. . . . waiting for the 'jerk' to leave . . .

This appears to consist primarily of left wing sound bites that are not really supported by facts. With respect to “tax breaks for the rich,” the wealthiest 10% of U.S. taxpayers earn 46% of national income and pay 70% of federal income taxes. What per cent do you think would be fair? Believe me, I’m not one of the rich, but the more the tax system is modified to punish the rich or productive segment of the nation, the more they will find ways to earn their income elsewhere or become less productive. Conversely, as was shown when tax rates for everyone were reduced, the economy improved.

By the way, while I think the Bush tax cuts were entirely appropriate, I do agree with your criticism of the Republican Congress (pre-2007), if you're referring to their feeble attempts to control federal spending.

John: I appreciate your oft-thoughful and challenging comments; keep it up. As for my left-wing soundbites, well, I don't have time in a song parody for a thorough explanation of every point I make. Many of my opinions come from what I've observed, not from what I was told to think. BTW, why assume that the richest people are the most productive? Some are productive, of course; some are just clever or lucky or well-indoctrinated. And of course, Oprah or Condi notwithstanding, it helps to be a white man. Think of the plantation: who was more productive, the plantation owner or the slaves? We have degrees of this all through time and all over the world: from the fairest CEO to the cruelest taskmaster, from slavery to serfdom to big corporations. Actually, there's nothing wrong per se with a few getting rich off the labor of many, if the many are well-compensated. However, when the CEO makes over 400x as much as his lowest worker, when too many workers can't find full-time jobs or have no health insurance or benefits, when, as I heard on the news this morning, a woman who works full time had her lights turned off because energy costs are so high and she can't pay her electric bills, something is terribly, terribly wrong. When the very rich scheme to dodge both taxes and fair wages, when they drive up profits and drive down wages, benefits, and jobs themselves, something is terribly wrong. When they squeeze, as I love to say these days, more work from fewer people for less pay, something is terribly wrong. Wow, I can rant, can't I?

Melanie, thank you for reacting, but not over-reacting. I do have sympathy for the woman whose electricity got shut off; but most, if not all, utilities do offer reduced rates for low income customers. Which means that normal ratepayers, like you and I, are paying part of her electric bill. I don’t know the details, but I don’t think her plight can be blamed on President Bush or corporate America. I really don’t disagree with your statement above; but I’m not sure if it is a justification for raising tax rates on the rich. If it is, then it appears that your goal, like Obama’s, is “fairness” (punishment of the rich) rather than improvement of the economy.

I meant to say earlier, that in spite of disagreement with the overall theme, not a bad parody. Smirk is a good word to use to spoof the president – I have used it on AmIRight myself.

I thought this was good.

Ah, John...guess what? I'm NOT a normal ratepayer! I work part-time and make a four-figure salary, so this year a government agency is paying my gas heating bills. The phone company cut back on my services, and the electric company has threatened to cut me off. Thanks to recent tax returns and the tax rebate (which I think wasn't a smart idea but I'll take advantage anyway), I've caught up on the phone and electric bill, and now the electric company will give me a reduced rate, too. So I guess that means you're paying part of MY utilities! So how can she afford to be on the internet, you ask? Four ways: I'm allowed to use the computers at work during my "down time"; an internet cafe in my neighborhood charges $2 an hour; there's the local public library (ah, those government services again!); and once in a blue moon I use my sister's computer. Come to think of it, I got my MA at a public college and work at a public college, so I practically owe my life to the government dole! Do you want to kill me now? Anyway, when I had a little more money I contributed to the fund of one of those utilities, so I have no problem helping to support those who are worse off than I am. In some ways, I still do! When and if I make enough money to support myself again, I'll be happy, as the Bible says, to leave the edges of my fields and the gleanings for the poor and the alien (see Leviticus 23:22).

I like and agree with your biblical reference. But, Melanie, it sounds like there is no Mr. Lee in the picture, which means you should be very wary of Mr. Pacholek and other AmiRight liberal parodists in the NY area who might like to collaborate on parodies and stuff with you.

Speak of the devil (or at least the New Jersey Devils fan)... John, they might MAKE 46 percent, but they sure as hell don't EARN that much. Melaine, the smirk has left. It left in November 2006. Alas, the Smirker is still there, but hang in there. We've survived 91 percent of this illegitimate Administration. Not long now.