Or, to put it even more aptly, it would be as if Dr King preached about how great it is if parents were to spend quality time with their children in the evening and then it's discovered that Dr King just parked his kids in front of the TV for reruns of THE SIMPSONS...

For the record, there is absolutely NO evidence that DR King ever parked his kids in front of the TV for reruns of THE SIMPSONS...

Michale.....

But that's not what's in comparison with regards to the Buffet/Soros/Obama issue...

To tweak your analogy, it would be as if a parent would stand and say that spanking children is wrong then it is discovered that said parent is spanking THEIR children.

That is the kind of hypocrisy that Buffet and Obama display when they say that the rich should pay more in taxes, but yet do not practice what they preach..

the tax code is a complicated beast, but i think at least we're agreed that it needs to be more fair than it is now.

Yes, we can definitely agree on this...

Common ground. A wonderful thing.. :D

Michale.....

i disagree about that, because there's a difference between one's personal practices and views about how government ought to behave. for example, i think there's no inherent hypocrisy if you spank your own children when they misbehave, but don't want corporal punishment in schools. if MLK spanked his children when they misbehaved, would that make him a hypocrite on non-violence? that question wasn't rhetorical, i'm posing it because i'm not completely sure.

you're right, i can't prove definitively that without the bush tax cuts the economy would have been better off. however, the CBO does say that they account directly for over 2 trillion dollars, about a third of the debt accrued over the last decade.

the tax code is a complicated beast, but i think at least we're agreed that it needs to be more fair than it is now. loopholes and low capital gains taxes make the mega-ultra-superduper-rich the stingiest contributors, while corporate, payroll, excise and social security taxes are absorbed almost exclusively by those who take in less than a million dollars a year.

so maybe warren buffett is a hypocrite, maybe not. i do get your point. i'm just saying that along with waste, abuse, inefficient spending and the like, regressive tax policy is also part of the problem that needs to be addressed. i don't think there can be a "first this, then that." they're all problems, and if we're ever going to get out of debt, we have to deal with all of them.

I think my original point has gotten lost in my own diatribes.. :D

You MAY be right that the solution to our problems is the rich paying more in taxes. I still believe that if we just give the government more money, they will simply SPEND more and we'll be exactly where we are now..

But you MIGHT be right.

My only point in this instance is that rich people like Buffet, Soros, Obama et al don't have ANY moral or ethical foundation to preach to the masses that the rich should pay more in taxes unless they are paying more in taxes voluntarily.

Let's see Obama put out a press release saying he will no longer accept his Presidential Paycheck...

THEN I'll listen to him preach.. :D

President Jack Ryan did it.. :D

Michale.....

No. What matters is he is a hypocrite and is making such fooffle statements for political and financial gain...

I refer you back to my post (25) that espoused the hypocrisy of the likes of Charlie Sheen, Amy Winehouse et al telling kids not to take drugs..

Sure, their right.. But they have no moral foundation to lecture the masses on that particular subject..

Besides, Buffets' message is an opinion (I think the Rich should pay more taxes) and therefore, by definition, cannot be "right" or "wrong".

no, i'm using the reasoning that, since their unfairly low taxes relative to the rest of us over the past decade is part of what caused the financial trouble to begin with,

Assumes facts not in evidence.

There is no evidence that suggests that, if the rich WERE paying more in taxes, that this country would not be in financial trouble.

Your conclusion presupposes that, with the proper amount of money, the government WOULD have managed it all properly and we would not be in a mess today.

My position is that, with more money, the government would have just SPENT more money and we would STILL be where we are today..

Granted, my conclusion is based on speculation (as is yours) but the current evidence supports my conclusion a lot better than yours. :D

those who benefited the most are the most responsible to help fix some of the damage caused on their behalf. no, it's not their fault, but it is their civic responsibility.

While I agree with you in theory, the reality is that it's not anyone's "responsibility" to fix the government's mistakes..

Sure, it would be nice if the rich would step up to the plate and help out.. But then we are back to the idea that those who are A)rich and B)think it's their responsibility to step up *COULD* step up if they wanted to...

Any millionaire or billionaire who doesn't send 10% of their income to the US government voluntarily has absolutely NO moral or ethical foundation to lecture ANYONE about how the rich should pay more in taxes..

