is coming to an end.

Once more, Trixter not only comes to the defense of the democrats, but also assails conservatives.

Come clean, Trixter. You think like a lefty demo.

Herb

Herb said>>>>
Once more, Trixter not only comes to the defense of the democrats, but also assails conservatives.

Come clean, Trixter. You think like a lefty demo.

Your HIGH and mighty God like tone shows that you have NO intentions of listening to anyone's side but your own. Interesting when you rail the Libs/Dems all the time for the same thing. You point out an 8 year period that America had with ONE Democrat President and YOU EXTREMEIES smeared him for 7 1/2 years. Did I??? GD RIGHT I did! Clinton did some F'ed up shit in the White House but when YOUR poster boy for EXTREME NARROW MINED views is in their he can do no wrong! HORSESHIT! Plain old HORSESHIT!
Has DUHbya done anything right? The security measures that DUHbya and Co. have put in place with Homeland Security have thwarted more attacks. The Patriot Act has worked but there are flaws just like anything the Government does. But DUHbya and Co. have made Government BIGGER in the last 6 1/2 years instead of smaller like TRUE Republicans like!!!! And he started a war that NEVER needed to be started in the first place.

Come clean??? True Republicans stand for FISCAL RESPONSABILITY and SMALLER GOVERNMENT. Less tax for EVERYONE NOT just the top 10%!!!!!!! Somewhere along the road the Bible thumpin' ULTRA rich got there hands on the book of Republican and they INFECTED it.

>>>"Less tax for EVERYONE NOT just the top 10%!!!!!!!"

When you bite down on the Democrat bait, does it hurt when they set the hook?

When the FACTS are given to YOU does it hurt you??

"...DUHbya and Co. have made Government BIGGER in the last 6 1/2 years instead of smaller like TRUE Republicans like!!!!"

Wait a minute. Do you actually believe that the answer is an even more bloated socialist democrat government, including Hillary's slippery attempts at taking control of nearly 1/5th of our entire economy via health care? If that isn't creeping socialism, let's hear you defend that.

Trixter, keep siding with the left whilst you attack conservatives, especially given your EXTREME vitriolic animosity toward Bible-believers. In this country founded by Bible-believing Christians, and led by such great Bible-believing men of faith like president Abraham Lincoln, it helps make it perfectly clear where you actually stand.

Herb

Calm down Herb, Hillary is not going to be president.

I would have said that about 2 months ago too.

Now, I'm not as sure.

Herb, Bush has added $3 TRILLION to our national debt in 7 years. This is what happens when you spend like a drunken sailor AND cut taxes for the wealthiest among us. I don't know any finance person that would tell me that increasing spending while decreasing income pencils out. The tax cuts need to be reversed and all will be well.

"Lefty Demo Day on May 7th at The Oaks"

http://www.theoaksgolflinks.com/newpage.asp?id=409&page=25268

Herb, I never knew you had such bitterness toward southpaws.

Naw, it's not toward southpaws.

It's only socialists from the south, like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.

Herb

I think Chavez has a great sense of humor, a wise distrust of our foreign policy and is doing his best to unify his poor nation. I am not convinced he is perfect, or without flaw, and we do not admire all of the same people. However, he was elected by his countrymen and that places him far above most Latin American leaders.

Why in heck does Venezuela keep showing up on the Department of Children & Families website? Oh, for this unbridled and aggressive act of socialist giving:

"Discounted Oil Helps Poor in 15 States and DC

Since the start of winter, a partnership between Citizens Energy Corporation of Boston and CITGO, the petroleum company owned by the Venezuelan government, has expanded to target 15 states and the District of Columbia.

The partnership involved 8 states last year, providing 40 million gallons of heating oil to thousands of low-income households.

This year, Citizens Energy received 100 million gallons of heating oil for the program from CITGO and the two organizations hope to provide oil to 400,000 families, according to Brian O'Connor, a Citizens vice president. The 15 states targeted by Citizens are: AK, CT, DE, IN, ME, MD, MA, MI, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, VA and WI. Citizens made the first delivery in New York City on November 17.

