Who is rich? I can assure you that to those of us from Talco Texas, someone who made $4.2 Million last year would definitely be perceived as rich. Clearly, the McCains are richer. I think Senator McCain was trying to say some weeks ago that Mr. Obama shouldn't try to label himself as not rich and the McCains as rich. He missed the mark. The bottom line is both of them are pretty comfortable.
If you divide the $4.2 Million the Obamas made last year by a 45 year work life you get something over $93,000 per year. So in one year he made slightly less than double the median the average US family income for a 45 year work life. This $93,000 figure would put him in the upper quintile (20%) of wage earners in the US period. He made 84 times the average US family income. 1/46th of his income would still leave him in the upper 20% of us incomes.
I do not begrudge the money he has made. I am proud for him, the problem is his trying to differentiate between himself and Senator McCain economically fails the test. His background may be humble. In the here and now, he is NOT just a humble Joe.
Friday, August 29, 2008
The Web and the political process
Eight years ago, the web was still somewhat in its infancy. It was a hodge-podge of pages with pictures and virtually no video. New news was still broken primarily on television and radio. In-depth reporting was still primarily the realm of print journalism such as newspapers and magazines. 2000 was the year my company moved from dial-up access to DSL. Most of the world was still using dial-up and marvelled at its ability to bring information into our homes and businesses.
In the political process it was more of a town meeting instead of a medium for prepared advertising. On the GeorgeWBush.com site, there was a bulletin board (sort of like the comment boxes seen today on many sites [this one included].) I put in my ten cents worth and it actually was read by someone significant in the campain. I am sure of that because my ten-cent quip was practically verbatim in a speech that put a dent into Vice-President Gore's definition of middle class. Governor Bush used two sentences of mine nearly directly.
A major part of Mr. Gore's platform was a tax credit to help the middle class to pay for college. My point as that a family of five had to make over $40,000 per year to see the first penny. Nearly a decade later, it boils down to more a question of who the middle class are as opposed to were the middle class going to get a tax credit. The bottom line is a family of five who makes $40,000 per year pays little or no federal income tax in the first place. A credit for tax liability when there is none results in no change in tax liability.
The point here is that eight years ago, there actually was access to the inner workings of campains by those of us on the internet. Today the sheer volume of people online makes it prohibitive. The internet has just become another media stream for the campains to use to spread their message. It serves them well, but the two way forum of the past is seemingly dead. Today (for me) just getting this blog read by ANYONE is a stretch.
In the political process it was more of a town meeting instead of a medium for prepared advertising. On the GeorgeWBush.com site, there was a bulletin board (sort of like the comment boxes seen today on many sites [this one included].) I put in my ten cents worth and it actually was read by someone significant in the campain. I am sure of that because my ten-cent quip was practically verbatim in a speech that put a dent into Vice-President Gore's definition of middle class. Governor Bush used two sentences of mine nearly directly.
A major part of Mr. Gore's platform was a tax credit to help the middle class to pay for college. My point as that a family of five had to make over $40,000 per year to see the first penny. Nearly a decade later, it boils down to more a question of who the middle class are as opposed to were the middle class going to get a tax credit. The bottom line is a family of five who makes $40,000 per year pays little or no federal income tax in the first place. A credit for tax liability when there is none results in no change in tax liability.
The point here is that eight years ago, there actually was access to the inner workings of campains by those of us on the internet. Today the sheer volume of people online makes it prohibitive. The internet has just become another media stream for the campains to use to spread their message. It serves them well, but the two way forum of the past is seemingly dead. Today (for me) just getting this blog read by ANYONE is a stretch.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Obama and Senator Biden
For weeks people have speculated about who Senator Obama would choose as a running mate. The possibilities ran from the obscure (Texas Congressman Chet Edwards) to safe (Senator Biden). He chose safe; someone who shared his liberal views on a majority of items. When most pundits line up the list of the most liberal Senators, Obama is usually first and Senator Biden is usually third or forth. This means that he chose so that his Obama's) liberalism IS the issue.
How liberal are these guys? They make Hillary Rodham Clinton and Edward Kennedy look like scrooge when it comes to hand outs. They make Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas) and Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana) look like simply Pro-Choice Republicans. To put it in even better perspective (not one I am sure the examples would enjoy, ) Obama is so far left that Ted Kennedy is closer to Arlen Specter than he is to Obama. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas is close to the same distance from Kennedy that Kennedy is from Obama (on domestic issues.) Simply, Mr. Obama is twice as liberal as Senator Kennedy and I believe Mr. Kennedy would chafe at the label of moderate. I don't think Obama can run away from the liberal label. I am not even sure he intends to.
