"Burn on ___."

CHECK!

"___ unwittingly makes my point about ___."

NOT CHECK.

"[1970's Washington Bullets reference]"

NOT CHECK.

One out of three!

The fact that Democrats are turning out twice as many people for primaries and caucuses in the election season so far would seem to suggest that the right-leaning WSJ editorial board simply doesn't understand how out of touch many people in this country think the Bush administration has been.

And I don't see McCain challenging much of the Bush doctrine when it comes to economics and where the focus of our government should be.

Witness the awesome power of the ellipses!

In other news, check out Lindy West's review of National Treasure: Book of Secrets:
"But if it were up to me to ... sum up this movie, I’d say ... it’s the best movie I’ve ever seen."

Both rely on stripping out key bits of information to adjust the truth to fit a foregone conclusion. If you only look at half the truth, Clinton is well positioned. If you only look at half the speech, Obama is angry and populist.

Stop being a fucking douche and go do some reading:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Then you can come back and talk with the rest of us.

Good.

The Bush tax cuts give those who earn over $1 million dollars a tax cut nearly 160 times greater than that received by middle-income Americans.

It's not that he doesn't realize that. He, and everyone else here, knows it. But the rich pay large taxes because the tax system works proportional to what you can afford. Why do we first cut the taxes of the rich when, as one of the richest countries in the world, the gap in incomes is widening and people are struggling nationwide?

If you don't think this is a problem, I wouldn't expect you to even vote for a Democrat.

I vote democratic, not socialist.

Proportionate taxation is not socialist, and flat tax is stupid.

The average CEO makes more than 230 times his employees. I think that's incentive, even if you have to pay European taxes.

It's a fallacy to believe that being poor is necessarily a result of not working hard enough or being unmotivated. Many wealthy people in corporate positions are rewarded by their hand-picked boards whether their company turned a profit or laid off thousands and cut into pensions.

And if you're a government employee, I suppose you could argue that the working people of the United States pay your salary.

It's hard to tell of this is a talking point or just plain stupidity. The incentive to "become successful" (e.g. earn more money) is that you take home a shitload of money at the end of the day. This is true whether you pay a marginal rate of 35% or 39%. Add or subtract a few percentage points of tax and you'll make a small difference in take-home pay, but add a million or two to your salary and you make an enormous difference. Big earners should pay a lot into a system that they take a lot out of.

I'm sure there's a correlation, somewhere.

It amazes me when middle class people oppose progressive taxation and even embrace such asinine ideas as the "fair" tax. Progressive taxation helps the middle class. If you're not obscenely wealthy, you should support it too.