And I have to admit... If *I* were still a millionaire, I would have to think twice about sending extra money to the government.

As much as it pains me to say it, in the here and now sending extra money to the US Government seems to be a bad investment..

Michale.....

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/

since he is right and the super-rich pay less than the middle class, and even less than some of the not-so-middle class, i'm saying they don't pay enough because they pay less than you and me. you're still going to maintain that their taxes should not go up at all, or only enough to make them more-or-less equivalent to us?

You are saying the Rich don't pay enough, using the reasoning that, since the government is in financial trouble (IE in the toilet) then the Rich MUST NOT be paying enough...

no, i'm using the reasoning that, since their unfairly low taxes relative to the rest of us over the past decade is part of what caused the financial trouble to begin with, those who benefited the most are the most responsible to help fix some of the damage caused on their behalf. no, it's not their fault, but it is their civic responsibility.

If you know of a better solution.....

"....I'm all ears"
-Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Debates...

The fact is, this government won't learn the lesson any other way...

so if you believe that the {snicker}"top 20%" paying "80%" of "taxes," means the rich pay too much, i have a bridge in brooklyn i'd like to sell you.

I am not saying the Rich pay too much...

You are saying the Rich don't pay enough, using the reasoning that, since the government is in financial trouble (IE in the toilet) then the Rich MUST NOT be paying enough...

This reasoning is akin to a college kid who maxes out all his credit cards, spends all the money sent by mommy and daddy and then calls home whining, "Mom!!! Dad!!! You're not sending me enough money!!!"

Mom and Dad *ARE* sending the spoiled brat enough money *IF*.........

..... If said spoiled brat would learn to live within his means...

Tough love, my friend. Tough love... :D

Michale.....

Flat Rate tax across the board...

but the first part of that statement is an accounting trick. i'll deal with the rest of your post (let's bankrupt the government in order to save it) sometime later, but this is a statistical lie which is repeated all-too-often and frequently left unchallenged. by statistical lie i don't mean to say it's not factual, merely that whoever came up with it intentionally misused the percentage as a form of class warfare. it's a tricky excuse for taxing the super-rich at a lower rate than the middle class by pretending they pay more.

the first part of that statistic that lies is the "top 20%" part. last year the top 20% started at 55,301 dollars. the top 10% started at 80,094, and even the top 5% at a fairly modest 110,020. for goodness' sake, if i had taught summer school and done a little consulting on the side last year, even i would probably have been in the 80th percentile! i wouldn't call me super rich, would you?

the second part of that lie is the 80%. even if we were to assume that someone who makes 55k a year is rich, the statistic is the percentage of total tax revenue, not the percentage of income. after it's all said and done, the uber-rich pay as little as 17% of what they make. that's less than you and i pay, and it damn well ain't 80%.

the third part of the lie is the word tax, which in that statistic refers mainly to income tax, perhaps coupled with capital gains. but there are many different kinds of taxes, which are paid and passed along in all sorts of different ways. if a corporation has to pay part of a tax for their employee, that tax tends to be passed along to the worker as lower salary. if they have to pay taxes on the front end for their profit, then the prices for their products go up. rises in the costs of goods and services, as well as sales tax, eat up a larger portion of your income if you're poor than if you're rich, because a much larger portion of what the working poor and lower-middle class make must be spent.

so if you believe that the {snicker}"top 20%" paying "80%" of "taxes," means the rich pay too much, i have a bridge in brooklyn i'd like to sell you.

i think you'll enjoy the way cecil adams addresses the issue. i think he's more of your political stripe than mine, but he seems pretty clear-headed about it:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1118/do-the-rich-pay-very-little-tax

They don't, so they don't... It's political BS, pure and simple...

It's the same reason we don't have the likes of the late Amy Winehouse or Charlie Sheen or Robert Downey Jr be spokespeople for an Anti Drug campaign..

It's the same reason we don't have the likes of Maddof or the CEOs of WorldComm and Enron be the spokespeople for an Ethics In Business campaign ..

NONE of them have any moral standing to lecture the rest of us on the given topics...

