Ohio's John Kasich…..Fox Tea Partier?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201001140012?lid=1089278&rid=40268086

from prnews……..In fact, Tea Party Nation has received hundreds of requests for press credentials to cover this convention. Everyone from a small town newspaper in Iowa to Fox News has asked for press credentials. We have had requests from Canada, England, France, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Norway, Croatia and Japan. We have been hard pressed to accommodate all of these requests and do not have the space or resources to support the entirety of the press corp. Indeed, we have asked the hotel if they would be willing to provide a press room during the convention.

However, given these practical limitations, we have approved the following press organizations:

Fox News

Breitbart.com

Townhall.com

The Wall Street Journal

World Net Daily

Rev take a break from the usual savaging of your real and imagined enemies and open your eyes and take a look at your boys actions and compare them to his rhetoric. "No more politics as usual ,I am working for all the people, no more pandering blah blah blah". He has taken the ugly game of buying votes to a new level.
Because of our age and my wife's medical history I pay a huge amount. Am I for the gov. dictating my health care? hell no? But we have to pay for it some way and I may not like it but I understand that I will pay an excise tax. It is called shared sacrifice. However those in a union or that work for the gov. wont have to pay a penny at least untill 20018(we all know once that day arrives they will be exempted again) and even the cost of dental and vision is exempt for no other reason than to kiss the ass of those that deliver votes and money to him.
There is no valid reason for this action other than political payback and assuring future support. Despite what you preach he is not working toward the collective good or even social justice but rather taking from those that have little influence and giving to those that can dleiver the money and influence to feed his power.
The day is drawing near when the have-nots may never have the opportunity to move up but the gov will take care of their needs, the haves may have a smaller vacaction home, the unionized and gov. workers that fall in the have a little and want more will be the beneficiaries and the rest of the have a little want more will become the new "niggers"(if you are not familiar with the terminology read Rules For Radicals).
You are so busy buying into the class warfare game you cant see the future.

Yes, angry, politicians cut deals to accomplish objectives helpful to the country as a whole. That's just how it is. Americans elected Obama based on one of his main campaign promises….that he would do something about national health care reform. He's doing it….and neither the right nor the left is happy about it. The right rejects it entirely, and the left thinks part of it, at least, is just a windfall for insurance and pharma.

On the union stuff….many union workers accepted little-to-no wage increases to hold on to good health care. Now they will pay a tax if their coverage exceeds $26K. That's a compromise.

And I don't know about this…

"Despite what you preach he is not working toward the collective good or even social justice but rather taking from those that have little influence and giving to those that can dleiver the money and influence to feed his power."

I don't think that's accurate. Obama is a big picture pragmatist. A realist. He's restored sanity to the executive branch, righted the ship….he's working hard, he's engaged and I think he's doing the nation good. He's had a good year for the shape we've been in. I don't see him "taking from those that have little influence"…..you'll have to explain exactly what you mean.

I'm not pleased as punch about Obama's more moderate stances and his willingness to compromise quickly with conservatives. Obama has expanded the Bush doctrine, albeit without torture…..he hasn't taken on the banksters, the culprits of our economic malaise.

this was on Bill Moyers Journal the other night….an interview with Thomas Franks

worth reading

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01152010/transcript1.html

from the interview with Thomas Frank…….

BILL MOYERS: That government is a perversion.

THOMAS FRANK: Government is– yeah, government is a perversion. And to believe that the federal government can be operated, you know, with all of its programs, can be operated well and do things that are good for the people, is, as you say, is a perversion.

And they look at someone like Barack Obama and it makes them seethe. Because that's, you know, that's what he's trying to do. What conservatism in this country is about is government failure. Conservatives talk about government failure all the time, constantly. And conservatives, when they're in power deliver government failure.

BILL MOYERS: Not merely from incompetence, you say, but from ideology, from philosophy, from a view of the world.

THOMAS FRANK: And sometimes from design.

Rev,
Let me try one more time
Unions and gov. workers=large amounts of money and votes to be used to support those that legislate in their favor example the above are exempt from the excise tax at least untill 20018
Avg Joe that has expensive health care package for whatever reason pays 40%excise tax. because he can deliver neither large sums of money or votes.
Rev the nin-union people at the same workplaces have accepted no or minimal wage increases in lieu of protecting theri health care but they have to pay the penalty and the union people the work with dont. I fail to see the fairness but it is all about votes and money regardless of the political spectrum.
Rev, I am beginning to doubt you have any interest in promoting a society that pursues equal treatment of its citizens. You are to busy advocating punishing those that you despise and if it means innocent citizens suffer in order to punish those you despise so be it.

