Obama Rallie 20,000 New Yorkers In Manhattan

[Elphaba]

Senator Barack Obama rallied New Yorkers in Washington Square Park in Manhattan Thursday night.

Senator Barack Obama implored thousands of admirers who gathered last night in New York City to set aside their distrust in politics and believe in the long-term possibility of his presidential candidacy even though, he conceded, “there are easier choices to make in this election.”

In a giant rally in the backyard of Senator Hillary Rodham, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, drew distinctions between himself and his leading rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, insisting that only a fresh candidate could truly change Washington. Twice, he singled out Mrs. Clinton.

<snip>

There were folks on the stage that said Social Security is just fine, we don’t have to do anything about it,” Mr. Obama said last night. “There are those who will tell you that getting out of Iraq will be painless, we’ll do it in a snap, not acknowledging that there are no good options in Iraq. There are folks who will shift positions and policies on all kinds of things depending on which way the wind is blowing. That’s not the kind of politics that will deliver on the change we are looking for.”

20,000 rally in New York Washington Square Park in Manhattan

Elphaba

[boyando]

Senator Barack Obama rallied New Yorkers in Washington Square Park in Manhattan Thursday night.

Senator Barack Obama implored thousands of admirers who gathered last night in New York City to set aside their distrust in politics and believe in the long-term possibility of his presidential candidacy even though, he conceded, “there are easier choices to make in this election.”

In a giant rally in the backyard of Senator Hillary Rodham, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, drew distinctions between himself and his leading rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, insisting that only a fresh candidate could truly change Washington. Twice, he singled out Mrs. Clinton.

<snip>

There were folks on the stage that said Social Security is just fine, we don’t have to do anything about it,” Mr. Obama said last night. “There are those who will tell you that getting out of Iraq will be painless, we’ll do it in a snap, not acknowledging that there are no good options in Iraq. There are folks who will shift positions and policies on all kinds of things depending on which way the wind is blowing. That’s not the kind of politics that will deliver on the change we are looking for.”

20,000 rally in New York Washington Square Park in Manhattan

Elphaba

I know I should be impressed, but I am not.

Although Mr. Obama is more honest then Ms. Clinton, I don't see any ideas that are any different, than our friend from Europe, who think that if you ignore evil, it will go away.

I will now let you, show me were, similar ideas, to Barack's ideas have worked in the past. For example, how has increasing taxes, ever made a program, like Social Security, solvent. All I have ever seen, is, if you give money to the government, there going to spend it. And they will always spend more than you give them.

I apologize, I gave the forum back to you and than prattled on. Your turn.

[Alaskagain]

DERAILING - Just an aside --- about the title "20,000 New Yorkers In Manhattan". . .

Aren't there at least 20,000 New Yorkers in Manhattan every day?

I know, I'm just being a smart alec -- take it the fun spirit it is meant and go on -----:)

[boyando]

This reminds me of a joke my son told me. Of the leading canidates for President, we have a Mormon, a white Women and a Black Man running for the highest office in the land. If it is our intention to choose a minority, for diversity sake, why don't we all just write in Gladis Knight and get it over with?

[Alaskagain]

This reminds me of a joke my son told me. Of the leading canidates for President, we have a Mormon, a white Women and a Black Man running for the highest office in the land. If it is our intention to choose a minority, for diversity sake, why don't we all just write in Gladis Knight and get it over with?

LOVE it!

[Annabelli]

The people who attend presidential-elect gatherings are usually selected and screened for security clearance, it seems odd that 20,000 people went through the process and how long did that take?

Mitt Romney was in my family home town a few weeks ago and there was a question as to why it was not a public invite. The people who were interested had to make an application and a number was chosen as to how many people were allowed to attend. There was news media about his visit but it did not cover his presentation/speech that he gave.

I think one of the boxes to check off on the application is being a registered voter.

edited to add:

Does the people in that picture not look like a college campus student/faculty gathering?

[Palerider]

I guess I should be impressed...but....I am not....... B)

[FrankJL]

If a liberal can only rally 20k in Manhattan, thats not much to brag about...

[Elphaba]

I know I should be impressed, but I am not.

Although Mr. Obama is more honest then Ms. Clinton, I don't see any ideas that are any different, than our friend from Europe, who think that if you ignore evil, it will go away.