Millionaires and Billionaires who DON'T voluntarily pay more in taxes have no moral standing to lecture the rest of us on how paying more in taxes is the right thing to do..

It's really that simple...

At least, it is to a knuckle-dragging ground pounder like myself... :D

Michale...

because it won't all be taken away. only a part will be taken away, just as a part is taken away from all of us. the difference between that and what we have now is what the richest pay would be a significantly larger part instead of a significantly smaller part. progressive taxation works. it's taken to fund the government that represents and protects us, however imperfectly. it's not a company, acme or otherwise. for better and worse, it's the U.S.A. - it's us.

But the "rich" already pay more than the rest.. Remember??

The top 20% pay 80% of the taxes...

Now, if you are talking about removing all loopholes, tax havens and other accounting tricks, then I am all for that.

Flat Rate tax across the board...

obviously the system needs to be tweaked. right now, corporations are incentivized to lay off americans and hire people in other countries who will work for less than anyone here could survive on. right now, corporations are incentivized to hold on to any profit, not invest it back into our country's communities. how's that working for us so far?

Not very well.. And I completely agree with you. Right now, corporations have more incentive to screw Joe Q Public over than they have to put Americans back to work..

Where we differ is the solution..

Taxing them and over-regulating them more won't incentivize them to keep jobs in the USA... It will just push them further away from the USA..

Obama himself realized the dangers of over-regulation when he cancelled the EPA run amok regulations..

i suppose i should also ask my students to do their homework voluntarily? many of them know it's for their own benefit, so why not just let them give it in of their own accord, rather than forcing the issue?

If I recall correctly, you teach children, right??

There's your reason right there. Kids don't know enough to know what's good for them. That's why there are adults who tell them what to do..

Now, in an adult education system, it's ALL voluntary is it not?? You don't do the work, you fail the class...

you know that's a specious argument about taxes as well, and have acknowledged as much. sometimes people have to be forced to do things to help themselves and others, even if on some level they want to.

But if the idea is such a good one, wouldn't that be plenty of incentive to SHOW the country this?? I am as self-promoting as the come, right?? If I had a great idea, say limiting our posts here to one or two a day, and I knew that such an idea would make CW tons of money and I promoted that idea day in and day out 20-30 posts a day, wouldn't ya'all get to the point to where you would say, "Gee whiz, Michale. If it's such a great idea, why not put it into play yourself and SHOW us how great it would be??"

Wouldn't that be a logical and rational response??

Warren Buffet and his "government should tax us more" BS is a perfect example.. Obama's "I really SHOULD pay more in taxes" BS is another example..

If they admit that they SHOULD be paying more in taxes, then why the hell don't they??

If they did, then they would have a solid moral foundation from which to preach to the rest of us..

They don't, so they don't... It's political BS, pure and simple...

do we refuse to pay the mortgage instead of spraying for bugs?

If you are a renter and your landlord won't fix the AC, do you continue to pay rent?? Or do you, after months or years of sweltering heat, say, "Look bub.. You are not getting one more red cent from me until you do YOUR job!!"

That's where we are at with this country.. We're in a sweltering heat and our government won't fix the "AC"... So, the ONLY logical response is to say, "Look bub, you won't get one more extra red cent from me until YOU DO YOUR JOB!!!" In this case, the "job" is to manage the money we give to the government properly..

Surely such a response is infinitely more logical than simply throwing good many after bad. An action, I might add, which gives the government absolutely NO incentive to change it's ways...

How do we expect government to change it's ways when the people who hire them (me and you) don't FORCE them to change??? And how are we going to FORCE the government to change without any kind of leverage??

Michale.....

because it won't all be taken away. only a part will be taken away, just as a part is taken away from all of us. the difference between that and what we have now is what the richest pay would be a significantly larger part instead of a significantly smaller part. progressive taxation works. it's taken to fund the government that represents and protects us, however imperfectly. it's not a company, acme or otherwise. for better and worse, it's the U.S.A. - it's us.

And that means taxing corporations MORE???

