A letter to obama. It's pretty good at showing what a bum and bad dude obama is. Yet it praises mccain politically, which is very hard to take actually. Mccain is an American hero..but politically, does he really stand out? I don't think so. He's just left of center. Actually he's Bill Clinton, which makes me wonder why the left don't embrace him. Well I've heard the Clinton camp widely does, because of the obama dis of hillary.
I'm not sure how to pronounce it, but there's a new document sharing site called SCRIBD that's pretty darn cool. Check it when you get a chance. A cool way to share documents with embedding codes. The features are pretty slick.
So if you have any documents you want to share, go for it. It also has a great search feature. I did a search on Roman Empire and 33000 documents showed up. Essentially this is a web pdf viewer with more whistles and bells. SCRIBD gets it!'
You can see a sample of an embedded document in my Thomas Jefferson Quotes post.
Hate Mail i think i deleted you before because of all the crazy bullshit you had to say before about the stupid republicans. I cant stand any of them and they are for the rich. I hate Bush & Cheney. So there i said it and i dont give a crap!!!! You are just like that stupid Elizabeth from the veiw you always have to be right on everything. Sorry if i sound mean but i am so sick of you republicans you make me want to vomit!!!!!
'You have to pinch yourself - a Marxist radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshiped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And, apparently it's considered impolite to say so.'
Here are some suggestions from my myspace minions on what I should be for Halloween. Some crazy cats out there!
My suggestion is either a hockey player or Dino the dinosaur
Detroit Lion - four legged with jersey, paws tied together and eyes covered.
True: Obama with a Joker slash across the mouth.
Hilarious: Borat in the mankini thing...(this you could probably pull off).
lmao that is too funny!
You should be a "Shelley" LOL
Hmm maybe you should be dino, im being pebbles
Go as a midget.
How about Obama?
Barney
How about the "love guru" (as in the movie by the same name, starring mike meyers)
Take your most hated sports team (or o'bama, right there with you) and buy a t-shirt.
Add donkey ears and a donkey tail and go as a jackass.
Wear suit pants, a trench coat and hat, white gloves, wrap your face in gauze, put on some shades, and go as the Invisible Man. No make up, easy on, easy off!
Buy a bunch of small dolls possibly at the dollar store. Glue them on to a black shirt and go as a "Chick Magnet".
Be an American Sovereign, a Freeman on the land
You can be Coach Marinelli! How more simple could it be. Walking around looking confused yet concerned. Making statements like "its my fault" and yet be proud of your "boys."
I think you need to put yourself in a Captain America costume
A U of M cheerleader with a big ass and a black eye!! (Just a thought)
I understand why someone doesnt like Bush. I understand why someone doesnt like Cheney. I understand why someone doesnt like Palin. I understand why someone doesnt like Biden. For the life of me, I do NOT understand how anyone could like Obama? What has he done? What does he stand for? What does he really say? Why doesnt his hateful words towards American matter? Why do the shady people in his life mean nothing to most?
I am confused at this, truly. I am not talking about the silly kool-aid drinking american idol watching people that support him. I understand that foolishness. I am talking about edumacated people. Everyday people who want a free America. Who believe in liberty. Who understand what they value.
I've asked for months on end now, and I've yet to hear anything of value. Aside from true socialists, most just want him for something called change. Yet they don't tell me what that change is. They believe in something called the lesser of two evils, yet refusing to realize the evil is still evil. They will spout how they don't like Bush. They will go on how they don't want their civil liberties taken away, yet that's exactly what Obama will do. They go on about something called middle class. They tell me that people who have money need to be punished and give their money to others. They believe the greater common good is something to strive for, yet that's exactly something they would say in Communist China.
I am confused, and I am waiting for your response.
I'm hockeydino, and I approve of this message while being confused.
Actually this was a thread I had on facebook after posting the audio interview where Obama practically admits he's a socialist.
BA wrote Dude, the O is sooooooo far from socialism that I am only voting for him because I do not want anymore of my civil liberties curtailed by thieves, crooks, and liars like rethuglicans. I also like the idea of having a president who has read the Constitution and understands how it should work. Report - Delete
Hockey Dino wrote That's pretty funny actually. I would never say Bush cared about the Constitution, let alone Mccain. The Patriot Act speaks for itself. But to say Obama is not a socialist that's borderline being blind to the truth.
Obama is for bigger government, and that is not Constitutional. He wants the supreme court to amend the Constitution so the government can tell you what it can do for you. That is not By the People, Of the People, For The People.
Your money is part of your civil liberties. McCain's budget plan is 6.7 billion more than Bush which is a joke. Obama is 287 billion more!. Have fun paying that out of your own pocket. Please cut me a check while you are at it too since you don't care. Delete
BA wrote Actually, I would have preferred if instead of bailing out Wall Street, they had just cut every citizen a check for 400K. A true economic recovery would have likely ensued, government expenditures would have declined because people could have paid for things like health care, child care, credit card debt and mortgages.
In any event, I am just really sad at how low the discourse is from contemporary conservatives. It is a shame, because we need everyone to step up their games and stop trying to make the other "side" look like complete idiots. If you're going to disagree, do it with a bit more grace and facts and let go of needing to look smart by sneering remarks. I read you posts sometimes hoping to find something to spur my thought onward, but lately, I have been disappointed.
The facts: Obama is a capitalist, who recognizes that capitalism as we know it is coming to an end and likely we need a crash pad under this careening landing. With him taking campaign money from Wall Street firms, it is oh so clear that he ain't a socialist, but rather seeking to get the economy stabilized so that capital markets may continue to work. Yes, he wants to regulate them, but in a way that is not quite as abusive to tax payers as it is now.
The size of government is not mandated in the Constitution.
The right to earn a fair wage is a civil liberty, not money. Both plans are willy nilly. It is not that Obama is a socialist, it is the desire of most of the country to have socialist policies because it is clear that money is not trickling down, rather, up. The programs that people crave and need are all about stability which will in fact equal slower growth.
Once elected, Obama will likely disappoint greatly on all the so-called socialist promises, but then it is likely workers and folks who have fallen out of the middle class will begin to demand the Change. That is what will push us to a more stable economy (socialism), not Obama/Biden. People. Demos.
Hockey Dino wrote The power of government is mandated in intent by the Constitution. Size does matter (did I just say that???). They go hand in hand. When you have the military, government agencies, programs, and regulations expanding...that increases the role and size.
The problem is that contemporary conservatives arent truly conservatives. They are mainstream middle of the road cronies who follow special interest groups and spend like crazy.
The Bailout was wrong.
How is Obama a capitalist? You do not take from one group of income earners and penalize them more for their success, to help those who arent successful without it being a form of socialism. Welfare and "wealth"(whatever that is) distribution is just that.
We have a mixed economy. With a mixed economy you will have a disparigty of income earners more prevelant. You will have this middle class that everyone fears so much.
When Obama gets elected you will have a majority House, Senate, and President who will push what Reid, Biden, and Pelosi want. Where is the veto power? Will a filibuster even work? The people will actually have a say? Did we have a say in the Bailout? Things will get worse. Delete
BK wrote The bailout came from McCain's people, so how are you pinning that on Obama? ...And McCain believes in taxes, just like Obama...
