Actually, since 1900 the only time that a Presidential win hasn't included the win of both the electoral votes and the popular vote was in the year 2000 when GWB got 50,456,002 to Al Gore's 50,999,897.

So, it's been done in every Presidential race since 1900 with the exception of one race.

-Drew

Well, perhaps when our Constitution views all of those things as rights there will be some legislation behind them. We have very few "rights" in our nation and I am thankful for that every day. That allows me the opportunity to go out and earn the rest.

-Drew

It's funny to me how amazingly out of hand some of these posts have become. A post that started with the topic of the redistribution of wealth has, over time, turned in to a "he said, she said" soap opera which typically gets us nowhere. I have posted enough on this thread by I would be remiss if I did not go back to my main point. First, let me be clear about what I was not stating--and what no one here has.

1. No one is calling anyone lazy
2. No one is saying that "making it" is easy
3. No one is arguing that everyone is going to be wealthy beyond forever and have the easiest of lives.
4. No one is saying that there are any promises regarding tomorrow or the day after or the year after that.

I argued and have yet to see a lucid argument against that the richest people in this nation, the top 25% of earners pay for 85% of this nation. That is MORE than a balanced and in fact is massively unbalanced. But there is another element here that is not being discussed. Let's say for the sake of dreaming and fantasy that all of us tomorrow were offered jobs at the rate of $350,000 a year. Obviously that is more than any of us make now (and if there is someone here who makes that, can I be your friend?) so you get that income and then you see the deductions. Let me ask you to all be honest when I ask--would any of you argue that you should pay MORE than what you'd be asked to pay? I wouldn't and my guess is that none of you would either. At that type of salary you'd be paying a ton in Federal tax.

Now, I know many of you would give to charity and to causes in which you believed but that is separate from the taxes (save for write-offs)--no, I'm asking how many of you would send Uncle Sam an extra few thousand with a note attached that said--"Dear IRS--I make a lot and feel like S*** about it so I am sending some more. Please make sure it goes to a good cause."

I am thankful that so few pay so much. I pay a pretty high tax rate but I am not rich. And I'm not calling people names who are on assistance (and I've searched this thread and no one has) so perhaps it's time to agree to disagree. I do think that there are personal decisions that affect the ability we possess to do more with our lives but I know people wealthy and poor and I know many of them are happy.

I do want people to be able to work their way off of assistance because I know that most people on assistance have a lot to offer, that they want to work and contribute and that most of them are as good and caring as any people I'll find. That is not looking down on them. But pitying them is not raising them up either. I will help anyone I can as long as they are willing in turn to pay that forward by being in a position to help someone else---someday.

Everyone be well.

Drew

You know, I see your point--thank goodness you just keep it mellow and non-elitist when typing things like, "I know I AM RIGHT."

-Drew

Madison---on this issue, we do. I commented on it on another post as well. I'm sick of seeing people locked up for harming themselves. If it bleeds over into harming others, that's a different matter, but do you think our agreeing on something is a sign of the end times? :)

-Drew

Education is a huge topic and one that needs to be addressed post-haste. I think our criminal justice system also needs to be overhauled in a massive way.

First, education. We have never spent more on public education with so little to show for it. Our kids are graduating high-school (those who do graduate) and are ill-prepared to move on to college or move into the work-force because they lack the basics needed to handle the challenges they'll face. I am not an advocate of doing away with most of what makes education effective and exciting and I realize that different topics spark interests in different students, but my list below are some of what I feel are the most important topics that we need to cover from K-12.

EDUCATION:

1. English-- (both written and spoken English) in that it has been shown that a lack of skills in that area creates trouble. From writing a resume to communicating effectively in business, solid fundamentals in English is very important. I am NOT suggesting that English be the only language spoken, only that we need to make sure that our fundamentals are solid.


2. Math--We need to make sure that kids graduate high school with solid math skills. I don't think everyone needs advanced math like advanced Calculus but basic-intermediate math is a must.

