Obama: My Plan Will 'Spread The Wealth Around'

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

are you aware of the multiple lawsuits that have been filed because the current administration will not reveal the minutes of meetings where decisions such as these contracts were made?

yes, "finding a problem is another thing" when the information is hidden from the public.

it isn't an attempt to blame or demonize halliburton, it just isn't good/sound business to not have competitive bidding on contracts, especially multi billion dollar goverment contracts.

We still don't know the details behind the decision.
The Administration and Top Brass have national security reasons at stake and I suspect that the minutes of the meetings will be "classified" for 30 years.
That still doesn't mean corruption/fraud occured.
It is still hard to argue that Halliburton was a bad choice since they have been successful.

And, I'll add that McCain agrees with you. He insisted on open bidding on the refueling tankers that resulted in picking AirBus over Boeing. But, that was a contract not directly involved with a specific military action. It is hard to compare picking Halliburton to play directly in the Sand Box and issue of picking AirBus over Boeing for refueling tankers.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Heck, it is national news that Palin was involved in firing a dude in Alaska...

That actually didn't make much national news. What made national news was that she is a cartoon character who John McCain's campaign managers thought it would be a good idea to install as the second-in-line.

[wmbwinn]

You might dislike Palin as much as I dislike Obama.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

This is in regard to the issue of corporate tax breaks under GW Bush. The so called "Bush tax breaks" is actually several different bills.

anyway, we don't know which Bush tax cuts Obama and his puppet Congress will slash.

the ajca has for the most part ended in 2007.

the "bush tax cuts" will end in 2010. the issue is what to do going forward.

mccain proposes to make those schedules prmanent, obama proposes to change the apportion of the cuts.

that was the chart posted earlier.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

You might dislike Palin as much as I dislike Obama.

You couldn't possibly dislike Obama as much as I dislike Palin.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You couldn't possibly dislike Obama as much as I dislike Palin.

If you believe that, you are naieve.

I don't like McCain. I am voting AGAINST Obama.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the ajca has for the most part ended in 2007.

the "bush tax cuts" will end in 2010. the issue is what to do going forward.

mccain proposes to make those schedules prmanent, obama proposes to change the apportion of the cuts.

that was the chart posted earlier.

Agreed. I think the AJCA and Bush tax cuts should be permanent. Allowing them to expire or failing to renew them constitutes a tax increase on the parts of the economy that drive the economy (the top).

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

If you believe that, you are naieve.

I don't like McCain. I am voting AGAINST Obama.

I already voted. And I voted "AGAINST" Palin. So, I guess if I am "naieve" then I am as "naieve" as you are. God bless ya!

[wmbwinn]

the naivete is to think that you are filled with more disdain than I.

I did not say at any time that you disliked Palin less than I disliked Obama. I already knew you hated Palin just as much as I hate Obama.

[chumdawg]

You just repeated yourself, and added nothing.

AGAIN: You don't have any more disdain for Obama than I have for Palin.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Agreed. I think the AJCA and Bush tax cuts should be permanent. Allowing them to expire or failing to renew them constitutes a tax increase on the parts of the economy that drive the economy (the top).

guess that you don't understand that the obama plan is also a tax cut....just for the vast majority of people who work day in and day out to "drive the economy".

the affect of the bush tax policy is seen in the widening gap between the economic classes. never before has so much of our country's wealth been concentrated in so few.

that is unhealthy for our country, and our economy long term.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

guess that you don't understand that the obama plan is also a tax cut....just for the vast majority of people who work day in and day out to "drive the economy".

the affect of the bush tax policy is seen in the widening gap between the economic classes. never before has so much of our country's wealth been concentrated in so few.

that is unhealthy for our country, and our economy long term.

the tax cuts that obama and mccain propose are similar in scope and style except that obama increases taxes at the top and mccain offers tax cuts at that level also.

mccain is likely to support tax breaks for corporations (without carrots such as tax credits for creating new jobs) whereas obama is unlikely.

obama gives credits (means that he just takes tax money and distributes it as welfare through the IRS) to those who pay no taxes.

but, for the average person who does work, the two tax codes are pretty darn similar.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You just repeated yourself, and added nothing.

AGAIN: You don't have any more disdain for Obama than I have for Palin.

glad we understand each other. perhaps we should repeat it some more...

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

glad we understand each other. perhaps we should repeat it some more...