Participants can receive up to 200 gallons of heating oil at a 40 percent discount from Citizens Energy, a Boston non-profit that has run a discount heating oil program for years.

Most states have declined to be officially involved in the program because of the insulting remarks that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez made about President Bush at the United Nations in September. However, it is operating in all the targeted states through marketing channels not dependent on state governments, O'Connor said.

The two companies have also continued a program to provide free oil to homeless shelters."

http://www.liheap.ncat.org/newslett/61net.htm

Uh-oh. A damn Kennedy is mixed up in all this charity work. What shall we do?!

http://www.citizensenergy.com/

Mike Pesca of NPR filed a report about the program that will help heat American homes for another winter. Here is a bit of insight from January 2006:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5147620

To return to topic a bit, how will these obviously bonehead moves affect Hillary as a potential Vice President? It may be a bitter pill for her to swallow, but at this point, only John Edwards seems to have a clue of how Democrats win elections. Her own husband was a populist dark horse from the south and a heckuva lots less well known than Edwards. Just a thought, since she would be a definite second choice of Veep behind Obama.

I don't care if Hugo Chavez attempts to bribe people to sway them toward Godless socialism.

Besides, like any good socialist he's only giving away what isn't rightfully his in the first place.

Hitler talked a good game too, early on.

Herb

Herb, you are missing the point. This heat is going to a million little capitalists in a big capitalist country so they can sleep cozy at night and wake refreshed and toasty for another day of capitalism. They will no sooner become socialists than any other poor person who needs a helping hand. Poor people usually want to be rich. It drives most of them to keep trying whether the deck is stacked or not.

I think this program is great and I hope it goes national someday. Listen to the NPR story and you will discover that dozens of oil companies were approached with the idea. Although they are all making record profits, only CITGO responded. They thought it was a fine idea, after all, they were already helping victims of Katrina. The system was in place to provide further assistance to many of their neighbors to the north.

Herb, do you think it should matter to Chavez what anyone in The United States wants for him and his country?

Littlesongs, if you think they are doing this for any other reasons than buying public acceptance in the U.S., you are sadly mistaken. If you think Chavez is anything more than a socialist thug, you are sadly mistaken. If you think Chavez cares about anyone other than his power, you are sadly mistaken.

Liberals are terribly gullible. If you don't believe me, read Vitalogy's posts for awhile.

If you think our support for other countries is not rooted in the same sort of selfishness, you are also mistaken. However, I am often willing to look past what the folks think will result because of their giving to what has actually happened.

Loaded or not, it is a nice gesture. Poor folks and the elderly will not freeze in our poorest urban areas for another winter. For that small comfort, they will not be joining the army of Venezuela. In years of the program, it has not affected the integrity of any low income Americans. Sleep easy, Chavez is hardly creating revolt through petroleum.

>>>"Loaded or not, it is a nice gesture."

That's the part where we disagree. "nice gestures" are done with sincerity.

I believe the people of Venezuela have compassion for Americans. I believe the people of the United States have compassion for Venezuelans. What our leaders do may embarrass us equally, but if we help each other out, who cares? Is the leadership of any country really speaking for all citizens? Of course not. Sincerity has little to do with international relations. Sincerity has everything to do with interpersonal relations.

Believe me, it's Chevez who runs the show, not the Venezuelan people.

Agreed. One could also say, "George and Dick run the show, not the American people."

By recognizing this, the citizens of both countries may understand more about each other than the leadership of either country is willing to acknowledge.

After all, both of our nations have made petroleum synonymous with our national interests.

*plonk*

I don't see Chavez as a legitimate threat. Right wingers don't like they guy because he rightfully points out how idiotic President Bush is.

Deane, you're an old man with outdated ideas. The only point you can make is to smear other people, which is why your party is going to take it in the shitter in 2008, just like Larry Craig did in MN.

Herb, do you think it should matter to Chavez what anyone in The United States wants for him and his country?

Only if it is truly for the good of his people.