He just doesn't believe in taxes for the super-wealthy (like himself). That's where they differ on tax policy...
If thinking that the rich should pay more taxes than the poor is socialist, then how the hell are we supposed to pay for our roads/schools/hospitals/etc? Report - Delete
Hockey Dino wrote Mccains people? his people are Arizona constituients. the majority democratic house and senate voted for the bailout.
I'm already playing property tax and state tax, so now I have to pay for you too? come on. that is socialism.
who is to decide who is rich? you? why should the rich get taxed more for being successful? they already paid taxes..now you want them to pay more?
economic justice is not what the founding fathers intended. individual liberties and freedoms are what we have...not for everyone to work for the common good. it does not work. Delete
PA wrote Better than a dictatorship.. which is practically what were under with the Bush administration. McCain at least has a little class, look at his shoes but his running mate is a white trash moron. Forget the Republicans and their trickle down economics.. is it working.. look around. 4 more years of a failed administration isn't going to get my vote. Obama all the way, even if he doesn't bring 360 degree change, the change that does occur at least will be in the interest of the American people not large corporations.
If your that rich, then your smart enough to know how to reduce your taxes and I don't have to explain it at all.
Hockey Dino wrote Does anyone around here do their homework????
Socialism does not work!
No one wants more Bush. Your logic is flawed.
Trickle down would work if there were conservatives in office. There are only 3 worth a darn that understand economics.
No more taxes! The government has too much control I.e. just look at the neocons!
You don't punish the entire country because a few idiots spoiled the soup! Delete
BA wrote Dino, again, you resort to name calling in the face of the facts, which clearly refute your claims.
Currently, our taxation system is set up to have money trickle up to the top 2% of wealth holders, most of whom actually have never worked for their money. Someone died, they got to keep the goodies.
But back to the trickle up: the tax code has become so resoundingly complicated to hide the fact that corporations are now afforded the same rights as individuals. That used to be illegal. Shareholders needed to increase, exposing more to the risk of the corporation, but also making them feel cheated if the regulations changed to limit how the corporation works.
Spreading the wealth: while everyone is paying some sort of tax, not everyone is benefiting from those taxes. In fact, those who have more, as Alysia pointed out, can afford to figure out how to pay significantly less of a percentage of their earnings towards taxes. Those of us earning under $250K, who rent their housing, don't own an SUV, have not incorporated, do not have healthcare actually pay a steeper percentage of our money into a pot that is then unfairly redistributed. We then have to pay more money out of pocket for things that a government should (and used to) cover, like quality education, childcare (anyone remember Headstart?), hospital emergency rooms, levees, art (yes, you likely don't remember the NEA funding artists to travel around the country and the globe), protecting our food supply, etc.
The problem with trickle down is that it can only work for a short period as it assumes linear production and never-ending resources, even human resources. Stress, depression, high divorce rates, deadbeat dads, soaring diabetes--a lot of that is the result of forcing humans, who thrive in cycles, not linear chronology, to work beyond the capacity of their organism, physiological and social. Report - Delete
Democratic socialism is alive and well in a good chunk of prosperous Europe, and no, poor folks are not allowed to lay about and just collect a check for being poor. I think you might have socialism confused, once again, with communism, which is a political system, as socialism is an economic system. Report - Delete
Hockey Dino wrote What name calling are you referring to? Socialism is alive in well in Europe? Hello Europe produces NOTHING. They produce no jobs whatsoever They have the highest unemployment rate in the world. There's a reason for this. What could it possibly be? In fact the only country there that is thriving is Ireland. They are thriving because at one time they had the highest unemployment rate. They cut their corporate tax from 48% to 12%. Now they have the lowest unemployment rate and their are very productive and successful. Imagine that!
Socialism steals wealth, it does not produce wealth. The premise itself is out in the open at how wrong it is. I do not have communism and socialism confused. Socialism by definition means that the government owns businesses. How is that not a system of acting government?
Our tax system is not set up to trickle anywhere. Everyone is paying different rates over and over. Property tax, state tax, income tax, sales tax. When will it end? For what? So we can build Iraq? So we can help other countries left and right? It's a joke.
Corporations should not have the same rights as individuals. Wait, we just agreed on something.
Not everyone is benefiting from taxes, and everyone cannot benefit from the taxes. That's the problem with taxes in the first place. How can you measure that? How do you take $10 from me, when you worked harder and I only take $5 from you? It does NOT WORK.
Your point about owning a house as if its some right, and the liberal left SUV stuff. Come on.
The government should NOT be in the business of education or housing. Or childcare. You really want government to take care of your kids?
Stress, depression etc is not the concern of the government. If you make that happen, then it will never stop. They will control everything, it's just a matter of time.
What we have here is a clash of ideas and philosophy. You think the government should take care of everyone. I know the government should not and cannot, because it is wrong and cannot work. History proves this. The government is not efficient at doing anything, including collecting taxes.
As for the tax plan, you are looking at 20% of your payroll being chopped right off the bat just to pay for taxes. You call that fair? What's the point of working? I should just let the government take care of me. I've been stressing out trying to pay bills when I should just walk away...and maybe get my own bailout (like the one Obama and Mccain supported). You are looking at 44% of the workforce not paying into the tax initiative, and then getting something from the government. That's fair?
There's a reason why the stock market goes down everytime Obama goes up in the polls. There's a direct correlation to the confidence level. People want change, but they won't get it with him.
We played two softball playoff games last night. It was pretty cold, the coldest we've ever played. The first game we lost, but should have won. We lost by 2 runs, because we gave them the game. They didn't out play us, we just didn't hit like we have lately.
Then we had an hour break before the next game. It got colder, or so it felt. There was no reason to play the game. If we won, would finish second. If we lost, then we would have finished third. The other team didn't want to play because they had it locked up. Some of the guys on our team wanted to just go to the bar. They felt they would have more fun at the bar.
I didn't say anything, but I wanted to play. I wanted to play because that's what we do. We waited, and we were going to play it out and win. We hated this team. They were the best, and the most arrogant cocky group of young punks I've ever seen. Heck their manager even told me hates most of the guys on his team. So we played and we won. We pulled it out and played very well.
Why did we play? Because as we get older the chances to play will get less and less. At some point we'll have to stop. Will we have to stop going to the bar? The guys who wanted to do that just don't have the fire. I had a few guys back out from even playing, and one who left after the first game.
I play because I love the game. No matter how cold or pointless the game was. I have some teammates who feel the same way.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." -Ronald Reagan
1.On Myspace I posted the radio interview where Obama practically admits he's a socialist, and wants the Supreme Court to change the Constitution...
Well I got this email:
"Screw you, I was invited to his inauguration"
SPARTY ON!
2. This one, I have to say NO $HIT! Not like I don't already redistribute my wealth - I just looked at my annual YTD's on my upcoming electronic pay stub. 33% of my federal earnings this year to federal taxes (most of which do not benefit me in any way in return), 12% to the state of MI - which I live and work in. Then just for kicks I went and looked on Comerica Wealth and Securities website to see my net losses from my trust over the past three months and that is 85% of salary for the next TWO years. All I can hope is that the market rebounds at a time before I need to cash out and that I get any other President than one that wants to tax me for shit I'll never need or use! I will take care of me, but Obama can take a flying leap right into the 'redistribution of my wealth' which is straight down the tubes! AR
No, not Scotty Bowman, but Boman. He's running for U.S. Senate. Time to get Levin out of the mix. In a state last in just about everything, he has done nothing!