"Our friend from Europe"? Who are you talking about?

I will now let you, show me were, similar ideas, to Barack's ideas have worked in the past. For example, how has increasing taxes, ever made a program, like Social Security, solvent.

When Clinton left office, the Office of Management and Budget projected a surplus of $5,000bn over the next 10 years, enough to pay off the entire Federal debt and fund Social Security, the state pension scheme, for several more decades.

During his tenure as president, he raised taxes one time.

So now I have shown you.

Of course, that surplus was gone the day Bush took office.

All I have ever seen, is, if you give money to the government, there going to spend it. And they will always spend more than you give them.

And there are some situations that are so large only a large government agency has the capacity to address all of the comprehensive issues. One example would be the recovery of New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina.

Unfortunately, this administration has not the expertise nor, apparently, the motivation, to do so.

Elphaba

If a liberal can only rally 20k in Manhattan, thats not much to brag about...

True. The difference is that if they're in New York they're usually rallying for Hillary.

To get 20K people in Manhattan to rally for Obama is still an achievement.

Elphaba

[FrankJL]

During his tenure as president, he raised taxes one time.

Sorry but this is complete and utter nonsense. Pres. Clinton never raised taxes, and inversely Pres. Bush never cut taxes. He can't do it period

Reading Assignment:

US Constitution

* Article 1 Section 7

* Amendment 16

additionally, the idea that presidents have much impact on the economy is fallacious.

[Elphaba]

During his tenure as president, he raised taxes one time.

Sorry but this is complete and utter nonsense. Pres. Clinton never raised taxes, and inversely Pres. Bush never cut taxes. He can't do it period

Reading Assignment:

US Constitution

* Article 1 Section 7

* Amendment 16

Okay, teach, I read them. I don't understand what Article 1, Section 7 has to do with not raising, or cutting taxes.

Additionally, art. I, § 8, cl. 1., art. I, § 2, cl. 3., and art. I, § 9, cl. 4., (yes I copied and pasted) do seem to allow for taxation (and I'm sure you're going to tell me how I've misunderstood this, and I am anxious to know.)

I had previously known the Constitution did not provide for raising taxes; however, I am now more confused than ever.

additionally, the idea that presidents have much impact on the economy is fallacious.

I have a serious question that I am hoping you can explain. The National Debt is almost $9 trillion. How is it possible this does not, ultimately, affect the economy?

Your grasshoper,

Elphaba

[FrankJL]

Okay, teach, I read them. I don't understand what Article 1, Section 7 has to do with not raising, or cutting taxes.

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;

Government only raises revenues from taxes, hence tax laws must originate specifically from within the house.

Additionally, art. I, § 8, cl. 1., art. I, § 2, cl. 3., and art. I, § 9, cl. 4., (yes I copied and pasted) do seem to allow for taxation (and I'm sure you're going to tell me how I've misunderstood this, and I am anxious to know.)

I never said the government doesn't have the authority for taxation. My point was PRESIDENTS have nothing to do with lowering or hiking taxes. All tax laws (and budgets for that matter) must originate in the house, Presidents just take credit or receive blame for tax policy when they have very little to do with it besides signing or vetoing the legislation.

A1.S8.C1:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

I forgot this one, but it only reinforces my main point.

A1.S2.C3

This clause isn't applicable. Nearly the entire wording of this clause is nil, after the passing of the 14th and 16th amendments.

This clause was stuck in to appease southern states, by allowing slaves to be counted as 3/5ths a person southern states could claim a right to more representatives in congress because it would artificially increase the states population. This has since been overturned because of the 14th amendment.

This section also ties a state's taxes to its representation in congress. For this reason a direct federal income tax was found to be unconstitutional in 1895. To allow for a federal income tax to be instated the 16th amendment needed to be passed. Subsequent to that though the SCOTUS verdict in the Pollock case determined that the source of income (labor vs investments or property for example) could relevant in determining if a tax is direct or not. The SCOTUS ruled at that time, that revenue from labor could be taxed, but not from other sources.

A1.S9.C4

Again this clause is overridden by the 16th amendment, in reference to direct taxes.

