Sunday, February 17, 2008

He Says It Like It's A Bad Thing

McIlheran's column in today's MSJ is nothing more than his usual griping about Obama's popularity. As is the norm for any right wing pundit, he is trying to find something, anything to use to smear Obama.

His complaints about Obama include that Obama wants to
  • Help out college kids get their education, by subsidizing them if they work for Americorps or Peace Corps, which in turn will help other people
  • Help people pay for child care
  • Improve our schools
  • Improve the health care system
  • Give tax breaks to the elderly
  • Give tax breaks to the poor and middle class
  • Stem the flood of jobs being outsourced, if not outright moved, to overseas location
  • Clean up the environment
  • Get the U.S. out of Iraq

Gee, those goals sound pretty good to me. I guess it is simply that McIlheran does not want the poor, the middle class and the elderly to have any money when there are still starving CEOs out there trying to survive off of their multimillion dollar bonuses. He doesn't want people to get an education, because then they would be able to see through his smoke and mirrors routine.

And heavens know he wouldn't be able to handle the concept of peace.

But if that wasn't enough for you to contemplate on this dreary, icy, rainy day, compare his column from today, and compare it to the column he wrote for the New York Sun two days ago.

It's bad enough that MSJ is charging so much and feeding their customers this kind of drivel, but then its nothing more than reheated hash on top of it.


  1. Serious question: Who do you think is going to pay for all those "plans"?

  2. Kate-

    I think that maybe, just maybe, the billions of dollars spent each week in Iraq would help pay for all of this, and still give everyone a tax break.

  3. We will be told over and over that tapping the top incomes will not cover these items.

    Though closing the spigot on Iraq is one measure, remember how Bill Clinton's tax increase on these folks erased the federal deficit.

    And why not? The system has helped them. They owe it to the system -- and us.

  4. one owes you jack!

    Ok, for the sake of friendly discussion, let's say we pull out of Iraq. What makes you think that the funds would be used for your kids college education? Better question, why should it? If I need help paying for my kid's education, should I come to your house demanding that you pay up? Of course not. So, why do you believe you should benefit from other's hard work?

    Honestly, I'm not being sarcastic (for a change :) ). I really am curious.

  5. Kate-

    For the past seven years, we have seen companies like Halliburton, Blackwater, Big Oil, Big Pharma and a host of others get unimaginable tax breaks and subsidies and sweetheart deals. I don't think I need to detail each one. Just that money alone would go to fix the whole thing and then some.

    Why should we have had to pay for all of these underhanded stunts? It is time for this to end and for them to return what was stolen.

    And why should it go back? The poor and the middle class have been carrying the brunt of Bush's malfeasence on their back for too long. Just like someone who commits a crime, gets sentenced and has to pay retribution to the victim, those that got their stolen goods need to pay society back.

  6. Some info for ya to think about, quoted from a fellow right wing nutjob:

    Exxon/Mobile also known by Liberals as "Big Oil" made an after tax profit of $40,000,000,000.00 FORTY BILLION DOLLARS...however they paid $29,800,000,000.00 TWENTY-NINE BILLION EIGHT-HUNDRED MILLION IN TAXES. That is before the Government, (Federal, State and Local), taxed the gasoline that we put in our cars!!!!! So, when you add it all up...the GOVERNMENT MADE MORE MONEY THAN "BIG OIL"!!!!!!!!!!!! Just like the Government makes MORE MONEY on cigarettes than "Big Tobacco"!!!!

    Now, you being on the side that wants more and more money for the gubmint, and less for the actual people who provide jobs.....wouldn't it be prudent to actually have the numbers at hand, instead of just spouting the 'party line'? The numbers are out there, I just like the way he said it. :)

    I'm no fan of war, but I do believe I'd rather have our soldiers doing their jobs over there, instead of here in our streets.

    Haliburton does jobs that no one else in this country is qualified to do. Would you want a stock broker doing brain surgery?

    Just curious. :)

  7. Here's a link...hope it comes out right:

  8. First, here is a link fix from Kate's comment.

    Now, here is a link for $8m in tax breaks, another one for $14.5 billion in tax breaks. While we're at it, here is one for a $2.6 billion in subsidies, PER YEAR.

    And that was just after 15 seconds of googling.

    And was Halliburton really the only one in the world that could supply food to the troops? Or build housed in the Gulf after Katrina? Is that why they received no bid contracts? Is that why they were able to commit fraud, and get away with it, when Bush fired the people that blew the whistle? Or why they also got tax breaks?

