Eek, there I said it.
Hey Richie, didn't your boy state, the era of big government is over while creating thoses surpluses were created? Didn't he sign welfare reform? Didn't he trangulate? Didn't he support free trade?
Your current candidate (note political correctness, see above), plans to renegotiate free trade, restart welfare and promote a biggger government?
Being that you are all about the deficit and somehow think that-as you stated-fiscal reality will temper his plans. Shouldn't you be voting for Shadegg?
You my friend are FOS. There I said it and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Joe the Plumber Epitomizes GOP + This Election
It turns out Joe isn't a licensed plumber, he merely works for one. He's not trying to buy his bosses business - it's not for sale. He only made $40K last year and still hasn't paid all his taxes. His bosses business only makes about $100K a year, not $250K. So - Joe is a fraud. His questions to Obama were all based on lies. He doesn't represent working people - just Republican politics.
I also noticed he was wearing some Buckeye apparel. Typical!
OK, OK the sheriff is here.
So I come home from playing 18 to find 30 E-mails (I get notified whenever someone replies). Things have gone into overdrive and...Bless you and your opinionated hearts.
I have dismissed the first post! No Big Blue football, none of the time! :), The sheriff
Terry, on an economic point, say what you wish, but you are missing or refuse to admit my point. The money is the same (well not, see below), either the "rich" will spend it on their planes, boats or cars or the government will take it and give it to the "middle class". It is going to get their either way via boat and plane makers or as a handout. Except, the economic activity of the former will benefit more. And I defy you to show me how government can do better. Post by Mark and I forthcoming.
So I still maintain...The poor truly depend on the successful, who are net givers not takers. Did I just read that! How many planes, houses, are needed for the givers to start giving again, yes master, thank you master. OK, so T, I start my practice and give all the profits to charity and live a pauper. Better I say, I grow my practice (now employing 33) and use my profits (investments, home, car whatever). My friend, if you cannot accept that economic argument then...you must be a damn liberal Democrat.
Lastly, you chooses the very rich to make your point. And even though I do not agree that you get to decide how much is too much, your points very much miss Joe the famous plumber.
I have dismissed the first post! No Big Blue football, none of the time! :), The sheriff
Terry, on an economic point, say what you wish, but you are missing or refuse to admit my point. The money is the same (well not, see below), either the "rich" will spend it on their planes, boats or cars or the government will take it and give it to the "middle class". It is going to get their either way via boat and plane makers or as a handout. Except, the economic activity of the former will benefit more. And I defy you to show me how government can do better. Post by Mark and I forthcoming.
So I still maintain...The poor truly depend on the successful, who are net givers not takers. Did I just read that! How many planes, houses, are needed for the givers to start giving again, yes master, thank you master. OK, so T, I start my practice and give all the profits to charity and live a pauper. Better I say, I grow my practice (now employing 33) and use my profits (investments, home, car whatever). My friend, if you cannot accept that economic argument then...you must be a damn liberal Democrat.
Lastly, you chooses the very rich to make your point. And even though I do not agree that you get to decide how much is too much, your points very much miss Joe the famous plumber.
Compassionate Conservatives
The class warfare that Barry has been using which has been aided and abetted by the main stream media is one of the many untruths that he has effectively used.
The first point is that Conservatives give much more to charity than liberals do. "-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227). " From a great piece by George Will http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
Also Liberal politicians are notoriously stingy when it comes to charitable giving,to read about the Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden's lack of personal generosity review this story. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTZiY2EyNjllZmI3MjBiODdiM2ViNjc5ZmYxNjI1Zjg=
Kerry's returns from 1995 and earlier, before his marriage to Heinz, have sometimes attracted criticism over the issue of charitable giving. In 1995, according to published reports, Kerry reported a taxable income of $126,179, and charitable contributions of $0. In 1994, he reported income of $127,884, and charitable donations of $2,039. In 1993, he reported income of $130,345, and contributions of $175. In 1992, he reported income of $127,646, and contributions of $820. In 1991, he reported income of $113,857, and contributions of $0.
It is well known that President Bush has always been generous in his charitable giving and has tried to get legislation passed consistent with this belief.
