How did the debate go?
- Thread starter completelyme
- Start date
completelyme
New member
UGH. Not good.
Absolutely
I really do hope no matter who gets elected that they will put country first and they will be able to get us on the road to recovery.http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-postscript1006.artoct06,0,3654162.story
I guess the dead do speak and vote :laughing:
I guess the dead do speak and vote :laughing:
completelyme
New member
completelyme
New member
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-foval/wisconsin-hotly-contested_b_126332.html
Now why would the McCain campaign want to manipulate voters into not being able to vote? Maybe because he knows they wouldn't be voting for him anyway? And why would that be?
Now why would the McCain campaign want to manipulate voters into not being able to vote? Maybe because he knows they wouldn't be voting for him anyway? And why would that be?
Here are some key issues on this election that may help those who are undecided.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending Issues
Citizens against Government Waste is a leading taxpayer group that monitors wasteful spending and in its most recent ratings Obama was rated at 10% while McCain was rated 100%.
Another fiscal watchdog group, The Club for Growth, said this about Obamas spending record:
As Senators, it often seemed like Edwards, Clinton and Obama were congenitally incapable of saying no to government spending Clinton and Obama voted to keep the $223 million boon-
doggle known as the Bridge to Nowhere, for the expansive 2005 highway bill, and for
corporate welfare.
Once again, there is no comparison between the two candidates. In addition to all the pork spending, Obama has voted for every wild-eyed federal spending program that came before him, all increasing federal government involvement in areas that our founding fathers never envisioned. They are too numerous to list here.
This reckless spending is also evident in his campaign proposals. The best way to summarize these proposals is to turn to Investors Business Daily in an article titled, Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism:
It's clear from a close reading of his two books that he's a firm believer in class envy. He
assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense
of the poor. Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step
in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through
government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.
Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the
front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" "to make America more
competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means. Among his
proposed "investments":
"Universal," "guaranteed" health care.
"Free" college tuition.
"Universal national service" (a la Havana).
"Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made
by "low- and moderate-income families").
"Free" job training (even for criminals).
"Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels).
"Free" child care and "universal" preschool.
More subsidized public housing.
A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor."
And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third
World, first and foremost Africa.
His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed
to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers"
who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't. That's just for
starters first-term stuff.
Obama doesn't stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human
resources department from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering
even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and
hourly workers alike.
These proposals alone will bankrupt the nation. Lastly, we need not forget about one of the most irresponsible spending bills ever introduced in American history. Its Obamas utopian foreign aid proposal called the Global Poverty Act. It has already passed the house and a key Senate committee and will surely be implemented if Obama becomes president.
It calls for the US to turn over $845 Billion of our tax dollars to some UN agency to distribute to third world countries to end poverty. Im not kidding. Yes, these are the same Third World countries which currently receive $300 billion in aid from America and basically waste it thanks to corruption and socialism.
The Obama campaign is refusing to comment on many of the details of the plan, but it will cost every American taxpayer around $2,500 each. Furthermore, the agency set up by the UN to implement the anti-poverty effort would have the power to tax nations, so Obamas bill will unconstitutionally give the power to tax American taxpayers to a foreign entity. American taxes are bad enough but Obama apparently now wants global taxes.
There is really no other way to describe Obamas philosophy of government than socialism. Is this what he means by reform?
http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News...ticle&id=11590
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...02137342405551
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/12...hite_paper.php
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...02222641317480
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=56405
Taxes
The chart below was assembled by Americans for Tax Reform, perhaps Americas leading tax watchdog group and is based upon the actual statements of McCain and Obama. If you still dont know who to vote for by now, you better show this to your accountant and figure how much more in taxes you will pay if Obama is elected.
