So is this original? Or is this an uncredited cut paste?

If original, quit curing cancer and sign on as a SNL/Jay Leno/Letterman writer!

I have no desire for this thread to devolve into a “Yes he did”, “No he didn’t” sort of back and forth between the two of us.

It is widely known that members of the military, Marines in this case, are expected to salute the CIC as he approaches. That salute is to be held until the CIC passes.

It is widely known that the President is expected to return the salute as he approaches the Marine.

It is widely known that protocol does not call for the President to stop and shake hands with the Marine. The surprised/shocked facial expression of the Marine standing by the helicopter speaks volumes about this.

Those are the points that I was making with the original post.

The breach of widely known, historically recognized protocol is a clear demonstration of Obama’s cluelessness.

You say that you’ve read my writings and, if that’s true, then you should know that I have a firm command of the facts whenever I create a post or response. You should also know that I don’t back down from the facts. This occasion is no different.

Let me say that I’ve read your posts as well, and in that process, I’ve found that your writings are full of opinion and light on factual backing.

In your latest post you’ve added insult and invective to your quiver of arrows.

When you can find me something factual that backs up your claim that it is acceptable protocol for the CIC to interrupt a Marine in the process of saluting in order to shake his hand, let me know.

Until then, you have nothing to contribute beyond more meaningless words on the page with a few insults thrown in to break up the blandness.

What’s the source for your information?

The salute regulations are in the Marine Handbook and a supplement given to the members of HMX-1.

Whether the President may return the salute or not is cited by your own article.

The source of your mischaracterization of the Marine is the video itself.

As I said, this is a tempest in a leaky teapot.

There are plenty of things to bash Obama about that are real and legitimate. Whether he choses to salute, not salute or be friendly with a Marine is not one of them. If you want to raise this and then expect be taken seriously, that is on you.

Its stupid, childish, and petty.

You are above that. I have seen, read and enjoyed your writings. This issue is not of your caliber.

“Barack Obama, in Harrisburg to campaign in the Pennsylvania primary, drew applause from a crowd at The Forum with lines like these: “We need to break the politics of fear that uses 9/11 to scare up votes”; a promise to “obey the Constitution of the United States”; and an aspiration to “disagree without being disagreeable.”

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2008/03/live_blogging_barack_obamas_ha.html

Anyone else recall the eight years of accusations waged against President Bush for “politics of fear?

Isn’t that what Obama and company are doing now? Shortly after the election of President Bush, dems and press were eager to call him on his mild comments about the economy that had been in recession for 9 months, comments that never included terms like:

“Worst economy since the depression” Here are a few the following article mentions:

“From crisis to catastrophe. Off a cliff. Dark, darker, darkest. Mortal danger of absolute collapse. Armageddon. ”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/ramped-up-obama-rhetoric-could-backfire/

They are the ones that are “off a cliff” and into a deep ravine.

Carter is also mentioned for his malaise rhetoric, Clinton, for some reason, escaped scrutiny for practicing the politics of fear throughout his campaign when it was the economy stupid, worst economy since Hoover, etc. Hypocrites, one and all.

What’s the source for your information?

Cite it for me.

I didn’t miss it. What you stated was incorrect.

You wrote: The Commander in Chief is supposed to salute the Marine standing outside the helicopter, not shake hands with him.

That is incorrect. The President may return the salute or not.

By protocol, the President is expected to return the salute, which he did.

No sir. Once again, the salute may either be returned or the Marine will remain saluting until the CIC has passed.

If the President chooses to address the soldier or shake his hand, there is no regulation or protocol that prevents him from doing so.

Hence the surprised expression, the brief handshake, and the immediate return to salute by the Marine.

Except the Marine does not have a “surprised expression” on his face. Of course, anyone would be slightly surprised if the President stopped by to shake their hand while they were doing their job. Perhaps you may be different.

This is a tempest in a teapot with a leak in the bottom.

Obama did nothing wrong and neither did the Marine.

Perhaps you missed what I said.

By protocol, the President is expected to return the salute, which he did.

The President is not supposed to break protocol by shaking hands with the Marine.