Employer provided health care is the same as wages. Workers work for those benefits, in the very same way they work for wages. The reason employer's provide health care, or any benefits, is because they save their share of the payroll tax that they would have paid if the money which used to go to health care benefits was issued in wages. To employers, that's over a 6% savings on wages.

That's why employers are willing to provide health care to employees…it's cheaper for them.

Now, wages are taxed in this country. Those health care benefits are really wages paid out in the form of benefits to give employers a break. Why shouldn't health care benefits be taxed? That's my first question. Second, if the limit is $26K per year….very few employees will be caught up in any tax.

Will there be cases of unfairness…like the one you mention with average? Of course. Nothing's perfect. And whatever delay or modification was granted to unions was for the purpose of getting a bill passed at all. We may not like how it works, but that's how it works.

And now you see why it is that campaign finance reform is job one. If liberals and conservatives could unite around serious campaign finance reform…..then something might change. Fat chance of that happening.

walter…Franks best line…."What conservatism in this country is about is government failure." Doesn't get any truer than that.

So which states have the highest growth rates?

Those without income taxes, go figure, do you want more jobs for Ohioans, or more of the same?

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” — Winston Churchill

Some more for the education of the Blog of Mass Disinformation:
The old delusion of protectionism
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / January 10, 2010

WHEN SENATOR Byron Dorgan of North Dakota announced his support for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008, he told reporters that a key factor in his endorsement was that Obama “has always opposed NAFTA’’ – the North American Free Trade Agreement linking Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Dorgan is a strident protectionist, so there was nothing unusual about his slap at NAFTA. Except this: The same week that Dorgan came out for Obama, the US Commercial Service reported that North Dakota had ranked first in the nation for export growth the previous year. And the top destinations for the North Dakota merchandise exported in 2007? Canada and Mexico.

International commerce has been good to Dorgan’s state. According to the International Trade Administration, exports sustain one-seventh of all manufacturing jobs in North Dakota, while foreign companies employ another 8,300 people there. In 2008, nearly 900 North Dakota firms earned revenues of $2.8 billion from sales to customers in other countries. Why would a senator whose state has benefited so handsomely from trading across borders believe that opposition to free trade is somehow in his constituents’ interest? Or a quality to seek in presidential candidates?
Dorgan – who announced on Tuesday that he will not seek reelection this year – is far from alone in his antipathy to the free movement of goods and services across borders. In a cab from the airport to my office recently, I listened to a cabbie complain bitterly about all the Toyotas and Hondas on the highway. I tried to assure him that most of the “foreign’’ cars he was looking at were assembled in the United States, but there was no mollifying him. Americans, he told me, had no business buying cars from Japan.
In my e-mail inbox, meanwhile, the subject line of a new message exhorts me to “BUY AMERICAN!!!’’ When I open it, I am reminded that “every little thing we buy or do affects someone else – even their job,’’ and that I should avoid products manufactured abroad and buy only those made in the United States. Among the items to be shunned: Bounce dryer sheets (allegedly made in Canada), GE lightbulbs (Mexico), and Apache hose fittings (China).
It is certainly true that people’s jobs are affected by consumers’ choices. If customers stay away in droves from Chinese hose attachments, it might well mean more work for an American hose and belting manufacturer. But why stop there? In addition to boycotting goods and services made in other countries, let’s avoid spending money on products from other states. Those of us who live in Massachusetts should refuse to buy dryer sheets from California, Ohio lightbulbs, and hoses made in California. My Boston cabbie should be curling his lip at cars made not just by companies headquartered in Japan or Germany, but by those based in Michigan, too.
Crazy? Of course. Refusing to trade across state lines wouldn’t make us economically stronger. It would make us weaker, condemning us to higher prices, less variety, reduced purchasing power, and inferior quality. Granted, such protectionism might work to the advantage of a few local producers. But it would do so only by depriving everyone else of economic opportunity and improved quality of life. To turn state borders into trade barriers would be irrational and self-defeating.
What protectionists never seem to grasp is that it is no less irrational and self-defeating to treat the borders of countries as barriers to trade. Free trade isn’t a battle that countries (or states) win or lose. It is a human right – the liberty to engage in voluntary transactions that leave both participants better off. If John wants to sell something that Mary wants to buy, it should make no difference to the lawfulness of their exchange whether they are residents of different neighborhoods, different states, or different nations.
“Trade barriers,’’ writes the Cato Institute’s Dan Griswold in “Mad About Trade,’’ an astute and absorbing new book, “rob people of the rightful fruits of their own labor, distributing the spoils to other people with no moral claim to the confiscated wealth other than political power.’’
Protectionism, an old delusion, enriches the few at the expense of the many. The blessings of free trade, by contrast, uplift all of us – even the departing senator from North Dakota, whether he knows it or not.
Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com.
© Copyright 2010 Globe Newspaper Company.