How will that incentivize corporations to keep workers in the US??

obviously the system needs to be tweaked. right now, corporations are incentivized to lay off americans and hire people in other countries who will work for less than anyone here could survive on. right now, corporations are incentivized to hold on to any profit, not invest it back into our country's communities. how's that working for us so far?

i agree that simply charging more money with no other conditions won't accomplish much. but it's virtually impossible to provide an incentive to create jobs unless there's also a disincentive not to. there's very little people here can do that people in china or india can't or won't do for much less. so unless a company pays a steep price for not hiring americans, no incentive will be strong enough make them do so. too much carrot, not enough stick.

Let those who think that it's such a good idea and would benefit the country, do so voluntarily...

i suppose i should also ask my students to do their homework voluntarily? many of them know it's for their own benefit, so why not just let them give it in of their own accord, rather than forcing the issue? you know that's a specious argument about taxes as well, and have acknowledged as much. sometimes people have to be forced to do things to help themselves and others, even if on some level they want to.

Ya'all want to give the government MORE money in hopes that it will, somehow miraculously, learn how to use it better and become more fiscally disciplined..

the answer is all of the above. we both need to provide more money to work with AND force our government to spend it more wisely. every bureaucracy has some level of waste and abuse, but it can be reduced and controlled. just because our house will always have some dust and dirt, do we refuse to sweep it up off the floor? do we refuse to pay the mortgage instead of spraying for bugs? being defeatist about the possibility of cleaning our nation's house is in my view un-american. yes, things have deteriorated pretty badly, but we're americans dammit, when there's something that needs doing we eventually find a way to do it. of course, we also tend to have quite a bit of trial and error beforehand...

Ya'all want to give the government MORE money in hopes that it will, somehow miraculously, learn how to use it better and become more fiscally disciplined..

It's like a bank extending a loan to ACME FAILS time after time after time, even though ACME FAILS has made some really REALLY bad decisions and proven over and over again that it doesn't have any semblance of fiscal discipline.

And THEN the bank decides, "Hmmmm.. You know what? We have a lot of customers who have billions and billions of dollars in our bank... Let's give THAT money to ACME FAILS."

Now you tell me...

How exactly is that "fair"..????

Michale......

i'm not avoiding your point, i just don't think it's true or valid. it's a statistical manipulation that doesn't account for wealth, growth, capital gains or changes in all forms of income over time.

That's because those things would be non-existent under the scenario that I propose..

Where is the incentive to produce more wealth or produce growth if said "uber rich" taxpayer knows it will all just be taken away??

See "socialism experiment conducted by college professor"..

pogrom? pogrom??? tell me you didn't just go there. my grandma lived through the real thing.

It actually started out as a typo, but then I thought what the hell..

Apologies if you found it offensive..

the idea that people who want the uber-rich to pay their fair share

Who decides what their "fair share" is??

And why don't those who advocate the "fair share" idea voluntarily do it??

See "Warren Buffet Talks Out His Ass"...

we also need to get rid of the incentive to outsource jobs to other countries. but that's not what's happening.

And that means taxing corporations MORE???

How will that incentivize corporations to keep workers in the US??

statistical manipulation notwithstanding, closing loopholes and sending the richest of the rich back to more reasonable tax rates would make a considerable dent in budget deficits and would not cause a single rich person to become poor, nor even middle-class for that matter.

Do you have any empirical evidence to back this up??

I am not being facetious here, I am sincerely curious. Because it sounds reasonable when you say it. But then I listen to Obama, Pelosi, Reid et al and their "stick it to the Rich" speeches and I don't see any reason or logic in their approaches.. Just class warfare and fear-mongering..

enough of the ridiculous mythology that one must hate or demonize the rich simply for wanting them to pay a more fair amount in a way that would benefit all of society, including the rich.

Let those who think that it's such a good idea and would benefit the country, do so voluntarily..

I am being serious... Show me and the rest of Americans that the Uber Rich paying more will benefit the country.

Then I'll jump on your bandwagon and scream to the high heavens that the Uber Rich paying more is the ONLY way to go...

But I suspect that, even if the Uber Rich DID pay more, this country would still be underwater...

You don't give a cocaine addict more cocaine to fix their problem...

Michale.....