1. I heard Madonna is worth about 250 million dollars. Every time I see her, or hear about her, I think skank. I think more miles than my car. I think artificial. I think how in the world can she be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame when she's just a successful business woman, with contrived stuff? Arod can have her.
2. My friend got his car stolen while we were at the football game. What a horrible feeling he must have had. What a bad feeling we all had as friends, because it could have been us, and we don't want him to suffer. It's bad enough we have to watch the Lions, then to get your car stolen...that's just bad. Detroit is bad.
3. I am all for good sportsmanship. However I can't stand when players talk to each other during the game. When they laugh with each other. When they pick each other's equipment up. It goes to show it's just a business. For at least during the game it would be nice if they could just show that are competing at full tilt, at least that will appease us. Is that too much to ask?
5. When I'm at the grocery store and I don't want something I've picked up, I just put it on the nearest shelf. I don't walk back to where it belongs. I know I should, but I don't really care. Should I care? I used to work in a grocery store, and I hated finding cottage cheese sitting next to a bag of chips. So I understand that. Heck I rarely put carts away too. I think I'm arrogant.
[ This blog brought to you by the number 347 and the word distant ]
4. No I am not rooting for the Rays to win the World Series. I am rooting against Philadelphia. I don't like Philly, their fans, or any of their teams. They throw snowballs at Santa Claus. They boo hall of fame players. They even had a jail at the old Veterans Stadium. Not nice! Boo!
6. I thought I saw an eye doctor on an Alaskan island but it turned out to be an optical Aleutian. That's a joke I texted to a friend. The friend didn't get it. So I let it go. I wont explain jokes if not understood. I just don't have it in me. I take it as, the person is either just blonde, or I wasn't effective at delivering it...so I just move on. Of course this was written, so I am not sure how I could have delivered it any differently. Maybe I'm just arrogant?
7. So I am at the football game. Two ladies in front of me were texting. I could see the phone numbers of those they were texting. I memorized the numbers. I then took pictures of the people in front of me texting, then forwarded it to the people they were texting. Now that is funny! Arrogant yes?
8. A friend says he won't read my blog anymore because it's like the Drudgereport. I said that may be true if I didn't rip on McCain. All of these obama people get so sensitive about their messiah. They need to lighten up. I've had several friends unsubscribe from my blog updates too. I then remove them from my phone address book, and my email address book. I cut them for good. Oh well. See ya! Arrogance!
9. A good friend is in love and introduces you to the new sweetheart. You find there is a mutual attraction between you and your friend's lover. Do you repress your feelings?
10. If a crystal ball would tell you the truth about any one thing you wished to know concerning yourself, life, the future, or anything else, what would you want to know?
I believe we have God on Our side(: Praise Him! For Obama and his people are not a match for God!! Pray for the Country as we are, and have Faith, for this election is going to be something. God can pull this one off, We Pray He has Mercy on the United States of America, but if he doesn't we deserve everything we get, for God is a just God and hates evil, But I trust He will, Pray People!
Wouldn't you agree that the last 8 years have benn Hell thanks to Bush? And McCain isnt a fraud I mean he doesnt even stand up for what he believes in, no matter what I'm voting for Obama.he was a POW and didnt believe that the govt could go and pick anyone and call them a terroist, but when bush forced him into passing the law or whatever he went for it. No matter what happens, Obama is in the lead, so he'll probably win. I agree with you that congress is fucked up the whole country is fu&&ed up, just hope it changes thats all. And by the way do you honestly think that mccain will help your friends that are business owners??? mccain is for the rich no the poor
Finally a sweet looking dependable electric car with power. Please send me $60,000 so I can test this out for you. After a year I'll turn the keys over back to you, and give you my assessment. Yes you can own this. Contact me offline about it.
George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. For the first six the economy was fine. A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high. 2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon. 3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%. 4) The DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 plus. 5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!
But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR!
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted. 2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing! 3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase). 4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping. 5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure. 6) As I write, THE DOW is probing another low--$2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!
YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE AND WE SURE GOT IT!
REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS.
AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, TO CHANGE THINGS FOR THE BETTER ? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!!!!
HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YOU THINK YOU CAN STAND?
"... In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker. The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3 percent return." [...] Also, via http://www.workforce.com/... The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated. “I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.” [...] Apparently all of that (mandatory "voluntary" savings) would be OVER and ABOVE the current Social Security & Medicare "contributions." -- And note that 3% return... has FRN inflation EVER been less than 3%? Seriously, I've been expecting that eventually they will do some type of insanity like this -- eventually even seizing or "nationalizing" people's 401K and IRA's (to "protect" their investment -- as Argentina is doing right now), and then rolling them all together in with Social Security and "rationing" any/all withdrawals -- and I knew that this "market crash" (which I figured would be in 2010) would be the justification for doing so. No doubt within less than a year, we can expect to hear more of this meme -- with the sheople literally begging for this type of thing, alongside their renewed demands for "universal health care" and mortgage bailouts, etc. It's coming...
Just because you can do something and get away with it over and over doesnt always make it right or smart. My friend leaves his house unlocked when he is at home, and when he is away. He believes that no one has ever broken in so far, so they never will. It's this line of thinking or lack thereof that makes me nuts. How do people get by in life without some caution or safety?
Libertarian Neil Boortz just makes sense. If you are undecided, sit down and read this for a while. He touches most of the main points of the election. It's pretty long, but enjoyable.
TO THE UNDECIDED VOTER
By Neal Boortz
This is long; very long. Hey, I'm a pretty entertaining writer ... so give it a go. If you're an undecided voter in this presidential election the least you owe your country is to try to base your final choice on some substantive facts. No, I don't have all the facts here ... but I have enough of them to perhaps convince you that voting one particular way on November 4th might not be the most brilliant move you've ever made.
This election is my 10th. My 10th presidential election since I became a radio talk show host. My 10th election since I began spending more time than the average American thinking about, researching, reading about and talking about the choices voters face. Look; I mean no arrogance here. It's just that the average American doesn't spend from 15 (then) to 22.5 (now) hours a week over the period of a presidential race talking about the candidates, the issues, the non-issues and the consequences of voter choice.
Never in those ten elections can I remember choices so stark and possible outcomes so perilous. For the record, over those 10 elections I voted for the Republican candidate six times and the Libertarian four. Never have I voted for a Democrat for president. I see no need to vote for a Democrat since I have no plans or desires to become a ward of the government. Somehow I don't think 2008 is going to be the first time.
I've noted that some other "pundits" out there are starting to post, in columns and in their blogs, the reasons they are going to vote the way they are going to vote. I'll make no attempt to refute their (oh-so refutable) arguments here. Instead, I'm just going to put my thoughts and reasoning in writing just to cleanse my mind. If you can make some use of them; whether it is for laughter, talking points or intellectual consideration, have at it. Me? I'm just pulling the handle.