The Marine is to hold his salute until the CIC has passed by.

Hence the surprised expression, the brief handshake, and the immediate return to salute by the Marine.

I wonder if the Marine will get any flack for shaking hands without removing his glove.

Roll the tape:

Background on where the tradition began:

PRESIDENTIAL TRADITION

I never ceased to enjoy reviewing our men and women in uniform and hope I started a new tradition for presidents.

As commander in chief, I discovered it was customary for our uniformed men and women to salute whenever they saw me. When I’d walk down the steps of a helicopter, for example, there was always a marine waiting there to salute me. I was told presidents weren’t supposed to return salutes, so I didn’t, but this made me feel a little uncomfortable. Normally, a person offering a salute waits until it is returned, then brings down his hand. Sometimes, I realized, the soldier, sailor, marine, or airman giving me a salute wasn’t sure when he was supposed to lower his hand.

Initially, I nodded and smiled and said hello and thought maybe that would bring down the hand, but usually it didn’t.

Finally, one night when Nancy and I were attending a concert at the Marine Corps headquarters, I told the commandant of marines, “I know it’s customary for the president to receive these salutes, but I was once an officer and realize that you’re not supposed to salute when you’re in civilian clothes. I think there ought to be a regulation that the president could return a salute inasmuch as he is commander in chief and civilian clothes are his uniform.”

“Well, if you did return a salute,” the general said, “I don’t think anyone would say anything to you about it.”

The next time I got a salute, I saluted back. A big grin came over the marine’s face and down came his hand. From then on, I always returned salutes. When George Bush followed me into the White House, I encouraged him to keep up the tradition.

I fear that Obama may yet take up this regrettable Reagan-invented “tradition.” But I’d rather that he remember his place as a civilian and continue to shake hands.

Too late Larry, he’s already started doing it. In fact he started saluting on his Inauguration day.

So sorry you’re disappointed with the guy you voted for.

Just remember, you’re not alone in your disappointment.

Sorry, but this is not the case. The President does not have the obligation to salute the Marine. Reagan started the salute as a sign of repect to the men and women who guard him. At the time, it was against military rules for the Marine to salute the President as the president is not in uniform and only those in uniform may be saluted. The military has since revised its rules to allow the return of a salute by the President.

Larry Weisenthal:
Presidents didn’t salute, until Reagan, who was influenced by too many WWII movies.

Actually you are wrong. Washington returned the salute of those around him when he was president. The tradition of salutiing “broke” when there were presidents who had not served in the military.

Your snark towards Reagan is beneath contempt. Reagan recognized that the men and women of the military were important and often overlooked. He recognized that in the military a salute has historical and contemporay meaning and is given and returned as a sign of respect.

I always thought that Reagan looked ridiculous, standing there in a business suit, doing a military salute.

You are free to have that opinion. God forbid that the commander in chief ever shows respect and appreciation to the men and women who serve beneath him.

I fear that Obama may yet take up this regrettable Reagan-invented “tradition.” But I’d rather that he remember his place as a civilian and continue to shake hands.

And I fear that Obama is disdainful of the men and women who serve this country.

This administration is a joke. It’s as if Obama is dredging up all the sludge from the bottom. If this is the best he can do for the top posts, goodness knows what the middle and bottom look like. All his Chicago pals, ACORN and UAW thugs? And really, impeachment is not an option. Look who inherits after him: Biden, Pelosi and Clinton. What a choice. The Dunce. The Dimwit. And Clinton. There are meriad descriptions to fit her, none of them good. All four arrogant as hell.

Historically, this is true (I like your graphic). But it tells us mostly that sensible, or at least sane people have set US tax policy over the past 50 years. It’s not a law of nature, and I’m sure that if you were able to get decent statistics on the 19th century US or for that matter other countries of the present day you would find other numbers.

The graphic that shows revenues not correlated with (top end) tax rates, on the other hand, doesn’t tell us much. Looking at it we could imagine that the top bracket of taxpayers payed less while others paid more (as the top end rate dropped), so that the tax system became less progressive while overall revenues were by necessity maintained at a fairly constant level. Now as it happens that is not exactly what happened either, but the graph really tells us very little.