However Barack Hussein Obama is a far different story. "What is surprising, given the recent controversy over Obama's membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ, is how little the Obamas apparently gave to charity -- well short of the biblical 10% tithe for all seven years. In two of the years, the Obamas gave far less than 1% of their income to charity; in three of the years, they gave around 1% of their income to charity. During all these years they never had AGI less than $207,000. During this five year period in question their AGI averaged $243,726.40. " From the linked story below. The reason that Barry gave for this is that they couldn’t afford anymore. $243,726.40 in AGI and they couldn’t afford to give to charity more than the .8838% that they gave? I wonder if this is how he arrived at the $250,000 amount. http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html
On the other hand for the tax years 2006 & 2007 John McCain donated 22.28% of his AGI to charity. Mr. McCain’s campaign said he donates his royalties from his books to charities and that “this sum has totaled over $1,800,000 since 1998 when he signed his first book deal.” The campaign said his book income added up to $256,898 for 2006 and 2007.
The senator’s campaign also said that Mr. McCain has donated to charity a total of $450,000 since 1991— money he received from increases in his Senate salary — “because he opposed the Congressional pay increase at that time and pledged not to accept the pay raises.”
Why is it that liberal always want to take our money and give it to those who are deemed to be needy but won't give any of their own money away?
The first point is that Conservatives give much more to charity than liberals do. "-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227). " From a great piece by George Will http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
Also Liberal politicians are notoriously stingy when it comes to charitable giving,to read about the Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden's lack of personal generosity review this story. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTZiY2EyNjllZmI3MjBiODdiM2ViNjc5ZmYxNjI1Zjg=
Kerry's returns from 1995 and earlier, before his marriage to Heinz, have sometimes attracted criticism over the issue of charitable giving. In 1995, according to published reports, Kerry reported a taxable income of $126,179, and charitable contributions of $0. In 1994, he reported income of $127,884, and charitable donations of $2,039. In 1993, he reported income of $130,345, and contributions of $175. In 1992, he reported income of $127,646, and contributions of $820. In 1991, he reported income of $113,857, and contributions of $0.
It is well known that President Bush has always been generous in his charitable giving and has tried to get legislation passed consistent with this belief.
However Barack Hussein Obama is a far different story. "What is surprising, given the recent controversy over Obama's membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ, is how little the Obamas apparently gave to charity -- well short of the biblical 10% tithe for all seven years. In two of the years, the Obamas gave far less than 1% of their income to charity; in three of the years, they gave around 1% of their income to charity. During all these years they never had AGI less than $207,000. During this five year period in question their AGI averaged $243,726.40. " From the linked story below. The reason that Barry gave for this is that they couldn’t afford anymore. $243,726.40 in AGI and they couldn’t afford to give to charity more than the .8838% that they gave? I wonder if this is how he arrived at the $250,000 amount. http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html
On the other hand for the tax years 2006 & 2007 John McCain donated 22.28% of his AGI to charity. Mr. McCain’s campaign said he donates his royalties from his books to charities and that “this sum has totaled over $1,800,000 since 1998 when he signed his first book deal.” The campaign said his book income added up to $256,898 for 2006 and 2007.
The senator’s campaign also said that Mr. McCain has donated to charity a total of $450,000 since 1991— money he received from increases in his Senate salary — “because he opposed the Congressional pay increase at that time and pledged not to accept the pay raises.”
Why is it that liberal always want to take our money and give it to those who are deemed to be needy but won't give any of their own money away?
The Maverick
McCain wants an apology from John Lewis, a acknowledgement the surge is working from Obama. How small can this guy be. He should stamp his feet, jump up and down, and frown some more.
I have never seen such a phony laugh in my life trying to hide his anger. He did much better in this debate, but it's just the same nonsense. I am right why won't you say it PLEASE.
What I don't admire about John McCain is when Bush low balled him in I believe South Carolina, he did not stand up to King George and call him out and then he gave in to the right wing, Bob Jones University crowd, made nice with King George the 2nd and now we are to believe he is Maverick???
I have never seen such a phony laugh in my life trying to hide his anger. He did much better in this debate, but it's just the same nonsense. I am right why won't you say it PLEASE.
What I don't admire about John McCain is when Bush low balled him in I believe South Carolina, he did not stand up to King George and call him out and then he gave in to the right wing, Bob Jones University crowd, made nice with King George the 2nd and now we are to believe he is Maverick???
Should Michelle Take Barack's Senate Seat?
Should Illinois Governor Blagojevich appoint Michelle Obama to fill Barack Obama's senate seat in the event he is elected president?
I think it's a great idea. She'd be up for election in 2010 during the mid-term of her husband's first presidential term. Illinois would likely elect her and she'd then have 8 years of senatorial experience when Obama will have finished serving his second term in the White House.
What say you?