3. Science--We need to make sure that kids are taught basic and solid scientific principles if for no other reason than it will cut down on those who believe that the sun revolves around the earth and that Mercury is the "closest" planet to earth. Good solid science sparks a lot of interests and will encourage more kids to enter careers in science, whether they become doctors, or work on cures for diseases, or work for NASA.

4. Geography--This is not a shot at former VP candidate Sarah Palin, for she is far from the only person (if those stories are true) who suffers an abysmal understanding of where things are. Knowing and understanding where other nations are located helps us better understand the world. Since it is nearly impossible to learn where a nation is located without learning something about the people who inhabit the nation, it is encouraging and will lead to a better understanding of the world in which we live.

5. Music/Arts--Music is more than about playing an instrument--it is also about learning how to think differently. It can also be something that keeps a child's interest outside of the regular school day. I did not forget about sports and I think they have a place but I think sports should be something engaged in if grades are kept up. I think that music/arts should be part of the standard. Not everyone will have musical talent so there are other arts that kids can engage in that should be able to spark some interest. Regardless, some exposure to music and that arts should be a part of a good education.


I know there are many more areas of education that can have a huge impact and there should be more offered. That stated, I think that the above listed areas of education should be focused on in a huge way. Make those subjects and areas something that is taught from K-12. Make it specific to the grade but let's fix this system and start investing our money in education in a more efficient way.


CRIMINAL JUSTICE:

I am not soft on crime, especially crime against a person. I am all for heavy sentences for people who attack, rob, rape, murder and assault. But we have a lot of people sitting in prisons that have never physically harmed another person.

1. Drugs. I am not pro-drug but they have been around forever and they aren't going anywhere. I heard it said once that as long as there is pain, there will be substances to help take away that pain. I am tired of seeing people who are caught with 20 Vicodin on their person sent to a Federal prison for years. I am tired of seeing people who are found with pot (but again, who have no harmed anyone) sitting in prison. We need to let those people out, tomorrow. There is no law (yet) that says one cannot kill themselves with bacon and steaks but yet we seem to want to keep everyone safe from pot and painkillers. I apologize if this sounds cold but if a person wants to spend their life getting blasted and if they can do so without infringing on my rights or yours, then let them. We aren't stopping them anyway but then we wind up paying for the construction of new prisons to house them. Why? This makes no sense whatsoever.

Now, just so we are clear. If you rape a person, you spend 25 years (with NO reduction of sentence) in prison. If you assault a person and beat the hell out of them, you get 15 years (with no reduction in sentence) and if you murder, you get life or death, depending on the weight of the evidence. I'm not being glib. I'm tired of reading about people with LONG criminal histories who get out and then kill or harm a person again. That needs to end. Some have argued that long sentences don't provide reform. OK, and the point is? I'll put it to you this way: If you knew of a rapist, someone who had raped someone you know, would you rather-- A. Have him serve 10 years but go through education and other methods of reform or B. Spend 25 years away, where you knew he could not harm anyone again for that time?

I'll vote for option B.

But the only way we'll make good, and solid changes in our criminal justice system is if we pay whatever it takes to keep harmful people away from the rest of us. A guy who cheats on taxes--locking him up is stupid. He is now using our tax dollars to keep him locked up instead of having to go work to pay back his taxes. Come on, we need employ a bit of common sense.

OK, I'm done, for now. Sorry for the rant.

-Drew

Respectfully--that is a cheap-shot comment/question, Winx. I have been a member of this site for a while now and I have heard and seen a ton of bitterness shown to GWB and to those who follow him. I've seen an anti-Semitic overlay with half of GWB's face imposed on the other half of Hitler's face. Oddly, no one found that (posted by Madison) as a massive insult to Jews, some of whom survived Hitler's regime and who would be more than happy to share with anyone who cared to listen the many differences between Auschwitz and America. I've always tried to respond without emotion and with logical arguments but to suggest that McCain's loss is the introduction of venomous replies is just not intellectually honest--in the least.