1. “Upper income citizen” – I’ll go with Obama’s $250K. Whenever I’ve done that well, with due respect to Joe the Plumber, I could never say with a straight face that I needed to have my taxes cut in order to get by in the world.

$250K. Well, that’s a nice arbitrary number. A number, by the way which has fluctuated down and down and down until it reached as low as $90K.

Also, Joe the Plumber wasn’t bemoaning an inability to “get by”. He was asking an honest question regarding business tax policies. A business that makes $250K is not by any means wealthy especially when you calculate in all of the overhead associated with making that dollar amount.

2. Yes, twice. I worked two summers as a hospital orderly, first for the Sisters of Mercy and then for the Sisters of Charity. Both took poverty vows. Your point being?

Were those two employers in business to earn a profit? If they took a poverty vow, I rather doubt it.

My point is that poor people don’t hire people. Poor people don’t create jobs.

3. No. If a real leader asked me to pay more in taxes, along with everyone else in my income bracket, for the good of the country, then I’d be willing to do it, and I’d certainly be more than willing to forgo tax cuts. On the other hand, I’m not at all into meaningless gestures.

Well, there you go. You’re opposed to tax cuts but yet, when the opportunity arose over the last one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight years, you didn’t put that opposition into action by paying back what you benefited financially as a result of those tax cuts.

That’s a bit like me saying “Gosh I sure do hate those low life deadbeats who sit at home unemployed waiting on their gov’t check” while being a low life deadbeat sitting at home unemployed collecting my gov’t check month after month, year after year.

Hypocritical, or just lip service?

Your questions have a lot of between the lines insinuations. Let’s lay them out in the open.

No hidden insinuations there.

Just probing you to determine your level of consistency.

So far, you’re consistently inconsistent.

If tax cuts really stimulated economic growth sufficient to overcome the debt generated by the tax cuts, then ratio of debt to GDP would fall.

Regardless of tax rates, revenues are always right around 18% of GDP.

It’s been proven over and over and over again. Tax cuts stimulate the economy because they encourage productive behavior by the the people who truly control the economy. Even the figures that you quoted agree with me. Kennedy cut tax rates. Look what happened to the debt numbers.

The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis.

Tax cuts absolutely result in increased revenues.

The factor that your numbers, and your argument, omits however is spending. That number must be calculated in as well. If taxes are cut and then spending goes up, the ratio is affected.

It’s the spending that affects things more than tax cuts because the tax cuts actually increase revenue intake.

Tax revenues do not correlate with tax rates:

The higher you go on the food chain, the more the person owes his/her success to a huge network of government services and support. So, darn right, we should pay more. We should pay a lot more.

We should pay our own way and not, out of pure greed, borrow money from China to pay for what we refuse to pay for ourselves, and then pass the debt repayment on down to our children.

That brings me back to the point I’ve made already.

You say that you deserve to pay more. You say that you should pay more.

Yet, you say you haven’t.

Again, hypocrisy or lip service?

Consistently inconsistent.

Absolutely NOT.

2/3 of the subprime mortgages were completely private, non-government-backed mortgages, outside of the purview of Fanny/Freddie.

2/3 of the government backed were for refinancings, 2nd homes, investment properties. Only 1/3 for owner-occupied mortgages. Of these, a small fraction were for the sort of thing that Republicans maintain were the root problem: Community Reinvestment Act Loans for first home buyers in distressed areas. By total dollar amount, these have to be less than 1%. Do the math. Government backed mortgages had little, if anything, to do with the meltdown.

How about some source material for that?

Three questions for you Larry:

1) How do you define “upper income” citizens?

2) Have you ever worked for a poor person.

3) If you’re opposed to tax cuts, does that mean that you sent the IRS the amount of your tax reduction when President Bush’s tax cuts went into effect?

1. “Upper income citizen” – I’ll go with Obama’s $250K. Whenever I’ve done that well, with due respect to Joe the Plumber, I could never say with a straight face that I needed to have my taxes cut in order to get by in the world.