Good. Now tell me me about that eight-year-old boy who lost his young life firing off that UZI that his dad liked him to.

[wmbwinn]

Hmmm....

Now we are really off topic. I'm afraid you are going to have to correct your sentence (so it makes sense) and include more data. I have no idea what you are talking about now.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Hmmm....

Now we are really off topic. I'm afraid you are going to have to correct your sentence (so it makes sense) and include more data. I have no idea what you are talking about now.

Oh, you didn't see the news story? It was some gun-firing event. I think they were shooting at old cars or somesuch. The kid was shooting an UZI. To do that, he had to have parental permission and an instructor at hand. He had both. That gun got away from him, and he ended up shooting himself in the head.

Of course, it was his Constitutional right to shoot himself in the head--accidental or not--so there is really no political talk to be had here.

I was just wondering if you had heard about it.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Oh, you didn't see the news story? It was some gun-firing event. I think they were shooting at old cars or somesuch. The kid was shooting an UZI. To do that, he had to have parental permission and an instructor at hand. He had both. That gun got away from him, and he ended up shooting himself in the head.

Of course, it was his Constitutional right to shoot himself in the head--accidental or not--so there is really no political talk to be had here.

I was just wondering if you had heard about it.

No, I had not heard the story. Sad story, though. Makes for a good reminder to teach people gun safety.

On another point, if the Uzi is really a Uzi, then it is fully automatic and is a level 3 NFA weapon which can only be legally held and operated by the one and only person with the level 3 NFA permit to hold and operate. no way can a child legally even touch/hold a fully automatic weapon.

So, i have to assume it was a semiautomatic weapon or a sportered version of a Uzi that is only semiautomatic. or, I have to assume that the adults involved were:
1)stupid as regards gun safety
2)stupid as regards gun laws

Whatever the details, a sad story of stupid adults guilty of neglect

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

No, I had not heard the story. Sad story, though. Makes for a good reminder to teach people gun safety.

On another point, if the Uzi is really a Uzi, then it is fully automatic and is a level 3 NFA weapon which can only be legally held and operated by the one and only person with the level 3 NFA permit to hold and operate. no way can a child legally even touch/hold a fully automatic weapon.

So, i have to assume it was a semiautomatic weapon or a sportered version of a Uzi that is only semiautomatic. or, I have to assume that the adults involved were:
1)stupid as regards gun safety
2)stupid as regards gun laws

Whatever the details, a sad story of stupid adults guilty of neglect

I am only going on what I heard in the news (they said "Uzi"). They were also saying that due to the nature of the gun both his parent and an instructor had to be present. But regardless, if the kid did in fact die because the gun got away from him and shot himself in the head...well, maybe kids shouldn't oughta be handling guns like that.

But of course, you've got the Second Amendment...

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

the tax cuts that obama and mccain propose are similar in scope and style except that obama increases taxes at the top and mccain offers tax cuts at that level also.

well, no, and the tax tables illustrate the difference.

mccain is likely to support tax breaks for corporations (without carrots such as tax credits for creating new jobs) whereas obama is unlikely.

pure conjecture. obama propsoes a bevy of tax credits to corporations who hire american workers, develop clean technology, and invest domestically.

obama gives credits (means that he just takes tax money and distributes it as welfare through the IRS) to those who pay no taxes.

no, you are wrong. these workers (they must work to get the credits) do pay taxes.

but, for the average person who does work, the two tax codes are pretty darn similar.

wow, to call greater than double the tax cut for most americans under the obama plan to the half the tax cut mccain proposes for the majority of american workers as "similar" is a joke.

but the joke is not funny to the majority of americans who are paying too much of the tax bill and want tax relief.

looks to me like they re likely to get it, too..

[Mavdog]

Grieving father says he gave son, 8, permission to fire Uzi
October 27, 2008 02:18 PM Email| Comments (668)| Text size – +
By David Abel and Andrew Ryan, Globe Staff, and Matthew P. Collette, Globe Correspondent

Dr. Charles Bizilj stood 10 feet behind his son this weekend at a "Machine Gun Shoot" in Westfield, where the third grader aimed an Uzi at a pumpkin in the distance.

As Bizilj reached for his camera, the boy clutched the gun in his arms and squeezed the trigger. The Uzi flipped backwards and 8-year-old Christopher Bizilj fatally shot himself in the head.

“It was all a blur,” Dr. Charles Bizilj said this afternoon in a telephone interview. “I’m still in the grieving process.”