One also needs to separate Mr. Chavez's words from his actions.

Many in Venezuala, and indeed throughout the world, agree that Mr. Chavez's godless atheism is not good for his people...if only for the fact that Cuba is the direction Mr. Chavez is headed with Venezuala.

Ask a freed Cuban, with no gun to his head, what he thinks of where Cuba has been taken. There's your answer.

Herb

So you feel that was about people who want true good for America? It should matter to Bush - even when he disagrees with what someone else in and from another country says?

I do too.

"So you feel that was about people who want true good for America?"

If I understand your question, America should respect the will of the people in other nations.I don't believe the Monroe Doctrine has been rescinded, so if they're sabre rattling and smuggling drugs, we have a reasonable right to self-defense, or even our self-interest, under certain laws. Look at Britain during the Falklands War.

I'm for the good of the Venezualan people. However, there are many views of what is good. That's the rub. Greenies would say 'no' to industrialisation there. Capitalists would say 'yes' to industrialisation, land ownership and probably invest heavily in resorts there.

Herb

Are you from Venezuela?
Do you know, or are you related to, anyone Venezeulan?
Are you an expert on Venezuela?

I doubt it.

Last time I checked, Chavez was elected by the people of Venezuela, right?

And I think the comparsion of Venezuela to Cuba is ridiculous.

>>>"Last time I checked, Chavez was elected by the people of Venezuela, right?"

As was Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, and Saddam of their respective countries.

>>>"Deane, you're an old man with outdated ideas. The only point you can make is to smear other people, which is why your party is going to take it in the shitter in 2008, just like Larry Craig did in MN."

And you've been selected to present the "new ideas", is that correct. New ideas like killing babies, taxing the top 10% to solve all our financial woes, ignoring terrorist so that they can have our way with us, socialized medicine and so on. Who selected you to promote these "new ideas"? Anyone I know?

I say, tax babies and kill the wealthiest top 10 percent and no medical care for anyone. that should solve everything

"I think the comparsion of Venezuela to Cuba is ridiculous."

Oh really?

http://www.proveo.org/egolinger.pdf

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4199

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/04/AR2006080401767. html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1371139/posts

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Herb

I sorry, but I totally am for raising taxes on the top percenters.

They can pay, won't really miss having paid, and the rest of us either can't, or will suffer a much greater impact from having paid.

I don't feel all the sorry when ones choices are to make this investment or that one, instead of do we buy food, or maybe health care.

That concentrated wealth comes from ordinary people. The very least that could be done is to do stuff that puts them where they have a shot at being healthy and happy while doing it.

And, our financial woes are directly related to Iraq. If we were not spending out our ass on that boondoggle, the who to tax question would be largely moot.

Of course, this makes perfect sense, so why are we here then? Is it because W is stupid?

No, it's because of needing to push an agenda instead of actually serving the people who put him there in the first place. The GOP shows no sign of changing.

Since the upper percenters really got paid off huge with this guy, have had time to invest, they can take those dollars and put them right back into the system to pay for the war that they profited from in the first place.

There will be a net gain for them either way. The profit made from the war will still be there, as will most investments made. No worries, but for the gravy train stopping sooner rather than later.

Roger, that baby tax is cracking me up!

Do we tax boys more than girls?

The thing that is wrong with the "tax the upper 10%" theory is that there is not enough of them to do the job. It's nothing more than a Democrat cheer line that a lot of the "me first" and "have not" crowd fall for.

Besides, who creates the jobs in this country, who hires people? Certainly not the lower 10%.

The tax the rich concept would not affect me, but the illusion of it solving the problem is repulsive. If a person works hard to make money, why should the government seize it to make up for the others who don't want to pay. A little too much towards socialism in concept for me.

Envious democrats share the same mindset as dictators like Castro and Chavez. They take what isn't theirs, then give some of it away to stay in power.

Herb

If they acquired their wealth, without fair compensation and undue exploitation, it isn't theirs now is it?

Combined with solid taxes on everyone, it totally is enough to do the job. Again, the only reason we are even having this discussion is Iraq. That huge dollar drain is having a serious impact on what would otherwise be fairly tame policy decisions.

