Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (28843)	5/22/2008 9:20:38 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Respond to of 224737

Syria is probably contemplating Pres McCain's future attitude toward terrorist-sponsoring states. Possibly the media will intimidate Iran as well with their "nasty temper" portrayal of their once favorite Repub.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (28843)	5/22/2008 10:21:45 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224737

jimmypeanut did and failed and was kicked out of white house

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (28843)	5/22/2008 10:24:01 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224737

Change You Can't Believe In May 22, 2008 President Bush vetoed the $300 billion farm bill yesterday, and a bipartisan throng in the House promptly voted to override. The Senate is expected to follow shortly. Every one of these Congressional worthies purports to be an advocate of "change." Yet you couldn't write a piece of legislation that more thoroughly represents the Beltway status quo than this one. In every way imaginable, and even a few more, it repeats and compounds the spendthrift errors of previous farm bills. Since the last farm bill in 2002, the price of cotton is up 105%, soybeans 164%, corn 169% and wheat 256%. Yet when Mr. Bush proposed the genuine change of limiting farm welfare to those earning less than $200,000 a year, he was laughed out of town. The bill purports to limit subsidies to those earning a mere $750,000, but loopholes and spousal qualifications make it closer to $2.5 million. As Barack Obama likes to say, it's time Washington worked for "the middle class," which apparently includes millionaire corn and sugar farmers. Another purported change is the arrival of "fiscal discipline," in Nancy Pelosi's favorite phrase from the 2006 campaign. Yet it turns out this farm extravaganza may bust federal budget targets even more than we thought a week ago. That's because the new price supports – the guaranteed floor payments farmers receive for their crops – have been raised to match this year's record prices. The USDA reports that if crop prices fall from these highs to their norm over the next five years, farm payments will surge. For example, if corn prices return to $3.25 a bushel from today's $6, farmers would get $10 billion a year in support payments. If bean prices fall to their norm, they'd get $4 billion. Thus, if farm prices stay high, consumers face higher grocery bills and farmers get rich. If farm prices fall, taxpayers kick in the difference and farmers still get rich. Sugar producers also make out like Beltway bandits, receiving the difference between the world price of sugar, which is now $12 per pound, and the guaranteed price of about $21 per pound. That's a roughly 75% subsidy for already wealthy cane growers and a nice payoff for the $3 million they contribute to House candidates each year. All of this is a status quo that both political parties can believe in. More than a few liberal Democrats are privately embarrassed by this corporate welfare spectacle. But they've been mollified by Speaker Pelosi, who spent the last week assuring her left that the bill also includes another $10.4 billion for food stamps and nutrition programs. This entitlement expansion comes only days after the Congressional Budget Office reported that paying the bills for existing entitlements could require tax rates to climb to 80% in the future. Yes we can! House Republicans are equally as complicit, despite their claims of having found fiscal religion after 2006. About half of them voted to override a Republican President. GOP leaders refused to whip against the bill, and two of them – Roy Blunt of Missouri and Adam Putnam of Florida – even voted for it. These are the same House Republicans who last week unveiled their new slogan, "The Change You Deserve." Which brings us to Mr. Obama, who says he supported the bill though he wasn't around to vote for it. One of the Illinois Senator's major campaign themes is that he has no truck with corporate lobbyists, but the farm bill is the ultimate lobbyist triumph. Every special interest gets massaged. Just as Mr. Bush bent too far to GOP spending in his first term, Mr. Obama's farm bill support suggests he'd bow to the Pelosi Democrats on Capitol Hill. To his credit, John McCain opposes the bill, and this week he gave a speech attacking it. Yet he's also missed an opportunity to make his opposition part of a larger case that he represents change from both parties in Washington. He could also turn the tables on Mr. Obama's claim that he better represents middle-class taxpayers. Failing that kind of campaign, the farm bill suggests that the only real change coming to Washington is more of what's in taxpayer pockets. See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (28843)	5/22/2008 10:25:49 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224737

Ornery Oregonians Size Up Obama Demorats are busy spinning Barack Obama's win in Oregon yesterday as proof that their presumptive nominee doesn't have such a big problem with white, working-class voters after all. But Mr. Obama's Northwest win says far more about quirky Oregon voters than it does about the candidate. It's true that Oregon has similar demographics to states that Mr. Obama lost. Like Ohio or Kentucky, Oregon is largely white, has a significant manufacturing base and sports plenty of middle-and low-income voters (the median household income is about $42,000). It's also true Mr. Obama did far better among many of these voters than he has elsewhere. He trounced Hillary Clinton among white men and in every income category save family incomes under $30,000. Then again, Oregonians have a long tradition of independence, gravitating toward unusual causes and politicians who promise to buck political norms. This is, after all, the state that turned up the nation's first assisted suicide law. It's hard to think of a state where Mr. Obama's "reformist" message would get a better reception. An even bigger help to Mr. Obama may be that Oregon in recent decades has become the premiere destination of many of those same wealthy, well-educated liberals that have proven so vital to the Illinois Senator's campaign. These transplants turned out for Mr. Obama big; nearly 40% of those voting said they earned more than $75,000 a year. Nearly 65% of voters making more than $100,000 a year gave him their vote. One question is how Mr. Obama's support in Oregon holds up in a general election against John McCain. Oregon hasn't voted for a Republican for president since Ronald Reagan in 1984. But John McCain is pitching his "maverick" status to the state, traveling there to deliver a big climate-change speech. Those who see yesterday's primary as a test of how Mr. Obama connects with the white working class may find that, come November, Oregon will prove a far more interesting example of how Mr. Obama fares among independent-minded voters.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (28843)	5/22/2008 10:28:11 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224737

Political Wisdom: Obama and Clinton Perform True to Form Here’s a summary of the smartest new political analysis on the Web: by Gerald F. Seib The victories of Sen. Barack Obama in Oregon and Sen. Hillary Clinton in Kentucky Tuesday came about because the two states performed were precisely true to form, says Politico’s David Paul Kuhn. “Barack Obama’s sizable victory was due to the more liberal, independent, upper-class and West Coast electorate of Oregon. Hillary Clinton’s whopping victory was possible thanks to the more moderate, more blue-collar, Upper South electorate of Kentucky.” Clinton won blue-collar whites in Kentucky, while Obama got nine of 10 blacks. Obama prevailed among Oregon voters with a college education. “In Oregon, like other more liberal states with small black populations, race appeared less of a factor. Obama won a remarkable six in ten white men in Oregon, and nearly split white women and white voters age 60 and older. Obama only narrowly won white Democrats overall in Oregon. But white independents supported him there by a two-to-one ratio.”