Will Keith Olberman be fired from MSNBC before July 1, 2008

I'm looking forward to reading TOCM's thoughts on this one =)

Saw that there was a recent call for him to be suspended. I'm assuming that a suspension would still be a "no," as long as he is not fired.

*chuckles*...be nice, fingers. But, i am too.

I hope not. He is the modern day Edward R. Murrow.

wow...I can't see any similarities at all.

actually the similarities are too numerous to list. It is a very common comparison...
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/63464/
http://www.infowars.net/articles/October2006/241006Olbermann_Murrow.htm

Actually crowe, that's exactly how they're so different. I don't know how old you are but, I remember Murrow. He would give the straight news...THEN his opinion, seperated normally by a comercial break ntentionaly (similar to the news and editorial pages of most newspapers). Olbermann, on the other hand, is more similar to the N.Y. Times...presenting not straight news, but their own editorialized view and calling it "the news."

"Our charge for the immediate future is to stay out of the way of the news. News is news. We will not be screwing around with it. [This] will not be a show in which opinion and facts are juxtaposed so as to appear to be the same."
- Keith Olbermann, when the show debuted on March 31, 2003.

I'm not saying Olbermann is Ed Murrow. He is, however, what Ed Murrow might sound like today, changing with the times as a good newsman should. What most people like about K.O. is his passion. He goes after the dragon -- which, as Murrow's producer, Fred Friendly, used to say, is the real function of news.

btw, Countdown is now the highest-rated show on MSNBC and Olbermann's ratings in July were up 88 percent over last year. As you can see by the market trend... I think "No" is the safe bet. Get your H$$ now before it reaches 90%.

Oh, I agree he won't be fired. However Countdown, like The Factor (with Bill O'Reiley) is not a news broadcast. It is news commentary, editorials. Edwin R. Murrow was a newsman's newsman. I can't forsee Olbermann being presented with the Edwin R. Murrow award.

@ Erik: The Times improved a lot after they canned Judith Miller and William Spitfire 'retired'; i.e., they were also greatly complicit. OTOH there, Keith Olbermann isn't afraid to say that the Emperor is stark raving nekkid. IMO, it's PFS when 1 (intelligent) talking head has *more* credibility on his track record than POTUS.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17168554/
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13559914/the_most_honest_man_in_news

up 88 percent over last year...he has 4 viewrs now? only way he can stay on the air is to act goofy.

As long as Olberman speaks " truth to power " his ratings should rise. The only way to get real (non-corporate) TV news in the US is Keith or Comedy Central. Oh for the days before the telecom... act. Another strike against the Clintons, almost as corporate as the neocons.

Oh my, owl...think as Sgt. Friday did, "The facts, ma'am...just the facts." As long as you have your news intake filtered by others' opinions, you're jaded to their ilk. Nothings wrong with the media you mention for entertainment purposes. However, I certainly hope that you don't draw your conclusions based on others' conclusions. Search for straight, hard news. It's out there. Sift thru it, take it all with a grain of salt, then use your mind and soul. Not someone elses to reach your conclusions.

wow deeliley, nothing personnel, I must be old. I have no idea what all of those abreviations mean. OTOH, IMO, PFS, POTUS. I'm lost. PETA, I know...perfectly edible tasty animals, right?

@ Erik - Murrow would most likely have disagreed with you there. He did not just "give the facts". Yes, he started his show with reporting the news but then went on to analyze it, giving his opinion of what it all meant. The Murrow legend was built on his opinionated analyses on the CBS Evening News. Unfortunately, his shows were cancelled by CBS president William Paley for Murrow's criticisms of the powers-that-be.

Also, The problem with objective journalism is that it doesn't exist and never did. The news is filtered by people with their own experiences and views. I do agree with you, though, that it is a necessary function of an informed person to sift through the news and base one's conclusions on one's own judgements.