If they acquired it without breaking the laws in place at the time, its theirs.

Whats this "fair compesentation and undue explotation" about.

"Envious democrats share the same mindset as dictators like Castro and Chavez."

Are you kidding? You're putting anybody who doesn't vote like you in the same category as your silly overblown hatred of the evil dastardly half-dead CASTRO? Wow, next thing you know, you'll be comparing everyone who's different from you to Hitler.

OK, you're really losing your grip here.



Keep grasping at those straws, old man.

"If they acquired it without breaking the laws in place at the time, it(')s theirs. What(')s this "fair compesentation (sic) and undue explota(i)tion" about(?).

The Resident and his cronies have "acquired" my future and current taxes and "exploited" them in places and ways I had no say in. That makes him not much different than Herb's favorite poster boys of evil, right?

You did have a say, it was called an election, and your side lost.

Lost? Not cleanly. Not much better than how some of the other dicktators mentioned here won. But the beauty of it is that we get another chance, real soon.

And in hind-site, I think most people have realized that they ended up losing a lot more than they expected to. So, thank Gourd that many of those people don't want a repeat of the past 8 years.

"The thing that is wrong with the "tax the upper 10%" theory is that there is not enough of them to do the job."

Well Deane, you do know it's not the individuals who get taxed, it's the INCOME they earn that gets taxed. And the fact is, the top 10% earn the most income. So, a small tax hike on the upper bracket would greatly increase tax collections. And since we have a massive national debt and massive yearly deficits, somebody has to pay up, and it's the top 10% who have the not only the duty but the capacity to pay up.

Actually, it was called a Supreme Court ruling.

This clown was selected, not elected.

And they did break the laws. More of those violations are coming out every week! The only reason it's just not a complete flood, is partisan appointees propping up the mess.

Undue exploitation is essentially excessive wage pressure.

There is this strong personal responsibility movement going on right now. One key component of that is pushing risk onto those at the bottom.

Fine, but combined with pressure to keep wages low, bennies low, etc... we end up with a situation where people essentially are setup for failure.

Save for health care, save for disaster, save for unplanned expenses (car breaks), save for retirement, live within means (no luxury spending), etc...

That's all combined with strong pressure to take safety net programs to the brink of failure. Limit social security, make it a lotto and not something secure, defined benefit programs pensions, etc.. are all being exploited for profit instead of being leveraged to take care of those who built the wealth in the first place.

Finally, on yet another side, we've got outsourcing to move good paying jobs off shore, high pressure on organized labor, wall street applying pressure to cut bennies, and show profit, even if it means dipping into pension funds for bailouts, and gambling with those dollars for profit.

Fees on most services are going up as well. This is the big tax increase nobody is talking about. Fees for nearly everything, co-pays, add-ons, "sharing the burden" kinds of stuff.

Where does this leave Joe and Jane American?

Fucked, that's where.

Improve ones own self to get better pay, get outsourced. Work two jobs to save for the future, and hope something bad doesn't happen? Right. That's a solid plan.

Buy used cars, consume as little as possible, build, grow, repair ones food, devices, etc... what sustains all the buying of things then?

(still can't figure that one out)

The average wage is what? 40-50K year?

How exactly is all that saving going to happen, and what happens when something happens before the saving has accumulated enough to handle ones own affairs?

This is undue exploitation. Too much risk being pushed onto people not well equipped to handle it. This is done for profit, and is causing a lot of harm.

And that brings me to fair compensation.

Fair compensation means being paid an amount that makes the work time and effort invested worth it.

Working one full time job, being unable to properly take care of a family, means poor compensation.

If all this risk is to be pushed onto people, then shouldn't some dollars go with it? Seems to me, that should be the case, otherwise it's just not a balanced value exchange between those doing the work to build the wealth and those aggregating it.

Let's take one very simple example. Companies say health care expenses are too much. So, they push those costs onto their employees. Now, that's essentially a pay cut, for the same services.