PS:

BLOMD, each and every dollar spent to keep an employee is a cost, whether it is a payroll tax, or health insurance, and costs are deducted from income before the company's customers pay the income tax. So adding a 40% tax on those business's that try to do better than the average is ludicrous, shouldnt we all have the ability to find jobs that offer the same health insurance congress and the Unions get without tax? HUM? I dont guess Harry Ried will be paying a 40% tax on his all inclusive health insurance, and why are the Unions exempted, what makes them special, oh right they pay off the corrupt democrats.

So who gets punished with this tax, why the worker, who will lose the coverage when business's who offer it can no longer be competitive in the marketplace selling their goods or services. But then again, you have no concept of competition and how it sets price, you think the big wigs just charge as much as they can get away with, sticking it to the little guy. But guess what it is only the regulated corrupt government protected industries that have that luxury, and you want more government corrupt regulations, a self fulfilling prophesy.

This post has a cock-up in its meme, Reverend.

a cock-up? Was it this one or the one where Rush Limbaugh was being discussed about being caught with an illegal prescription for viagra?

my understanding was this is what Rush would yell out when a child was brought to him.

Walter, go F yourself, a comment like that about anyone is uncalled for.
Limbaugh has never been even thought to have anything to do with children.

Now here is some proof that MSNBC is an unbiased and wholly fair news source as the BLOMD keeps saying

MSNBC’s SCHULTZ (23:02): I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are.

So I guess it is ok for Progressives (marxists) to commit voter fraud, whats next more banana republic style politics.

Franks best line…."What conservatism in this country is about is government failure."

Explain why prior to the Progressives (marxists) intervention in this nations free market (re-Government) the inflation rate was near zero, and after (over the last 70 years since Wilson and his creation of the FED) that the dollar has been devalued hundreds of times its original value. If that is government success, then yes, government must fail.

Government failure, has nothing to do with national failure, but Progressive Government success will, cause the failure of this nation to be able to create jobs and wealth, will cause the failure of individual freedom, and the failure of the great social experiment that is our constitution. And government success will make us all indentured servants to a corrupt and tyrannical government, I can not see where any sane person would want to give corrupt politicians control of any part of their lives, I certainly dont. As Reagan said, government is the problem, not the solution.

jeff…maybe Schultz could do an Ann Coulter……knowingly lying to a poll worker so she could cast a ballot in a precient she didn't live in.

Rush and 5 male friends jetted to the Dominican Republic with a bottle of viagra. The Dominican Republic is known for it's tourist sex trade. Are you trying to tell me that none of Rush's prostitutes were under 15yo?

If you had said Rush and his buddies went to the local Acorn office you might have an argument, walt. But why smear an entire nation?

What's going on in the NAMBLA forums today, anyway?

C'mon fellas.

We're talking about John Kasich and his plan, if elected governor, to….shocker….cut Ohio's income tax to zero.

Go read today's Beacon editorial….I beat them to the punch, but they see Kasich's proposal the way I do…..

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/opinions/81949522.html

The best way to bring down an individual state or the nation economically is to continue to protect the wealthiest few with ever lower taxes. That's California's problem right now. California needs revenue and can't raise revenue through taxes because of the draconian anti-tax-for-the-wealthy provisions foolishly adopted in the late 70's.

Apparently, Kasich likes what he sees happening out in California.

If California's income tax was zero you might have a point, Reverend. Instead, you've got it all upside down, again. Texas might be a better parallel, and Texas seems to be doing all right.