    C'mon Kate, I know you're strongly conservative, and that you post and allow crap like this on your site, but reality is what it is.

    It is time for the taxpayers to get the breaks for a change.

  9. You link to a comment left on my blog? Something totally irrelevant? Hmmm.... A tad juvenile, but ok. And the link itself was juvenile. That hamster music grates my nerves. Yes, I believe in free speech...who'da thunk. I've banned ONE person from commenting. I don't much care for family histrionics being public. Other than that, whether I agree with the comments or not, I allow it. Although, I have been known to delete some four lettered words from time to time. :)

    The link from the WaPo: The White House wanted 72% of that "break" to go into alternative energy. What you fail to point out is that a great deal of those "profits" go back into the company for research, and exploration (U.S. News & World Report - Business and Economy). It comes down to about a 9% profit. And by the way, should people not get paid? I find some of the salaries a tad excessive, but it's a private company, they can do what they want. If I invest in Exxon, which I wouldn't (won't even buy from 'em, unless I'm running on fumes), I'd expect to see something in profits.

    The other links are just along the same vein...."EVEEEEEL BIG OIL". Hey, maybe if the batty brigade would get out of the way, we wouldn't be paying $3 a gallon. We'd have clean nuclear energy, and wind farms would be cropping up all over the place. Just a thought.

    As for Haliburton, they do a whole lot more than deliver food, and build houses. Ya might want to check into some of their other areas. The also provide JOBS! LOTS and LOTS of jobs.

    I remember there was a big flap over Haliburton doing something in Iraq on a 'no bid', but the only other company who did the same thing was a French company. Do you really think we were going to do business with France at the time?

  10. Oh, and if you want the taxpayers to get a break, don't vote for a Democrat. Shoot, don't vote for the current batch of Republicans either! One wants to suck the money out of your pocket, and they both want to have a D.C. spending party with it. :/

  11. Well, Kate, if you don't like to talk about the billions of dollars of taxpayer money that the oil companies are getting (and if you think that they are really using that on research, I've got some swamp land to sell you), how about we talk about Medicare Part D? You know, the one that forces people to go with certain insurance companies, whether they want to or not. The one that doesn't even allow for negotiation for cheaper prices.

    Or should we talk about the breaks to big manufacturers for modifying their emissions, but then relaxing those same emission standards to they didn't have to modify anything?

    The list does go on. Blackwater? Wanna go there?

  12. And Blackwater has what to do with being bilked by the gubmint? Yeah, there are bad guys everywhere. One bad apple and all that. I don't suppose it occurs to you that maybe there's a little bit of lying goin' on? Since I don't have all the facts, and I wasn't there, I don't know what happened. I don't take anyone's word for anything these days. :)

    Honestly, I think Medicare is another huge drain on the taxpayer. I believe in caring for our elderly, but there are many private organizations who would do a MUCH better job than the government.

    You seem to have this "entitlement" mentality that I can't understand. I guess I was raised to rely on myself and family, not some over bloated bureaucracy. I'm all for the "hand up", not the "hand out". And just how on earth did you manage to go off on a tangent? Better question, why?

    No matter what I say, you are going to continue to suffer from BDS, and that's your right. I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from, and I'm not getting a clear picture.

  13. Blackwater's sins? Same as Halliburton's with war crimes on the side.

    How do you think these private companies are paid? I'll save you the research. They're paid with Medicare money. They, like Big Pharma, are part of the huge drain on Medicare monies. Not so good, now, are they?

    Entitlement? Maybe, if you consider allowing the elderly and the disabled a certain quality of life that they would have otherwise to be entitlement.

    I consider it just being socially just. How could I celebrate wealth, when someone, through no fault of their own, suffers?

  14. I realize that going back to a time when families actually took care of their aging parents and grandparents is almost impossible. We have become too selfish, and "me" oriented. Mothers don't even care for their own children anymore. Does that make it right?

    And fraud is the biggest drain on the system!

    I'm not going to play "gotcha" with you. Like I said, I'm just trying to understand your view point.

  15. Oh, Kate, I don't take offense, and I never felt like you were playing a game of gotcha. We are simply having a discussion. I am always open to civil discussions.

    I agree with you about the times, and how they've changed. My wife and I had to go into debt to take care of my grandfather. My mother preceded him in death, and my uncle is a loser. We weren't going to let him die alone, so we moved him here where we could take care of him, but the costs ran into the thousands of dollars a month, for three years. We just don't make that kind of money, and we had to sell and borrow just to help him. Now we are looking at years of paying off the bills.