OTOH = On the other hand
IMO = In my opinion
PFS = Pretty #$%@ing Sad
POTUS = President of the United States

crowe, that's exactly my point. Murrow presented the news of the day first, then analyzed it from his point of view towards the end of his radio broadcast. He continued that format when he moved on to television. But, he did these things seperately. You knew what was the news and what was his opinion. His views where in a different segment. As I stated earlier, similar to how most newspapers have a seperate editorial section. Olbermann, etc. have no news of the day, it's all their opinion. Nothing wrong with that, taken for what it is. My point is that 60-minutes, Countdown, The Factor, etc. are not news programming. Rather, they are programs about the news. For example, Tora, Tora, Tora was a very good movie about D-Day but it wasn't all facts.
And thank you for the deciphering of the abreviations <wink>

Olbermann, a fired sportscaster turned editorialist who's show is ranked near the bottom for that broadcast hour has credibility?
http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2008/02/13/tuesdays-numbers-69/

I've never been able to figure out why some think that "corporate" is a dirty word. I'm all for capitalism.

Erik - Viewership says nothing about whether or not a person speaks truth.

A Pome for Erik-)

Judith Miller posed as "news".
Aluminum tubes for the rubes.
And that there yellowcake?
Nigerian fake.

BTW, the propaganda works:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

deeliley> I'm not really "into" haiku"...but thank you. I refer you to: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/index.html

Saddam's lust for weaponry isn't in dispute, Erik.
I can list cites that say how Reagan armed Saddam with chemical weapons, and they aren't marked 'Redacted'. By 2003 he was out of favour; a bearded, toothless lion. The UN weapons inspectors were ordered out of Iraq on March 17th 2003; and later on, Bush lied about that, too.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/evacuate_03-17-03.html

dEE:
we must be kindred spirits.... i have requested your friendship....

I sure hope he doesn't get let go.... one of the few news people that not afraid to speak the truth about the travesties going on in this country!

@Dee: Re: Keith Olbermann isn't afraid to say that the Emperor is stark raving nekkid.

So the fact that Keith Olbermann is afflicted with Obsessive Bush Hatred equals credibility? To me, it is simply another factor in establishing liberal media bias. MSNBC leans so far to the left that their shows have become predictable & pathetically partisan. That this passes for "news" is an incredible statement in and of itself.

A poem for Dee-)
Keith Olbermann was featured on MSNBC and did his bit.
Among his kool-aid drinking followers, he was a great big hit.

His fans gave him adulation because he could annunciate clearly.
However those of us seeking unbiased news, quickly became weary.

@theonecalledmicheal 'Mission Accomplished!' ;) T'anks!

@chatarra Deflecting honest criticism by turning the accusation upon the critic is intellectually dishonest, not to mention counter-productive. That's wot Turdblossom does-)

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iran/savak/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

I think that Keith has( like me) Obsessive Lie Hatred and this administrations demonstrable lies have gone unapposed, and aided by corporate media, too long. Erik, capitalism is great as long as it benefits the country as well, but when it is unrestrained and benefitting a few to the great harm of the many it is time to take a look at who is writing the laws. I'm tired of having corporations write the laws governing themselves. Isn't that stupid?Take a look around and see where it's gotten us in 7 short years, well OK Clinton did some too. Education is in the crapper, Soldiers overseas aren't getting supplies, Vets at home are underfunded and health needs ignored( can you believe Mccain & Bush are against the new GI Bill?) Medicare is just Bizzare, Prescription drugs are unreal, Millions uninsured, Millions in or sinking into poverty, foreclosure mess, Pollution rampant, and a bunch of other crap, all because of GREED. I mean does anyone really need a 1.2 BILLION $ parachute?

@Dee: When I disagree with your position, am I being intellectually dishonest - not to mention counter productive???? Or are you not providing honest criticism????

Dee - I don't know you so I must take you at face value. What I see (or read here) is what I get. This thread is about Keith Olbermann, but in your first response back to me, you link to historical information about US dealings with Iran in 1953. At least I stayed on topic here.

I can (but probably won't) post links here too. Google and access to the internet have made life simpler for people who cannot form their own arguments. It sounds as if in your world, I cannot openly express a negative opinion against one of the loudest liberal mindsets in the media today.

Keith Olbermann speaks very eloquently and passionately about a few select subjects. My problem with him is that he promotes his agenda on a regular basis. To confuse that with being a legitimate newscaster is a mistake. I do not consider Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh to be newscasters either. Do I want for Keith Olbermann to be fired for his opinions? "No". I leave censorship activity to liberals as they do it best. But in this world of liberal bias in the media, the likelihood of his being fired is very remote indeed.