The Race Factor
Are many black voters going to vote for Barack Obama primarily because of race? Of course, many will. Surveys and polling have shown that the figure may reach 20%. I think it's well more than that. Is race a sound reason to cast a vote? Probably not. Is it understandable? Absolutely. I cannot fault a black American for voting for Obama. It may turn out to be a negative vote insofar as their dreams and goals are concerned. It may not work out all that well for their children, especially if they're ambitions and talented. But I don't think many of us can absolutely say that we wouldn't be casting the same vote were we in their shoes.
If you are a white American there is no way in the world you can look at this election through the same eyes as a third or fourth generation black American citizen. Several months ago a caller to my show suggested that Barack Obama's ascendency in the presidential sweepstakes was Black America's biggest accomplishment. I disagreed. Though I can't remember the exact words, I said that, in a general sense, the shining moment for Black America may have been the show of patience and restraint shown by black men when they returned from putting their lives on the line in World War II and in Korea to a country with segregated schools, colored waiting rooms, whites only water fountains, beatings, lynchings, water hoses, police dogs and systematic discrimination pretty much every where they looked. The restraint showed by black Americans during the civil rights struggles of the 50's and 60's, though not universal, was something to behold.
Now .. try, though you won't succeed, to put yourself into the mind of a black American. How can you experience or understand the legacy of segregation, violence and second-class citizenry your ancestors went through and not take pride in a black American on the verge of winning the presidency? How many black American voters do you think are uttering to themselves: "If my grandfather had only lived to see this." It takes a great deal of maturity and a clear understanding of the possible future consequences for someone to put their racial pride aside and swim against the tide on this one. So, there will be no name-calling, at least not here, for people who cast their vote on the basis of race in this election. As I said, It's understandable.
And Then There's the Race Card
This really isn't really a reason to vote for or against Barack Obama, but you do need to know what the next four years are going to be like with an Obama presidency.
During the campaign there have been some rather amazing charges of racism. Let's see if we can remember a few:
Using the word "skinny" to refer to Obama is racist. "Community organizer" is a racist term. Any reference to a connection between Obama and Franklin Raines, the former head of Fannie Mae is racist ... that would be because Raines is black. All references to Jeremiah Wright are racist; that being due to Wright being black. Referring to Obama as "eloquent" is racist because it infers that other blacks are not eloquent. For goodness' sake, don't say that Obama is "clean." This just in from The Kansas City Star: Calling Obama a "socialist" is also racist because "socialist" is just another code word for black. And so it goes. We've also had several pundits, columnists and opinion-makers flat-out state that if you are white and you don't vote for Barack Obama it can only be because he's black. There is simply no other legitimate reason to deny this wonderful man your vote. Vote for McCain, you're a racist. Simple as that.
Now let's consider the next four years under President Obama. He is certainly going to introduce ideas and pursue policies that are pure poison to many Americans; especially achievement-oriented self-sufficient citizens. Whenever anyone dares to utter a word in opposition to any Obama position or initiative you can be sure that there is going to be someone waiting close by to start screaming "racist!" By the end of Obama's first year in the White House virtually every white American will have been called a racist for one reason or another. So, what else is new?
The Republicans
One thing for sure ... the Republicans deserve exactly what is happening to them in this election. It's just too bad the rest of the country has to suffer the lion's share of the punishment the Republicans so richly deserve. In 1994 the voters were fed up with Clinton and the Republicans swept to control of both houses of congress, largely on the strength of Newt's Contract with America. Do you remember some of the promises? One that sticks in my mind is their promise to dismantle the Department of Education. Republicans – in 1994 – recognized that the quality of American education had been going steadily downhill since this government behemoth was formed. Well, that was then ... this is now. The size of the Education Department, as well as the cost, has doubled. Republicans did this, not Democrats.
As a matter of fact, it's not just the Department of Education; it's our entire federal government. Spending has doubled. Size has doubled. All under the Republican watch inside the beltway. Pork barrel spending is completely out of control, and Republicans are behind the wheel. Education and pork spending aside, we have the Medicare prescription benefit, McCain-Feingold, Sarbanes-Oxley, a tepid response to Kelo vs. New London ... all elements of a well-deserved Republican drubbing. The problem here is that the cure, that being Barack Obama, might well be much worse of than the disease.
The Republicans don't deserve power in Washington just as you don't deserve a boil in the center of your forehead. There are worse things, however. Complete Democrat control or, in the case of your forehead, a nice big melanoma. Pretty much the same things, actually.
It's not that the Republicans did everything wrong. They got the tax cut thing right, and they responded correctly, for the most part, to the radical Islamic attack on our country. They just did so much wrong at the same time. They got drunk with power, and the hangover affects all of us.
Obama's Friends
By "Obama's Friends" we mean the likes of Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko and other assorted miscreants. I could spend a lot of time here detailing the crimes of Obama's friends --- and make no mistake, they were his friends. At this point I don't think that any votes are going to be changed one way or another by detailing the corruption of Rezko, the America-hating of Wright or the unrepentant terrorism of Ayers. Suffice it to say that Obama was close to all of these people ... and these were associations born of mutual interests and philosophies. If you think that it is fair to judge the character of a person by observing the people they surround themselves with, then the judgment of Barack Obama would be a harsh one.
Obama's varied storylines regarding his relationship with Ayers have, to say the least, been interesting. The list is incomplete, but thus far we have:
He was just a guy who lived in my neighborhood. I was only eight years old when he was throwing bombs. I didn't know about his history when we started working together I thought he had been rehabilitated. Yeah ... I guess it's OK if you form a close relationship with a bomb-throwing terrorist, as long as he threw the bombs when you were a kid. Works for me. Work for you? In a similar vein, It must be OK if your pastor rails against America, as long as you aren't in church on those particular days. Or maybe we should say as long as nobody remembers actually seeing you in church on those days.
One interesting point: If Barack Obama was applying for a security clearance as a government employee, these associations would disqualify him. We are, my friends, about to have a president who doesn't qualify for a security clearance. Pretty pathetic. If Barack Obama becomes president, he would not even qualify to be his own bodyguard.
Obama's Tax Policies
You may consider this to be horribly old fashioned, but I operate on the principle that governments have the power to tax so that governments can collect the money needed to pursue and pay for the legitimate functions of that government. By "legitimate functions" I'm referring to law enforcement, national defense, a system of courts to adjudicate interstate disputes, national infrastructure and the costs associated with running the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government.
Now we can get into quite an argument over what constitutes a "legitimate" function of government, but let's save it for later. Suffice it to say that Barack Obama has a much different picture of our government's taxing authority than many of us do.
Before we go on, let me remind you of a point that I first heard made by former Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne. Government has one unique power that you don't have, and neither do I. This is a power that is denied all private businesses and individuals in this country. That power .. the power unique to government .. is the power to use deadly force to accomplish its goals. If you have a business; a restaurant, for instance; you have to convince people to come to your establishment for a meal. You can advertise for customers, but they make the decision whether or not to give your restaurant a try. When the customers do come in it is up to you to deliver to them a superior product with exemplary service. This is how you get them to come back. Not through force, but through value and service.
Not so the government. You have no choice as to whether or not you are going to be a customer of government. Your patronage is compelled and your payments are extracted at the point of a gun. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall said that "the power to tax is the power to destroy." The power to tax in the wrong hands can certainly bring destruction to our economy and even to our country. I submit to you that the power to tax in the hands of Barack Obama is dangerous: Dangerous to you personally, and dangerous to the very fabric of our Republic.
