Georgia's Miller: 'Far left liberal agenda'

Will someone PLEEEEEASE put nutty Zell Miller back in his box!!!

More, please.

The more these idiotic wingnuts and fake attention-seeking former Democrats line up to try to scare voters, the better Martin will do.

They just don't get it. The American public wants the Democrats to govern after years of abject failure by the Republicans. So the argument against the "liberal agenda" will just ensure another embarassment for the wingnuts. They really are pathetic losers at this point.

Good ole Mark Silva.

Never lets truth, logic, or even journalistic ethics stand in the way of another anti-GOP diatribe.

Another observer might wonder why the Democrats have driven people like the Miller, Dem Convention Keynote Speaker, or Joe Lieberman, their 2000 VP candidate, out of their party. But not he.

Lieberman-Miller '12 at the top of the Rep ticket?

or, Palin-Miller??

choose your poison.

This is southern politics, at it's worst. I hope the voters of Georgia see through these, poor excuses for leaders, that are calling for the retention of Saxby Chambliss!! I guess, it is alright to soil one of our war heros' name, Max Cleland and expect to be re-elected. A war hero, who lost three limbs, while serving our country, in Vietnam, came home and wanted to continue to serve our country and the good citizens of Georgia. That passion was doused by Mr. Chambliss and his supporters, who began the character-assassination of Max Cleland. They went so far as to question his patriotism, faking pictures, showing the former Senator with Bin Laden. How despicable can anyone get !!? Mr. Chambliss doesn't deserve to represent the citizens of Georgia, if for no other reason than, he is not a true believer in the American way. If he were, he would never have been a party to the destruction of one of our true war heros, Max Cleland !! Send Mr. Chambliss packing, voters of Georgia !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Another observer might wonder why the Democrats have driven people like the Miller, Dem Convention Keynote Speaker, or Joe Lieberman, their 2000 VP candidate, out of their party. But not he.

Posted by: Regime Change | November 15, 2008 3:56 PM

We drove them (LIEberman and Crazy Zell) out of the party because they act like war-mongering Rethuglicans and the result for the Dems has been back to back landslide electoral victories in 2006-08.

Try again, RNC Brucie...

It will be interesting and fun to watch the GOP shrink to a few nativist haters, a couple of religious nuts, and the Kathryn Jean-Lopez's, Teurncoat Joe LIEberman's and Goofball Zell Miller's of the world in the next few years.

As long as the Rethuglican party continues to offer huge outsized tax breaks for the filthy rich and nothing for everyone else, the extremist nuts will be the only one's left carrying the GOPer banner after 2008.

I think it is going to be a while before we hear about the "big tent Republican party" being open for business.

Change Regime 08 = Obama/Biden! wrote (above):
.
"It will be interesting and fun to watch the GOP shrink to a few nativist haters, a couple of religious nuts, and the Kathryn Jean-Lopez's, Teurncoat Joe LIEberman's and Goofball Zell Miller's of the world in the next few years."
.
Jeepers. If you really think that's going to happen any time soon, then maybe you 'rats do drink psychedelic Kool Aid. The 'rats didn't win this election because the majority recently fell in love with the 'rats' policies or world view. They won largely because people were fed up with the particular Repubican policies we've all had to endure these last several years. Moreover, the 'rats have yet to make this place any better. Until and unless they do, I wouldn't count on the 'rats getting many more card-carrying converts.
.
Change Regime 08 = Obama/Biden, etc., then wrote:
.
"As long as the Rethuglican party continues to offer huge outsized tax breaks for the filthy rich and nothing for everyone else, the extremist nuts will be the only one's left carrying the GOPer banner after 2008."
.
Actually, tax breaks for the rich can be a very good idea and very helpful for everyone - IF they are structured correctly. The problem has always been that the tax code has never required enough of a positive economic sine qua non in exchange for the tax breaks. If, on the other hand, a substantial tax break above CODB were granted only to businesses for employing a certain number of people, and/or for keeping a specific percentage of its workforce employed in the United States and its territories, it just might encourage domestic job creation and discourage offshoring. That would likely be good for keeping Americans employed, and would constitute some motivation for businesses to do something other than pocket the money they didn't have to pay in taxes.
.
In fact, given your Savior's plan to impose health care insurance duties on employers, such tax breaks could very well become necessary. That is, unless you want to see a lot of people laid off when businesses can't afford to both employ workers and pay their health care costs. That's especially true now, since we are likely to be in a serious recession soon (if not already), and for some time in the foreseeable future.