Capitation is still banned, this just being a fancy term for a poll tax. Though not only a poll tax in the sense we normally think of this, but also as a flat fixed amount of taxes due by each citizen. This flat per person system was very popular among European monarchies at the time.

I had previously known the Constitution did not provide for raising taxes; however, I am now more confused than ever.

Not quite.. The original constitution does not provide for direct taxation, but does allow for other forms of taxation. Mainly excise and tariffs. It should also be noted here that the vision our founding fathers had when writing the constitution was a creation of a small enough government that it could be fully funded for the most part my tariffs and excise taxes, and such was the case for many years after the founding of our republic. Our founders despised a direct tax so much that is mentioned twice in the constitution, one of very few issues addressed multiple times in the constitution.

Only when we realized we would need more revenue to run our government did the idea of direct taxation come in with the Pollock decision and the subsequent 16th amendment.

I have a serious question that I am hoping you can explain. The National Debt is almost $9 trillion. How is it possible this does not, ultimately, affect the economy?

Depends.... do you mean affect on the economy on a macro or micro economic level?

I have an answer for this but need to take care of some RL stuff before I delve into this...and would like which answer you would like macro vs micro because the answer really depends on what level you are looking at.

[Elphaba]

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;

Government only raises revenues from taxes, hence tax laws must originate specifically from within the house.

I never said the government doesn't have the authority for taxation. My point was PRESIDENTS have nothing to do with lowering or hiking taxes. All tax laws (and budgets for that matter) must originate in the house, Presidents just take credit or receive blame for tax policy when they have very little to do with it besides signing or vetoing the legislation.

But signing it or vetoing it isn't a little thing. That's how president's raise or cut taxes anyway. They just have to have their respective parties pass the legislation. Right?

So is Article 1, Section 7 superceded by the 16 Amendment?

I have a serious question that I am hoping you can explain. The National Debt is almost $9 trillion. How is it possible this does not, ultimately, affect the economy?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

Depends.... do you mean affect on the economy on a macro or micro economic level?

I have an answer for this but need to take care of some RL stuff before I delve into this...and would like which answer you would like macro vs micro because the answer really depends on what level you are looking at.

I assume the macro answer is if all of our debtors start asking for payment? But I'm sure there's more to it than that.

So, what I have no idea is how it affects the economy at a micro level.

Thanks for all of the information. It really is very interesting to me. I'm glad you had me read up on beforehand; otherwise, I would have had no idea what you were talking about. As is, I was able to follow you.

However, there will be no test. :)

Elphaba

[FrankJL]

So is Article 1, Section 7 superceded by the 16 Amendment?

No. Portions of A1.S2.C3 and A1.S9.C4 (the two dealing with direct taxes) are superseded by the 16th Amendment.

I assume the macro answer is if all of our debtors start asking for payment? But I'm sure there's more to it than that.

Sure, but the realistic chances of that happening is very slim. I think most people's main concern here would be China. If China decided to unload on its t-bonds and t-notes, we would almost instantly devalue them. Would it hurt us? Sure but it would hurt them a lot less in the loss of money then it would hurt us. China is not stupid enough to do that. China holds only 407 mil in public debt from us, so idea of China owning our currency is nonsense. They are not even the country with the highest amount of outstanding US treasury bonds.

http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

It should be noted though that of that 9tn, that only 5tn (or somewhere around there) is public debt. That is debt held by individuals, corporations, and foreign countries. The rest in debt between various government agencies, mainly for entitlement programs.

[Fiannan]

A really cool Obama picture!

http://husaria.files.wordpress.com/2007/05...pton_obama2.jpg

[pam]

This reminds me of a joke my son told me. Of the leading canidates for President, we have a Mormon, a white Women and a Black Man running for the highest office in the land. If it is our intention to choose a minority, for diversity sake, why don't we all just write in Gladis Knight and get it over with?

The Pips could be cabinet members. I all for it.

[Palerider]

<div class='quotemain'>

This reminds me of a joke my son told me. Of the leading canidates for President, we have a Mormon, a white Women and a Black Man running for the highest office in the land. If it is our intention to choose a minority, for diversity sake, why don't we all just write in Gladis Knight and get it over with?

The Pips could be cabinet members. I all for it.

if she won't raise my taxes she has my vote.............