Taxing millionaires and billionaires won't do diddley squat if this country can't live within it's means. We can take everything the millionaires and billionaires make and this country MAY be OK for a couple years. But what happens after that?? The millionaires and billionaires are all tapped out. They are now the poor people..

just a pet peeve, but you're, not your. also its means, not it's means. no, i don't capitalize on purpose ;)

i'm not avoiding your point, i just don't think it's true or valid. it's a statistical manipulation that doesn't account for wealth, growth, capital gains or changes in all forms of income over time. that figure may be factual, but it belongs here:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728

This entire pogrom of demonizing the Rich as the problem is just a smoke-screen to hide the REAL problem.

pogrom? pogrom??? tell me you didn't just go there. my grandma lived through the real thing. the idea that people who want the uber-rich to pay their fair share are somehow demonizing them or coming after them with torches and pitchforks is a load of bunk, and yet another excuse to let them keep paying a lower percentage of their income (and a much lower portion of their wealth) than you and me. i don't blame anyone for trying to the best they can for their family, but progressive taxation is part of what spawned our greatest era of prosperity, and regressive policies are what's brought it down.

just as carter tax rates were too high and stifled growth, bush's rates are too low and starve the poor and middle class of needed social services.

Now, you say taxing the poor won't work either? First off, show me examples of taxing the poor.

I didn't say the poor were being taxed too much. if i did, please provide the quote. what i did write was that there are innumerable budget cuts to medicaid, welfare, education and other services that allow the poor and working poor to at least have the basics for survival, and the middle class not to become poor. these amount to less than the state and federal tax cuts for the wealthiest, and it's not the president who's pushing those cuts through, it's republican governors and state legislatures.

yes, of course you're right that we need to spend more wisely and reduce waste, abuse, graft and the incentive for government to spend rather than save. we also need to get rid of the incentive to outsource jobs to other countries. but that's not what's happening.

statistical manipulation notwithstanding, closing loopholes and sending the richest of the rich back to more reasonable tax rates would make a considerable dent in budget deficits and would not cause a single rich person to become poor, nor even middle-class for that matter. enough of the ridiculous mythology that one must hate or demonize the rich simply for wanting them to pay a more fair amount in a way that would benefit all of society, including the rich.

"It strikes me that it could be the economic times, it could be that he won so big in 2008 or it could be, let's face it, the color of his skin."
-MSNBC contributor Richard Wolffe

Dr King is spinning in his grave....

Michale.....

Your avoiding the point. Even if we took EVERYTHING that that millionaires (those who make between 1 mil and 10 mil a year) it would only reduce the deficit by 8% and reduce the budget by 10%.

Taxing millionaires and billionaires won't do diddley squat if this country can't live within it's means. We can take everything the millionaires and billionaires make and this country MAY be OK for a couple years. But what happens after that?? The millionaires and billionaires are all tapped out. They are now the poor people..

NOW where does all the money come from to pay for all the things this country can't pay for???

Don't you see?? The problem is not who pays and who doesn't pay taxes or how much they pay..

The problem is that this country simply CAN'T AFFORD all the things that Democrats (and to a certain extent, Republicans) have racked up...

Taking more and more from ANY group may work for a few years. But what happens when THAT well runs dry??

Now, you say taxing the poor won't work either? First off, show me examples of taxing the poor..

You say taking away the poor's benefits won't work?? No one is talking about taking the benefits away..

Wouldn't it be logical to eliminate the waste, fraud and abuse of the system?? Think of the BILLIONS that doing THAT would save...

I read an article where people would use Food Stamps to buy bottled water, empty the water and then return the bottles for cash to get beer money...

THAT type of abuse happens everyday and costs the program BILLIONS.. Want to talk Medicare Fraud???

THESE are the types of issues that NEED to be addressed.. These types of benefits MUST be changed...

I don't see how ANYONE could be against that..

but i would say he's mainly been digging sideways. it's the same hole we were in when bush dug it from above-ground.

With the utmost respect (I mean that) that's so much felgercarb...

Obama has run the bill up more than any president before him COMBINED....

We are far FAR deeper in the hole under Obama and Democrats than we ever were under Bush..

Unemployment
i35.tinypic.com/2hygbr5.jpg

Debt
blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/special-obama-budget-deficits-chart-sm.jpg

(Cut n Paste the links)

This entire pogrom of demonizing the Rich as the problem is just a smoke-screen to hide the REAL problem.

