Backhanded Advice From Podesta and Sirota To Bush

[Annie]

Don't take it!

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...1,1405364.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Late, Great Middle Class

By John Podesta and David Sirota, John Podesta is president of the American Progress Action Fund. David Sirota is the fund's director of strategic communications.


Over the last four years, President Bush has been ridiculed for his public speaking errors. He's been hammered for saying people "misunderestimate" him and mocked for asking "is our children learning?" But it's his omissions, not his errors, that should concern Americans.

Since his inauguration, the president has delivered more than 1,000 major addresses, news conferences and short public remarks. Yet he has uttered the phrase "middle class" in only 34 of them. On Thursday night at the convention, he kept the pattern going — the phrase never passed his lips.

Maybe it's just an oversight, but in such a highly scripted White House, is anything left to chance? Omitting references to America's most critical demographic is surely no accident — it's evidence of a tectonic shift in philosophy. No longer part of a bipartisan consensus that government should work to expand opportunity for ordinary Americans, conservatives are instead eliminating those opportunities. Bush's words — or lack thereof — simply punctuate the effort.

Consider, for example, decent wages. The gateway to the middle class is considered to be a salary of about $35,000 a year. Yet the Bush administration has refused to support a serious increase in the minimum wage, which at $5.15 an hour provides a salary of less than $12,000 a year — well below the poverty line. At the same time, the White House has worked to strip workers of federal overtime pay protections, and in budget after budget it has tried to cut billions out of job training programs.

Access to adequate healthcare is another marker of middle-class status. And yet the White House is making it harder to get that care. The president's health savings accounts, which would put money into the consumers' hands, also would allow employers to contribute less to workers' coverage. In other words, annual health insurance deductibles probably would go up. And then there's last year's Medicare reform. According to the Wall Street Journal, the administration included a little- noticed provision in the legislation that allows companies to continue receiving tax breaks even if they severely reduce workers' healthcare coverage.

On prescription drugs, it's a similar story. As prices skyrocket, the president's Medicare bill all but ensured hundreds of billions in profits for the pharmaceutical industry without providing truly comprehensive drug coverage to seniors. The bill did nothing to prevent drug companies from charging Americans the highest prices in the world. When lawmakers tried to give Medicare the power to negotiate discounts, they were blocked by White House allies. And the administration continues to oppose letting Americans purchase lower-priced, FDA-approved medicines from abroad.

In fairness to the president, on a few occasions he has targeted the middle class for aid. In 2001, his tax policy was supposed to help "families struggling to enter the middle class." But that was the same policy that rolled back the top tax rates, stock dividend taxes and the estate tax on the super-wealthy. In fact, the White House has given more than half of all its new tax cuts to those making an average of $1 million a year, leaving the middle class with a larger share of the tax burden. And it could get worse. On Thursday night, Bush mentioned "tax reform" — a likely reference to a national sales tax or flat tax that congressional Republicans already are pushing. Even President Reagan's Treasury Department noted that a flat tax "would involve a significant redistribution of tax liability" away from the wealthy and onto ordinary Americans. And a study by the nonpartisan Citizens for Tax Justice finds a national sales tax would mean tax increases on the bottom 80% of income earners.

Instead of squeezing the demographic group that defines the American dream, Bush and his band of conservatives should be working to expand it. One of their own icons got it right many years ago. "Upper classes are a nation's past," wrote Ayn Rand, "the middle class is the future."

Unfortunately, Bush and his Republican Party disagree.

 

[musicman]

Kathianne:

These guys need to read your post, "Wooten: Pol. Sci. 101." Clearly, their "politics of envy" strategy is missing it's mark.

 

[KarlMarx]

Don't take it!

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...1,1405364.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Oooooo...He only used "middle class" 34 times in four years!!!! Oooooooo! Wow.... AND he mispronounced "nuclear"! Wow, that just proves he’s not a good president!

But what is more unbelievable, when describing his opponent, John F. Kerry, in campaign speeches, Bush never once used the words "arrogant, narcissistic ass". Now THAT'S newsworthy!

What do Misters Pedestrian and Scrotum do for a freaking living? They actually count the number of times words are used in Bush’s speeches and get paid for it? Can’t they find real jobs? I mean honestly folks; can’t they do something constructive with their talents? Like product testing suppositories? That job would be ideal for them; they have the personalities for the job (if you know what I mean!)

 

[Annie]

I love you guys that can figure out things with an article and a few words!

 

[KarlMarx]

I love you guys that can figure out things with an article and a few words!

I must be in a foul mood tonight.....but that article just sent me over the top....

I mean really...why don't they just say George W. Bush has the cooties and be done with it?

 

[Annie]

I must be in a foul mood tonight.....but that article just sent me over the top....

I mean really...why don't they just say George W. Bush has the cooties and be done with it?

The dems are about to turn on the machinations of hate. Watch out! Not going to help them win, might actually hasten that party's demise. No help for it.