Just take a look at some of the rhetoric Barack Obama uses when he talks of his plans to increase taxes on the evil, hated rich. In a television interview with (I think) Charles Gibson, Obama was asked if he understood that tax increases have often resulted in decreases in government revenue. Obama responded that he was aware of this fact. He was then asked why, then, would he be so eager to raise taxes? Obama responded that, to him, tax increases were simply a matter of "fairness." In other words, Obama didn't wish to use the police power of the state to collect taxes necessary for the legitimate functions of government; he wanted to use his taxing power to promote some vaporous "fairness" in our economy. After all, as Obama put it, the people he wants to tax have more money than they actually need and he wants to give that money to people who really do need it.
Now I ask you, does any of that sound vaguely familiar? Hmmmmm, let's see. I know I've heard something like that somewhere before. Wait! I think I have it. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Some character named Marx made slogan quite popular around 1975 in a writing called "Critique of the Gotha Program." This phrase is one of the most well-known principals of communism. You can yell, scream, spin around on your eyebrows and spit wooden nickels all you want, but what Barack Obama is pushing here, at least insofar as his tax policies are concerned, is communism. This shouldn't come as a surprise considering Obama's self-professed affinity for communist student groups and communist professors during his undergraduate years. Oh, you didn't read that? Maybe that's because you read his second book, not the first one. But what the heck. He's eloquent, isn't he? And he has a good narrative.
As I've indicated, I've been doing talk radio for 39 years now. I was on the air when we were fighting communism in Southeast Asia. I was flapping my jaws when Soviet leaders seriously entertained dreams of world communism. Throughout all of those years I was never one to scream "communism" every time someone came up with an oddball idea on governance, and I never once found a communist under my bed. But now, at least when you consider tax policy, we have a candidate for president who seems very comfortable with some basic communist principals. Too comfortable. But none of this should really bother you ... right? A little communism or socialism never really hurt anyone that you can remember. Besides, Europe is telling us that they'll like us again if we vote for Obama. That pretty much overrules everything, doesn't it?
Does this reflect your philosophy?
Come on! Put the celebrity worship aside for a moment. Put skin color aside. Just think about Obama and his "spread the wealth around" tax policy.
Let's talk heartbeats. Sounds weird, but I'm going somewhere here. A bit of Internet research led me to the fact that the average number of heartbeats in a life time for a human being is about one billion. To make this more understandable, the average human heart beats around 70 times a minute. In one eight-hour work day your heart beats around 33,600 times. This is your heart beating .. every beat subtracted from the one billion .. every beat a part of your life gone, never to be recovered. If you are a moderately successful human being Barack Obama is going to take about 13,000 (39%) of those heartbeats away from you every working day. Put your finger on your wrist and feel your pulse. Feel every heartbeat. Just count up to 100. How much of your life went by as you counted? You can't get those beats back. They're gone, for good. Remember, you only have a finite number of those beats of your heart left ... and Obama wants 13,000 of them every working day of your life. Those heartbeats – your life – being expended creating wealth. Your heartbeats, your wealth. Obama wants them. You don't need them. Someone else does. The police power of the state.
Taxes are a nasty little reality of life. Nobody wants anarchy. Government is a necessity. Government, though, is not supposed to create winners and losers. Government is not, as Obama intends, to be used as an instrument of plunder. Almost all Americans are perfectly willing to surrender an appropriate percentage of their earned wealth to fund the legitimate functions of government. I, for one, don't want to see my wealth confiscated because some bureaucrat has determined I don't "need" it, and then have to watch as that wealth is used to buy votes from someone who is simply too lazy to generate the income they need by themselves ... or, as Obama puts it, "spread around."
What is Obama going to do? How does he determine "need?" What data does he use to determine "fairness?" Maybe he'll set up some bureaucracy staffed with like-minded leftists who will use data collected in the last census and from those pesky American Community Surveys to establish a basic "need" level for people living in different areas. Once it is determined how much of a person's wealth they really don't "need," it will be a simple matter of confiscation and redistribution to those who do need it. After all, that would be "fair," wouldn't it? Come on, it's not exactly like you worked for that money.
Listen to the rhetoric of the left. Those who are in need are called "the less fortunate." This means that their status as needy was due to nothing but bad luck. It stands to reason, then, that those with more than they need were just lucky. The fortunate and the less fortunate. The lucky and the not so lucky. And here comes Barack Obama riding over the rainbow on his Unicorn to set everything right and make it all fair. Isn't that the world you want to live in?
There's a quote that's been floating around since I began my talk radio career. This quote is most often attributed to someone named Alexander Tyler writing in 1787 about the fall of the Athenian Republic. Others have said the guy's name was Tytler. Let's not argue spelling right now ... let's just get to the quote, because the quote goes to the heart of this presidential election:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
Think about this, my friends. Isn't this exactly what we're seeing right now? In fact, hasn't this pretty much been the theme of Democrat Party election politics for nearly as long as you can remember? Here we have Barack Obama promising that he's only going to raise taxes on the evil rich who make over $250,000 a year while 95% of Americans will get tax cuts. Think of this in terms of votes; higher taxes for 5% of the voters, lower taxes for the other 95%. It really doesn't take all that much brainpower to figure out how this is going to work at in an election does it? You take money away from the people whose votes you don't need, and give it to the people whose votes you do need. So very simple. The result is that people have, in fact, discovered that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. Who is promising those wonderful goodies? That would be Barack Obama. Just what percentage of voters out there do you think are going to vote for Obama simply because he is promising them someone else's money? My guess is that the number would be high enough to constitute the margin of victory for The Great Redistributionist.
Somehow I had this idea when I was growing up that if you wanted something bad enough, you would work hard until you got it. That was then. This is now. Now you vote for it. That's change you can believe in.
Those Amazing Vanishing Jobs
Barack Obama repeatedly tells the American people that he is going to cut taxes for 95% of them. Now that's a pretty nifty trick when more than 40% of Americans don't pay income taxes in the first place. Tell me please ... just how do you cut taxes for someone who doesn't pay taxes?
Here's the fancy narrative (Obama supporters just love that word) that the Obama campaign has come up with. Even if you don't pay income taxes, you still pay payroll taxes. So Obama is going to give these people who only pay Social Security and Medicare taxes an offsetting tax credit. At this point Obama's plan becomes almost impossible to explain. It's convoluted, to say the least, but that's out of necessity. When people started reminding him that about one-half of the people he's going to cut taxes for don't pay taxes he had to come up with something. The bottom line is this. Obama says that he is not going to take the cost of his tax credits from the Social Security Trust Fund. That's nice, considering the fact that this so-called Trust Fund exists only on paper anyway. But if that money isn't subtracted from the Trust Fund ... where does it come from? Obama's people explain that at first the deficit will just have to increase while these checks are written. Later they'll just go out there and get the money from those "rich people."
OK ... so there we are. It's tax the rancid rich time so that money can be transferred to the poor. But just who are these evil rich people destined to be beaten down by Obama's taxes? At first Barack Obama defined them as "people making over $250,000 a year." That definition had to change when it became known that the $250,000 a year figure was only for a married couple filing a joint tax return. In a heartbeat Obama changed his rhetoric to note that the tax increase would nail "families," not "people" earning over 250 grand. If you're single, the figure will be somewhere between $150,000 and $200,000, depending on who you're talking to. We'll try to let you know when Obama settles on a hard figure.
