"News that's not known, or not known enough."
Helen & Harry Highwater's cranky weblog of news and opinion.
|
"News that's not known, or not known enough." Helen & Harry Highwater's cranky weblog of news and opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Limbo debate: How low can these candidates go?
Even Obama is, I would say, a passive receptacle of common wisdom of the status quo in this regard One key point, which did shock me, was that both Clinton and Obama swore blood oaths not to raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 a year. FYI, that cap works out to $100 an hour. I don't think even Obama has measure the depths of bitterness and rage "out there" if he is considering people who earn $99 an hour "middle class". Similarly, both Democratic Party candidates pledged not to raise capital gains taxes above 20%, which amounts to a mere 5% increase over the Bush rate of 15% for long term capital gains. Since 20% is far below the current 28% maximum earned income (payroll wages), both Clinton and Obama just pledged to treat millionaires and gazillionaires far better than people who work for a living. It ought to be clear by now that "investors" are essentially just gamblers. In addition, "investors" have the option of choosing if or even when they book their winnings and take profits, so they, in effect, can decide exactly how much tax they wish to pay each year. Overall, Hillary failed to win my vote in spite of my distaste for many of Obama's pathetic attempts to pander to the right and middle. The main thing that was obvious throughout the debate was Hillary's utter lack of perceived sincerity. She may come across as completely sincere in person, but on TV she just looks like a person with a small collection of masks to hide behind. She has a Smug mask, a Condescending mask, a Smirk mask Obama, in contrast appears so sincere that he comes across as almost naive compared to Clinton (I am pretty sure that few of Obama's grandiose war plans for changing D.C. or helping the people will survive the first battle
Because we respect peoples' privacy, we do not keep records of friends' and contributors' contact information. This means we can't forward private communications between readers and writers, but we always welcome dialogue for publication. When we publish incoming emails, we usually edit out the sender's last name, email address, or anything else that would tend to uniquely identify the author (if we slip up, please let us know). But if your email is unambiguously intended only to annoy, insult, or threaten us, we'll publish all the details, and leave it on-line forever. We're especially interested in hearing and considering different perspectives. All we ask is that you conduct yourself sanely and civilly. For the most productive dialogue, it helps if you'll cite a specific article or concept we've gotten wrong. You can contact Helen & Harry at <newsuneed at yahoo.com>. If that address ever fails, our back-up email address is <unknownnews at inbox.com>. But please, don't email us unless you're really and truly, honestly, actually trying to send the publishers of News a communication you're not sending to anyone or everyone else. Please don't send attachments or other cr*p we don't want. If you're trying to reach us but getting no reply, it's probably because you've sent us cr*p we don't want, so we're filtering your emails into the trash, unopened and unread. If you'd like to have your email address unblocked, simply send a sincere apology (from an un-blocked email address).
|
|