Christopher was accompanied by a trained professional as he held the 9-mm Micro Uzi machine gun at the Westfield Sportsman's Club Sunday afternoon, but Bizilj said he doesn’t think the shooting guide was holding the weapon as his son pressed the trigger.

“This accident was truly a mystery to me,” he said. “This is a horrible event, a horrible travesty, and I really don’t know why it happened. I don’t think it’s relevant that he wasn’t holding the weapon.”

He said his son, a third grader who loved to hike and bike, had experience firing handguns and rifles. But he said this was the first time he had fired an automatic weapon.

"I gave permission for him to fire the Uzi,” Bizilj said. “I watched several other children and adults use it. It’s a small weapon, and Christopher was comfortable with guns. There were larger machine guns with much more recoil, and we avoided those.”

Bizilj, the medical director of the emergency department at Johnson Memorial Hospital in Stafford Springs, Conn., said that his son was “very cautious, very well trained, and very much enjoyed firing.”

When his son pressed the trigger Sunday, it was the first gun he had fired all day. “It took about an hour to get there, and it was something he was looking forward to for months,” Bizilj said.

The annual Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo is a two-day event. Police are investigating whether the Westfield Sportsman’s Club and the group running the event were licensed. “We haven’t confirmed whether either have been licensed,” said Westfield Police Lieutenant Hipolito Nuñez.

The sportsman's club boasted in an advertisement for the event posted on its website that the $5 entry fee was waived for children under age 16 and there was "no age limit or licenses required to shoot machine guns."

"It’s all legal & fun," the advertisement says. "You will be accompanied to the firing line with a Certified Instructor to guide you. But You Are In Control – "FULL AUTO ROCK & ROLL."

Shooting targets for the event included vehicles, pumpkins, and "other fun stuff we can’t print here," according to the advertisement.

Christopher Bizilj was firing the weapon at an outside firing range and was wounded once in the head when the recoil forced the gun to rotate upward and backward, Nuñez said. The boy was taken to Baystate Medical Center in Springfield. He was pronounced dead at the hospital with one gunshot wound to the head. No one else was injured.

State law requires anyone under age 18 to have parental consent and a licensed instructor to fire an automatic weapon. Otherwise, there’s no minimum age to fire such a gun, Nuñez said.

“We do not know at this time the full facts of this incident, and it's being investigated," Nuñez said.

The event at the club was organized by C.O.P. Firearms & Training, an Amherst company that, according to its website, organizes machine gun shoots throughout New England. Officials from that group also could not be reached.

[wmbwinn]

too much time spent debating stuff that doesn't matter. I assume Obama will win. I assume that the tax code will be re-written. I assume that new social programs will be developed.

But, I know that Congress will do these things, not Obama.

So, we'll see what it really looks like later.

Many people have independently determined that Obama's tax plans don't pay for his promised programs.

So, if Congress wants to support the proposals of Obama, they have to:
1)increase the tax burden some where
2)gut the programs
3)borrow money/increase the national debt further if they wish to avoid options 1 and 2

[wmbwinn]

thanks for the link on the Uzi episode.

It was a real Uzi which is a 9 mm fully automatic gun made by Israeli Military Industries which company is banned from importation into the USA since after the 1989 imports by a bill crafted by Feinstein in California.

I was unaware that there were states where the typical Federal laws regarding level 3 NFA weapons were tossed aside.

Typically, based on the National Firearms Act (NFA), level 3 weapons can only be owned by a person holding a level 3 permit for that specific weapon which is tedious to obtain. Typically, the person owning the level 3 permit for that specific weapon (you need an additional permit for each level 3 weapon you have) is the only person who can even legally hold the gun/weapon. It is typically illegal to even let a friend with you touch it or shoot it.

So, obviously, there is a state or states where state laws have been crafted to trump the NFA.

Nonetheless, it is a good example of carelessness.

[wmbwinn]

If it makes you feel better I don't have any level 3 NFA weapons and don't see a need to obtain one.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I am only going on what I heard in the news (they said "Uzi"). They were also saying that due to the nature of the gun both his parent and an instructor had to be present. But regardless, if the kid did in fact die because the gun got away from him and shot himself in the head...well, maybe kids shouldn't oughta be handling guns like that.

But of course, you've got the Second Amendment...

Agree that kids should not be handling weapons like that in any situation anywhere. Period.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

If it makes you feel better I don't have any level 3 NFA weapons and don't see a need to obtain one.