 

[KarlMarx]

The dems are about to turn on the machinations of hate. Watch out! Not going to help them win, might actually hasten that party's demise. No help for it.

With luck, they'll threaten to hold their breath until we agree to vote for His Royal Pompodour and his running mate John-boy

 

[Annie]

With luck, they'll threaten to hold their breath until we agree to vote for His Royal Pompodour and his running mate John-boy

Dang, if I could rep you twice I would! LOL

 

[KarlMarx]

Dang, if I could rep you twice I would! LOL

Gee thanks!!!!!

 

[theim]

With luck, they'll threaten to hold their breath until we agree to vote for His Royal Pompodour and his running mate John-boy

hahaha! yes!

One of the few jokes here that got me laughing out loud

 

[musicman]

If memory serves, Podesta actually DID have a job testing suppositories. His conclusion:

"For all the good they did me , I might as well have stuck 'em up my ass!"

 

[KarlMarx]

If memory serves, Podesta actually DID have a job testing suppositories. His conclusion:

"For all the good they did me , I might as well have stuck 'em up my ass!"

One thing's for sure....he's graduated from sticking things up his butthole to talking out of it....

 

[Annie]

One thing's for sure....he's graduated from sticking things up his butthole to talking out of it....

It wasn't 'graduation' but natural progression....

 

[tim_duncan2000]

On Thursday night at the convention, he kept the pattern going — the phrase never passed his lips.

So, by that logic, if Kerry doesn't mention something in a speech, it means he doesn't care about it?

As prices skyrocket, the president's Medicare bill all but ensured hundreds of billions in profits for the pharmaceutical industry without providing truly comprehensive drug coverage to seniors.

How exactly did it ensure hundreds of billions in profits for the pharmaceutical industry? I'm being serious here. I've heard people make that claim, but I have not read exactly what's in the bill that will only help drug companies. Also, a lot of the same people upset about this who want more money spent (and this might mean higher taxes) are often the same ones who feel that the government under Bush is spending way too much. Which is it? Do they want more spending or less?

When lawmakers tried to give Medicare the power to negotiate discounts, they were blocked by White House allies.

How would this work? How would they decide what a fair price should be? Maybe it would work just fine, but I have a feeling that government-controlled prices might cause more problems.

And the administration continues to oppose letting Americans purchase lower-priced, FDA-approved medicines from abroad.

Depending on which country they're getting them from, they might not be FDA approved.

But that was the same policy that rolled back the top tax rates, stock dividend taxes and the estate tax on the super-wealthy. In fact, the White House has given more than half of all its new tax cuts to those making an average of $1 million a year, leaving the middle class with a larger share of the tax burden.

I'm so tired of hearing about how the tax cuts were for the rich. Some of the so-called rich were not even that rich anyway, and many were small business owners who employ millions of people.

Also, the top 2% wage earners pay about 40% of the taxes. Check this link out:

(Complain about the source if you want, but you can find this information on other sites too)

The report also shows that Bush's tax cuts have been “progressive” — that is, they have shifted the share of the overall federal income-tax burden toward the wealthy, and away from lower-income earners. Without the Bush tax cuts, the highest-earning 20 percent of households this year would have paid 78.4 percent of all federal income taxes. Now, after the Bush tax cutes, their share of the burden has risen to 82.1 percent. Every other quintile now pays a smaller share of the total income-tax burden.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200408170858.asp

Here's another site that talks about Kerry's lies about the economy:

Kerry also said in his acceptance speech that "wages are falling." In fact, wages have increased steadily. Kerry would be correct to say that in recent months, wages haven't kept up with inflation -- mostly due to surging food and oil prices, not falling pay rates. But even after adjusting for the recent spike in inflation, average hourly earnings have increased since Bush took office.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=228

Yet the Bush administration has refused to support a serious increase in the minimum wage, which at $5.15 an hour provides a salary of less than $12,000 a year — well below the poverty line.

People just don't get it. It sounds nice to say that you want to raise the minimum wage, but check this out:

• A disproportionate share of minimum wage workers are teenagers and most do not live in poor families.
• A sizable portion of minimum wage workers are poor parents.
• Negative employment effects, if any, appear to be slight and are difficult to detect.
• Minimum wages curb employer-provided training opportunities for low-wage workers and may reduce educational attainment for some at-risk groups.
• Moderate minimum wage increases will not reduce poverty rates.
  
  http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/lwlm99/turner.htm

"Upper classes are a nation's past," wrote Ayn Rand, "the middle class is the future."

So now we should do something because Ayn Rand said so?

There will always be an upper class. Who will own these companies who employ all these people? As much as they are maligned (except when they trash Bush), rich people will always be around.

 

[Avatar4321]

I hope he continues not mentioning the middle class. the whole class structure is a marxist attempt to divide the people anyway. we arent communists. we actually like freedom.

 

[nakedemperor]

The dems are about to turn on the machinations of hate. Watch out! Not going to help them win, might actually hasten that party's demise. No help for it.