You see owl. That's where we are complete opposites. You have the right to life, liberty and the puruit of happiness. You are not gauranteed happiness. I don't believe that it's the federal government's job to fix all of my problems. The federal government's and especially Congress' role is very limited and very specific(Artcle I, Section 8). I do not have a right to an education, health care or a retirement, for example. There is nothing in the Constitution concerning these things. There is, however, the tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I live in Iowa. Here, my taxes subsidize the health insurance for a parent's children even when that family has an income of up to $65,000 per year. That's more than I earn, yet I still manage to pay my families health insurance while being forced to subsidize their's. But, that's fine. That is what "States' Rights" (Amendment X) is all about. If I don't like the majority's wish, I can move. On the other hand, if I lived in a state that didn't allow such socialism, I could then move to Iowa. My choice.
My point is...the federal government's role is not to fix my problems. Rather, to back off, and allow me the freedom to excel, to be the best I can be, to prosper...and to fix my own problems.
Government has created many more problems than they will ever be able to fix.

I agree with much of that, however I have to go to work so I'll continue later, I am a slow typist, need more time than I have, have a great day.

owl> Hope work goes well. In the meantime, your statement, "Erik, capitalism is great as long as it benefits the country as well, but when it is unrestrained and benefitting a few to the great harm of the many it is time to take a look at who is writing the laws. I'm tired of having corporations write the laws governing themselves." Has me a bit puzzled and possibly scared. Puzzled by you stating: I'm tired of having corporations write the laws governing themselves. I'm lost.
Possibly scared by the rest of the statement. "capitalism is great as long as it benefits the country as well, but when it is unrestrained and benefitting a few to the great harm of the many." Is that getting to close to: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.? Certainly that's not where you were going.
Succesful capitalism of course is beneficial to the country.
A succesful capitalist venture creates wealth, which creates expansion because of the desire of a greater market share. This creates a need for employees. Increasing tax revenue from employees and employer. Needs for more material for the goods or services rendered. Thus, a spillover profit to related businesses...freight companies, telephone businesses, local restaurants to feed the employees, etc...it's endless until regulations come to call.
"The government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."---Ronald Reagan
An even scarier thought than the previous Karl Marx quote.

@ Chatarra >> you said, "My problem with [Olbermann] is that he promotes his agenda on a regular basis. To confuse that with being a legitimate newscaster is a mistake."

You and Erik keep missing the point. Keith Olbermann said the following: "Our charge for the immediate future is to stay out of the way of the news. News is news. We will not be screwing around with it. [This] will not be a show in which opinion and facts are juxtaposed so as to appear to be the same."
- Keith Olbermann, when the show debuted on March 31, 2003.

He does not pretend to be a pure newscaster. He does analysis. Why is promoting an agenda different from Fox News a problem? Isn't K.O. filling a need in the marketplace of ideas? A counter-balance to the right-wingers Roger Ailes, Hannity, O'Reilly, et.al at Fox News?

Crowe> You are the one who referred to him as a "good newsman."
Your quote, "I'm not saying Olbermann is Ed Murrow. He is, however, what Ed Murrow might sound like today, changing with the times as a good newsman should. What most people like about K.O. is his passion. He goes after the dragon -- which, as Murrow's producer, Fred Friendly, used to say, is the real function of news." He is not a newsman.

Oh Erik, tell me you're not a trickle down guy, that didn't work for Reagan and it's working even less now. By corps writing laws I mean energy companies writing energy policy (Hey George, I know let's invade Iraq and we'll make them give us all the oil we need), http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0518/p01s01-usfp.html , big pharma writing our health and drug safety policies, http://www.naturalnews.com/022045.html , mining giants writing mine safety policy, http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/node/24 , and on,on,on.Cronyism is bad gov't and Big Business writes bad law that helps no one but Big Business. What we have now is not successful capitalism, it is merely unrestrained greed that has resulted in 9 trillion in debt, much to China, http://zfacts.com/p/461.html , an out of control situation in the mideast we should never have started, trade defecits all over the place, millions of poor going through the eye of a needle to benefit the top 1% of Americans who never will.

(Hey George, I know let's invade Iraq and we'll make them give us all the oil we need)
Then why don't we have all the oil we need?