Of course not. Just wondering, though, if you think that kid had every right to handle that weapon.

It killed him, of course, so I suspect that in the future there will be more safeguards. But I reckon you would be against any restraints that would have kept that young man from firing that weapon.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Of course not. Just wondering, though, if you think that kid had every right to handle that weapon.

It killed him, of course, so I suspect that in the future there will be more safeguards. But I reckon you would be against any restraints that would have kept that young man from firing that weapon.

No. I am in favor of the Federal NFA rules regarding fully automatic weapons and other level 3 NFA weapons.

I do not think that a child should ever handle a weapon like that in any situation at any time.

I think that what happened was negligent in a criminal fashion.

[chumdawg]

He had his dad with him, and an instructor, and the Second Amendment.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

He had his dad with him, and an instructor, and the Second Amendment.

Yes, and his dad (a doctor) is an idiot. I took my son to the range yesterday and let him fire a single shot 22 (holds only 1 round at a time), and I was watching him like a hawk, to the point of being paranoid. The Second Amendment doesn't protect against stupidity.

The article said something about the dad not knowing if the instructor was holding the weapon while the kid fired. Sounds as if the instructor was supposed to have a hand on it to help maintain control. If that was what he was supposed to do, then he had no business handing that gun to a kid with a chambered round if he wasn't holding it too. Of course, that's just assumptions on my part. The whole idea of letting under age kids shoot a fully automatic weapon is just retarded.

In my opinion, the range owners/operators, instructor, and dad are all guilty of negligent homicide.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mary

[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Exxon+Mobil+Corporation?tid=informline"]

Man, I hope they don't find out about those sweet corporate tax rates in Ireland.

Maybe you are right after all about Ireland seeing as how no matter what theMessiah says...it's probably wrong.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWY5ODIyNGRmY2NiNGU5YTViODg2OWE2MWI1NDU3N2Y=

n the last debate, Sen. Obama said, "We both want to cut taxes, the difference is who we want to cut taxes for. . . . The centerpiece of [McCain's] economic proposal is to provide $200 billion in additional tax breaks to some of the wealthiest corporations in America. Exxon Mobil, and other oil companies, for example, would get an additional $4 billion in tax breaks."

That $200 billion figure is false. Yet FactCheck.org and most reporters never bothered to ask Mr. Obama where he came up with it. FactCheck.org did discover that Mr. Obama's claim about "$4 billion in tax breaks for energy companies" came from a two-page memo from the Center for American Progress Action Fund — a political lobby headed by John Podesta, former chief of staff to Bill Clinton, with tax issues handled by two lawyers, Robert Gordon and James Kvaal, former policy directors for the John Kerry and John Edwards campaigns. Those lawyers confused average tax rates (after credits and deductions) with the 35% statutory rate on the next dollar of earnings, so that cutting the latter rate from 35% to 25% would supposedly cut big oil's $13.4 billion tax bill by 28.5%, or $3.8 billion. That is not economics; it is not even competent bookkeeping.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, by contrast, correctly notes that, "Senator McCain has called for the repeal and reform of a number of tax preferences for oil companies," which would raise the oil companies' taxes by $5 billion in 2013.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

Grieving father says he gave son, 8, permission to fire Uzi
October 27, 2008 02:18 PM Email| Comments (668)| Text size – +
By David Abel and Andrew Ryan, Globe Staff, and Matthew P. Collette, Globe Correspondent

Dr. Charles Bizilj stood 10 feet behind his son this weekend at a "Machine Gun Shoot" in Westfield, where the third grader aimed an Uzi at a pumpkin in the distance.

As Bizilj reached for his camera, the boy clutched the gun in his arms and squeezed the trigger. The Uzi flipped backwards and 8-year-old Christopher Bizilj fatally shot himself in the head.

“It was all a blur,” Dr. Charles Bizilj said this afternoon in a telephone interview. “I’m still in the grieving process.”

Christopher was accompanied by a trained professional as he held the 9-mm Micro Uzi machine gun at the Westfield Sportsman's Club Sunday afternoon, but Bizilj said he doesn’t think the shooting guide was holding the weapon as his son pressed the trigger.

“This accident was truly a mystery to me,” he said. “This is a horrible event, a horrible travesty, and I really don’t know why it happened. I don’t think it’s relevant that he wasn’t holding the weapon.”