The Republican National Convention was significantly more 'hateful' than the Democratic. The Democrats put out an edict to BE NICE, for pity's sake. I read an article on the front page of the Times talking about the inordinant amount of attacks by the speakers at the RNC in their speeches relative to the attacks of the Dems. Arnold was pretty hateful in his speech, calling the challenger and his running mate economic 'girlie men', and Zell Miller was just downright mean. For a party whose over-zealous hard-line conservative web-board supporters purport to be simply 'more grown-up' (come on guys) than liberals, is handing out 'purple heart band-aids' on the floor of the convention really that mature? I think that it's silly to call one side more adult or better-mannered or less hateful. We're all people, we just have different ideals... I think in general people are more alike than y'all believe.

 

[Annie]

The Republican National Convention was significantly more 'hateful' than the Democratic. The Democrats put out an edict to BE NICE, for pity's sake.

Looking for the link.

I read an article on the front page of the Times talking about the inordinant amount of attacks by the speakers at the RNC in their speeches relative to the attacks of the Dems.

Again, looking for the link.

Arnold was pretty hateful in his speech, calling the challenger and his running mate economic 'girlie men',

looking for the link for these quotes.

and Zell Miller was just downright mean.

Have to assume you mean for telling the truth of what the dems are offering in a post 9/11 world?

For a party whose over-zealous hard-line conservative web-board supporters purport to be simply 'more grown-up' (come on guys) than liberals, is handing out 'purple heart band-aids' on the floor of the convention really that mature? I think that it's silly to call one side more adult or better-mannered or less hateful. We're all people, we just have different ideals... I think in general people are more alike than y'all believe.

Personally I could care less about bandaids or even Kerry's VN record. He and it are shi*. Problem is, he thinks he 'deserves' the presidency', he is mistaken.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

The Republican National Convention was significantly more 'hateful' than the Democratic. The Democrats put out an edict to BE NICE, for pity's sake. I read an article on the front page of the Times talking about the inordinant amount of attacks by the speakers at the RNC in their speeches relative to the attacks of the Dems. Arnold was pretty hateful in his speech, calling the challenger and his running mate economic 'girlie men', and Zell Miller was just downright mean. For a party whose over-zealous hard-line conservative web-board supporters purport to be simply 'more grown-up' (come on guys) than liberals, is handing out 'purple heart band-aids' on the floor of the convention really that mature? I think that it's silly to call one side more adult or better-mannered or less hateful. We're all people, we just have different ideals... I think in general people are more alike than y'all believe.

Translation: All you republicans are meanies

 

[Annie]

The Republican National Convention was significantly more 'hateful' than the Democratic.

In what way? Zell Miller, a Democrat that had a problem with where the dems were going? Cheney for saying that the war in Iraq was correct? How are any of these 'mean?'

The Democrats put out an edict to BE NICE, for pity's sake. [/quote=nakedemperor] I take it that the speakers did not get the memo? Why? What I heard is that Bush and Cheney were draft dodgers. John Kerry was the Most Decorated Soldier ever to serve in the US Armed forces. What Democratic Convention were you listening to?

I read an article on the front page of the Times talking about the inordinant amount of attacks by the speakers at the RNC in their speeches relative to the attacks of the Dems. Arnold was pretty hateful in his speech, calling the challenger and his running mate economic 'girlie men', and Zell Miller was just downright mean. For a party whose over-zealous hard-line conservative web-board supporters purport to be simply 'more grown-up' (come on guys) than liberals, is handing out 'purple heart band-aids' on the floor of the convention really that mature?

LOL If that is mean, I allude to truth telling, god help the Dems when they start to Spin! Oh god, I think I'm going to die. Bush had to suck up comparison with Hitler, Kerry can't take hearts on bandaids? LOL Gonna die!

I think that it's silly to call one side more adult or better-mannered or less hateful. We're all people, we just have different ideals... I think in general people are more alike than y'all believe.

That's because you are on the losing side. :bat: :baby4:

 

[Avatar4321]

The Republican National Convention was significantly more 'hateful' than the Democratic. The Democrats put out an edict to BE NICE, for pity's sake. I read an article on the front page of the Times talking about the inordinant amount of attacks by the speakers at the RNC in their speeches relative to the attacks of the Dems. Arnold was pretty hateful in his speech, calling the challenger and his running mate economic 'girlie men', and Zell Miller was just downright mean. For a party whose over-zealous hard-line conservative web-board supporters purport to be simply 'more grown-up' (come on guys) than liberals, is handing out 'purple heart band-aids' on the floor of the convention really that mature? I think that it's silly to call one side more adult or better-mannered or less hateful. We're all people, we just have different ideals... I think in general people are more alike than y'all believe.

What the heck are you talking about? Five bucks says he didnt even watch the RNC and has no clue what happened because i didnt see anything hateful there all week. Most of it was focused on the need to win the war on terror, freedom, and Bush's record. While there were some comparisons between Bush and Kerry there was hardly anything mean about it. Pulease