-Drew

Barack Obama got 52.6% of the popular vote. While a solid win, it still shows an extremely divided nation. If anyone believes that Barack Obama is going to be sworn in with a national mandate then they are not looking at the numbers.

Finally, there is nothing new in people switching up parties. In every election there are Democrats that vote Republican and Republicans who vote Democrat. That some Republicans voted for Obama is no more interesting than a lot of Southern Dems. who voted for Reagan in 1980. It happens.

-Drew

MirrorMirror--I was one of the conservatives who did not vote for McCain so yes, a number of us did stay "home" in some regards. Yes you guys won--I have never maintained anything different but it was hardly a mandate and if he governs as though it was then it might be an interesting four years.

I never believed President-elect Obama was a Muslim or any of that nonsense that some people held on to. But I do think his policies are no good and that is why I did not vote for him.

-Drew

The problem is that if the news is reported as straight news, with no political leaning then there, be definition cannot be another side to the story. If I am a news director and I report the quoted text below, what is the "other side"?

"Good evening. Today, in downtown Shelton, WA, four armed men with ski masks and automatic weapons walked into a local church, killing nine people. Survivors reported hearing the men decrying the "West" before opening fire. More details will be made available as the investigation continues."

What is the "other side"? If that is all that is known at the time the story is reported then it seems to me that the story is factually correct. The other issue here is that if every news channel reported identical news, there would be no difference in them. But each needs a share of viewers and each needs to create a trademark of sorts.

My point here is that if news sticks to reporting facts then by definition there need not be another side. If however the news reports only part of a story or crafts a story to their own political view then you'd be correct in that a great deal was left out.

So, we agree, Brandon, but again, if facts are reported then each news agency should be held accountable for those facts and the stories they report.

-Drew

Change indeed. A great example of change is that some Democrats ran on a "Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae" show the corruption of the Republican Party. So, President-elect Obama's answer to that--the ironic naming of Rahm Emanuel (a man who served on the Board of Freddie Mac for a few years) to the highest position in the White House (save for the VP)--Chief of Staff.

It looks like Fannie and Freddy are now off the table as hits against Republicans if a man who served on their Board is now being placed into a position of pretty significant power.

Oh, this is going to be a fun-filled four years.

**pssst--I have no issue with Emanueal, I just love the irony of his being named.

-Drew

What strikes me as interesting is the comment (and I think it quite true) that your view of FOX/CNN/MSNBC and the like are predicated on an already established world-view. There were many conservatives who stayed home last Tuesday because they felt that John McCain was too liberal and there are already a handful of people I've read comments from (not here) who think that President-elect Obama has "sold out" by naming Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff in that Rahm was not totally opposed to Bush's use of force in Iraq and that he served on the Board of Freddie Mac.

As it pertains to the news I suppose that there will always be a number of people who feel that FOX is a massive right-wing cabal just like there are those who think that CNN reports from the left. I noted in a different post that Chris Matthews' comment about "a thrill going down his leg" after hearing Obama speak was suspect in that he was supposed to be reporting the news that night, not playing the role of pundit. I don't really care save for the fact that we should at least be consistent.

I don't care what FOX talks about nor do I care what CNN is doing. I use a lot of news sources and then I check facts at independent places like Factcheck.org. This helps me understand what is really happening and what is really being reported correctly.

-Drew

I think the original poster makes some good points in her thinking and I appreciate that there are people who do try their best to keep both sides from wanting to "war" with each other, sometimes for little more than the sake of fighting.

That stated, there is a difference between supporting the office of the President, supporting the results of the election, and supporting the policies that the President will be involved with.

I support President-elect Obama in that I support his rightful place as our next president. He won the election and in that I am grateful that we transfer power in a peaceful and civilized way, I support what occurred in the recent election. As the President, I will support those provisions that the Constitution allows and I wish him well.