Cuz George screwed it all up. The war went great ( that was the first few weeks), the occupation has been a disaster.

Oooooh....now I see. So Bush isn't smart enough to manipulate the oil market for his cronies, afterall?

@chattara So far, 'So the fact that Keith Olbermann is afflicted with Obsessive Bush Hatred equals credibility?' has been the gist of your argument, and it's not very convincing.
I don't see anything showing that Bush has any credibility...from anyone.
KO, OTOH...Nail, hammer, head.

@crowe, thank you for clearing up some of the hand-waving.

On a side note, not quite sure why this market isn't already at 88-92% "NO". If he was going to be fired for his "special commentary" last week... wouldn't it have happened by now? Get your H$ while it's in the 70s!

*chuckles* crowe, there wouldn't be motivation for your comment 'cuz you have $$ on on "NO" would there?

@Crowe: << Isn't K.O. filling a need in the marketplace of ideas? A counter-balance to the right-wingers Roger Ailes, Hannity, O'Reilly, et.al at Fox News? >>

My sense of you (right or wrong) is that you are pretty objective about your ideas and opinions. I suspect we fall on opposite sides of the political coin, but hopefully each of us could still respect an opinion of a different persuasion if it is presented with a valid argument.

You asked a legitimate question and here is my rebuttal. A counter-balance to the right wingers implies there are somewhat equal amounts of left and right sides presented in the media today. As I see it, viewers wanting liberal opinion can watch CNN, MSNBC and any of the majors ABC, CBS or NBC. Viewers wanting conservative opinion can watch FNC and . . .

Plus when I watch FNC I often see a Democratic / liberal rebuttal to many given topics, making FNC actually closer to center than most of the liberal biased media - especially including Keith Olbermann.

@ Deelilley <>

That is a sure sign of being a zealot, which gives you license to overstate your case. But in turn, you lose some credibility by making a blanket statement. I just don't understand how you can get behind such a sexist individual as Keith Olbermann?

I don't expect to change your mind. Arguing politics is usually an exercise in futility. But (for some reason - which I cannot pin down at the moment), I want you to know that I do not support Bush 100% either. His lack of a stance on our southern border was the final straw for me. But he has grown the size of our Federal government to previously unknown dimensions. My view of conservatism favors smaller government and more independence in the free market system. He has failed me there too.

Now you can gain some credibility to me, if you can state something (anything really - I know it will be hard) that Bush has done right.

I am not holding my breath though.

Whoops - my mistake
Your quote was left out of the < > in post above and text was put into italics - not sure how that happened but I take full responsibility for it.

Your quote - my capitalization to show emphasis:
I don't see ANYthing showing that Bush has ANY credibility...from ANYone.

I still don't :) http://cartoonbox.slate.com/nickanderson/2008/05/23/

http://cartoonbox.slate.com/hottopic/?image=1&topicid=114

@Deelilley:
Your lack of objectivity stays about the same but the good news is:
Your credibility for being a zealot just soared.

Your position is reflective on how the Democratic party has been hijacked away from the average blue class working man and woman, by George Soros, Daily KOS and Moveon.org.

Fortunately for me, If American politics were seen as a football game, the entire game would be played between the 40 yard lines. Extreme positions do not reach leadership. Obama has been declared the most liberal senator based on his voting record. While American politics is moving left and this will not be a good year for conservative voters or elections, Obama will not be voted into office of the Presidency.

Speaking of extreme positions: Did you see Keith Olbermann rail against Hillary Clinton?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24798166#24798368
This basket case of a man should be locked up and put away, but instead he is hailed as the new coming of Edward Morrow. Astonishing. In-fact this is an Obamanation (Sp = Abomination)

(Note to self: Why do I even bother? If Dee responds to this, it will be some short "soundbite" of a response with little substance, effort or meaning.)

@ugo chatarra!

@ Chatarra:

Your understanding of American politics is very astute - especially your metaphor of the 40 yard lines. Very true, indeed! However, your analysis of Obama being an “extremist” is at best a “neutral zone infraction” and at worse “illegal use of the Republican playbook!”