    That is why I get PO'ed when someone says their not willing to pay the equivalent of a cup of Starbucks slop, a year, when they are making six digit or larger incomes. That is pure greed as well.

    It is something that is taught in the Bible, but some people don't get that far in their reading, or simply ignore it.

  16. You have both my sympathy and my empathy. Dealing with an aging loved one is really hard! It's hard, physically, mentally and emotionally. Top that off with the financial burden, it's hair tearing time.

    Now, here is where I get contrary (or more so, depending on your view): Do we really need to live forever? One of the biggest problems I see in all our society is the idea that just because medicine has made excellent progress, should we really use it to prolong life? I know that probably sounds heartless, but honestly, I'm not. (Snarky maybe, but not heartless.) We have thousands upon thousands of the elderly who are being kept alive for no better reason than because "they can". Is that life? I don't think so.

    I'm one of those weird people who believes when your time is up, you should go, gracefully. I, personally, have every intention of doing just that. See, I'm not afraid to die. :)

    Burdening the citizens who are trying to make a life for themselves and their families, through hard work and perseverance, with excessive taxes just so you can live a few months longer is illogical, not to mention, extremely selfish. If you haven't noticed, folks who make "six figure" incomes are usually doing it through both people working. Well, unless you get up in the high end of those six figures, then that's another story. But they too, work for their income. Why should YOU be the recipient of their labors?

    There will always be poor, and yes, we should care for them, through charity organizations, NOT the government.

    (Psst...sorry it took so long to get back to ya....grandkid, get the idea. :) )

  17. Oh dear, what a horrid attitude. My grandfather was active until the last months of his life, and he had good quality of life, so I have no regret.

    But to turn your question on its head, why should someone be allowed to die, just so someone can have lobster with their steak? A lot of these people don't necessarily work for it either. They inherit it, they take advantage of other people, etc.

    I haven't looked at your site for a while, but then I would presume that, from your statement, you are OK with abortions for reasons of convenience? After all, why should a woman, or a couple, have to have some parasite sucking off of their hard work, right?

    I'm sorry Kate, but I happen to understand that there are many, many things that are more important than money. I feel sorry for you if you can't see that.

  18. Gracious sakes! Where on earth would you get the idea that I thought money was more important than life? And pro-baby murder? ME? I'd have to say you've never been to my site. :/ No offense, but that was an extremely ignorant statement. That's a very liberal mindset, NOT a conservative one.

    Your grandfather had quality of life. This is a good thing. There are many who are, as I said, are kept alive for the sake of the money they get from the gubmint. That's not quality, that's quantity, and there is a huge difference.

    Slaughtering innocent children isn't on the same level as living a good long life and letting go when the time comes.

  19. I don't know if you made the connection, but I also blog at folkbum's (you swiped my Christmas Tree joke). I did a post there a ways back that will give you an idea where I'm coming from. Here's the link.

  20. What? You think I only read conservative blogs? :) Yep, knew you did some posting over there. Although I don't check it out as often as I use to. One of the posters, can't remember who, becomes quite irrational at times. Very confusing. :)

    BTW, that post is quite well written. Although it comes across as though you are advocating euthanasia, I would hope you aren't? Nor, do I.

  21. Actually, I was. But only under very strict conditions. Not because of depression, convenience, etc. Strictly to prevent pain at the end stage to let someone go with dignity.

    It's no different than refusing heroic measures, except that the patient or the patient's family has to go through the pain and suffering. I've been there for peaceful ends, and not so peaceful ends. I much prefer the peaceful.

  22. Under what "strict conditions"? Who would decide? The person, the doctor, the family? I see a major can of worms opening up. :/

    I too, have seen the suffering. It's horrible to watch someone you love waste away, in pain. But I really don't believe we should be playing "god".

  23. To have a person committed to a psychiatric hospital against their will, because it is an infringement of their rights, takes a court order, after the testimony of three independent people, two of whom have to be a psychiatrist.

    To enter a hospice, the person has to want to, the treating physician has to verify that the patient will likely die in six months, and the hospice doctor has to collaborate those findings.

    These things happen every day, without issue. I would imagine that something similar could happen in cases of euthenasia.

    And is it playing God to be merciful, and expediting something that is happening anyway? We offer more consideration to our pets than we do to ourselves.