He said his son, a third grader who loved to hike and bike, had experience firing handguns and rifles. But he said this was the first time he had fired an automatic weapon.

"I gave permission for him to fire the Uzi,” Bizilj said. “I watched several other children and adults use it. It’s a small weapon, and Christopher was comfortable with guns. There were larger machine guns with much more recoil, and we avoided those.”

Bizilj, the medical director of the emergency department at Johnson Memorial Hospital in Stafford Springs, Conn., said that his son was “very cautious, very well trained, and very much enjoyed firing.”

When his son pressed the trigger Sunday, it was the first gun he had fired all day. “It took about an hour to get there, and it was something he was looking forward to for months,” Bizilj said.

The annual Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo is a two-day event. Police are investigating whether the Westfield Sportsman’s Club and the group running the event were licensed. “We haven’t confirmed whether either have been licensed,” said Westfield Police Lieutenant Hipolito Nuñez.

The sportsman's club boasted in an advertisement for the event posted on its website that the $5 entry fee was waived for children under age 16 and there was "no age limit or licenses required to shoot machine guns."

"It’s all legal & fun," the advertisement says. "You will be accompanied to the firing line with a Certified Instructor to guide you. But You Are In Control – "FULL AUTO ROCK & ROLL."

Shooting targets for the event included vehicles, pumpkins, and "other fun stuff we can’t print here," according to the advertisement.

Christopher Bizilj was firing the weapon at an outside firing range and was wounded once in the head when the recoil forced the gun to rotate upward and backward, Nuñez said. The boy was taken to Baystate Medical Center in Springfield. He was pronounced dead at the hospital with one gunshot wound to the head. No one else was injured.

State law requires anyone under age 18 to have parental consent and a licensed instructor to fire an automatic weapon. Otherwise, there’s no minimum age to fire such a gun, Nuñez said.

“We do not know at this time the full facts of this incident, and it's being investigated," Nuñez said.

The event at the club was organized by C.O.P. Firearms & Training, an Amherst company that, according to its website, organizes machine gun shoots throughout New England. Officials from that group also could not be reached.

Dang, This is a big case of stupidity. Apparently neither parent nor child --- nor event holders -- paid any attention to the recoil of a fully automatic weapon.

Wow.

Next, it will be the guns fault though, because no one will claim responsibility, and someone has to be at fault.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

I don't think there are many companies with the capacity of Haliburton. Do some research on that one. We're talking thousands of trucks and tankers on the ground, thousands of personnel, etc. all available tomorrow to compete with Haliburton. I know it is tempting to assume that Haliburton got the contract due to Cheney. But, tell me, who else could have done what Haliburton did?

If Halliburton is best suited for the job, then they'd most likely win the bid anyway, but you must still allow other companies to TRY to compete for the contract, otherwise there's no semblance of competition in our "free trade" economy (and all you're left with at that point is the State appointing companies to tasks - that's the definition of socialism...)



EDIT: I just noticed I'm 2 pages behind in this discussion, so this post probably isn't relevant at this point (but it's not all that relevant anyway when people are unwilling to listen to the facts...)

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Underdog

If Halliburton is best suited for the job, then they'd most likely win the bid anyway, but you must still allow other companies to TRY to compete for the contract, otherwise there's no semblance of competition in our "free trade" economy (and all you're left with at that point is the State appointing companies to tasks - that's the definition of socialism...)



EDIT: I just noticed I'm 2 pages behind in this discussion, so this post probably isn't relevant at this point (but it's not all that relevant anyway when people are unwilling to listen to the facts...)

We still don't know the details behind the decision.
The Administration and Top Brass have national security reasons at stake and I suspect that the minutes of the meetings will be "classified" for 30 years.
That still doesn't mean corruption/fraud occured.
It is still hard to argue that Halliburton was a bad choice since they have been successful.

And, I'll add that McCain agrees with you. He insisted on open bidding on the refueling tankers that resulted in picking AirBus over Boeing. But, that was a contract not directly involved with a specific military action. It is hard to compare picking Halliburton to play directly in the Sand Box and issue of picking AirBus over Boeing for refueling tankers.

Repeating myself again as I have already answered that.

It is crazy to think that the price of the bid is what drives an active military action. Success and security are paramount.

We don't have the details that drove the decision. We won't get the details. Lawsuits won't force the release of classified data so long as there is a good reason to keep it classified.

The logic that the only concern is money is just really narrow and inaccurate.