This country simply cannot pay for all the shiny new toys it wants..

ESPECIALLY when all the shiny toys (Green Technology Green Jobs Green Companies) seem to "break" (go bankrupt) after a year or so..

Yea, things were bad under GOP rule..

Things have gotten TONS worse under Democrat rule..

"That's what elections are for."
-President Barack Obama

Michale.....

sure, some individuals exist who have lived beyond their means. and sure, the half-assed stimulus bills and "oh-well-better-than-nothing-care" haven't done all that much to help. and sure, two wrongs don't make a right, but we're not talking about equivalent wrongs.

michale, you know for a fact that i'm no huge fan of the president or his policies, but i would say he's mainly been digging sideways. it's the same hole we were in when bush dug it from above-ground.

Is youtube a medium? Every MLK Day for the past few, I play the speech in its entirety: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbUtL_0vAJk

Got my movies mixed up.. Hay, it happens. :D

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120623/

That's the proper link...

Michale......

Apparently, Dr King was wrong in that assumption...

huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/24/afl-cio-trumka-strategy_n_935204.html

as opposed to the stoic fiscal responsibility of republicans for six years prior?

So we're back to the "Two Wrongs Make A Right" form of government, eh?? :D

Democrats were elected in 2006 and given overwhelmingly unprecedented control of government in 2008 to FIX the problems caused by Republicans..

NOT to make those problems 20 times worse...

Whaa happened???

junk like medicaid, social security, welfare and public education? that's what's being cut,

No, junk like CrapCare, Porkulus I II (III??), all the waste, fraud and abuse, "Jobs" programs that cost millions and (if lucky) produce a couple jobs.

THAT's the kind of junk I am referring to...

Remember. STOP digging...

All those programs you mentioned would likely be fine today, if CrapCare and all the other crap hadn't been forced down the throats of the American people...

and i haven't heard of any billionaires hurting from the loss

Ever hear the story of the Ant and the Grasshopper??

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120587/

:D

Michale.....

The orgasm of spending that Democrats have done since 2006 has to be paid somehow....

as opposed to the stoic fiscal responsibility of republicans for six years prior?

The problem is, is that there is too much junk to pay for...

junk like medicaid, social security, welfare and public education? that's what's being cut, and i haven't heard of any billionaires hurting from the loss.

— Dr. Martin Luther King, "If the Negro Wins, Labor Wins", December 11, 1961

For example???

The orgasm of spending that Democrats have done since 2006 has to be paid somehow....

As I have shown, even if the rich paid everything they had, who is going to pay the other 90%??

It's obvious to this economic ignoramus that the problem isn't who pays what or how much they pay...

The problem is, is that there is too much junk to pay for...

The simple fact that the Obama Administration thinks that just printing more money will solve the problem shows the complete and utter ignorance of those giving the advice...

You can't just print money. It's insanity...

In 1968, King organized the "Poor People's Campaign" to address issues of economic justice.

OK, good to know...

But I doubt that one could take those few instances and paint the entire movement being about the poor and not about racial issues...

Regardless, it IS good to know this side of MLK...

Michale.....

In 1968, King organized the "Poor People's Campaign" to address issues of economic justice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_People%27s_Campaign

This is the Martin Luther King you won't hear about on TV.

He was also killed while at a AFSCME Local 1733 event in Memphis, Tenn.

Apologies for the 2 posts but had 2 links.
-David

If its not about rich vs. poor, how come all of the proposed solutions are asking the poor to pay more?

As Daniel Weeks wrote recently, government "isn't broken - it's fixed." It works perfectly well for the people who fund it.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/opinionperspectives/930830-263/congress-isnt-broken--its-fixed-by.html

What also makes it a shame is that King understood that it was not really about race but about economics and class.

I think you might be reading too much into it..

There were plenty of poor white churches in the deep south that MLK never spoke at to the best of my knowledge.. I might be wrong...

Is there any historical evidence that Dr King preached to the poor, regardless of color?? It's not a facetious question, I am truly curious...

Now, in the here and now, the argument IS being made that is a poor vs rich argument..

