Take a look in his own words
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Change and Hope: For the Disillusioned and Mediocre
A Change We Can Believe In
So we need a change? What is so bad that we have to change from? Dems, I imagine would respond that we need to change the following:
1) George Bush's failing economic policies- he guided us through 9/11 which had great impact on our financial community/structure, average household income was higher during George Bush than Bill Clinton (contrary to current claims), the stock market reached its highest during George Bush's term, unemployment was lower during Bush's terms than during Clinton's term.
2) Repair our image throughout the world- We freed a country from a horrible dictator (yes, I know, Dems will say, "we went in for the WMD's that were never there! Bush lied"), and I am sure Saddam was pursuing WMD and might have had some buried in the desert kind of like they did with Mirage and MIG fighter jets (see picture below)
3) Stop Giving Tax Cuts to the Wealthy- what in the heck is wrong with being wealthy? Why does the government feel obligated to give that money to people who just want to remain lazy and leach off the system? I have a one word answer for you: socialism....We are punishing people economically for going the extra step through the universities to get their degrees, the people who stepped out on a limb to start a business and made it grow, and those people who have worked hard to rise up in their companies.
The Dems are equating wealthy people to CEO's with golden parachutes, investors who frauded the market....it is all a ploy to get the majority populous to feel like victims and and those who are mediocre who just want a free ride to buy into all of this nonsense.
4) Failed Strategy in
Obama's Reading Material: Post American World
Amazon-Book Description
"This is not a book about the decline of America, but rather about the rise of everyone else." So begins Fareed Zakaria's important new work on the era we are now entering. Following on the success of his best-selling The Future of Freedom, Zakaria describes with equal prescience a world in which the United States will no longer dominate the global economy, orchestrate geopolitics, or overwhelm cultures. He sees the "rise of the rest"—the growth of countries like China, India, Brazil, Russia, and many others—as the great story of our time, and one that will reshape the world. The tallest buildings, biggest dams, largest-selling movies, and most advanced cell phones are all being built outside the United States. This economic growth is producing political confidence, national pride, and potentially international problems. How should the United States understand and thrive in this rapidly changing international climate? What does it mean to live in a truly global era? Zakaria answers these questions with his customary lucidity, insight, and imagination.
Here is an excerpt from a review by Olli Raade
State and the society
Economic development means also more pluralistic societies. The governments must yield part of the power to various players in a society, such as independent central banks, companies, multi-national companies, trade unions, various non-governmental organizations such as environmentalists; and in particular to the markets. The state and the society become distinctively separate concepts.
My question is how do you separate, or compartamentalize state from society when they are intertwined. What is a state with out its society?
Hmmm.....Would Obama go for separating state and society? Perhaps since the government already govern states, is it possible society will be a separate entity that will exact more control by the government ?
Truth about Obama's Tax Cut: WSJ Article
Obama's 95% Illusion
It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is.
One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.
AP
It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."
For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:
- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.
- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.
- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.
The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.
It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.
There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.
Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.
Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.
It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is.
One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.
AP
It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."
For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:
- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.
- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.
- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.
The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.
It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.
There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.
Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.
Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Obama and the Proletarian Revolution
Obama will help bring about that which many of the democrats have wanted: Proletarian Revolution or something similar
Wikipedia:
"A proletarian revolution is a social and/or political revolution in which the working class attempts to overthrow the bourgeoisie. Proletarian revolutions are generally advocated by socialists-- particularly those of the communist variety." Obama and the Democrats want to overthrow the capitalists, the free market. They guys who play large parts in the recent financial crisis are the same guys are are blaming the free market; unfortunately some lunatic Republicans are doing the same.
Here is what Obama wants:
Obama wants socialized Healthcare; do not buy into having the option to choose private health coverge; he said that private healthcare companies will be subject to Federal rules/ Democrats rules
Obama wants to give a tax cut to anyone making under $75,000 a year. His record shows he will increase taxes on everyone(those making 75K and less); how else will he pay for his programs and eradicate world hunger? Why is he going to take hard earned money from Americans and give it to other countries to eradicate poverty?
Why don't those governments take care of their own people? Because they are corrupt and are lining their pockets with the money; we cannot let them take our money!
Americans are the most generous people on earth. More private donations came from the US to help the Tsunami victims and a whole hosts of other disasters. Why do the Dems continue to punish us for having money. Why should my money go to the guy who needs to get off his ass and look for a job?
"I am my brothers keeper"- Obama, Democratic National Convention---this translates into the Government taking care of the people/socialism....
See another example below in his own words-
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Obama on Gun Rights!?!