During the 2004 Democratic Convention when Obama first made his “red state/blue state” speech and his star began to rise, his consistent tune has been one of unity, not extremism. He has consistently called for an end to the old style of Baby Boomer partisan politics and has inspired a new generation of voters, as evidenced by the record-breaking voter turnout across the country in the Democratic primaries. That’s why he will win the nomination. And it is his ability to appeal to moderates, not extremists, which will make him the 44th president of the U.S.

Even if Obama wasn’t charismatic and inspiring, he represents change. McCain is almost identical to George Bush in economic and foreign policy – something the country has grown weary of. Yes, it's true, McCain also has many "crossovers" from independents, (i.e. Reagan Democrats) but he doesn't inspire the same amount of hope and doesn't tap into the enormous call for change that Obama represents.

Your contention that "Obama will not be voted into office of the Presidency” may come back to haunt you.

Prepare to eat some crow. No pun intended. ;-)

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and … the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Barack Hussein Obama; the 'moderate' politician who can “unite us?”

Ummm, what is wrong with what he said. It's 100% true. Whether or not it hurts people's feelings has nothing to do with whether he is right or not. They also cling to things like anti-abortion protests, Big Gulps, Pizza, and monster-truck shows.... There is something inherently different about how country folks, or rednecks here in the south, deal with hard times... they ride off-road motorcycles, the kids play in fields building dams and matchbox-car cities and playing capture the flag... when times are good, they spend money on entertainment and dining at nicer restaurants like the more affluent city folks do...

there is nothing wrong with it, I grew up relatively poor and did those things with my cousins, we didn't have money to travel during the summer, so we built forts out of trees, shot things with guns, sometimes each other...the level to which we had access to weapons of death, looking back, is unbelievable! I would never let my daughter near a group of kids wielding the firepower we had... as my mom and I moved into a better standard of living, I no longer wanted to touch guns or ride motorcyles, I wanted video games and computers, and to travel more....

It's especially true in alot of small towns where the jobs have disappeared overseas and the only work laid-off 50 year olds can get is selling the aforementioned Big Gulps and pizzas.
chatarra, the neocons are the ones who did the hijacking, I have alot of respect for traditional Republican values but they are all but gone now. AuH2o must be turning over in his grave. I just sound like a lefty because the middle has gone so far right anything rational sounds left. I consider myself a radical centrist.

@FOF - if your definition of moderate is not speaking the truth, then no, Obama is not a moderate. That quote might not have been "politically smart" but it's the kind of rational discourse this country needs. Also, I'd rather have a president with Hussein for a middle name than one with a "W".

lol....deal with hard times...I cling to my religion and my guns in good times and bad. It's insulting and a great view as to how out of touch someone is, if they think religion is only for hard times.

I'm wondering, if without "googling" antone can name three pieces of legislation with Obama's name on it. What has he done "concrete"...other than talk. I liked Leno's joke when talking about Obama's big party last week in Washington...something to the affect of, after his speech was over he fed 'em all with 10 loaves of bread and 2 fish.

the way W's got this economy, you don't have to look too hard to find what people are clinging to...here is the short list:
Their prayers that their houses won't be foreclosed on...
Their hopes that their children and grandchildren might live a life at least half as good as theirs...
Their pocket books...
The hope that this election will NOT be stolen, again!
Their crappy jobs, at risk now as much as the good jobs they've lost over the last 8 years...
Their bicycles, as gas climbs past $4, and the speculators laugh all the way to an offshore corporation...
(see Bush's comment "$4 gas? I hadn't heard anyone talking about $4 gas!)

WHAT AN IDIOT!

I remember Hillary stating before the mid-terms, If you want cheaper gas, elect the Dems...well they were and gas went up.

Do you really think that Obama's plan to raise the corp. tax isn't going to drive even more jobs overseas?

I'm not suggesting that religion has no place...but attendance at church certainly goes up when people fall on hard times, and when it happens to entire communities, they do cling to it...and its not a bad thing... i think he was pointing out that you can see those communities focusing more on church, and picking up the traditional republicans talking points about gun ownership, abortion, and the "liberal" media...the right wing uses these stances to deflect those poorer communities from mistrusting them on the economy by rallying them to these causes....it's a means to keep these people on the republican side...mostly uneducated, poor, rural.... there are plenty of people, including me, that would not stand for the government to ban the ownership of guns, and i think that that issue is really a non-issue county-wide, and i think the issue is clouded by those republicans when a city wants to ban handguns being carried around by every tom, dick, and Tupac...