The claim is need for profit. But how much profit is needed? Is the company taking a loss, or just not making as much as they would like to?

That's a very important question, I've left more than one job over the answer to.

Take another example. Say one works for a large corporation and part of ones compensation is a pension, granted in return for many years of loyal and productive work.

Say the company gets into a bind, poor business decision, market change, etc...

Many of these companies then look to those pension dollars as a means to help the company out. How does this work when the workers need similar help?

What happens when pensions are mismanaged? Do the workers lose out? Absolutely. Look at all the recent pension losses / serious reductions we've seen lately?

All about exploitation and compensation, and that balance is not very solid for a growing majority of Americans, yet the amount of risk they are being asked to bear is growing rapidly!

It's easy to say that people should be managing their money, planning for the future, living in a conservative way, not living above their means, etc...

I actually agree with that and frankly, have worked very hard to live that way.

A company, needed to handle a short fall, cut insurance, while they "achieve profitability again, and limited risk". That risk was moved onto me, something happened and suddenly, all that saving, all that living within ones own means, means nothing!

There now is no savings, no retirement, no buffer to handle those things that can happen. KSKD is pay check to pay check baby!

I've had this happen twice! Both times it was not my issue. Made tons of dollars for those, "needing to avoid risk", got moderate to solid compensation for it. The first time wiped out the retirement. The second time nailed the savings and credit.

This is happening to people all over the place. Gainfully employed people, doing nothing wrong. I know many who are experiencing similar things. We grew up together, and are all asking, "what the fuck?".

To be really clear, I'm not asking for sympathy. There are options and I'm going to take them. One of which is to just not own any property for a while. Let some others take some "risk", while I bank for a while.

This time it will be different however. I will be avoiding risk big time, and will live extremely small. Maybe that will leave enough for the corporations to meet their market expectations, even though doing so means they really should be doing the same thing.

(Wonder about those big CEO bonuses, average compensation being 400 times the average worker? Is that living small, balanced, etc...?)

No.

I look at attempts to further diminish the value I get for tax dollars and shake my head in wonder. Wondering specifically, "How much is enough?"

Saw the social security reform efforts, wondering about that big time. I might actually need that, have been paying in, should it really be treated like so many liquid pension funds that just disappear overnight?

If the ideal is to push risk back onto people and let them handle their own affairs, fine. I can handle that. But to do so, and apply serious wage pressure to them at the same time is raw greed, it's wrong and it should not be tolerated period.

There you go. Hope that clears it up for you Nwokie.

>>"This clown was selected, not elected."

Right, we're still fighting the 2000 election.

Granted Bush has not be a very good President. But, he was the lesser of the evils.

Neither statement of yours is supportable.

We don't know if he was the lesser evil or not. The winner of the election didn't get a chance to demonstrate what he would have / not done. Given the record we have today, I think it would be quite difficult for others to have hosed things up so completely badly as Bush + the Rubber stamp GOP has done.

It's a statement of fact, the Supreme Court, selected Bush as the winner, denying the people of Florida the opportunity to complete their democratic process.

Go read their decision. Not only did they make it very clear it was a "one time" thing, to "avoid harm to Bush" (because he was highly likely to have lost), but that decision was not to be cited in future cases, and was done as a matter of national stability, etc...

They picked him, period.

It's not really fighting any more. The facts are in, it's just really uncomfortable, particularly given the importance of this coming cycle.

Don't worry though. I'll be here to help, often and regularly.

It is not a statement of fact "the supreme court selected President Bush".

The president was elected under the rules of electing presidents, that existed at the time, and still do. That is all the courts said.

And demos keep forgetting, most of the contested ballots were designed by democrats, and it was these same ballots, that some teachers used in class, and 3rd graders had no problem understanding them.

I guess the demos need a smarter class of voters.

"If a person works hard to make money, why should the government seize it to make up for the others who don't want to pay."

I don't deny that some/many of the top 10% "worked hard" to get where they are, but many more of them did no work at all, but were just members of the "lucky sperm" club.