The Reverend's premise in this post is predicated on the assumption that the more money we send to the government, the better off we will be. Ask anyone who works for a living if that is true. As them if they are better off when the government takes a BIGGER bite out of their paycheck. It's obviously not true. The more money left in a worker's paycheck or in a business is BETTER for that worker or business, and better for job creation. California's problem isn't that they don't have enough revenue. California has the HIGHEST INCOME TAX RATE IN THE COUNTRY. The Reverend didn't tell you that. California is one of the wealthiest states. California's problem is that they NEVER have reigned in spending, just as our federal government has never reigned in spending. California's problem are about the FAILURE OF LIBERALISM. There is a limit to how much we can take from the citizens to support the government without harming ourselves, even though those like the Reverend never seem to want to admit it.

If there is one policy which has led to the out-of-control government spending and growth we have today, it would be the income tax, which allowed the government to tax at it's whim, and which repealed the notion that taxation should be apportioned (spread evenly) among the citizenry. That's also one reason why we have this class warfare bs going on in this country today, with all the special interests battling each other for their own little special advantage. That in turn breeds corruption of government officials.

The goal of eliminating the income tax is a good one, but it won't be accomplished overnight. That's why Kasich is proposing a 10-year plan. There are currently seven states with no income tax (I think). Among them are Texas, Florida. Those states are hardly collapsing, and I think you'll find that the low-to-no income tax states are the ones doing the best economically. The way of the future isn't to send all your money to the government. That is a certain recipe for failure and poverty. The way of the future is to leave the most money possible in the hands of those who earn it and those who can create jobs. That's the only way we'll be able to compete in a global environment.

In summary, making everybody poorer (via overtaxation) won't make anybody richer. The Reverend's premise is upside down.

Texas ranks next to last in health care. If you have a state with a small group of haves and the rest are have-nots without a safety net worth a damn, then big business can do well….sure. Look at China. They're growing economically. Their workers can't afford to purchase anything they make…..it's tough on $2-4 per day…..but hey, business is booming, economy growing.

Want us to turn into China?

The 600,000 millionaires in California…..those same 600,000 millionaires who benefited so greatly during Bush's tax-Giveaway-a-thon…..can pay more to their state, rather than deny thousands of California seniors home-health care.

Still today, California's millionaires and better, as well as Ohio's, are paying the lowest federal income and capital gains tax rates they've ever paid. Revenue comes from taxation. Government cannot function without revenue. Raising the lowest income and capital gains tax rates, I'm taking a wild guess here, might be appropriate in a fair and just society.

I'm also very tired of hearing about lower taxes creating jobs. That is a falsehood and has been disproven in real-time during the Bush administration before our very eyes. Bush's lowest tax rates for the wealthy in recent history resulted in the loss of 7 million jobs. Clinton raised taxes, 17 million jobs were created.

ACORN asks too many questions for Rush. If he would have gone to the Philly office they would have taken him out back and gutted the pig….like they almost did to those two posers.

Alaska is doing GREAT…they'll pay you to live there. Why can't Ohio be like Alaska?

No, Rev. It's YOU who wants to turn us into China. In China, the government runs freaking everything, and that's the same thing liberals are trying to do here. China is a de facto slave state, which is also what liberals are trying to do here. I want to do the opposite. I'm also sure you know Texas is our fastest growing state, which is why you denied the obvious and went on about health care instead (because Texas has many illegals). Nice try.

And you pulled a switcheroo on California, talking about federal tax rates. Those taxes go, obviously, to the federal government, not to California. They have no effect on that state's budget, except to draw money away from the state.

And nobody said government can function without revenue. Nobody. That's a straw man argument. But that revenue isn't sustainable when government spending constantly grows by leaps and bounds. Haven't you ever noticed that no matter how much we pay in taxes, it's NEVER enough ? That should tip you to the real problem.

You are also warping history when you talk about low taxes not creating jobs. Unless we're talking about government jobs, there is no argument that lower taxes create more jobs. Also, Bush created jobs for over 4 years straight after his tax cuts went in place, but the housing bust and subsequent recession tanked everything. You know better than to say what you said. It was misleading.

One more thing. Now that Obama has pressed the spending accelerator to never before seen speeds, our taxes would have to rise to their highest level in history to pay for it all. That will most certainly have a negative economic effect. There really is no argument to that point.

"our taxes would have to rise to their highest level in history to pay for it all. That will most certainly have a negative economic effect."