Another Observer; Change Regime 08 = Obama/Biden!; John E et al:
*
Grow a pair, Pugslie. Stick with one post name (or even 2 or 3 would be OK). Here's another even better idea -- try coming up with a new, original thought.
*
The lame insults you pick up from other blogs and repeat here don't make you look clever. But more to the point, the zingers and overused insults don't DEFEND your supposed beliefs -- they just express your hatred for people who are different than you. Not necessary, we all know you're a hateful little pug.
*
We could all repeat the same simplistic ideas using many different post names, but must of us don't. Most of us are smart enough to see that there's no point to that. Will you ever figure that out?

Grow a pair, Pugslie. Stick with one post name (or even 2 or 3 would be OK). Here's another even better idea -- try coming up with a new, original thought.

Posted by: Got a mind? | November 16, 2008 8:09 AM

HAHAHA!!!

Sounds like someone is still crying about their brand new freshly minted status as the Very Small Minority Party (Rethugs) or as I like to call you, "4th Party Gadflies".

Actually, tax breaks for the rich can be a very good idea and very helpful for everyone - IF they are structured correctly. The problem has always been that the tax code has never required enough of a positive economic sine qua non in exchange for the tax breaks. If, on the other hand, a substantial tax break above CODB were granted only to businesses for employing a certain number of people, and/or

Posted by: John W. | November 15, 2008 11:11 PM

We've all been hearing about this mythical small govt conservatism from Repugs like you for the last 30 years and yet you've never bothered to implement it when you have come to power.
Show us some results (and not something that happened years ago) or put a sock in it.

John, let me dissect your tax credits: We are going to reward American Companies that hire American Workers, right? Ha! Twisted logic I’d say. How about we provide national healthcare, thus relieving the American Companies of this HUGE burden (which is far worse than the taxes), and allow us to become competitive again.

* * * * *
Posted by: Xcellentform | November 16, 2008 2:50 PM
.
I have twisted logic? Obambi PLANS to require companies to either pay employees' insurance or pay a fee for failure to do so. He has never embraced the kind of single payer system that you suggest. Thus, your option already appears to be off the table, and what I wrote already appears to be both relevant and necessary.
.
Furthermore, if we want to talk about lapses of logic, then let's talk about your suggestion that providing national health care would somehow relieve businesses of paying for health care. That is pure nonsense.
.
Let's make this simple. There is no such thing as a free lunch. If something costs money, then someone has to pay for it. The normal way federal government pays for things is to tax income earners (or, more recently, to borrow the money) and apply the proceeds to the expense. No money is expended that isn't taken in taxes or eventually paid for by taxes. A full 10% of the federal budget is devoted to paying the debt service for the money already borrowed. In addition, the presumption is that those who make the most money are going to bear the greatest tax burden - and that is precisely the way the progressive tax schedule was constructed. Hence, businesses, whether corporations, partnerships or otherwise, are likely to carry the bulk of the cost burden for a national health care system - simply because they make the most money.
.
Since it is obvious that businesses are going to pay for the bulk of the health care plan regardless of what it is, the only question is how that can be done without driving too many companies out of businesses, and to avoid the consequential loss of jobs, as a result of the increased tax burden. Using a single payer system is not necessarily going to hurt less than other options. Businesses required to meet the obligations under Obambi's plan would at least have choices, and the economic choices of these businesses would provide for some competition to keep prices down. That would not be the case in a single payer system. In fact, we already have a partial single payer system in Medicare - and that is rather expensive (costing $ $461 billion in Fiscal Year 2008) largely because of the lack of competition in the system.
.
Yet, we have another problem because Obambi's plan includes keeping the insurance industry in the thick of it. As it stands now, only $0.38 of every dollar paid into health insurance actually makes to doctors and hospitals to pay for services provided. Insurance companies keep the rest. Nor are there any guarantees that, if everyone who can pay is forced to meet some insurance obligation, the insurance companies will not raise their rates at a later time to make coverage unaffordable. There has been no talk of regulating the insurance industry. Under these circumstances, health care insurance is not the same as health care - it is merely having the government beat the drums to drive the game (us) into the waiting nets.
.
So, given all of the foregoing circumstances, yeah, I think it is reasonable to cut the companies who hire workers some slack since they will soon be required to foot unknown costs for health care insurance for those workers. And, like I said, it is either that, or you could be looking at a lot of layoffs because the government can't force companies to operate at a loss.

And, like I said, it is either that, or you could be looking at a lot of layoffs because the government can't force companies to operate at a loss.

Posted by: John W. | November 16, 2008 7:08 PM

Those are all a bunch of typical hallow bs words from trickle down Repub clowns like you, old man.

Instead of crying about the Dems all the time you should be complaining to your Republican overlords who lie to you and tell you they believe what you say but yet kick your idea's to the curb when they get elected.