But I don't support his politics. I don't support many of his ideas nor do I support his view on the role government should play in our nation. For the sake of full disclosure, I did not support Senator McCain's politics either, at least not for the most part. I support a more constitutional approach to government, a much more limited federal government and a much more active state government. States have their own constitutions for a reason--but it seems these days that a lot of those reasons have been obscured by a bloated and over-reaching federal machine.

Most of my fellow citizens do not agree with me and the majority of them felt that President-elect Barack Obama was the right man for the job. I respect that they felt that way and that as a result he'll be our next President. But I'll be there every step of the way to question, to comment on and to write about both the good and the bad.

I don't think it's patriotic to dissent simply for the sake of blind ideological trust. Nor do I believe it makes a person less of a patriot for disagreeing with the status quo. I believe however that to question our government and the actions taken by the people we elect is not just a right but a responsibility. I believe that there is no greater freedom than that which allows us to question power. Many people believed under the current administration that we had lost that right. Barack Obama's nomination and election should forever silence that crowd as his election proves without any doubt that we can change our government, that every four years we have the right to throw out the old and usher in the new.

I wish President-elect Obama the best. I recognize the historical significance of his having been elected and I recognize how proud a number of people are as a result of his election. Time will tell if he also recognizes that a large number of people did not vote for him. Some didn't because they did not "like him" but a number of us didn't because while we might like him well enough as a man, we don't like his politics.

I'm in the latter of the two camps so it will be an interesting four years for me. Then again, it's already started (his wish to hire Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff [COS] despite his having served for a few years on the board of Freddie Mac) but I'll be fair--I promise. :)

Drew

I think helping out those less fortunate is a GREAT investment provided there is a return on that investment. I am more than willing to see less of my tax dollars go to locking up people for smoking pot and more of that money go to people who are in need of more education. There is a ton of government waste out there and making people accountable for that waste so that it can be used to help those people in the most need would make me very happy indeed.

-Drew

Whoa---I did not vote for President-elect Obama because I did not feel that a Freshman Senator had the experience to be President. Does that mean I am filled with hatred--or worse?

I'm asking, not stating but this was a fear I had...namely that if a person did not vote for President-elect Obama, they would be viewed as narrow, hateful or worse, racist.

I just want to make clear that there were a number of reasons not to vote for him that had nothing to do with his race--that we disagree is fine but I hope you are not suggesting that everyone who voted the other way did so for nefarious reasons?

-Drew

I want to second what Tina stated--the last two sentences really do cut to the point. Very well said, Sir.

-Drew

"Trickle down" economics is not constitutionally promised. There is no promise that you will be rich or that your fellow man will be poor. Did you know that we now have more black millionaires in this nation than at any other time? I think that's F'n awesome and I am genuinely happy for each of them. They have done what I haven't, worked or used their minds to achieve what I have not and I think that is phenomenal.

I love that there are more rich now then at any other time not because I think that rich equals noble or polite, or that it means I'll get more, but because it means that one can still work hard and still make it--still put enough money aside to pay for their kids and their grandkids' college education.

I don't ever need nor do I desire to be so rich that I cannot be bothered by what really matters. I give to charity and I have several companies and foundations that I strongly believe in, including UNICEF.

I just don't want to see those who already pay more than their fair share have to pay more. They are paying enough--their share and that of many others. Yet we (not all, but some) still seem to find interesting and inventive ways to call them names. Not you personally perhaps, but the point is not lost on everyone.