Obama on Righteous Mission
Obama is searching the country for people making over 250K a year. These people are persona non grata in a country like ours and I hope he gets them. Those bastards. How dare they. Go get them Barack. We're all rooting for you. Then when we succeed in our own field and move onto the American dream, we'll make sure we cap out our income at 249K. After all, even dreams need a ceiling, right?
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
The Debate
I hate to get in the way of Mark's posts but just a moment to draw the blogs attention to tonight's debate and Mr. "O"s comment about "we need to get the auto makers to make the right cars" and "we can save the average American $2500 on their health care costs". Rich and Terry, God love ya stand up, if this is not Socialism, what is? Terry, the 90% stuff..its their damn money. Who are you to say how they should spend it and who they should name in their will. Also, please pay attention (sorry for the placating tone, but darn), the money will get to those people more efficiently via the economy rather than the government. Your tone makes evil those who are successful. The poor truly depend on the successful, who are net givers not takers. Argh!
Rich, if "spreading the wealth" is not Marxism then what is? (from those according to ability to those according to need). Marxism should truly be defined as, from those with, to us, to those we wish to sedate and control to keep us powerful. How is "O" proposals, and your two writings for that matter, not keeping with a "Marxist' philosophy.
Rich, if "spreading the wealth" is not Marxism then what is? (from those according to ability to those according to need). Marxism should truly be defined as, from those with, to us, to those we wish to sedate and control to keep us powerful. How is "O" proposals, and your two writings for that matter, not keeping with a "Marxist' philosophy.
Words do have meaning
Remember when Barry uttered that line. Funny coming from someone whose use of the language is on par with "it depends on what the meaning of is, is".
Now we have Barry making the claim that 95% of working families will have their taxes cut. Websters says cut means reduce the size, extent as in cut the labor force. We have been talking about this in the past but I want to know how Barry can cut taxes from people who already do not pay them.
Under current tax laws, IRS statistics for 2006 show that 45.6 million tax filers, essentially one-third of all filers, have no tax liability after taking their credits and deductions. “For good or ill,” notes the Tax Foundation, “this is a dramatic 57 percent increase since 2000 in the number of Americans who pay no personal income taxes.” But I thought that President Bush's tax cuts only went to the rich. Isn't that what the media has been chanting like the mantra of a buddhist monk during prolonged meditation? They did say 57%. This must be a mistake, the main stream media would never slant the truth would they?
"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." From the excellent WSJ column that even has a wonderful chart which shows the phase out levels of tax credits. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html
The chart is very interesting because it shows the unbelievable spikes in marginal tax rates at the phase out levels of Barry's proposed "tax cuts". People are going to have to keep a close watch on their taxable income or they might find themselves taking home substantially less after taxes by just earning a little more.
Here's the political catch. Almost all of Barry's proposed tax credits are "refundable," which means that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare,". Barry calls this 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.
It is disingenuous to claim that he will give 95 percent of all American workers a "tax cut," because he does not mention that it will mean sending checks to millions of tax filers who pay no personal income taxes.
It certainly looks "suspiciously like welfare" or income redistribution from wealthier taxpayers to lower-income Americans to me. But it also raises the question, How can he call it a "tax cut" when its recipients pay no income taxes?
Under his "Making Work Pay" income tax cut for low- to middle-income people, he will give a "refundable" $500 tax credit to low- to middle-income workers or $1,000 to couples. It would begin to phase out at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for a couple.
But because he makes it "refundable," he will pay the equivalent amount to those who have no income-tax liability after taking the usual tax credits and deductions in the tax code. Those checks would come from taxes to be paid by higher-income Americans.
"What he's really talking about doing is mailing a check and, to me, that looks more like a welfare program than the kind of real tax relief that would encourage work, savings and investments," said Phil Kerpen, policy director at Americans for Prosperity, a free-market advocacy group.
Obama claims that almost all workers (95 percent) will benefit from his "tax cuts." But Investor's Business Daily points out that Obama's "'working families' does not include all households. Throw in singles, retirees, students and the unemployed, and the share getting some tax-related benefit is a good deal less."
The Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan tax-analysis group established by the liberal Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, dismisses his 95 percent figure, saying that about 80 percent of households would receive a tax cut. Throw in the tens of millions of tax filers who owe no taxes, and the percentage of taxpayers getting real tax cuts falls a lot lower.
The Obama campaign's chief economist Jason Furman told me in an e-mail that "the tens of millions of families working hard and paying payroll taxes do not think that tax cuts are a form of 'welfare' or 'redistribution' -- they think it is only fair to reward work."
Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center said "one can argue" that workers who don't pay income taxes "are paying Social Security payroll taxes, and this is a tax cut against that."
But is this just another clever way for Barry to redistribute the nation's income, taking from high-income taxpayers who pay the lion's share of all income taxes and giving it to lower-income workers who pay none?
Williams doesn't dispute this. "You could view it that way because both (tax) proposals are in the same tax plan," he said. "There's no question that's one way to perceive the tax plan." Exactly.
So this is what's at the core of Obama's economic policies -- taking more money from one group of taxpayers and directly transferring it to those in the lower- to middle-income tax brackets who pay little or no income taxes to begin with.
Instead of cutting everyone's taxes to encourage work, investment and savings by enlarging the economic pie, Obama would redivide the pie into smaller slices and redistribute it through the tax system.
Please someone show me a real world example where this type of policy has actually worked in bringing an economy out of a recession. I have heard a lot of people make the claim that there is no way that Obama can be worse than Bush. Wanna bet? With socialist policies like these that have never worked we will be on the fast track to third world status. Of course than we will have the rest of the world finally loving us like so many liberals crave. We will be sort of like the crazy old uncle in the corner who everyone remembers from his more vigorous days. As the rest of the western economies continue to cut income taxes and become more business friendly like Ireland, Poland, Germany, Canada, Czech Republic, etc. we will raise taxes on the portion of the economy that we should be relying on to get us back on our feet. Too much social reengineering got us into this mess and now the American public is falling for this "class warfare" garbage economic proposal that is eerily similar to giving mortgages to those who can't afford them. How does Barry propose that the recipients of this new form of welfare are going to use this payment to help create economic prosperity. Does he think buying a bunch of large screen HDTVs will magically fix things? Too bad that a lot of these people will be the first ones laid off when their employer has to cut back due to the recession that continues to deepen. But then lets look at the bright side they will still be getting their "tax cut" every year. Try feeding a family of four on it!
Now we have Barry making the claim that 95% of working families will have their taxes cut. Websters says cut means reduce the size, extent as in cut the labor force. We have been talking about this in the past but I want to know how Barry can cut taxes from people who already do not pay them.
Under current tax laws, IRS statistics for 2006 show that 45.6 million tax filers, essentially one-third of all filers, have no tax liability after taking their credits and deductions. “For good or ill,” notes the Tax Foundation, “this is a dramatic 57 percent increase since 2000 in the number of Americans who pay no personal income taxes.” But I thought that President Bush's tax cuts only went to the rich. Isn't that what the media has been chanting like the mantra of a buddhist monk during prolonged meditation? They did say 57%. This must be a mistake, the main stream media would never slant the truth would they?
"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." From the excellent WSJ column that even has a wonderful chart which shows the phase out levels of tax credits. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html
The chart is very interesting because it shows the unbelievable spikes in marginal tax rates at the phase out levels of Barry's proposed "tax cuts". People are going to have to keep a close watch on their taxable income or they might find themselves taking home substantially less after taxes by just earning a little more.
Here's the political catch. Almost all of Barry's proposed tax credits are "refundable," which means that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare,". Barry calls this 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.
It is disingenuous to claim that he will give 95 percent of all American workers a "tax cut," because he does not mention that it will mean sending checks to millions of tax filers who pay no personal income taxes.
It certainly looks "suspiciously like welfare" or income redistribution from wealthier taxpayers to lower-income Americans to me. But it also raises the question, How can he call it a "tax cut" when its recipients pay no income taxes?
Under his "Making Work Pay" income tax cut for low- to middle-income people, he will give a "refundable" $500 tax credit to low- to middle-income workers or $1,000 to couples. It would begin to phase out at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for a couple.
But because he makes it "refundable," he will pay the equivalent amount to those who have no income-tax liability after taking the usual tax credits and deductions in the tax code. Those checks would come from taxes to be paid by higher-income Americans.
"What he's really talking about doing is mailing a check and, to me, that looks more like a welfare program than the kind of real tax relief that would encourage work, savings and investments," said Phil Kerpen, policy director at Americans for Prosperity, a free-market advocacy group.
Obama claims that almost all workers (95 percent) will benefit from his "tax cuts." But Investor's Business Daily points out that Obama's "'working families' does not include all households. Throw in singles, retirees, students and the unemployed, and the share getting some tax-related benefit is a good deal less."
The Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan tax-analysis group established by the liberal Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, dismisses his 95 percent figure, saying that about 80 percent of households would receive a tax cut. Throw in the tens of millions of tax filers who owe no taxes, and the percentage of taxpayers getting real tax cuts falls a lot lower.
The Obama campaign's chief economist Jason Furman told me in an e-mail that "the tens of millions of families working hard and paying payroll taxes do not think that tax cuts are a form of 'welfare' or 'redistribution' -- they think it is only fair to reward work."
Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center said "one can argue" that workers who don't pay income taxes "are paying Social Security payroll taxes, and this is a tax cut against that."
But is this just another clever way for Barry to redistribute the nation's income, taking from high-income taxpayers who pay the lion's share of all income taxes and giving it to lower-income workers who pay none?
Williams doesn't dispute this. "You could view it that way because both (tax) proposals are in the same tax plan," he said. "There's no question that's one way to perceive the tax plan." Exactly.
So this is what's at the core of Obama's economic policies -- taking more money from one group of taxpayers and directly transferring it to those in the lower- to middle-income tax brackets who pay little or no income taxes to begin with.
Instead of cutting everyone's taxes to encourage work, investment and savings by enlarging the economic pie, Obama would redivide the pie into smaller slices and redistribute it through the tax system.
Please someone show me a real world example where this type of policy has actually worked in bringing an economy out of a recession. I have heard a lot of people make the claim that there is no way that Obama can be worse than Bush. Wanna bet? With socialist policies like these that have never worked we will be on the fast track to third world status. Of course than we will have the rest of the world finally loving us like so many liberals crave. We will be sort of like the crazy old uncle in the corner who everyone remembers from his more vigorous days. As the rest of the western economies continue to cut income taxes and become more business friendly like Ireland, Poland, Germany, Canada, Czech Republic, etc. we will raise taxes on the portion of the economy that we should be relying on to get us back on our feet. Too much social reengineering got us into this mess and now the American public is falling for this "class warfare" garbage economic proposal that is eerily similar to giving mortgages to those who can't afford them. How does Barry propose that the recipients of this new form of welfare are going to use this payment to help create economic prosperity. Does he think buying a bunch of large screen HDTVs will magically fix things? Too bad that a lot of these people will be the first ones laid off when their employer has to cut back due to the recession that continues to deepen. But then lets look at the bright side they will still be getting their "tax cut" every year. Try feeding a family of four on it!
Barry's political affiliations
Besides having the reknown America hater, Reverend Wright, as a spiritual mentor and sitting through 20 years of his anti American sermons we now know something else that has yet to make it to the MSM, what a surprise. But we have to look at this in conjunction with Barry's relationship to the unrepentant terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn plus his wife's statement about how she has never been proud to be an American until Barry was nominated. There is a very troubling pattern of anti-American influence associated with Barry plus his relationship with ACORN that seems to get more and more involved every day. Remember all three of these connections have been lied about by Barry himself on numerous occasions and the stories about his connections are continuing to evolve.
The big kicker though is his membership in the socialist, some say marxist group, the New Party. Barry has already denied this affiliation but unfortunately like all of his other denials this turns out to be just another lie on top of all of the other ones concerning his other affiliations.
The New Party was a Marxist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials -- most often Democrats. The New Party's short-term objective was to move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of a new Marxist third party.
Most New Party members hailed from the Democratic Socialists of America and the militant organization ACORN. The party's Chicago chapter also included a large contingent from the Committees of Correspondence, a Marxist coalition of former Maoists, Trotskyists, and Communist Party USA members.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434
Did I see ACORN above? The same ACORN that Barry gave over $800,000 to out of his campaign funds. The plot thickens.
As we may have noted above, Barry has denied ever being a member of the New Party. But wait "Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago." From http://www.populist.com/11.96.Edit.html certainly not a right wing website.
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-file-36-how-socialist-was-obamas.html Check out the picture of Barry on this link with his fellow members of the New Party.
From their own website http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political/NewParty_Principles.html very interesting principles. They read somewhat like another book written by a German in 1847.
Is the main stream media going to ask Barry about his membership in this group? Could be a bombshell.
The big kicker though is his membership in the socialist, some say marxist group, the New Party. Barry has already denied this affiliation but unfortunately like all of his other denials this turns out to be just another lie on top of all of the other ones concerning his other affiliations.
The New Party was a Marxist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials -- most often Democrats. The New Party's short-term objective was to move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of a new Marxist third party.