You're living in a fantasy world. This isn't the Dems problem, this is a problem that you have with your own party and until you can get your problems worked out with them no one is going to listen to you except Repubs who want to get elected again at election time.

Shut off your computer and go out to the early bird special with the rest of the delusional old timer Repub crowd, Johnny "W".

John….tsk tsk tsk…the devil is in the details. Obama only plans on penalizing corporations that have more than 500 employees if they do not provide healthcare for their employees. This has been a complete pug slur to say that he will penalize all businesses for the insurance thing. This is geared for the Wal-Marts out there in the world.

If one did their homework on national healthcare, they would quickly realize that we are about the only developed nation that does not provide it for our citizens, and the ones that have made this transition, have realized that the money saved in the efficiencies has now paid for the people that did not have the insurance in the first place! So yes, we actually could insure America’s uninsured for “free”, even though it is not a lunch….it’s called streamlined efficiency. Here is a link for anyone not up to speed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicly-funded_health_care

Also, if the burden of healthcare is removed from business and placed on personal income, then it does relieve the business sector of headaches, overhead, and most importantly, the health insurance sector, which is rife with corruption. This also makes healthcare a more fixed costs, and would not fluctuate as much as it does now.

And finally, there is the ethics of it all. Should the working poor of this country be denied the right to insurance because their employers do not supply the insurance nor the means to acquire said insurance? It is a circular problem that exists for many in this country. Too poor to buy insurance and too proud to take a hand out.

in 20 years under our current system, health care costs will represent 25% of our gdp.

the number 8 cause of death in america; medical malpractice.

things need fixin' and less government doesn't seem to be the answer.

maybe they'll get their bail out like the poorly regulated financial sector.

* * * * *
Posted by: Xcellentform | November 16, 2008 10:16 PM
.
You have now danced completely around the issue, but still failed to address the issues I raised.
.
In the first place, you originally made it sound like businesses wouldn't have to pay very much for this stuff. The fact is, they are going to pay more in taxes. Because they represent a large part of those in the upper tax brackets, they are going to pay proportionally more than most.
.
In the second place, your statement that the play or pay penalty would only apply to businesses with more than 500 employees has no foundation. In fact, I actually held my nose and looked up all the 'rat propaganda on the subject, including all the stuff on Obama's web site. I couldn't find the 500 employee cutoff that you suggest. To the contrary the "plan" (as vaguely worded as it was) suggested that smaller businesses would still get taxed if they did not meaningfully contribute to a health care plan for their employees. Moreover, I am not as naïve as some to believe that stump promises are worth anything until they appear in written form in a bill with the President's signature on it. Until then, it is vaporware. I might add that there is no guarantee that Congress might not get a little more generous with amendments than Obama first intended, and we don't know how far Obama will let them to go before he refuses to sign it. In short, there is no concrete definition of what constitutes a "small business" and what exactly their duties to insure their employees might be.
.
In the third place, there is no indication that any of the cost will be removed from businesses and place on personal income. Where you got the idea that it might be is totally a mystery. There is going to be a large segment of society that will be insured or supplemented directly by the federal government and that is going to require revenue. Businesses are going to pay taxes just like everyone else and there are no promises that business taxes won't go up with the rest of the rate increases.
.
In the fourth place, there is no "right" to insurance. That's a left-wing, Socialist idea that has no foundation in our law, history or traditions. (And, yes, I do know what Socialism is.) In the absence of a legal, historical or traditional basis, someone has to pass a new law to create a right to health care or health care insurance; and that law doesn't exist yet.
.
In the fifth place, you have yet to address the problem that is going to face a significant number of small businesses in the near future as a result of this proposal. The fact is that many businesses are going to do their books and find out they can't stay in business, or that they have to downsize and lay off workers, because of added taxes and/or the added cost of insurance coverage. Since Obama can't guarantee that rates won't go up, those reassessments and resizing could go on for some time into the future. That's going to be true regardless of what tax credits and assistance the Obama plan has in store for them - because all businesses are hurting now that we are sliding into a serious recession. So, what's the ethics of planned large scale unemployment and bankruptcy?

John, when a government agency uses the term small business, it is a technical term that reflects businesses less than 500 employees. You know this. Most people do not.

Upper tax brackets for businesses? Really? Obama’s plan is for upper tax brackets of personal income.

As stated many times here by myself, I do not believe Obama will provide everything he has said. Politicians have never been able to live up to their stump speeches. I like the direction that he is going….I like the ideals that he is trying to achieve….I like the thought processes that he uses.