And I don't deny that a top executive making $1 million a year works harder than a worker bee making 50k, but I have a hard time swallowing that they work 20 times harder or that their work has 20 times more value.

In fact, in my experience... often times it's the lower paid employees who work the hardest.

The old adage about "it takes money to make money" is very true, and the more money you have, the easier it is to make more.

So if "working hard" for your money is the metric we should use to determine how much you should be taxed, doesn't it follow that investment income should be taxed most heavily of all (and the office cleaning crew should take their wages tax-free)?

And how about the adage that "With great power comes great responsibility"? Doesn't it follow that those lucky/smart/skilled enough to be in the top 10% have a responsibility to carry more than their share of the societal burden? Or is it every man for himself?

And Deane: how do we differentiate those who "don't want to pay" from those who can't?

The illusion you put forth, that the top 10% are such solely because they "work hard", and that people who need government funded healthcare are in that position because they "don't want to pay" is what I find repulsive.

Yep, work is taxed higher than wealth. I think it should be the opposite.

Totally agreed.

It would encourage a lot more work, than aggregation of wealth. That, in turn more or less means a strong focus on those core things that empower innovation and productivity.

Hey, we might actually start making things again!

The accomulation of wealth is necessary to grow the economy. You have to have people with lots of money, willing to take chances to bring new ideas to market.

What about a national sales tax instead of an income tax? That way, people could make money and put it in savings without the government grabbing it.

I have always thought the US should be taxing the rest of the world, for all of the conviences we provide.

Example, all of the transportation systems of the world, use the US build GPS system, we should be charging other countries for its use.

The US built and designed the internet, with primarily govt funds, we should be charging the rest of the world for its use.

The US provides athe fleets to protect the major sea lanes, we should be charging.

I think I like the less tax on work bit the best.

Those accumulating it will still do so. The difference being, they will have a more aggressive pool of work from which to pull from, and more importantly, some incentive to invest in research and development.

If they fail to do that, those pools of wealth begin to get smaller.

Nobody should get a free ride.

BTW: Putting in those kinds of incentives would very quickly put us at the top of many industries again. Exactly where we need to be.

Just watch, this whole "we are the leaders & legislators of the world" bit can and will absolutely backfire.

Without regular contributions, of the kinds we used to export all the time, we lose our value in the global space. With that goes our leadership and soon after what's left of our freedom.

I want the rich to get richer. I also think that's worth making sure the people that put them there, and empower their visions, risks, etc... are also doing well enough to make the whole affair worth it.

I really want America to stand apart from other nations too. We can be free, we can be prosperous, we can out think, out work, out build anybody.

It all comes down to how we structure market rules.

And you free market people listen up!

There are always market rules. Shaping them to make sure the forces of business serve all of us as people well, is more important than just making sure business makes the absolute top dollar.

Why?

Because it's always cheaper to fuck people over a high percentage of the time, that's why.

Deane, I would love to see a consumption tax and elimination of the income tax. I also like the concept Ron Wyden has put together. Unfortunately, those options are too radical for most people to grasp.

The bottom line is that taxes are necessary, and when we support trillion dollar wars, we need more taxes. That's why I support a war tax, rather than the US selling Treasuries to the Chinese to fund our war. Then every single tax payer would see the cost of the war from the view of their pocketbook, and it may just make people think a little harder about how we spend our money.

Personally, I would prefer an asset tax. (be careful with that spelling). Hugh fortunes, like Bill Gates and Paul Allen's are never really taxed.

Same with realestate, the value of a house may increase several times during the owners life, but they are never taxed on that wealth increase.

Nowokie: An asset tax would be the same as increasing taxes on captital gains and dividends. Where do you think Gate's or Allen's income comes from? Certainly not an hourly wage! In fact, Warren Buffet claims that his effective tax rate is LOWER than his personal assistant's, because he pays 15% on dividends and capital gains while the income tax brackets are much higher.

As for real estate, property taxes go up every year as the assessment on your home goes up, so real estate IS taxed on that wealth increase.