John McCain 2008 <http://ALABAMA.johnmccain.com>
<http://www.johnmccain.com/images/spacer.gif>
Senator Barack Obama's Contempt for Your 2nd Amendment Rights
The right to bear arms is a fundamental right provided by the Constitution as a means for Americans to protect themselves, their families, and their property. Senator Barack Obama has sought to diminish and even remove the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens and has gone so far to say that he does not believe people should own guns. The right to own a firearm is exceedingly important to the citizens of this nation, especially to the significant number of sportsmen who enjoy the outdoors. Senator Obama's record on the Second Amendment is extreme and simply does not resonate with the American people.
BARACK OBAMA DISMISSES GUN OWNERS
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
- Senator Barack Obama (April 6, 2008)
THE OBA MA FILE
* Running for the Illinois State Senate in 1996, Senator Obama supported banning "the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." Senator Obama also supported waiting periods and background checks to purchase all firearms.
* In 2001, Senator Obama voted against a bill to allow individuals to carry a concealed weapon when they have a valid order of protection out against another person.
* In 2003, Senator Obama voted in support of legislation that "would have banned most of the privately held hunting shotguns, target rifles, and black powder rifles" in Illinois. He also voted in support of a measure that would have prohibited multiple sales of handguns within a 30-day period.
* In 2004, Senator Obama voted against legislation "drafted to protect homeowners from being prosecuted in cases where they used a firearm to halt a home invasion."
* In 2004, Senator Obama expressed his opposition to right to carry concealed weapons by saying, "I mean, I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry."
* Running for the U.S. Senate in 2004, Senator Obama received an "F" rating from the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund. Senator Obama advocated national legislation banning concealed carry.
* In a 2004 candidate questionnaire, Senator Obama supported banning assault weapons.
<http://www.johnmccain.com/images/spacer.gif>
Senator Barack Obama's Contempt for Your 2nd Amendment Rights
The right to bear arms is a fundamental right provided by the Constitution as a means for Americans to protect themselves, their families, and their property. Senator Barack Obama has sought to diminish and even remove the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens and has gone so far to say that he does not believe people should own guns. The right to own a firearm is exceedingly important to the citizens of this nation, especially to the significant number of sportsmen who enjoy the outdoors. Senator Obama's record on the Second Amendment is extreme and simply does not resonate with the American people.
BARACK OBAMA DISMISSES GUN OWNERS
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
- Senator Barack Obama (April 6, 2008)
THE OBA MA FILE
* Running for the Illinois State Senate in 1996, Senator Obama supported banning "the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." Senator Obama also supported waiting periods and background checks to purchase all firearms.
* In 2001, Senator Obama voted against a bill to allow individuals to carry a concealed weapon when they have a valid order of protection out against another person.
* In 2003, Senator Obama voted in support of legislation that "would have banned most of the privately held hunting shotguns, target rifles, and black powder rifles" in Illinois. He also voted in support of a measure that would have prohibited multiple sales of handguns within a 30-day period.
* In 2004, Senator Obama voted against legislation "drafted to protect homeowners from being prosecuted in cases where they used a firearm to halt a home invasion."
* In 2004, Senator Obama expressed his opposition to right to carry concealed weapons by saying, "I mean, I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry."
* Running for the U.S. Senate in 2004, Senator Obama received an "F" rating from the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund. Senator Obama advocated national legislation banning concealed carry.
* In a 2004 candidate questionnaire, Senator Obama supported banning assault weapons.
Consequences of Democrats Rule
I received the following information in an email:
City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level
1. Detroit , MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo , NY 29.9%
3. Cincinnati , OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland , OH 27.0%
5. Miami , FL 26.9%
6. St. Louis , MO 26.8%
7. El Paso , TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee , WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia , PA 25.1%
10. Newark , NJ 24.2%
U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007
What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty rate all have in common?
Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961;
Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;
Cincinnati , OH (3rd)...since 1984;
Cleveland , OH (4th)...since 1989;
Miami , FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;
St. Louis , MO (6th)....since 1949;
El Paso , TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;
Milwaukee , WI (8th)...since 1908;
Philadelphia , PA (9th)...since 1952;
Newark , NJ (10th)...since 1907.
Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'
It is the disadvantaged who habitually elect Democrats---yet they are still disadvantaged...
Saturday, October 11, 2008
This is not about the Economy
What is important is not necessarily the economy, it is the socialists in government positions of power. What good will and economy do if it is controlled by socialists? Look at the economy in Europe?
If you think the economy is bad now, you just wait until the socialists have full control! Taxes- little or no money to put back in the market; Healthcare: Little or no choice on what type of coverage as well as needing government approval for medical procedures/medicine (What happens when you oppose the government, will you then still get medical coverage or will they just not let you get the treatment you need?); Education- our children will be required to recieve indoctrination with leftist philosophies (alternative lifestyles, sexual eduction, condoms at a young age, etc...)