There's your first lie.
So, what does all of this have to do with jobs? Well the very people that Barack Obama wants to nail with these tax increases are the people who create most of the jobs in our economy; America's small business owners.
The Democrats spend no small amount of time excoriating corporations. To listen to a Democrat candidate corporations and lobbyists are the sole sources of evil in our society. Oh ... and right wing talk show hosts. Well, you can forget these evil, nasty corporations for now. Fact is 70% of all jobs in our economy come from America's small business owners. The Small Business Administration recently reported that 80% of all new jobs are being created by these small business owners. These are people who report all of their business income on their personal income tax returns. As such, they are squarely in the crosshairs for The Chosen One's tax increases.
If you are an American concerned about your job with a small business ... and if you vote for Obama ... then you very well could be cutting your own economic throat. Think about it. If the small business owner(s) who employs you has his taxes increased by Barack Obama he is going to look for a way to replace that money. So where does he go to replace his income lost to Barack's tax increases? The best way would be to cut expenses. Well guess what? You're an expense! Will it be your job that is cut to compensate for the increased taxes? Maybe you'll be lucky and just have to forego your next raise. Maybe there would just be a cut in your pay or a reduction in benefits. Cast your vote and take your chances!
In recent days the McCain campaign has finally started to warn people about the possible consequences of Obama's tax increases on America's small businesses. This has forced the Obama campaign to come up with a response. Initially Barack Obama started saying that he was going to give a break on capital gains taxes to small businesses. This worked for a while until people started figuring out that small businesses don't pay capital gains taxes. Back to the drawing board, and this time they came up with a beauty. It's a con, but it works. Barack Obama is now telling the media and anyone else who will listen that 95% of America's small businesses don't make $250,000 a year, and thus won't be affected by Obama's tax increases.
That's the second lie. A lie of omission.
Obama's statistics may be accurate .. or nearly so. But the statement leaves one very important statistic out. Initially when you hear that "95% of all small businesses" line you probably think that this 95% employ about 95% of all of the people working for small businesses. You could think that, but you would be wrong.
The trick here is that the vast majority of America's small businesses are just that ... small. I owned a title abstract business in the 80's that had one employee. My wife owned a travel agency that had two employees. Neither of these small businesses came anywhere near the $250,000 line.
When you think about it you will understand that the important statistic here is the percentage of small business employees who will be affected, not the percentage of small businesses.
The October 21st edition of The Wall Street Journal addressed this issue in an article entitled "Socking It to Small Businesses." The WSJ reports that Obama is right "that most of the 35 million small businesses in America have a net income of less than $250,000, hire only a few workers, and stay in business for less than four years." There's more to the story though: ".. the point is that it is the most successful small and medium-sized businesses that create most of the new jobs.. And they are precisely the businesses that will be slammed by Mr. Obama's tax increase." The Senate Finance Committee reports that of those who file income taxes in the highest two tax brackets; three out of four are the small business owners Obama wants to tax.
The WSJ reports that the National Federation of Independent Business says that only 10% of small businesses with one to nine employees will be hit by Obama's tax increase. However, almost 20% of the small businesses that employ from 10 to 19 people will get nailed, and 50% of small businesses with over 20 employees get punished.
Again ... it is not the percentage of businesses that will have to pay the increased taxes; it's the percentage of the total of small business employees who work for those businesses. The Obama campaign is counting on you not making that distinction; and they know the media won't make it for you; so Obama's "95% of all small businesses don't make $250,000" line will probably rule the day.
Come on folks. These are your jobs we're talking about here. It's time to take your blinders off and see through some of this Obama rhetoric. The Obama campaign has some wonderful people working for them to tell them just how to parse words to hide intent and meaning. Just because they're trying to fool you doesn't mean that you have to be so easily suckered. When Obama talks about change .. he may well mean that you are going to have to change jobs. Now that's change you can believe in, right?
Pandering to the Unions .. at Your Expense.
Now since we're talking about jobs here, you need to be up to speed on The Messiah's "Employee Free Choice Act." Let me step out on a limb here and say that applying the words "free choice" to Obama's plan to eliminate secret ballots in union elections is like applying the words "fun sex" to an act of rape. Freedom has nothing to do with Obama's plan, and fun has nothing to do with rape.
Going in you need to recognize that union membership has been falling for decades. You only see growth in union membership in government employee unions. This, of course, is troubling to union leaders. It is also troubling to Democrats. Unions, you see, almost exclusively support Democrat candidates, both with money and time. Big money and lots of time ... and it's all behind Obama's candidacy.
To know what Obama is up to here, you need to know how union organizing works under the current law. Union organizers circulate a petition among employees. Employees are asked to sign a card saying that they would like to be represented by a union in their workplace. If a majority of the workers sign the cards the employer has the option of immediately recognizing the union and allowing them to organize the workplace. More often the employer will call for an election – an election using secret ballots. Every employee will be given the opportunity to express their desire to join or not to join a union in secret. Their co-workers will not know how they voted. They can prance around the workplace touting their support of unionization all they want in order to impress or appease their fellow workers, especially those who are trying to organize the union, but then vote "no" on the secret ballot if that's how they truly feel.
How, you might ask, do Democrats feel about the secret ballot in union elections? For a clue let's go to a letter from 16 House Democrats dated August 29, 2001. The letter was written on the letterhead of California Congressman George Miller, a Democrat representing the 7th District of California. That letter reads:
[Letterhead of George Miller, Congress of the United States]
Junta Local de Conciliacion y Arbitraje del Estado de Puebla Lic. Armando Poxqui Quintero 7 Norte Numero 1006 Altos Colonia Centro Puebla, Mexico C.P. 7200
Dear members of the Junta Local de Conciliacion y Arbitraje of the state of Puebla.
As members of Congress of the United States who are deeply concerned with international labor standards and the role of labor rights in international trade agreements, we are writing to encourage you to use the secret ballot in all union recognition elections.
We understand that the secret ballot is allowed for, but not required, by Mexican labor law. However, we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise chose.
We respect Mexico as an important neighbor and trading partner, and we feel that the increased use of the secret ballow in union recognition elections will help bring real democracy to the Mexican workplace.
Signed:
George Miller
Bernard Sanders
Lane Evans
Marcy Kaptur
William J. Coyne
Bob Filner
Martin Olav Sabo
Joe Baca
Dennis J. Kucinich
Fortney Pete Stark
James P. McGovern
Barney Frank
Zoe Lofgren
Calvin M. Dooley
Barbara Lee
Lloyd Doggett
So there you go. These 16 Democrats are on the record as being solidly in favor of using secret ballots in union recognition elections. So far, so good ... because that, as they point out in their letter, is clearly the right stance.