Even moderate democrats need to look beyond party labels to the issues. SImply the issues are Obama is a tax and spend liberal. He plans on a massive redistribution of the wealth of Americans and that will simply dry up venture capital or put the government into the business development business even bigger than it already is.
This guy is not Bill Clinton. He is not Hillary Clinton. He certainly isn't Abraham Lincoln (but if he can get extra votes based on Lincoln's legacy against slavery he certainly is willing to grab them.) Barack Obama is not an AMERICAN NEGRO (see previous postings to see why I use this term.) Barack Obama is the progeny of a white LIBERAL and a foreigner who happened to have dark skin.
Some would tell you, I am sure, that regardless of his herritage, electing Obama will surely help the legitimacy of African-American candidates across the board in the future. I don't dispute this. The problem is the here and now. We cannot afford Mr. Obama now. Are the long term benefits worth the costs today?
How liberal are these guys? They make Hillary Rodham Clinton and Edward Kennedy look like scrooge when it comes to hand outs. They make Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas) and Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana) look like simply Pro-Choice Republicans. To put it in even better perspective (not one I am sure the examples would enjoy, ) Obama is so far left that Ted Kennedy is closer to Arlen Specter than he is to Obama. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas is close to the same distance from Kennedy that Kennedy is from Obama (on domestic issues.) Simply, Mr. Obama is twice as liberal as Senator Kennedy and I believe Mr. Kennedy would chafe at the label of moderate. I don't think Obama can run away from the liberal label. I am not even sure he intends to.
Even moderate democrats need to look beyond party labels to the issues. SImply the issues are Obama is a tax and spend liberal. He plans on a massive redistribution of the wealth of Americans and that will simply dry up venture capital or put the government into the business development business even bigger than it already is.
This guy is not Bill Clinton. He is not Hillary Clinton. He certainly isn't Abraham Lincoln (but if he can get extra votes based on Lincoln's legacy against slavery he certainly is willing to grab them.) Barack Obama is not an AMERICAN NEGRO (see previous postings to see why I use this term.) Barack Obama is the progeny of a white LIBERAL and a foreigner who happened to have dark skin.
Some would tell you, I am sure, that regardless of his herritage, electing Obama will surely help the legitimacy of African-American candidates across the board in the future. I don't dispute this. The problem is the here and now. We cannot afford Mr. Obama now. Are the long term benefits worth the costs today?
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Oboma and the black underclass
Barack Obama is being criticized by the black underclass as not being responsive to their needs. The "What about the black community, Obama?" poster drives home a point: even Obama knows that the woes of the poor are not solved immediately. While obsessively liberal, he is not nor will he ever be a descendant of slavery or uncle Tom. Obama is just the child of a very liberal white mother and a man who happened to have black skin. His father WAS NOT an African American. He was African. Everyone seems to miss (or dismiss) the social significance of this. . We understand Jesse Jackson and his goals (while I disagree with much of what Reverend Jackson espouses, I believe he believes that he is right. He actually has the background to have experience.) Obama is a child of textbook liberalism. Anthropology as a social science tends to lean liberal, often to the point of socialism.
The point here is to define Obama by his race is a mistake. Since Mr. Obama is technically African-American there is a need for a different term to define traditional Black Americans. I will use the term American Negroes. I realize it is a somewhat archaic term and has a negative connotation in some quarters, I will still use it for African Americans whose African ancestors arrived in America prior to the twentieth century. The bottom line is Obama is NOT an American Negro. While he wants them to embrace him as one of their own, he is not. He is the same as a white liberal.
The problem is he is liberal far beyond the Clintons. Beyond that of Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. Bill Clinton's life experience actually closer to that of the black underclass than that of Obama. The bottom line is that Obama's brand of social activism is being lost in the race issue. If you equate American Negroes with liberalism and equate Obama as an American Negro you would totally miss the point of his liberalism.
While his skin is black, he is still M&M or worse Vanilla Ice. He wants you to think he has the cred, but regardless, he doesn't.
The point here is to define Obama by his race is a mistake. Since Mr. Obama is technically African-American there is a need for a different term to define traditional Black Americans. I will use the term American Negroes. I realize it is a somewhat archaic term and has a negative connotation in some quarters, I will still use it for African Americans whose African ancestors arrived in America prior to the twentieth century. The bottom line is Obama is NOT an American Negro. While he wants them to embrace him as one of their own, he is not. He is the same as a white liberal.
The problem is he is liberal far beyond the Clintons. Beyond that of Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. Bill Clinton's life experience actually closer to that of the black underclass than that of Obama. The bottom line is that Obama's brand of social activism is being lost in the race issue. If you equate American Negroes with liberalism and equate Obama as an American Negro you would totally miss the point of his liberalism.
While his skin is black, he is still M&M or worse Vanilla Ice. He wants you to think he has the cred, but regardless, he doesn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)