The Palen/McCain "reform" ticket

Sarah Palin claims to read "all" newspapers, does that include TRR??

KevinNSaisi wrote:Am I the only one who finds it offensive that Sarah Palin considers the average American (Joe six-pack) to be an alcoholic who earns $200,000 a year?

Kevin, I'd be interested in knowing where you found this.

Sarah Palin claims to read "all" newspapers, does that include TRR??

Kevin, you didn't include the RFP??? I'm hurt!

Have you seen this yet?

Sarah Palin video

Sarah Palin is constantly referring to herself as "joe six-pack" (This is either a reference to daily consumption of alcohol, or she has really well defined abs). Consumption of a six pack of alcohol a day is considered alcohol abuse (hence, the reference to being an alcoholic). The Palin family makes about $200,000 per year (more than the average "joe" I know). I just feel that it is an insult to the average American to make such a reference. To me, "joe six-pack" is a nice way of referring to us all as "trailer trash". It is strange that a person with a housejold income of $200,000 would seek to be associated with beer guzzling trailer folk just to get elected to political office.

Admin wrote:

KevinNSaisi wrote:Am I the only one who finds it offensive that Sarah Palin considers the average American (Joe six-pack) to be an alcoholic who earns $200,000 a year?

Kevin, I'd be interested in knowing where you found this.

The debate tonight should be interesting. Do you think she'll shine or be shunned?

However she does tonight, I'm looking forward to the Tina Fey replay.

and the best thing is that Tina will probably not even have to do any writing.

The way I would write it would be to have her be at the podium dressed in her sunday best (trailer trash - party girl) outfit with a six pack on the podium. She presents herself with a "trailer wench" attitude, which she refers to as being a "maverick". Each time the camera shows her, she is taking a sip from the beer, but not getting drunk (high tolerance). She becomes more and more coherant with each question until the end where she is out of beer and makes total sense.

The implication is, of course, that the "average American" audience will be drinking as the watch the debate and when they are totally intoxicated, Sarah Palin sounds really smart (talk about an extreme case of "beer goggles"). They then cut to an advertisement, where it is announced that Budweiser will be providing free beer to voters on election day.

kevin, while we have often disagreed, I have to say that I really like your take on Palin! You actually have me chuckling.

Did you hear about the wine in California that used to be real popular, but recently has dropped in popularity?? It is called "Palin Sahrin" or something like that. I heard it on the news.

I must say that Palin presented well last night. She didn't answer any questions, but she presented well.

I was surprised she did as well as she did but she was not nearly as informed and articulate as Joe Biden. He could easily step in and be president. I still have little confidence in her experience.

I am downright worried about the way she has abused her power as Mayor and again as Governor. That smacks of the abuses we've seen with the Bush Administration

After nearly 8 years of President Bush and company, have we sunk so low as to credit Sarah Palin with not having stumbled too badly? Sure, she came across as folksy and just so darned cute (Wink, Wink!), but really, our possible president? If she were a man, she would have been laughed off the stage.

Conservatives love Sarah Palin for the same reasons they love George W. Bush. She's a "folksy", "one of us", "Joe six-pack" kinda person.

T,
Thanks for posting the SNL skit. Hilarious!

Admin wrote:
I am downright worried about the way she has abused her power as Mayor and again as Governor. That smacks of the abuses we've seen with the Bush Administration

I'm curious as to what you consider abuse of power. If you're referring to her insistence that her executive team share her philosophy and that those who cannot should "hit the road", that practice is commonplace everywhere. I worked for the subsidiary of a Fortune 500 company that experienced three new presidents in five years. Each time a new president came on board, the top management was sent packing because the new president wanted like-minded executives in key positions.

If your argument is otherwise, I'd like to hear what your complaint might be.

T wrote:Conservatives love Sarah Palin for the same reasons they love George W. Bush. She's a "folksy", "one of us", "Joe six-pack" kinda person.

T: I take exception to your stereotyping. Yes, Sarah Palin is folksy; she's down to earth; she speaks like the average "Joe". Why does that bother you? After years and years of pompous, egomaniacal career politicians talking constantly and saying nothing, I'm ready for some plain talk. And not all conservatives love George W. Bush; I don't.

T wrote:Conservatives love Sarah Palin for the same reasons they love George W. Bush. She's a "folksy", "one of us", "Joe six-pack" kinda person.

steve wrote:T: I take exception to your stereotyping. Yes, Sarah Palin is folksy; she's down to earth; she speaks like the average "Joe". Why does that bother you?

So you agree with my description (stereotyping). Palin is very much like George W. Bush. She's "folksy", "down to earth", and "speaks like the average 'Joe'".

When or where did I say it bothered me?

steve wrote:I'm ready for some plain talk.

Me too, though the "plain talk" needs to be intelligent and thoughtful.

steve wrote:And not all conservatives love George W. Bush; I don't.

When or where did I say "all" conservatives?