2. Yes, twice. I worked two summers as a hospital orderly, first for the Sisters of Mercy and then for the Sisters of Charity. Both took poverty vows. Your point being?

3. No. If a real leader asked me to pay more in taxes, along with everyone else in my income bracket, for the good of the country, then I’d be willing to do it, and I’d certainly be more than willing to forgo tax cuts. On the other hand, I’m not at all into meaningless gestures.

I’d like to think that I’d have the courage to march into battle with a band of brothers, but I wouldn’t do a single handed, full on frontal assault against an entire enemy division. (military history: classified 1A during the Vietnam War, but had a lottery number of 252; only quasi-military service was as a Lt. Commander in the US Public Health Service, known back when as the “yellow berets.” My brother was also 1A, drew lottery number of 12 and was drafted on Christmas Eve. This is back when war was a lot more personal for the average college student).

Your questions have a lot of between the lines insinuations. Let’s lay them out in the open.

I discussed the abject bankruptcy of GOP-style supply-side tax cuts on another thread.

Here’s what I said on the Graham-Boxer “smackdown” thread:

Reaganomics was a disaster for the country. If tax cuts really stimulated economic growth sufficient to overcome the debt generated by the tax cuts, then ratio of debt to GDP would fall. But many a beautiful theory is ruined by an ugly fact:

President(s)/Debt as a percentage of GDP (beginning of term -> end of term):

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Truman 90% -> 72%
Eisenhower 72% -> 55%
Kennedy-Johnson 55% -> 38%
Nixon-Ford 38% -> 35%
Carter 35% -> 32%
Reagan-Bush 32% -> 67%
Clinton 67% -> 57%
Bush 57% -> 69%

This is what Obama means by “failed policies.” I’m against doing anything to further increase debt, but, between the Dem plan and the GOP plan of just more tax cuts, I’ll hold my nose and side with the congressional Dems.
Supply side economics should be relegated to the dustbin of history, where it so richly deserves to be.

Now, here’s why well-to-do people deserve to pay more tax:

Case in point: my small business

I employ 10 people, including myself. For starters, I owe my ability to run my business to 14 years of post-high school education, all of it generously supported by public funds (U of Louisville, U of Michigan, National Institutes of Health). 5 of my employees are graduates of public colleges (Michigan, UCLA, UC Irvine, Cal State Long Beach). Another was trained at a Veterans Hospital. Another is a two year graduate of a California Community College. Another attended a public college for 3 years, but did not graduate. The other is “merely” a public high school graduate (but perfectly bilingual — of great value to my business in Southern California), but her public school education did a great job of preparing her for the work she does for me.

Now, I started my little business in 1992. I’ve done OK with it. I was able to send both of my kids to Ivy League colleges. So I’m a “self-made” man? Hardly. Only if I’d paid for the education of myself and of all of my employees. And that’s only for starters. I’m critically dependent on infrastructure. The main courier for the medical specimens I process is FedEx, which is dependent on public airports, roadways, air traffic control, transportation safety, and so forth. I do a lot of international business travel, and I’m personally dependent on these same systems for myself. I’m dependent on the state insurance commission. I’m dependent on the inspection and licensing boards, which hold both me and my competition to the same high standards. I’m dependent on the FDA. I’m dependent on the police and fire which protect my business and my commercial, rental, and residential real estate. On and on and on. No one is a “self made man,” except perhaps for the likes of Jackson Pollack. The higher you go on the food chain, the more the person owes his/her success to a huge network of government services and support. So, darn right, we should pay more. We should pay a lot more.

We should pay our own way and not, out of pure greed, borrow money from China to pay for what we refuse to pay for ourselves, and then pass the debt repayment on down to our children.

The only politician who has put forth a proposal which makes any sense to me is Mitch McConnell’s government-backed mortgage plan.

Wasn’t government backed mortgages what got us in this mess to begin with?

Absolutely NOT.

2/3 of the subprime mortgages were completely private, non-government-backed mortgages, outside of the purview of Fanny/Freddie.