[boyando]

Hey Frank,

Thanks for helping me out, with this one. I wrote three different replies, to Elpa's response, but everyone of those replies, was so full of anger, I deleted before I posted.

Hey Sister of mine(Elpaba),

What did President Clinton do, to make the economy do so well. I am looking for detail, because all I can see is that he road the computer wave, until it crashed.

allmosthumble

[FrankJL]

In addition to riding the dot com bubble, Clinton has one person to thank for the fairly decent economy during the later years of his administration....

[Elphaba]

Hey Frank,

Thanks for helping me out, with this one. I wrote three different replies, to Elpa's response, but everyone of those replies, was so full of anger, I deleted before I posted.

Hello dear brother of mine!

How did Frank help you out? He didn't talk about Clinton or his economy at all. He merely corrected me by explaining the president does not raise taxes; rather, the Congress does.

What did President Clinton do, to make the economy do so well. I am looking for detail, because all I can see is that he road the computer wave, until it crashed.

Yes, he rode the bubble. So what? What did you expect him to do? Ignore it? He took advantage of it to balance the budget and leave a surplus when he left office. That is what any good president would do.

In addition, during his second term there was a Republican Congress, so it is as much responsible for the surplus as Clinton is, and I give it the credit it deserves. (Frank has already posted a picture of Gingrich).

If you were to do a search of my posts you would find that I have no problem providing details. But this time I'm going to have to say no, because it's a waste of my time. What do the details matter? We already know what happened. It was the most prosperous time in American history. Did Clnton do it alone? No, he didn't. Did the Republicans do it alone? No, they didn't. And you're right, the dot com bubble probably had more to do with it than either of them. But again, so what?

There was a surplus when Clinton left office, and it is now not only gone but we are trillions of dollars in debt. That's where we are today. That's what matters today.

Love ya,

Elphaba

[Palerider]

the most prosperous times.....cough cough cough...gag gag gag....choke choke ..gasping for air....

[Elphaba]

the most prosperous times.....cough cough cough...gag gag gag....choke choke ..gasping for air....

You okay there Pale? Don't want you having a heart attack on me? After all, I am going to be your plural wife someday. Remember?

So, I can take a hint. You don't agree with me.

Okay, I'm open to learning something new. Tell me why you disagree with me.

Elphie

[Palerider]

<div class='quotemain'>the most prosperous times.....cough cough cough...gag gag gag....choke choke ..gasping for air....

You okay there Pale? Don't want you having a heart attack on me? After all, I am going to be your plural wife someday. Remember?

So, I can take a hint. You don't agree with me.

Okay, I'm open to learning something new. Tell me why you disagree with me.

Elphie

you know Ellie....just like a wife....we have been thru this over and over and over.....and you still need me to tell you why?????.....

[Elphaba]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>the most prosperous times.....cough cough cough...gag gag gag....choke choke ..gasping for air....

You okay there Pale? Don't want you having a heart attack on me? After all, I am going to be your plural wife someday. Remember?

So, I can take a hint. You don't agree with me.

Okay, I'm open to learning something new. Tell me why you disagree with me.

Elphie

you know Ellie....just like a wife....we have been thru this over and over and over.....and you still need me to tell you why?????.....

Yes Pale, . Because, just like a husband, you NEVER tell me why! (I am laughing so hard right now. You are so funny!)

See, all you ever tell me is that you hate Clinton, but you NEVER give me the details.

I think, if we were really married, we'd be the perfect Venus and Mars.

Elphie

[Palerider]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>the most prosperous times.....cough cough cough...gag gag gag....choke choke ..gasping for air....

You okay there Pale? Don't want you having a heart attack on me? After all, I am going to be your plural wife someday. Remember?

So, I can take a hint. You don't agree with me.

Okay, I'm open to learning something new. Tell me why you disagree with me.

Elphie

you know Ellie....just like a wife....we have been thru this over and over and over.....and you still need me to tell you why?????.....

Yes Pale, . Because, just like a husband, you NEVER tell me why! (I am laughing so hard right now. You are so funny!)

See, all you ever tell me is that you hate Clinton, but you NEVER give me the details.

I think, if we were really married, we'd be the perfect Venus and Mars.

Elphie

refer back to post where Pale is coughing and choking and gasping for air... :wow