Let there be no mistake, if Dems hold Congress by a wide margin and Obama is President, alot of this will happen quickly. Congress leaders and Obama are already meeting to move things forward when he is elected.
If you think the economy is bad now, you just wait until the socialists have full control! Taxes- little or no money to put back in the market; Healthcare: Little or no choice on what type of coverage as well as needing government approval for medical procedures/medicine (What happens when you oppose the government, will you then still get medical coverage or will they just not let you get the treatment you need?); Education- our children will be required to recieve indoctrination with leftist philosophies (alternative lifestyles, sexual eduction, condoms at a young age, etc...)
Let there be no mistake, if Dems hold Congress by a wide margin and Obama is President, alot of this will happen quickly. Congress leaders and Obama are already meeting to move things forward when he is elected.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Take A Look At What The Dems Want To Do With Your 401(K)
Congress mulls major 401(k) changes
| By Sara Hansard October 7, 2008, 5:18 PM EST |
A wide range of sweeping changes to the 401(k) system were proposed Tuesday at a hearing on how the market crisis has devastated retirement savings plans.
Chief among them was eliminating $80 billion in tax savings for higher-income people enrolled in 401(k) retirement savings plans.
This was suggested by the chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor.
“With respect to the 401(k), it appears to be a plan that is not really well-devised for the changes in the market,” Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., said.
“We’ve invested $80 billion into subsidizing this activity,” he said, referring to tax breaks allowed for 401(k) contributions and savings.
With savings rates going down, “what do we have to start to think about in Congress of whether or not we want to continue and invest that $80 billion for a policy that is not generating what we … say it should?” Mr. Miller said.
Congress should let workers trade their 401(k) assets for guaranteed retirement accounts made up of government bonds, suggested Teresa Ghilarducci, an economics professor at The New School for Social Research in New York.
When workers collected Social Security, the guaranteed retirement account would pay an inflation-adjusted annuity under her plan.
“The way the government now encourages 401(k) plans is to spend $80 billion in tax breaks,” which goes to the highest-income earners, Ms. Ghilarducci said.
That simply results in transferring money from taxed savings accounts to untaxed accounts, she said.
“If we implement automatic [individual retirement accounts] or if we expand the 401(k) system, all we’re doing is adding to this inefficiency,” Ms. Ghilarducci said.
Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J., raised the issue of which investment advisers are allowed to offer workers investment advice.
The Department of Labor is considering “loopholes” that would allow advisers to offer “conflicted investment advice if the advisers work for subsidiaries of financial services companies that sell the investments,” he said.
With American workers facing $2 trillion in losses from retirement plans over the past year and Democrats expected to gain seats in the House and the Senate, actions being contemplated by the committee are an important harbinger of what could come out of Congress next year.
What Socialized Medicine Will Be Like
A coworker of mine and I were talking about socialized medicine. She told me about her sister and her son who lives in Winnipeg, Canada; as you know, Canada has a healthcare system that is socialized.
Nephew: He had some medical issues and his brain was starting to swell, documented by a CT scan. They, and the doctor, had to petition to the government to allow surgery to take place in order to relieve the swelling; a week later authorization came for surgery. By that time, the brian started to swell again and there was some bleeding that had occurred as well. Currently the nephew is undergoing treatment to relieve swelling; they do not yet know the extent of the damage caused by the brain swelling.
Nephew: He had some medical issues and his brain was starting to swell, documented by a CT scan. They, and the doctor, had to petition to the government to allow surgery to take place in order to relieve the swelling; a week later authorization came for surgery. By that time, the brian started to swell again and there was some bleeding that had occurred as well. Currently the nephew is undergoing treatment to relieve swelling; they do not yet know the extent of the damage caused by the brain swelling.
Why did it take a week for authorization for surgery when there was documented evidence of swelling? Is this what we want in the United States under an Obama administration?
About eight months ago, this woman's husband, was having heart issues. The doctor recommended surgery because of various reasons. The govt responded back that his condition was "not bad enough"- eight days later he died.
About eight months ago, this woman's husband, was having heart issues. The doctor recommended surgery because of various reasons. The govt responded back that his condition was "not bad enough"- eight days later he died.
Is this what we want in the United States? Politicians deciding who gets healthcare?
We need to stand up and not let this happen to our country.
We need to stand up and not let this happen to our country.
George Will's questions to Barack Obama, i.e. What country do you want to lead?
Vox Vocis 16 June 2008
'Questions for Obama' by George F. Will
Senator, concerning the criteria by which you will nominate judges, you said: 'We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.' Such sensitivities might serve an admirable legislator, but what have they to do with judging? Should a judge side with whichever party in a controversy stirs his or her empathy? Is such personalization of the judicial function inimical to the rule of law?