TPTB try to rile up the poor by demonizing the rich..

But, as has been proven, even if the "rich" paid ALL their money in taxes, it would amount to less than 10% (or some such like that) of this country's bill.....

The problem ISN'T one of rich vs poor. It's one of a country that simply refuses to live within it's means...

Michale......

Hahahahahahahah. Can't believe Michele Bachmann didn't pick up on that :)

We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now.

Have to admit I didn't know that. Guess it just goes to prove the old adage "Good writers borrow. Great writers steal."

This is a shame. Both in the "Oh, that's a shame" sense, and in the literal meaning of the word "shame."

What also makes it a shame is that King understood that it was not really about race but about economics and class. And this message is largely erased from his legacy in the media. The message we get is that he stood up for black people. I believe he stood up for poor people and said you need to come together as an economic class and fight as one.

This is the message you won't see on TV. They will tell you that he stood up for black people. They will try and make it a black vs. white issue. Why? Not out of racism. No, they're much smarter than that. It's simply a matter of target markets. If you can take a poor vs. rich argument and turn it into a black vs. white argument, you change the percentages.

-David

"I'm going to Canada..."

Heh.

-CW

http://youtu.be/F1xCsSPpERs

http://youtu.be/M4q5RrE5V_M

CW, yer da man!!! :D

Michale.....

As we all know, we're not there yet. We're a little closer than we were when Dr. King was taken from us, but we've still got quite a ways to go yet.

I was going to object to this and point out the election of a black man to the most powerful position in the world as evidence..

But then I really thought about it and I realized how right you are, although probably not in the way you think..

When I think of how racism and claims of racism pervade every day of our lives, I have to concede that you are dead on ballz accurate...

Not just the REAL racism, but the faux accusations of racism and the use of racism as a blunt weapon against ideological opponents...

Imagine how Dr King would have felt if he read how groups of reporters would conspire to accuse anyone of racism, who questions their agenda. How people would vote for AND against a President BECAUSE of race... How people who have legitimate complaints and concerns about a President (who happens to be black) would immediately be denounced as racist...

I would dare say that racism is a bigger problem today than it was in Dr King's day.

Not real and actual racism (although there is still plenty of that) but rather the use of racism to further a political agenda...

One only has to see the recent tirades of Maxine (I Never Met A Constituent I Didn't Want To Cheat) Waters or Florida's own Fredrica (Somewhere There Is A Rodeo Clown Looking For His Hat) Wilson to realize that the use of racism accusations as a political weapon is alive and well...

Which isn't to say that there isn't REAL racism coming from the Right *AND* the Left...

There is..

On the Right, the vulgar and racist statements about our President shows that racism is alive and well..

And, on the Left, the near unwavering and near total support of President Obama by the black community..

Those are examples of REAL racism that Dr King fought against.

But I think that Dr King would have been especially sad to see the use of racism as a blunt-force weapon with which Americans would bash fellow Americans over the heads with...

Depressingly, I don't think we'll see an end to racism, in ALL it's forms, in my lifetime...

Beam me up, Scotty. There is no intelligent life on this planet. :^/

Michale.....

Before I wrote this, I had some notes ready for the usual FTP column. Part of this was a song which (to the best of my knowledge) is the only song to pair "earthquakes" with "hurricanes," so it seemed somehow appropriate for DC this week. Anyway, even though it doesn't fit with the article, here you go.

============
Creedence Clearwater Revival
"Bad Moon Rising"
============

I see the bad moon a-risin'
I see trouble on the way
I see earthquakes and lightnin'
I see bad times today

Don't go 'round tonight
Well, it's bound to take your life
There's a bad moon on the rise

I hear hurricanes a-blowin'
I know the end is comin' soon
I fear rivers overflowin'
I hear the voice of rage and ruin

Don't go around tonight
Well, it's bound to take your life
There's a bad moon on the rise

Hope you got your things together
Hope you are quite prepared to die
Looks like we're in for nasty weather
One eye is taken for an eye

Well, don't go around tonight
Well, it's bound to take your life
There's a bad moon on the rise
==============

One last note, interesting that the quake was centered in Eric Cantor's district, hmm?

Heh.

-CW