Steve said: I'm curious as to what you consider abuse of power. If you're referring to her insistence that her executive team share her philosophy and that those who cannot should "hit the road", that practice is commonplace everywhere. I worked for the subsidiary of a Fortune 500 company that experienced three new presidents in five years. Each time a new president came on board, the top management was sent packing because the new president wanted like-minded executives in key positions.

If your argument is otherwise, I'd like to hear what your complaint might be.

Hi Steve,

I know why you like John McCain and I would never try to dissuade from you that. I respect your opinion and your reasons for it. I have great admiration for John McCain myself. He's a great American and a true hero.

I just think Barack Obama is a much better choice to lead the country. We have been driven into the ground by the economic and world policies of the Bush Administration. McCain is too much like Bush in his thinking and strategies. It's way past time for a change.

Here's the info on Sarah Plain.

There's Troopergate where she tried to have her former brother in law fired

In a telephone interview Wednesday, Walt Monegan, the former Alaskan Public Safety Commissioner, said he was dismissed because he refused to fire the Governor's former brother-in-law, a state trooper.

...the head of the state senate committee, a Democrat, now investigating the allegations says it smacks of abuse of power.

Full story

Then there was the librarian issue.

WASILLA -- Back in 1996, when she first became mayor, Sarah Palin asked the city librarian if she would be all right with censoring library books should she be asked to do so.

According to news coverage at the time, the librarian said she would definitely not be all right with it. A few months later, the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, got a letter from Palin telling her she was going to be fired. The censorship issue was not mentioned as a reason for the firing. The letter just said the new mayor felt Emmons didn’t fully support her and had to go.

full story

I believe these both constitute an abuse of power.

Admin,
I support John McCain primarily because I believe that I will keep more of my hard-earned dollars under his administration than under Mr. Obama whose proposed programs appear much too socialistic for my tastes. I really don't care if someone has made millions of dollars because he is still going to proportionately pay more in taxes than I am. Why should he be penalized for being successful? That smacks too much of Marxism/Leninism - the very principles that have been held in check by our democratic republic. I served in the military to prevent the spread of those ideologies in other parts of the world - I surely won't tolerate them in my own country.
Your contention that Mr. McCain is too much like George W. Bush is a point that I could concede IF you're referring to the fact that he's also a Republican and a fiscal conservative. That being said, Mr. McCain had parted ways with the Bush White House on several key issues such as immigration, prisoner torture, intelligence gathering, and government contracting. As a lawmaker, he has crossed the aisle more times than any other sitting senator. He is more unlike Bush than many Democrats.
As for Mrs. Palin, she contends that Mr. Monegan was terminated for insubordination on budgetary matters. So whom do you believe? And regarding her issues with the librarian: I revert to my previous statement that a CEO can legitimately remove any member of his or her team who does not support his or her policies. I do not share your belief that an abuse of power occurred.

Steve said: I support John McCain primarily because I believe that I will keep more of my hard-earned dollars under his administration

Will you? I bet you originally thought that under the Bush Administration too. How many of your hard earned dollars are you keeping now, in terms of your retirement and investment income and your actual tax dollars?

Steve said: I really don't care if someone has made millions of dollars because he is still going to proportionately pay more in taxes than I am.

If you are talking actual dollars, you may be right. If you’re making the case that someone making millions of dollars pays the same percentage of their income in taxes, you are way off. The well off pay significantly less in taxes as a percentage of their income. The old trickle down economics of the Reagan era just doesn’t trickle down. Instead wealthy individuals and businesses take the tax breaks and ship them overseas.

Meanwhile, the working poor pay a huge percentage of their income in taxes and often can’t heat their homes (if they still have one) or put food on the table. Who should get the tax breaks, the wealthiest in our country or those struggling to make ends meet?

As far as Sarah Palin goes, we can just agree to disagree. Time will tell, as long as the GOP doesn't stop the ethics probe. Should we have a probe to see if someone that could be president of the U.S. has behaved ethically?

Looks like McSame is really ticked off at Obama.

Hey John, who is going to win the election??

"That One"

What was he thinking?????

(oh that's right, he selected Sarah Palin, his thinking has been screwed up for a few weeks)

Admin wrote:

Steve said: I support John McCain primarily because I believe that I will keep more of my hard-earned dollars under his administration

Will you? I bet you originally thought that under the Bush Administration too. How many of your hard earned dollars are you keeping now, in terms of your retirement and investment income and your actual tax dollars?

Steve said: I really don't care if someone has made millions of dollars because he is still going to proportionately pay more in taxes than I am.

If you are talking actual dollars, you may be right. If you’re making the case that someone making millions of dollars pays the same percentage of their income in taxes, you are way off. The well off pay significantly less in taxes as a percentage of their income. The old trickle down economics of the Reagan era just doesn’t trickle down. Instead wealthy individuals and businesses take the tax breaks and ship them overseas.

Meanwhile, the working poor pay a huge percentage of their income in taxes and often can’t heat their homes (if they still have one) or put food on the table. Who should get the tax breaks, the wealthiest in our country or those struggling to make ends meet?