Most New Party members hailed from the Democratic Socialists of America and the militant organization ACORN. The party's Chicago chapter also included a large contingent from the Committees of Correspondence, a Marxist coalition of former Maoists, Trotskyists, and Communist Party USA members.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434
Did I see ACORN above? The same ACORN that Barry gave over $800,000 to out of his campaign funds. The plot thickens.
As we may have noted above, Barry has denied ever being a member of the New Party. But wait "Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago." From http://www.populist.com/11.96.Edit.html certainly not a right wing website.
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-file-36-how-socialist-was-obamas.html Check out the picture of Barry on this link with his fellow members of the New Party.
From their own website http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political/NewParty_Principles.html very interesting principles. They read somewhat like another book written by a German in 1847.
Is the main stream media going to ask Barry about his membership in this group? Could be a bombshell.
John Malkovich hits it on the head.
In my frustration over the two meager choices we have for president, I read the following quote from actor John Malkovich in the latest edition of Esquire which expresses the exact sentiment I feel over this process:
THIS IS WHAT POLITICS IS TO ME: Somebody tells you all the trees on your street have a disease. One side says give them food and water and everything will be fine. One side says chop them down and burn them so they don't infect another street. That's politics. And I'm going, Who says they're diseased? And how does this sickness manifest itself? And is this outside of a natural cycle? And who said this again? And when were they on the street? But we just have people who shout, "Chop it down and burn it" or "Give it food and water," and there's your two choices. Sorry, I'm not a believer.
THIS IS WHAT POLITICS IS TO ME: Somebody tells you all the trees on your street have a disease. One side says give them food and water and everything will be fine. One side says chop them down and burn them so they don't infect another street. That's politics. And I'm going, Who says they're diseased? And how does this sickness manifest itself? And is this outside of a natural cycle? And who said this again? And when were they on the street? But we just have people who shout, "Chop it down and burn it" or "Give it food and water," and there's your two choices. Sorry, I'm not a believer.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Definition of Surge
Let me give you the definition of surge. "To increase suddenly" Know what word is missing Victory.
If you SURGE your hand into a bucket of water, you displace the water, when you pull your hand out the water returns. Just a thought
If you SURGE your hand into a bucket of water, you displace the water, when you pull your hand out the water returns. Just a thought
Is "O" qualified to be President?
No I do not think he is the devil. I do think he is mostly an empty slate, as Hags has previously noted. The only way to define him is by his associations and actions. What we know is that he has not run anything, he associates with a terrorist (and no, that is not a proper association for any mainstream candidate starting his career), he did not wear a flag on his lapel. He did attend a Muslim school, he attended a anti-American church. He has a very liberal voting record, he is proposing a new welfare. He wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat on the verge of victory. And he has no legislative record! I find it LOL amazing that Rich thinks his involvement in the Harvard Law Review makes for presidential timer. What he seems to be good at, is wrapping a liberal agenda in a palatable cover and I rue that McCain is such a poor candidate that he cannot expose him and his clearly socialist policies.
I remain amazed that Ms. Palin, 3 years younger than the "O", is assailed as unqualified because, I guess, she did not write a book. She has managed, governed, and walked the walk.
I swear if I hear one more "he is so smart, he will save us" I may bust an aneurysm and no Rich, that would not be good, you would have to talk to your MIL at Christmas.
I remain amazed that Ms. Palin, 3 years younger than the "O", is assailed as unqualified because, I guess, she did not write a book. She has managed, governed, and walked the walk.
I swear if I hear one more "he is so smart, he will save us" I may bust an aneurysm and no Rich, that would not be good, you would have to talk to your MIL at Christmas.
Fairness
Everyone keeps using "redistribution of wealth" as some code for take from the rich to give the poor. It is " This is what it is going to cost to run the goverment" Then the real question is Who has it and how can we get it? And how can we can be fair about it. The poor woman at the bottom end should give what percentage of her income and what percentage of a top earner should he give? It is really just called FAIRNESS.
October 14, 2008 12:15 PM
October 14, 2008 12:15 PM
President of new club
I am now the President of a new club. The "I am working till 90" thanks to something?
Why can't people believe a rising tide raises all boats?
We have plenty of time to look back and assess blame, lets look forward Republicans and Democrats together and bring in some sharp people and yes discuss solutions.
Why can't people believe a rising tide raises all boats?
We have plenty of time to look back and assess blame, lets look forward Republicans and Democrats together and bring in some sharp people and yes discuss solutions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)