That brings us to piece of legislation – a piece of Obama sponsored legislation --designated as H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. Would you care to guess just what H.R. 800 does? Well, that's simple. It will eliminate the secret ballot in union recognition elections. You got it! Obama has decided to really do something nice for the union bosses that are supporting him in this election, and he is determined to do away with secret ballots in union elections. When H.R. 800 gets passed ... and trust me, with Barack Obama in the White House, this thing will become law ... the union organizers will visit all of the workers, perhaps even visiting some of them in their homes, and "urge" them to sign the card calling for a union. I can hear it now: "Mrs. Johnson, wouldn't you and your children want your husband to be represented by our union at his job?" Now put yourself in the worker's place! Are you going to say no? This organizer is sitting in your living room looking at you and your wife and saying "You do want to be represented by our union in your workplace, don't you?" And you're going to tell him no?
Are you getting the big picture here? This is nothing less than Barack Obama and his Democrat pals legitimizing union intimidation in the workplace. If you don't see that, then there is virtually no hope for you when it comes to understanding basic politics. It's payback the unions time .. pay them back for all of that financial support and all of those volunteer hours. Besides ... the more union members there are the more union dues the union bosses have to spread to Democrats as campaign contributions.
But – we're saved, right? After all, we have those 16 Democrats who signed that letter to Mexico. What was it they said? Oh yeah: " ... we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise chose." So these 16 Democrats will certainly put up a spirited defense of secret ballots in union organizing elections, right?
Well ... um ... maybe not. You see, four of these congressmen (Dooley, Sabo, Evans and Coyne) are no longer in the Congress. One of the signers, Bernie Sanders, is now a Senator. That leaves 11 of the 16 signees still in the house to defend the principal of the secret ballot.
I'm afraid we have a small problem though. It seems that every one of the 11 remaining signees is now a sponsor of H.R. 800. In fact, the so-called Employee Free Choice Act was actually introduced by none other than George Miller – the very California Democrat on whose letterhead that letter to Mexico was written. Bernie Sanders is a sponsor of the same legislation in the Senate along with Barack Obama. No surprise .
On the one hand we have these Democrats writing a letter extolling the virtues of a secret ballot in union organizing elections, and then they sponsor a bill eliminating those very secret ballots! And here's Barack Obama pledging to sign the bill as soon as it comes to his desk! So what changed between 2001 and 2007? What happened that made these 12 Democrats go from believing that a secret ballot in a union election was "absolutely necessary," to introducing a bill eliminating those "absolutely necessary" secret ballots? Control of congress; that's what changed. In 2001 the Republicans ran the show. In 2007 it was the Democrats ... and it was time to return some favors to union bosses. Do you know what you're seeing here? You're seeing just how much power unions have over Barack Obama and the Democrat party. It doesn't matter what kind of letter you wrote, or what stance you took in the past --- when we say "frog" you had better jump.
Let me tell you what is going to happen as soon as Barack Obama is elected. Employers are going to look at the so-called Employee Free Choice Act and they're going to be very afraid. They know what a union can do to their business and their profitability. Just look at our auto industry. So employers are going to immediately start working to minimize the damage. How do you do that? Well, automation is one way. Go ahead and buy that machinery you need to automate much of your workplace. That will allow you to get rid of these employees before they can unionize. You might also want to consider the possibility of moving some of those jobs overseas where union intimidation might not be such a negative factor in your business operations.
When Obama gets his unionization by intimidation thing in place – and he most certainly will – jobs are going to be lost and businesses will fail. This is the price Obama is willing to pay to pay back the unions who have supported him.
Just another reason to vote for The Chosen One, right?
The Supreme Court
This is getting to be a bit long. We're over 6,200 words here. So let's end this message to the undecided voter with a few words about the Supreme Court.
It is quite possible that Barack Obama will get to make one, maybe two Supreme Court appointments before he's through in Washington. It is also possible that he will have a filibuster-proof Senate to help him ram those choices through.
I'm a lawyer, and I've always had this strange idea that the U.S. Supreme Court should base its decisions on the supreme law of our land, our Constitution. Many people think differently these days. A recent and rather shocking survey showed that around 80% of people who support Barack Obama believe that the Supreme Court should base its decisions not on the Constitution, but on what's "fair." Egad! On the other hand, the strong majority of McCain voters believe that the Supremes should look to our Constitution as the final authority.
Let's just make this short and sweet, because I know you want to get out of here. If Barack Obama gets those two nominations, and if the Democrat Senate rubber-stamps them, then we are going to have a Supreme Court making decisions based on their liberal definition of "fairness" with some consideration to foreign court decisions tossed in. This is perhaps Obama's greatest opportunity to do permanent damage to our Republic; permanent and irreparable damage. It's one thing when Barack Obama talks about wealth seizure and redistribution in terms of "fairness." It's quite another when that talk is legitimized by a Supreme Court decision.
So, dear undecided voters ... as Og Mandino (a great American) once said: "Use wisely your power of choice." There's a lot hanging in the balance.
Now they have canned responses. Click in LABS and add it. There are some other very cool features there as well. Why anyone uses any other mail client makes no sense.
This article was taken from the Wall Street Journal and was written by Adam Lerrick, a respected professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University.
Obama and the Tax Tipping Point - How long before taxpayers are pushed too far? By ADAM LERRICK
What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in taxes? Economists Allan Meltzer and Scott Richard posed this question 27 years ago. We may soon enough know the answer.
Barack Obama is offering voters strong incentives to support higher taxes and bigger government. This could be the magic income-redistribution formula Democrats have long sought.
Sen. Obama is promising $500 and $1,000 gift-wrapped packets of money in the form of refundable tax credits. These will shift the tax demographics to the tipping point where half of all voters will receive a cash windfall from Washington and an overwhelming majority will gain from tax hikes and more government spending.
In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million -- 40% -- paid no income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute), this will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama's cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What's more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes -- less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually.
In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama's plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.
The plunder that the Democrats plan to extract from the "very rich" -- the 5% that earn more than $250,000 and who already pay 60% of the federal income tax bill -- will never stretch to cover the expansive programs Mr. Obama promises.
What next? A core group of Obama enthusiasts -- those educated professionals who applaud the "fairness" of their candidate's tax plans -- will soon see their $100,000-$150,000 incomes targeted. As entitlements expand and a self-interested majority votes, the higher tax brackets will kick in at lower levels down the ladder, all the way to households with a $75,000 income.
Calculating how far society's top earners can be pushed before they stop (or cut back on) producing is difficult. But the incentives are easy to see. Voters who benefit from government programs will push for higher tax rates on higher earners -- at least until those who power the economy and create jobs and wealth stop working, stop investing, or move out of the country.
Other nations have tried the ideology of fairness in the place of incentives and found that reward without work is a recipe for decline. In the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher took on the unions and slashed taxes to restore growth and jobs in Great Britain. In Germany a few years ago, Social Democrat Gerhard Schroeder defied his party's dogma and loosened labor's grip on the economy to end stagnation. And more recently in France, Nicolas Sarkozy was swept to power on a platform of restoring flexibility to the economy.
The sequence is always the same. High-tax, big-spending policies force the economy to lose momentum. Then growth in government spending outstrips revenues. Fiscal and trade deficits soar. Public debt, excessive taxation and unemployment follow. The central bank tries to solve the problem by printing money. International competitiveness is lost and the currency depreciates. The system stagnates. And then a frightened electorate returns conservatives to power.