2/3 of the government backed were for refinancings, 2nd homes, investment properties. Only 1/3 for owner-occupied mortgages. Of these, a small fraction were for the sort of thing that Republicans maintain were the root problem: Community Reinvestment Act Loans for first home buyers in distressed areas. By total dollar amount, these have to be less than 1%. Do the math. Government backed mortgages had little, if anything, to do with the meltdown.

What caused the meltdown was too much capital chasing too few investment opportunities. What created the capital glut? The massive tax cuts to the wealthy, coupled with a Fed policy which kept interest rates at artificially low levels, in an attempt to make supply side economics work: to “stimulate” the economy (and that’s what the Bush tax cuts were: a one trillion dollar “stimulus” measure, no less than the Democrats $800 billion boodoggle is a “stimulus” measure). The reason the economy had to be “stimulated,” was that there was a very minor recession, which is a normal component of the business cycle, which was simply a needed correction for an overly explosive period of growth. There was vastly less need for a “stimulus” back then than there is now. The economy was basically sound. Debt to GNP ratio was falling. We should have kept taxes where they were and allowed interest rates to remain high enough to keep capital supply in check, thus avoiding the glut, which was the true driving force behind the financial collapse.

Mitch McConnell’s suggestion, by the way, was for government-backed mortgages going only to credit worthy borrowers.

From hardright:

Larry W, your desperate clinging to worthless polls is just sad.

The above is an example of a comment which is sophomoric breast beating, dressed up with childish nyah, nyah, nyahs. In the future, hard, if you are ever able to make thoughtful, serious points, along the lines of Aye, Maya, Wordsmith, Scott, PDill, etc., I’ll be more than happy to discuss your points. But stuff like the above is truly a vexation to the spirit.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach

Presidents didn’t salute, until Reagan, who was influenced by too many WWII movies.

The President isn’t in the military. The President is a civilian leader.

I always thought that Reagan looked ridiculous, standing there in a business suit, doing a military salute. I’m disappointed that subsequent Presidents decided to continue doing this, as all of them frankly looked ridiculous and I dislike the concept of the “warrior President.” FDR was a great war time leader, but he wasn’t a warrior. Neither was Truman, who nuked Japan, for goodness sake.

I fear that Obama may yet take up this regrettable Reagan-invented “tradition.” But I’d rather that he remember his place as a civilian and continue to shake hands.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Obama has a stellar economic team behind the idea

Let’s look at this “stellar team”:

* Paul Volker: Head of the panel, 81 years old, ex-Federal Reserve Chairman and one of Obama’s current economic advisors.

* Tim Geithner: Obama’s new Treasury Secretary and tax-cheat.

* Laurence Summers: Current Obama economic advisor.

* Cristine Romer: Already heads Obama’s “Council of Economic Advisors”.

* Robert Wolf: Chairman of UBS Group Americas, raised over $250,000 for the Obama campaign.

* Jim Owens: CEO of Caterpillar, Inc. The same Caterpillar that just announced a lay-off of 20,000 people.

* Anna Burger- Labor leader of the Service Employees International Union, whose Committee on Political Action gave $13.53 million to the Obama campaign.

* Penny Priztker: Finance chair of Obama’s presidential campaign. Once head of Superior Bank which failed due to pushing too many sub-prime mortgages.

* Richard Trunken: Secretary Treasurer of the AFL-CIO, which gave $50 billion to help Obama and other Democratic national candidates.

* Jeffery Immelt: CEO of General Electric. GE stock was at $38.52 a year ago. It is now down to $11.10 as of today. GE also owns NBC, which was essentially Obama’s un-official P.R. station.

* Charles Phillips, Jr.: President of Oracle Corp. Donated $50,000 to Obama’s inauguration.

* William Donaldson: SEC Chairman under the Bush Administration.

* Martin Feldstein: Harvard economist.

You’ll note in there a huge number of campaign contributors. This couldn’t possibly be repayment for help in the campaign now could it?

You’ll also find people who have demonstrated a record lacking in personal responsibility and accountability as well as a demonstrable lack of success when it comes to business and economics.

A team? Yes.

Stellar? Not so much.

The Commander in Chief is supposed to salute the Marine standing outside the helicopter, not shake hands with him.