Someone brought up (on a previous post) the issue of someone like Paris Hilton. She's a rich woman having not really done anything save for regular salon appointments and getting her name on the news for being, well, Paris Hilton. While it is true that such examples are frustrating, that is never going to change. My point in bringing up Hilton is only to offer the alternative view that a great number of the well-off are not trust fund babies who have lucked (sic) their way into fortune. A number of people who are wealthy today have also been miserably poor--they know what it is to be hungry and broke. J.K. Rowling is a great example of a rags to riches story and while she is not a US citizen, I think her work (and the riches that have followed) are every bit deserved. On a more realistic note, I am glad there are men and women who have worked hard enough to to and graduate from medical school. When I needed surgery a few times a few years back I was happy that such people were around. When they put the mask over your face to send you to never-never land, none of us really care about how much they make--we are just hoping that they know what the hell they are doing so that we'll again wake up. In fact, I want my surgeon to be so well-off that he/she massively enjoys what they are doing and is thinking of NOTHING but the guy on the table, trusting his life to the skill and mind of the person doing the cutting.

Again, just my .02 but I am glad that I live in a nation that allows me to reach for all I can, to prosper and work, to achieve and with motivation, realize my own dreams.

Not everyone will and there are some truly heartbreaking cases of people in horrible situations through no fault of their own. I'm fine helping them, fine with making sure that basic needs are taken care of and that there are opportunities provided so that they can make a better life. But I'm not (nor will I ever be) fine with punishing achievement simply because others have not themselves done so well. That is not what this nation was founded upon and not what I want to see her dictate.

Thanks all, for again entertaining my tome of a reply.

-Drew

Winx--but news is shaped by the world-view held by those reporting it. Generally there is an element of truth in news reporting but we love the headlines and the more sensational a story, the more it is read. One of my local three news stations is a station called KOMO 4. KOMO has a "most read" section on their news site that lists the popularity of the stories--the most read. What is is amazing to me is that it is generally the most depraved or sick story that is number one. A while back a woman threw boiling water on her boyfriend causing him massive and disturbing burns. It was news (I suppose) but it was the number one story for two days. There was a lot of other stuff going on at the time and yet this domestic confrontation was the leader. That seems to be the mentality of my local area viewers. Right or wrong, they gravitate toward that stuff.

This is directly related to the Fairness Doctrine in that we would then have to set up a "balanced" committee to determine if the slant given the news was indeed balanced. That committee would then be maligned by both left and right alike as playing favorites and not reporting fairly. It would never end.

In an age of instant news and with the Internet so full of news, people should be able to sift through the coal to find the diamond. People are on TV all the time trying to tell us what to buy, how to vote, at what rate to re-fi our homes. We have to filter all of that, not just the news. I will therefore stand by my original post argument that government controlled news (or a doctrine that forces things to be balanced) is highly unconstitutional in that protected speech is not just the stuff you and I agree with. Should the news be accurate? Yes, but if it's not, we the viewers need to boycott it and let the chips fall where they may.

--Drew

But it's all relative as it relates to how much you earn. Let me ask you this--what is a fair percentage for the top 25% of wage earners to pay? 50%, 60%??--more?

The person making a billion dollars a year is part of the Über-rich. Presumably he/she has worked their asses off for that money (not always, I realize, but most rich people didn't get rich by sitting around all day worried about what others are making) and they are (if paying 35% of one billion dollars, paying 350 million in taxes).

That is a ton of money. Sure, they still have a lot left but that is the point. The only way to make the very wealthy pay in a way that would make some folks here happy seems to be to tax them to a point where they are taxed at a rate that reduces them to actually keeping next to nothing.

But the real point here is that the poorest in this nation do NOT pay taxes. We have systems built in that allow them to receive back most if not all of their federal withholdings and then we have the child tax credit which is complete BS in that I don't understand why one penny of my tax dollars should be going to other people getting a break because they had kids. I pay my taxes and I don't cheat or lie about my income. The way it works is fine in that I know it will not change but I do want this "the rich should pay more" issue put to rest. As you can see from the numbers above, they DO pay more. That they are still rich after having done so seems to be what most are upset about.

Oh, and if we are going to tax the rich more then I believe President-elect Obama should start first and set the example by giving half or more of his 4.1 million back to the government so that it can be distributed evenly. He won't (nor should he) but let us at least be consistent with our arguments.

-Drew