No, not esxactly the same, you don't declare capital gains, unless you sell the asset.

IE Bill Gates started out with about 100,00 worth of stock, he now has around 50 billion, and has never paid any tax on most of it, and hes transfering most to a trust, his family will control, so taxes will never be paid on most of it.

Every time Bill Gates sells stock, he pays capital gains, and he sells stock routinely. Plus MSFT pays a quarterly dividend of $.11 per share, and income from dividends is taxed.

Herb spewed forth crap>>>>>>
Trixter, keep siding with the left whilst you attack conservatives, especially given your EXTREME vitriolic animosity toward Bible-believers. In this country founded by Bible-believing Christians, and led by such great Bible-believing men of faith like president Abraham Lincoln, it helps make it perfectly clear where you actually stand.

Keep it up Herb! Keep ramming, jamming and insisting that ALL Americans think in YOUR NAMRROW MINDED way. I believe in God!!! I DON'T ram it down everyone's throat that I talk to unlike your fascist self. I detest Bible Thumpers because they want everyone to think as them with NO LEAWAY! NONE! ZERO! Believe in the scripture 100% with NO if ands or butts about it! To the T...
If I did that Herb then my wife would be a 2nd class citizen and beneath me! BULLSHIT!
GRAY has to be made a part of America because if it isn't it could go the other way .... Where they would be NO religion! That would really chap your hide wouldn't it???
For the last time I'm a GOD FEARING human being and a TRUE Republican and you can believe that or not. But GOD knows how I feel and YOUR sir are NOT God! It's between us two and Herbaroni and the EXTREME RADICAL Bible thumpers need not be involved.
I don't think along the same lines as you so I'm Liberal/Dem?? That's going to be YOUR downfall and the EXTREMEIE RIGHT'S downfall in America. It's YOUR way or the highway.
HORSESHIT!
Your side is going to get smaller and smaller so just keep it up......

But how much stock does gates sell, only a very small amount, most hes putting in a trust, that will never be taxed.

Good for him! I do the very same thing with my Nike and Intel stock. Gotta hide as much as possible from DUHbya and Co. they need it to fund the asinine war.

08/03/07 GATES WILLIAM H III Sold 650,800 $29.54 19.22 Mil
08/02/07 GATES WILLIAM H III Sold 659,192 $29.30 19.31 Mil
08/02/07 GATES WILLIAM H III Sold 2.34 Mil $29.64 69.37 Mil
08/01/07 GATES WILLIAM H III Sold 617,779 $29.40 18.16 Mil
08/01/07 GATES WILLIAM H III Sold 1.13 Mil $29.09 33.02 Mil
08/01/07 GATES WILLIAM H III Sold 247,267 $28.88 7.14 Mil
07/31/07 GATES WILLIAM H III Sold 1.28 Mil $29.51 37.81 Mil
07/31/07 GATES WILLIAM H III Sold 50,000 $28.99 1.45 Mil
07/27/07 GATES WILLIAM H III Sold 1.39 Mil $29.80 41.52 Mil
07/27/07 GATES WILLIAM H III Sold 606,415 $29.52 17.90 Mil
07/24/07 GATES WILLIAM H III Sold 856,530 $31.00 26.55 Mil
07/24/07 GATES WILLIAM H III Sold 330,670 $30.78 10.18 Mil
07/19/07 JOHNSON KEVIN RONALD Sold 20,000 $31.45 629,000.00
05/30/07 BACH ROBERT JOSEPH Sold 9,316 $30.82 287,072.53
05/30/07 SMITH BRADFORD LEE Sold 240,667 $30.81 7.41 Mil
05/29/07 BACH ROBERT JOSEPH Sold 20,000 $30.73 614,500.00
05/25/07 BACH ROBERT JOSEPH Sold 70,684 $30.61 2.16 Mil
05/09/07 GATES WILLIAM H III Sold 3.00 Mil $30.74 92.22 Mil
05/08/07 GATES WILLIAM H III Sold 43,000 $30.32 1.30 Mil

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/insider/trans.asp?Symbol=MSFT