Do you really think that not taxing corporations is fair, but giving tax breaks to the poor is unfair?

Obama's quote is neither TRUE or FALSE... it is OPINION. Consider the difficulty of settling this question on Hubdub: "Are Church Members, Gun Owners and Secure Border Advocates 'bitter' and 'clingy'?"

Obama can't “unite us” but he might unite the liberal vote.

Ok, fof and erik win: barrack sucks and bush was a terrific president, and mccain can only hope to do such a good job...

to be honest with you, barrack was NEVER trying to get your votes, anyway: some people already know everything, so there is no need to convince them otherwise. I predict Obama over mccain in both popular and delegate count... let's get a poll together on the difference for each... at least we can all agree that betting on this market will be satisfying... a virtual leapfrog of voting on the left and right....it may be the top money question on Hubdub until the next election cycle...

@chatarra: Calling me names doesn't give Bush any credibility.
Nice tap-dancing, tho ;)

'Bush does occasionally cite other people's statements to support his credibility. Saddam Hussein "was a threat to the region. He was a threat to the United States," Bush told Moran. "That's … the assessment that Congress made from the intelligence. That's the exact same assessment that the United Nations Security Council made with the intelligence." Actually, the Security Council didn't say Iraq was a threat to the United States, but never mind.'

* 'An ad hominem argument [...] consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

In other words..don't blame the messenger!

@dee:
we should get coffee! i like the PFS, never seen it before... but then again, i love spelling the f word out, so i wouldn't use the abbreviation in a casual conversation, but it's perfect for kid-friendly sites like hubdub (laughs out loud at the thought that children would even care about this website if they knew about it,,,, oh, wait, my daughter does....but is busy with teenager things....)... it's a never ending battle with the convinced right wing: they never wnat to cloud the issue with facts! Nice work, and remember: sticks and stones may break your bones, but republicans can never harm you, until they are in office!

michael> a couple of things.
I think tax breaks for the poor are good. That's why I favor making the current tax rates permanent. A single filer w/ $30,000 income paid $3157.50 prior to Bush's tax cuts. They now pay $2756.25 (http://www.taxfoundation.org/)
I don't advocate 0% Corp. tax rate. Keep in mind that corporations do not pay taxes...they simply figure it into the cost of doing business, therefore effecting the price of the goods or services rendered to the consumer. You and I.
The current corp. tax rate is 35%, second highest in the industrialized world. Businesses are constantly striving to increase their bottom line, one way to do this is to cut expenses...i.e. taxes. In these times of a "global economy," the proliferation of service businesses, and the ability of many of the businesses to conduct their business electronically, it would be profitable to move off-shore. That's what many have done. They've simply moved operations to a more favorable business location.
McCain proposes reducing the corporate tax rate to 25%
McCain proposes making the income tax cuts permanent.
Obama proposes an increase in the corporate taxe rate.
Obama proposes to let the income tax cuts expire.

That's not the kind of change I want to see.

Eliminating the income tax and shifting the burden to corporations would be better, even if the costs are passed along... at some point, the people who buy more pay more, and buying "stuff", especially unnecessary things like Hummers, is what makes us a wasteful nation full of toxic landfills and plastic garbage. you want to fly around in a private jet, it's gonna cost you!

michael michael michael...corporate tax isn't Lear jets...it's the taxes that the companies that you and I work, for pay. If the company I work for has to pay a higher tax rate, their profit dips. My profit sharing check goes away. And I don't own a Lear Jet.

I love rich people & rich corporations: they employ me, they provide me with goods and services that I desire and need.

We should tax poverty - it doesn't do anyone any good

@notablenotices - LMAO!!! It worked against cigarettes... let's tax poverty into oblivion!!!

so fingers...we should tax and be prohibitive of growth?

@Erik - NO! I hate taxes, they are very taxing... and exhausting... taxes should be at the barest minimum possible.

