Some reflections:

[ghostjmf]

Many years ago a rich uncle said to me "I think the very rich (meaning himself, among others) should pay higher taxes. There's a point when you really do have enough money that having a little less isn't going to matter." I was proud of rich uncle, who I always did like anyway, for that.

I have been working at my job, which I cannot describe these days for fear of fear, & lets leave it at that, all day, & didn't even get to listen to those exit polls yet. I will go back & watch the returns, but without room-destroying, physically near-miss threatening (that's why I kicked them out) mean, sarcastic housemate who finally moved out, but who mainly shared the same political leanings except with a libertarian tinge on things like gun-control & the typical "I can't give birth to a child but I can have an opinion" man's opinion on abortion rights, to periodically comment on the results to, it will be a lonely viewing night. I will make some phone calls, I guess.

But at any rate, if the Bradley Effect didn't really kick in after all, or some other bad thing:

I hope & pray that people not falling for all that "Joe The Plumber" crap is the death of Reagan, a man whose politics & cabinet choices I largely found obscene's Big Lie of "You will all eventually be millionaires if you starve out everyone else so let's dismantle government & only tax the poor".

Mr. Wurzelbacher or whatever wants to have a $250,000.00 income some day. Hey, so do I. When we both do, we can meet to commiserate on how awful it is to pay higher taxes than when we made $40K (Wurzelbacher's reported current salary). Until that day comes that I have so much money I don't know what to do with it but am whining about my taxes, I will be happy to see "the richer you are the more you pay". A graduated income tax. Because, really, if you make $10,000,000.00, they could take away $9,000,000.00 & you really wouldn't miss what it could buy for you in terms of goodies a normal human wants & needs.

It would be nice to leave the people at the bottom enough money to pay for essentials, forget the goodies. Well, maybe a couple modest goodies. Bread & Roses, remember?

Anybody with half a brain knows you get more money to use when you tax the obscenely rich than when you tax the just-scraping-by & not-even-thats of this world. I hope the at-least-half-a-brain team really got in this time. I read on a mailing list I'm on that the sadly late & sorely missed Studs Terkel said of Obama, who he did support, "somebody's gonna haveta push him further to the left". Yeah! You Righties will never believe this, but he's not nearly far enough to the left for a lot of us. But his are even so way better than the political positions espoused by the Other Side.

I should now go home & watch those returns.

[kayrharris]

Define "obscenely rich".

[ghostjmf]

kayharris says:

Define "obscenely rich".

I don't think 250,000K is obscenely rich for a couple with kids. They're really comfortable, in my opinion, though. And they can afford to have fewer tax breaks than I can. I also think that a business, after its met its payroll, rent, & all other obligations, that pays the owner 250,000K has an owner who can afford to have fewer tax breaks than I can.

Those heads of the firms backing contributions to the McCain campaign: Obscenely rich.

[Obscenely Rich Bastard]

kayharris says:

Define "obscenely rich".

I don't think 250,000K is obscenely rich for a couple with kids. They're really comfortable, in my opinion, though. And they can afford to have fewer tax breaks than I can. I also think that a business, after its met its payroll, rent, & all other obligations, that pays the owner 250,000K has an owner who can afford to have fewer tax breaks than I can.

Those heads of the firms backing contributions to the McCain campaign: Obscenely rich.

I just bought Rich University.

You were not part of the purchase price....

[kayrharris]

kayharris says:

Define "obscenely rich".

I don't think 250,000K is obscenely rich for a couple with kids. They're really comfortable, in my opinion, though. And they can afford to have fewer tax breaks than I can. I also think that a business, after its met its payroll, rent, & all other obligations, that pays the owner 250,000K has an owner who can afford to have fewer tax breaks than I can.

Those heads of the firms backing contributions to the McCain campaign: Obscenely rich.

I just bought Rich University.

You were not part of the purchase price....

Dear ORB:

The Office of the President Elect is looking for you.