The days when America had it's highest tax rates on the wealthy were called the "glory years." Middle class was created. Wealth not concentrated in the hands of top 1-2%. Price fixing monopolies dealt with…etc.

"there is no argument that lower taxes create more jobs"

If that is true, and it isn't, why, today, during my lifetimes lowest tax rates, have we lost 7 million jobs? When Bush lowered taxes on the wealthy to historically low levels, shouldn't tens of millions of new jobs have been created? You know, if lowering taxes actually created more jobs.

Supply side, business-favoring conservatives can't make the facts fit the ideology….though lord knows, they never stop trying. The facts today are that in the last 8-9 years, we have witnessed the lowest tax rates on the wealthiest among us in 60 years, or more….and we're experiencing the deepest and broadest recession in over 60 years as a result. Just the opposite of what supply-side, business favoring conservatives are telling us happens when conservatives get their way.

Knowing all that, cause we all experienced it first hand….relish the richness of King's….."You are also warping history when you talk about low taxes not creating jobs."

I didn't say "the highest taxes for the wealthy." I said the highest taxes ever. That means overall. With Obama's leftist policies, taxes as a percentage of GDP would have to rise to their highest level in history. That will harm the economy. There's still no arguing that point.

You are mistaken when you say taxes are at a low point. They aren't. You're just factually wrong about that. Taxes are quite high now, relatively speaking, especially when you add up all the hidden taxes the government sneaks in.Then when you add in all the taxes incurred but not yet funded (unfunded entitlement liabilities), you see the REAL tax burden, and it's astronomical.

And I'm not a supply-sider, with the exception of capital gains taxes and corporate taxes. Lowering those taxes frees capital for investment, makes our companies more competitive, and lowers prices on goods. Those things are all positives.

I'm actually a both-sider. I want to stimulate supply and demand. You don't accomplish either of those things by taxing people into submission.

Seriously, you CAN'T be for oppressive taxation, can you ? It's wrong on nearly every level. It's economic suicide.

My advice to you would be to stop thinking in terms of right-wing versus left-wing, and start thinking in terms of smart policy versus dumb policy. Low taxes are just smart policy, doubly so in this flat world, as Thomas Friedman would say. Strangling ourselves with high taxes is dumb policy, dumb beyond belief. We HAVE to be competitive, or we will fall.

And Democrats brought on the recession every bit as much as Republicans did. You KNOW that, even if you refuse to admit it. In any case, low taxes certainly had NOTHING to do with it, so I don't know why you even brought it up. It's so hard to keep liberals on topic. Why is that ? It makes y'all seem like you're just making it up as you go along.

Income tax rates on the wealthy have never been so low.

Capital gains tax rates are at their lowest levels in my lifetime….something you are for, foolishly believing that, somehow, those low rates stimulate growth.

Conservative deregulation of big business and lowering of tax rates for the wealthiest among us….has produced the nation's second worst financial collapse.

It's the elephant in the room. How can you miss seeing the elephant?

You're only seeing part of the elephant, the part you want to see. The deregulation started during the CARTER administration (CRA, the repeal of usury laws, the creation of subprimes), and the policies that had the most effect on the recession were enacted during the CLINTON administration (repeal of Glass-Steagal, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, CRA update, drastic expansion of Fannie/Freddie). I'm not saying the GOP had no part, because they did. Unlike you, I'm not in denial. I see the entire picture. I'm honest.

More on taxation -

Not even Democrats want us to return to the confiscatory tax policies on the rich that we used to have. They rejected those as far back as JFK, knowing they were massively counterproductive.

As a percentage of GDP, our tax burden keeps steadily rising, and Obama is blowing things off the chart. That is what is unsustainable from a macroeconomic viewpoint. Taxes and spending are both too high, unless you're like, pro-poverty or something.

Here's a historical chart showing this to be true.

http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_away/images/economics/u.S.%20Spending%20And%20Revenue%20In%20Relation%20To%20GDP.GIF

The Kasich voting on free trade to China is misleading also! Pilosi and Strickland voted on NTR and Kasick voted yes! Normal Trade Relations is a bill protecting and reporting of the China trade act in 2000! It was to cution tht free trade agreement blow! Kasich still has my Vote!

Pilosi and Strickland voted no on NTR.!

Kasich is clearly not fit to be Governor.
http://www.NotKasich.com
We actually used to support him; no more.