Voting against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, you said: Deciding 'truly difficult cases' should involve 'one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.' Is that not essentially how Chief Justice Roger Taney decided the Dred Scott case? Should other factors say, the language of the constitutional or statutory provision at issue matter?
You say, 'The insurance companies, the drug companies, they're not going to give up their profits easily when it comes to health care.' Why should they? Who will profit from making those industries unprofitable? When pharmaceutical companies have given up their profits, who will fund pharmaceutical innovations, without which there will be much preventable suffering and death? What other industries should 'give up their profits'?
ExxonMobil's 2007 profit of $40.6 billion annoys you. Do you know that its profit, relative to its revenue, was smaller than Microsoft's and many other corporations' ? And that reducing ExxonMobil's profits will injure people who participate in mutual funds, index funds and pension funds that own 52 percent of the company?
�
You say John McCain is content to 'watch [Americans'] home prices decline.' So, government should prop up housing prices generally? How? Why? Were prices ideal before the bubble popped? How does a senator know ideal prices? Have you explained to young couples straining to buy their first house that declining prices are a misfortune?
Telling young people 'don't go into corporate
Michelle, who was born in 1964, says that most Americans' lives have 'gotten progressively worse since I was a little girl.' Since 1960, real per capita income has increased 143 percent, life expectancy has increased by seven years, infant mortality has declined 74 percent, deaths from heart disease have been halved, childhood leukemia has stopped being a death sentence, depression has become a treatable disease, air and water pollution have been drastically reduced, the number of women earning a bachelor's degree has more than doubled, the rate of homeownership has increased 10..2 percent, the size of the average American home has doubled, the percentage of homes with air conditioning has risen from 12 to 77, the portion of Americans who own shares of stock has quintupled. Has your wife perhaps missed some pertinent developments in this country that she calls 'just downright mean'?
You favor raising the capital gains tax rate to '20 percent or 25 percent.' You say this will not 'distort' economic decision making. Your tax returns on your 2007 income of $4.2 million show that you and Michelle own few stocks. Are you sure you understand how investors make decisions?
During the ABC debate, you acknowledged that when the capital gains rate was dropped first to 20 percent, then to 15 percent, government revenues from the tax increased and they declined in the 1980s when it was increased to 28 percent. Nevertheless, you said you would consider raising the rate 'for purposes of fairness.' How does decreasing the government's financial resources and punishing investors promote fairness? Are you aware that 20 percent of taxpayers reporting capital gains in 2006 had incomes of less than $50,000?
You favor eliminating the cap on earnings subject to the 12.4 percent Social Security tax, which now covers only the first $102,000. A
This November, electorates in four states will vote on essentially this language: 'The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting. ' Three states
You denounce President Bush for arrogance toward other nations. Yet you vow to use a metaphorical 'hammer' to force revisions of trade agreements unless certain weaker nations adjust their labor, environmental and other domestic policies to suit you.Can you define cognitive dissonance?
You want 'to reduce money in politics.' In February and March you raised $95 million.
Hmmm???
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
VOTER FRAUD- Where is Obama?
Where is Obama in all of this voter fraud? He needs to come out and condemn this voter fraud; he needs to distance himself from ACORN. Since he likes to taut that he has written letters to Wall Street, and Sec. Bernanke about the mortgage crisis, he needs to write another letter-make a statement- to the head of ACORN condemning the action and demand that they stop.
Just think if ACORN was doing this for Republicans?!?!
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
Why I vote for Obama 2008
Obama is right on all the issues. Here is why I want to vote for Obama:
1) Taxes: He wants to raise taxes on those making more than 250,000 a year. The govt has every right to take more personal earnings. The govt will put that money to good use and put into practice so many good programs that it has in place (welfare, social security, etc...). For those of us making less than 75,000 a year, this is a huge plus....as long as I can stay under the 75,000 line, I will be o.k. and not have to pay more taxes!
2) Health care: Under President Obama we will all have affordable health care. No more of rate increases under our traditional health care plans. Since the govt has shown they can run other programs so efficiently (medicare/Medicaid, social security, welfare), I do not mind putting my health and the health of my children in the hands of government paid employees or politicians. According to Barack Obama, politicians will decide who and what would be covered under a multi-level insurance system. As he indicates, we will all have availability to the health coverage similar to that which he enjoys.
3) Defense: I am so glad President Obama will enact good defense policies. Under his administration we will be able to know that he will meet face to face with other world leaders. We will be able to be reassured that under President Obama he would meet with Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad face to face. Enough with these "cowboy" negotiations. I believe that Obama will be able to sit down with these leaders- they'll listen to this former Senator for
------------- ------------- ----------
Interviewer: Sen. Obama, do you feel you have the experience and the "know how" to be President?
Sen. Obama (Presumed answer) No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