@ - all HD'S there is no low that says you have to pay income taxes. there also is no law againest speeding. read your state constitution and it clearly says.."ALL LAWS MUST HAVE AN ENACTING CLAUSE" if you can find a law with an "enacting clause" thats says you can't speed, i'll give you half of fingers net worth..hehe seriously you won't find one. as for the tax law it is way to complicated, and would take 5 years to type that. i'll see if i can find the website that offers $300,000 REAL money if you can show them the law that says you gotta pay income taxes-file a return. then if you desire you can go collect $300,000. DISCLAIMER: i'm not an attorney, nor am i giving you tax advice. i'm using my 1st amendment right to free speech to express my view. have a nice day.

Erik, I would like to know what kind of company you keep if you think $30,000 a year is poor. You must hang out with Buffett who says he pays 17.7 tax rate while his receptionist pays 30%. I don't think many people object to paying taxes (when they aren't squandered on wars for corporate profit) as long as it is equitable. To think that someone is sitting by their pool waiting for checks "earned" on money their grandparents made is paying 15% tax While I pay 30% on my salary I work my butt of for is frustrating. Mark Cuban has an interesting perspective . http://www.blogmaverick.com/2007/12/11/warren-buffett-taxes-and-the-presidency/
I don't object to paying my fair share at all, as long as it goes toward schools, roads, helping the needy, the commons, things we all share as fellow Americans. Taxes should go to things that help us all.

Not to things that make the rich richer.
http://www.blogmaverick.com/2007/12/11/warren-buffett-taxes-and-the-presidency/
http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2008-04-09-ceo-pay_N.htm
Now isn't that just silly?

If no one pays taxes, who pays for your crumbling infrastructure?
No one's gonna volunteer for *that*.
Bushie's wars being on the credit plan...

@ theonecalledmicheal Thanks! again :)

'A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to it's true principles. It is true that in the mean time we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war & long oppressions of enormous public debt. But who can say what would be the evils of a scission, and when & where they would end? Better keep together as we are, hawl off from Europe as soon as we can, & from all attachments to any portions of it. And if we feel their power just sufficiently to hoop us together, it will be the happiest situation in which we can exist. If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, & then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are the stake.' - Thomas Jefferson

@ - deelilley the const has-had those things covered with import-export taxes. forigein workes, corparations, and entities are taxable..NOT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. DISCLAIMER: i'm not an attorney, nor am i giving you tax advice. i'm using my 1st amendment right to free speech to express my view. have a nice day.

DISCLAIMER: i'm not an attorney, nor am i giving you tax advice. i'm using my 1st amendment right to free speech to express my view. have a nice day.

http://www.thepowerhour.com/news3/300,000_tax_reward.htm
OK I'M DONE WITH THE TAX DEAL. I'VE DONE BATTLE WITH UNCLE SAM AND HE'S A TOUGH GUY. DON'T WANNA DO IT AGAIN. unless your prepared to spend lots of time researching the matter i suggest you seek professional advice.

owl....geez, I wasn't saying $30,000 was poor. Simply an income to show the comparison of taxation. In fact, Bush's tax cuts raised the income threshold of taxation. If the cuts are not made permanent, lower incomes will again be taxed.

I'm not convinced that there would be no infrastructure if the Federal Government hadn't stolen that job from the private sector. Now they want to steal insurance too.

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price." Ronald Reagan

All three presidential candidates seem hell-bent on promising solutions, gifts to we the little people. Free this, free that. I'm voting for Mickey Mouse!

Reagans famous joke about the scariest words, I'm sure you've heard them , I'm from the gov't and I'm here to help, is only a joke when the Republicans are in office. If you don't believe that gov't can work you won't be any good at it. You will just empty the Treasury into your corporate friends pockets through cronyism, creating wars then granting nobid contracts for war- profiteering, turning gov't agencies over to those that they are to be overseeing, Dismantling the middle class, creating a permanent cheap work force, creating a permanent neocon majority, . I would really like to see a single-payer health system. wouldn't it be better to have a very efficient 3% overhead program , like Medicare, than a 30-35% overhead system that rewands not healing people with 1.2 BILLION $ parachutes?

yeh right, owl...tell me all about the wonderful, efficient government run health care next time your waiting in that government run line buying your license plates...Lord knows there's nothing better than medicair.