You are right, it is my belief that Obama is not going far enough with his healthcare proposals, so some of the stuff is in Obama’s platforms and some of the stuff are things that I would like to see him do. i.e. single payer, etc.

The right to healthcare is no different than your right to the safety of your family as you sleep at night….provided to you by our socialized police system. A bloody head is a bloody head. Also, the working poor can not taste capitalism if they end up with a $100,000 hospital bill. I know, all of this stuff is hard to fathom from your shoes, but you REALLY need to take a bigger look at the picture and pretend you were born in the slums somewhere as a black kid.

Your final paragraph is again, such a top-down view of things. The reason the businesses are doing bad, is that no one is buying. The reason no one is buying is that they have no money. The reason they have no money is partly because the credit train left town, and partly because people do not have real jobs. There are currently 10.8% of Americans displaced from work right now. That is better than 1 in 10 for people not good in math. If you do not think that is what is causing this crisis, you are kidding yourself. People will spend the money when they have the money. That is the way the idiot American operates.

* * * * *
Posted by: Xcellentform | November 17, 2008 12:30 PM
.
I must again disagree with your first point. The term "small business" does not have a universal definition in federal law. There is a definition of "small business concern" that has a 500 person limit, but that has little application outside of the "Small Business Administration." Furthermore, as I mentioned before, there is no requirement or guarantee that any other federal law including any proposed health care plan, will hew to this definition.
.
Second Point: I am serious that businesses are going to have higher tax rates. Let us never forget that most small businesses are partnerships and sole proprietorships. The income from those businesses is considered the personal income of the business owners. Therefore, even if the law were to shift the burden from businesses to personal income, it makes no difference for the tax consequences for businesses; it is a classic out-of-the-pan-and-into-the-fire scenario for most of them.
.
Third Point (New): You have a weird idea of what socialism is if you believe that police forces are socialist institutions. Socialism is first and foremost an economic philosophy that seeks social justice through: (1) collectivization of the masses, and (2) a central government used for management and allocation or redistribution of material resources and wealth. Having a police force, or an army, or a navy is neither dependent upon nor requires either. Thus, to say that a police force is a "socialist" institution is to say that the only two models of government are anarchy and socialism. I don't buy it.
.
Point Four: My right to safety is something for which I am primarily responsible. I am responsible for the security of the building so that no one breaks in, a fire doesn't break out, and that people in the house get to safety in case of an earthquake or other natural disaster. Our governments do not claim responsibility for any individual's safety. Police are not liable if they fail to respond in time to a crime scene (which is good for them because they normally arrive too late anyway) or when they fail to rescue a fire or disaster victim. The government promises only to help when the opportunity presents itself. Putting health care on the same plane as government insured safety basically means you have no "right" to health care because you have no right to the former. A "right" is something to which you can rightfully claim entitlement even against governmental resistance. Hence, your analogy fails.
.
Point Five: I was, admittedly, not born and raised dirt poor as many black children are. That doesn't mean I don't understand being poor. My family was far from rich when I was growing up. But we were never taught to feel entitled to any more than we got. My father taught me that I must work to pay my way through life, be responsible for myself, and look out for the less fortunate. He made it clear that I should never expect to live off the sweat and hard work of other people. The man who can provide for himself is free; those who can't and become dependent on the government aren't. Going into debt to another person makes one a slave. So, indeed, the issue does raise a moral imperative for me - because it raises a question of human freedom. Those who would create a national health care system, in which many would become financially dependent for health services, are creating a moral disaster. It is nothing we should undertake lightly unless we have explored all other alternatives - and that hasn't happened.
.
Point Six (and last): My perspective is not a top down one. It is a realistic one. We are in a financial jam. We have already run up a $10 trillion plus government debt. We have basically insured that the government budget is going to add more to that debt in the foreseeable future because of the $700 billion bailout and the proposed $300 stimulus package. These are serious financial troubles we face even before one considers the terrible fallout that will occur when all those Baby Boomers retire and the government has to fork out social security payments for which there is no money. The further and further we drive the government into debt, the more and more we inflate our currency and eat away at the earnings and savings of the people from the inside out. Another bit of reality is that we are sliding into what looks like a serious recession, if not a depression. Businesses are beginning to lay off workers in large numbers because they are already having a hard time making ends meet. That, in itself, will insure that the state and federal governments are going to suffer severe tax revenue shortfalls. To add yet another very, very expensive social welfare program (and Obama is unrealistic about its price) - for which there is simply no money - is pure insanity at this stage.

I am glad Zell came into the light. You should have heard the applause he received at the rally for Saxby! And Saxby won, the people of Georgia spoke. No radical extreme liberal left agenda allowed!