[danielh41]

I hope & pray that people not falling for all that "Joe The Plumber" crap is the death of Reagan

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Reaganism is alive and well, and I believe an Obama presidency will only make people long for Reaganesque policies more and more... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122628429302812557.html

The Polls Show That Reaganism Is Not Dead
By SCOTT RASMUSSEN

Barack Obama won the White House by campaigning against an unpopular incumbent in a time of economic anxiety and lingering foreign policy concerns. He offered voters an upbeat message, praised the nation as a land of opportunity, promised tax cuts to just about everyone, and overcame doubts about his experience with a strong performance in the presidential debates.

Does this sound familiar? It should. Mr. Obama followed the approach that worked for Ronald Reagan. His victory confirmed that voters still embrace the guiding beliefs of the Reagan era.

During Reagan's campaign, the nation suffered from high unemployment and high inflation. This time around, data from the Rasmussen Reports Daily Presidential Tracking Poll showed that Mr. Obama took command of the race during the 10 days following the collapse of Lehman Brothers -- when the Wall Street meltdown hit Main Street. Before that event John McCain was leading nationally by three percentage points. Ten days later Mr. Obama was up by five and never relinquished his lead.

Mr. Obama's tax-cutting message played a key role in this period of economic anxiety. Tax cuts are well-received at such times: 55% of voters believe they are good for the economy. Only 19% disagree and see them as bad policy.

Down the campaign homestretch, Mr. Obama's tax-cutting promise became his clearest policy position. Eventually he stole the tax issue from the Republicans. Heading into the election, 31% of voters thought that a President Obama would cut their taxes. Only 11% expected a tax cut from a McCain administration.

The last Democratic candidate to win the tax issue was also the last Democratic president -- Bill Clinton. In fact, the candidate who most credibly promises the lowest level of taxes has won every presidential election in at least the last 40 years.

But while Mr. Obama was promising to cut taxes, the Bush administration took the lead on a $700 billion, taxpayer-backed bailout bill -- with very little marketing finesse. Few Americans supported the bailout, and a majority of voters were more concerned that the government would do too much rather than too little. In terms of getting the economy going again, 58% said that more tax cuts would better stimulate the economy than new government spending.

A Rasmussen survey conducted Oct. 2 found that 59% agreed with the sentiment expressed by Reagan in his first inaugural address: "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Just 28% disagreed with this sentiment. That survey also found that 44% of Obama voters agreed with Reagan's assessment (40% did not). And McCain voters overwhelmingly supported the Gipper.

The real challenge for the new president will be attempting to govern with a message that resonates with most voters but divides his own party. Consider that 43% of voters view it as a positive to describe a candidate as being like Reagan, while just 26% consider it a negative. Being compared to Reagan rates higher among voters than being called "conservative," "moderate," "liberal" or "progressive." Except among Democrats, that is. Fifty-one percent of Democrats view that Reagan comparison as a negative. There's Mr. Obama's dilemma in a nutshell.

Mr. Obama won the White House promising tax cuts, but he will be governing with a Democratic Congress bursting with desire for a more activist government. As he faces this challenge, he might remember the fate of another man who made taxes the central part of his campaign: the first President Bush, whose most memorable campaign line -- "Read my lips, no new taxes" -- was as central to his victory as Mr. Obama's promise to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. George H.W. Bush famously reneged on that promise. Voters rejected his bid for a second term.

Mr. Obama ran like Reagan. Will he be able to govern that way, too?

[frogman042]

When I saw the title of the thread I thought of a title to add to the huge list of:

"Extremly Short Books"

"Reflections About Myself" by Dracula.

---Jay

[TheConfessor]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Reaganism is alive and well, and I believe an Obama presidency will only make people long for Reaganesque policies more and more... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122628429302812557.html

Why are people who say "Sorry to burst your bubble, but..." always, in reality, very eager to burst the other person's bubble?

[Bob Juch]

I hate to tell you but....