@Crowe: "Your understanding of American politics is very astute
(You wouldn't think so if you had seen me get clobbered on $h political questions - one of my worst categories. LOL )

...your analysis of Obama being an “extremist” is at best a “neutral zone infraction” and at worse “illegal use of the Republican playbook!”
Good football analogies. Actually I thought it was a pretty good use of the Republican Playbook. - LOL.
Obama has been given the distinction of being the Senator with the most Liberal voting record and his vote along straight partly lines is more consistent than HRC. This is not going to unite very many conservatives to vote for him.

"Obama .... has inspired a new generation of voters, as evidenced by the record-breaking voter turnout across the country in the Democratic primaries" & "McCain ... and doesn't tap into the enormous call for change that Obama represents."
You are right. - I call em as I see em.
Our country seems hungry for change right now. I am concerned by Obama's promises of federal assistance to almost every group that he speaks to. Bush has offended my sense of limited government and under his administration, our government has ballooned to larger than ever sizes. Obama cannot keep his campaign promises without creating a larger infrastructure - and without taxing the bejeezus out of the middle class.

"Your contention that "Obama will not be voted into office of the Presidency” may come back to haunt you."
Yep - It might, but don't let anybody else know I said this. LOL. I think McCain should announce that he will be a 1 term president and will not seek reelection in 2012. That would probably increase his chances of being voted into office.

@Erik - I can't even imagine the mess we will have with government run healthcare. Last week I waited for an hour just to get a copy of my driving record. And I live in small town America, where the waiting lines are usually not very long.

@Dee,
As for tap dancing - Thanks! You should see me tango. LOL
But I wish to correct your slur - names should not be plural. I only used the one word - zealot.
Courtesy of Merriam Webster: ... a zealous person; especially : a fanatical partisan.

The idea that Bush has "no credibility" is easy to dispute. If he says he is traveling to Crawford to attend his daughters wedding, and the press sees him at that location then he has been credible. It is your absolutism about credibility that makes your argument a fallacy. Reminds me of my stupid brother in law - when he says "Everything Bush says is a lie". This may seem like a minor issue, but it steals credibility anytime you present valid points.

My concerns about Bush may be similar to yours. I do not think he has always leveled with the country. But I do not want a goodie-two-shoes running our country either. The reality is, there are a lot of bad people out there and insisting that the POTUS always be an honest and ethical man is very idealistic, but naive at best.

@TOCM: In regards to tax breaks for the poor. Who pays the most tax - wealthy or poor people? As I am sure you are aware the wealthy pay more tax than the poor. In-fact, in 2005, the top 1% of wage earners paid a similar amount overall in taxes as the bottom 95% of tax payers. Obviously, people who pay the most in taxes are going to see the biggest benefit when tax breaks are given.

@Owl - What the heck is a radical centrist? LOL.
I still believe that George Soros, Daily KOS, and Moveon.org have hijacked the Democratic party and have done all they can to sabotage HRC's campaign. From my viewpoint, it has been a lot of fun to see the Democrats fight with each other, especially since they have been stewing about the current administration for the last 8 years and have had a lot of time to get their act together. I really think HRC would stand a better chance against McCain instead of Obama, once the democratic nomination becomes clear.

(89, @ Chatty)
exactly, if the poor paid that amount in taxes, they would never have a single penny, yet the top 1% can afford to pay that amount, stay in the top 1%, and really not complain too much, still have houses all over the world, run huge corporations, ride around on yachts, play golf all week while the bottom 75% still work 40 or more hours a week just to maintain their households, vehicles, and send their children to school one day in the hopes that one day, their children will be able to afford to pay more taxes.... that's the way it works.... thanks, for making that point for me, and i'm glad you agree that the top 1% can afford to pay even more taxes, if asked, and that the poor really don't make that much money, so they shouldn't be taxed the same... THANKS

Ok, I will type this real slow, so those 'pro-taxers' can understand :-)

You cannot solve poverty by taking money away from people! Taxes slow economic growth.

Those liberal-moderate-progressive types (whatever they are calling themselves today) either don't understand this, or they are shamelessly greedy. Rich people do not owe us anything, and we should not try to take it from them!

so... I wonder if Keith Olbermann will be fired...

Rupert Murdoch fired him back in 2001 - he called him crazy :-)