Admin, normally your positions are factual..even if I disagree with your opinion. In this case, you are sadly misinformed. The wealthy pay much more in taxes in terms of both actual dollars AND percentages. This excerpt from the July 18, 2008 issue of Fiscal Facts published by The Tax Foundation illustrates my point: "In 2006, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 39.9 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.1 percent of adjusted gross income, both of which are significantly higher than 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes." Furthermore, the low end of the scale contains many who are even better off than under previous administrations: "From other IRS data, we can see that in 2006, 92.7 million of the tax returns came from people who paid taxes into the Treasury. That leaves 43 million tax returns filed by people with positive AGI who used exemptions, deductions and tax credits to completely wipe out their federal income tax liability. Not only did they get back every dollar that the federal government withheld from their paychecks during 2005, but some even received more back from the IRS." If my wife, who has two children from a previous marriage and earns over 40K, were unmarried now and filing single, she would have received a refund this year of $1,300 MORE than she paid in. How many "low-income" families fall into this category?
Finally, this last excerpt summarizes why you are misinformed: "The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $64,702) earned 68.2 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.3 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $388,806) earned approximately 22.1 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.9 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns."

Admin wrote:As far as Sarah Palin goes, we can just agree to disagree. Time will tell, as long as the GOP doesn't stop the ethics probe. Should we have a probe to see if someone that could be president of the U.S. has behaved ethically?

At least we can agree on something (wry smile)

Hi Steve,

I’m thinking we’re talking apples and oranges here. You’re talking about a percentage of the total federal coffers. I’m talking about a percentage of people’s personal income.

The tax structure in America covers much more than Federal income tax. There’s also state and local taxes. When you figure in state and local taxes, the poorest among us pay a much larger percentage of our personal income in taxes.

Here’s a table with the information I’m talking about. (Scroll down, I can't seem to get the code to work right)

U.S. Average State and Local Taxes in 1995

Income Group	Lowest 20%	Second 20%	Middle 20%	Fourth 20%	Top 20%
					Next 15%	Next 4%	TOP 1%
Income Range	Less than $25,700	$25,700 - $40,500	$40,500 - $54,600	$54,600 - $74,900	$74,900 - $131,000	$131,000 - $351,000	$351,000 or more
Average Income in Group	$15,600	$33,200	$47,400	$63,700	$93,300	$191,000	$801,000
Sales & Excise Taxes	6.7%	5.2%	4.2%	3.5%	2.6%	1.8%	1.1%
General Sales—Individuals	3.5%	2.9%	2.4%	2.0%	1.5%	1.1%	0.7%
Other Sales & Excise—Ind.	1.5%	1.0%	0.8%	0.6%	0.4%	0.3%	0.1%
Sales & Excise on Business	1.7%	1.3%	1.0%	0.9%	0.6%	0.4%	0.3%
Property Taxes	4.5%	2.9%	2.8%	2.8%	2.8%	2.6%	1.9%
Property Taxes on Families	4.1%	2.7%	2.6%	2.5%	2.5%	2.0%	0.9%
Other Property Taxes	0.4%	0.3%	0.2%	0.3%	0.3%	0.5%	1.0%
Income Taxes	1.3%	2.3%	2.8%	3.2%	3.6%	4.1%	5.0%
Personal Income Tax	1.2%	2.2%	2.8%	3.1%	3.5%	3.9%	4.6%
Corporate Income Tax	0.1%	0.1%	0.0%	0.1%	0.1%	0.1%	0.3%
TOTAL TAXES	12.5%	10.5%	9.8%	9.5%	9.0%	8.4%	7.9%
Federal Deduction Offset	–0.1%	–0.2%	–0.4%	–0.9%	–1.4%	–1.9%	–2.1%
TOTAL AFTER OFFSET	12.4%	10.3%	9.4%	8.6%	7.7%	6.5%	5.8%

The poorest pay an average of 12.4% of their income in taxes (Federal, State and local) while the richest among us pay 5.8%. You are correct in your assertion that Federal Income tax is more progressive. That has been taken into account in the above graph. The link to where I found this is here.

If my wife, who has two children from a previous marriage and earns over 40K, were unmarried now and filing single, she would have received a refund this year of $1,300 MORE than she paid in.

I know someone who is a single mother that makes almost exactly $40,000 per year, files head of household and has two dependent children. The Federal income tax she actually paid to the Federal Govt. was approximately $1,000. I don’t know where you got your figures but they seem flawed.

Admin,

Two points: 1) Your chart is from 1995!! There have been many, many changes to tax structures since then. In addition, everything except for federal income tax is set at the state/local level. You can't blame the president or congress for those areas. In your situation, you can look to Augusta for exorbitant taxation. 2) My wife is a self-employed bookkeeper/tax preparer and an Enrolled Agent licensed to practice and represent people before the IRS. She does a "what if" calculation every year to show me how I'm paying less in taxes than if I were single or married filing single. That's where she got her figures!!