The economic tides will not stand still while Washington experiments with European-type social democracy, even though the dollar's role as the global reserve currency will buy some time. Our trademark competitive advantage will be lost, and once lost, it will be hard to regain. There are too many emerging economies focused on prosperity and not redistribution for the U.S. to easily recapture its role of global economic leader.
Tomorrow's children may come to question why their parents sold their birthright for a mess of "fairness" -- whatever that will signify when jobs are scarce and American opportunity is no longer the envy of the world.
If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.' -Mark Twain
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress.... But then I repeat myself. -Mark Twain
I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. -Winston Churchill
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. - George Bernard Shaw
A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money. -G Gordon Liddy
Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. -James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)
Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. -Douglas Casey, Classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. -P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian
Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. -Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. -Ronald Reagan (1986)
I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. -Will Rogers
If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free! -P.J. O'Rourke
In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other. -Voltaire (1764)
Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you! -Pericles (430 B.C.)
No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session. -Mark Twain (1866 )
Talk is cheap...except when Congress does it. -Unknown
The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. -Ronald Reagan
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. -Winston Churchill
The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin. -Mark Twain
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. -Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)
There is no distinctly Native American criminal class...save Congress. -Mark Twain
What this country needs are more unemployed politicians. -Edward Langley, Artist (1928 - 1995)
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. -Thomas Jefferson
A left president, a left congress, a left supreme court. And the left will be happy. even though mcain and bush are pretty much left, this wasnt good enough for them. They want to go marxist on us.
Barring a major upset, Barack Obama will be our next president — and Democrats will have an even stronger majority in Congress. So what can we expect to see from this perfect storm of the left?
A discredited president, an unpopular war, a tanked economy, and the fruition of a generations-long infiltration of America’s schools and media is building to gale force.
The opposition candidate is demoralized and cannot articulate, or even define, his positions. Indeed, to this day he seems oblivious to the damage he’s done to the First Amendment with the bill that bears his name, McCain-Feingold.
Next year, barring a major upset, we will have a born-and-bred Hard Left president, and a compliant congress.
Think Russia, 1917, or the end of the Weimar Republic.
But perhaps it won’t be that bad. Perhaps it won’t be the Soviet Socialist States of America/National Socialist American Workers Party. Perhaps it’ll only be Chicago politics writ large.
Forty years ago, Bill Ayers and his consort Bernadine Dohrn’s comrades battled the police of the Daley dynasty in the streets of Chicago. Today, Ayers and Dohrn and their comrades have joined forces with Daley II’s machine.
Daley I elected John F. Kennedy by delivering Illinois’ electoral votes to the Democratic Party. Now his heir is helping the now-grown kids whose heads were busted by his daddy’s cops elect their protege president of the United States.
Do you find this odd or ironic?
I don’t. I’ve read history, I’ve read Machiavelli.
This is the end of the Long March of the Left. This is the time they come down from the Sierra Maestre.
I do not mean a mere victory for the Democratic Party. Would it were only that!
I’ve been occupied lately covering the local election to the North Dakota state legislature. The three incumbents in our district (one state senator, two state representatives) are Democrats, and all decent, honorable citizen-legislators well worth listening to on the state issues.
On the national level, their party has been captured by the Hard Left — and I think I’ve detected signs of their being uncomfortable with this. All of them, for example, are avid hunters and gun owners.
Their Republican challengers would like to tie them to the national party on this and other issues, but it just doesn’t come up in the context of state politics.
I don’t know how far this applies in other states — but I know I shouldn’t like to be a local Democrat who doesn’t get with the national program under a Leftist regime.
Think Kronstadt, think Old Bolsheviks.
Starting I think a year after Obama takes office, if there is a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, it’s going to get very bad.
If the Republicans succeed in keeping a one or two-vote filibuster number, how much do you want to bet the news media can find a scandal or two to knock at least one Republican politico out of congress?
For years I’ve said the Hard Left cannot win in this country, because they’ve made a major strategic mistake, they don’t like guns and they’ve made it too plain they despise the profession of arms.
Your revolution is not likely to get far when you alienate the police and military, and don’t learn to fight yourself.
Now look at this:
July 2, Colorado Springs: “We can not continue to rely only on our military in order meet the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”
Don’t just read it, look at the damn thing. That’s what it took for it to sink in for me, and I have to look at it again every few days to remind myself that it’s real.
Do you wonder what color shirts they’ll wear?
Who do you think they’ll be recruiting from? Teenagers? Disaffected minorities? Illegal aliens even, as part of an “amnesty” and “path to citizenship”?
Surly kids with badges and guns, joy forever unconfined!
Now consider these trial balloons floated by the Democratic Party.
Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, resulting in the blandification of media political coverage and the disappearance of talk radio. Union card check replacing a secret ballot, giving carte blanche to union organizers to send thugs around person-to-person to “invite” them to demand a union at their workplace. Legal challenges to laws requiring photo ID at voting places. If this isn’t an invitation to widespread voter fraud, then please tell me what the hell it is. Ask yourself how much packing the Supreme Court would need to reach a different decision in a future case?
The mass of the American people still do not realize the team they are about to elect are not moderate-to-leftists who’ll triangulate to the Center in order to govern.
I suspect we are about to see a huge case of buyers’ remorse — about the time it’s too late.
Obama’s Left pedigree has been well-documented. His utter contempt for the First Amendment is obvious to any who will bother to consult the above cited examples.
And still it comes.
Stephen Browne is a writer, editor, and teacher of martial arts and English as a second language. Currently he is working as city reporter at a small newspaper in North Dakota. He is also the founder of the Liberty English Camps, held annually in Eastern Europe, which brings together students from all over Eastern Europe for intensive English study using texts important to the history of political liberty and free markets. In 1997 he was elected an Honorary Member of the Yugoslav Movement for the Protection of Human Rights for his work supporting dissidents during the Milosevic regime
Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm will campaign for presidential candidate Barack Obama in Florida.
She's one of four Democratic governors who will join Obama, business leaders and economic experts in Lake Worth, Fla., on Tuesday to discuss Obama's ideas for solving the economic crisis. Granholm hasn't had to campaign much in Michigan on Obama's behalf since Republican presidential candidate John McCain stopped competing for the state earlier this month.
The loss of one of Detroit's Big Three in the state that gained its prominence and economic strength from the rise of the automobile would shake the state to its core, analysts have said. It's the potential loss of as many as 30,000 Chrysler workers. That's on top of more than 100,000 job cuts from Detroit's automakers since 2005.
It's the loss of more auto factories, research and design centers, and office buildings, all of which provide vital tax revenue to already cash-strapped communities. It's another loss for the region's ailing housing, office and retail sectors. And it's not new for Chrysler, which has had three owners and seen significant change during the past decade.
"Mark my words. Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy," Biden said. "The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he's gonna have to make some really tough - I don't know what the decision's gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's gonna happen. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate. And he's gonna need help." -Sen. Joe Biden, Democrat VP nominee
For the record I have not suspended my lifelong campaign for the presidency. All the comments on my site from those supporting FRANK PAGE (The Frankenator) are strictly propaganda from he and his minions. While he is a respectful candidate with some good sound ideas, he is not as conservative as me. So if you are looking for freedom, liberty, and NFL football everyday of the week, then vote for me. I will also make sure the Detroit Lions have cheerleaders.
Posts