McCain vs. Obama on Taxes
Present Law McCain Obama Obama (primaries)
Top Personal Rate 35% 35% 39.6% (1) 39.6%
Capital Gains Rate 15% 15% 20% 28% (2)
Dividends Rate 15% 15% 20% 39.6%
Death Tax 0% by 2010 15%/$10
Million (3) 45%/$7
Million (4) 55%
$1 million
AMT Rate(5) 28% 0% (Repealed) 28% 28%
Small Business
Employer Rate(6) 37.9% 37.9% Up To 54.8% 54.9%
Tax Hike
Marriage Penalty N/A N/A $250,000 MFJ
$200,000
Single(7) Full from
Dollar
One
Corporate Income
Tax(8) 35% 25% 35% 35%
Business
Infrastructure(9) Long and
Complex
Depreciation Full Expensing Long and
Complex
Depreciation Long and
Complex
Depreciation
Windfall Profits
Tax On Energy
Companies(10) None None Yes
Rate
Unknown Yes
Rate
1This would give the U.S. a higher national top marginal tax rate than Canada, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, South Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway,
Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Turkey (Source: OECD Tax Database)
2 CNBC Closing Bell. March 27, 2008
3 The first $5 million ($10 million for a surviving spouse) of an estate would be death tax-exempt (Source:
johnmccain.com)
4 The first $3.5 million ($7 million for a surviving spouse) of an estate would be death tax-exempt
(Source: barackobama.com)
5 The alternative minimum tax (AMT) requires taxpayers to calculate their taxes two ways, and pay
whichever method results in a higher tax owed
6 Self-employed taxpayers pay both ordinary income tax and self-employment tax (Social Security and
Medicare). According to the NFIB, most small business employers make at least $250,000 per year
(Source: nfib.org)
7 Barack Obama has said he would raise taxes on married couples making $250,000 and individuals
making $200,000 per year (Source: barackobama.com)
8 The U.S. corporate income tax is currently the second-highest in the developed world. The average
European corporate income tax rate is about 25%
9 It takes larger businesses several years to deduct machinery and equipment, even though they purchase
the business asset in year one (e.g. a computer must be slowly-deducted over six calendar years)
10 Above and beyond the current 35% corporate income tax rate on energy companies
Yes, youve probably heard Obama claim he will cut taxes for the middle class, but it turns out his proposal is really a clever campaign trick. Heres what the Investors Business Daily says:
But whats touted as tax-cutting hides tax increases for the middle class. According to
the American Enterprise Institutes Alex Brill and Alan Viard, Senator Obamas proposed
tax cuts for the middle class are actually marginal rate hikes in disguise. The reason: Obamas
plan rescinds tax breaks as some taxpayers incomes rise, reducing their incentives to earn
more .the increase happens because Obama phases out the child and dependent-care credit
for one-child families in the $30,000 to $58,000 range.
The Wall Street Journal also attacked Obamas tax plan:
He proposes to raise marginal rates for just about every federal tax. He also proposes a raft of
tax credits that taxpayers can receive if they engage in various government-specified activities.
Moreover, the tax credits would mostly go to those who pay little or nothing in federal income
taxes such credits are not tax cuts. Indeed, they should be called The New Tax Welfare.
In effect, Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand a slew of government spending programs
that are disguised as tax credits.
And his record as a US Senator confirms his pro-tax record. The Club for Growth published a paper analyzing Obamas tax record in the U.S. Senate:
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards have very similar voting records and policy
proposals on the issue of taxes, sharing a strident antagonism toward lower tax rates and
economic freedom Barack Obama joined Clinton in opposing the extension of the Bush
tax cuts; in opposing the extension of decreased tax rates for capital gains and dividends.
And the ratings published this year by the taxpayers watchdog group, Americans for Tax Reform, also confirm Obamas recklessness. He received a rating of 15% (100 being the best) while McCain received an 80%. Another taxpayer group, National Taxpayers Union, rated McCain as an 88% or an A and Obama as 16% or F.
Obamas record in the Illinois State Senate is also horrific. Heres CBS News:
Obama occasionally supported higher taxes, joining other Democrats in pushing to raise
more than 300 taxes and fees on businesses in 2004 to help solve a budget deficit.
I guess CBS considers 300 tax hikes as occasional, but you gotta hand it to them; theyre putting the most positive spin than can on Obamas anti-business history. Unbelievable.
Obamas tax proposals are a recipe for disaster but they illustrate something alarming: this is a man who doesnt seem to understand the impact escalating taxes have upon ordinary Americans, particularly small businesses. His desire for new taxes is driven by his utopian desire to remake society with all his new programs that need funding. This elitist attitude will not reform government, it will make it more onerous and more under the control of various special interest groups.
Over and over again, Obama has lied to Americans about how the rich dont pay enough taxes; indeed, he is so steeped in his hard left ideology he has never bothered to check the stats produced each year by the IRS. Here they are:
Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What
For Tax Year 2006
Percentiles Ranked by AGI AGI Threshold on Percentiles Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1% $388,806 39.89
Top 5% $153,542 60.14
Top 10% $108,904 70.79
Top 25% $64,702 86.27
Top 50% $31,987 97.01
Bottom 50% <$31,987 2.99
As one can see, the top 10% of all taxpayers the rich is paying over 70%; in other words the rich pay disproportionately more than their share. Any more taxes on this class as Obama proposes will only stifle job creation and chase jobs overseas. The bottom 50% pay only 2.99% of all taxes.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...04297643560219
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219...googlenews_wsj
http://www.atr.org/content/pdf/2008/...n Matrix.pdf
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/12...hite_paper.php
http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArtic...03952499910291
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2369157.shtml
http://www.atr.org/national/ratings/...teratings.html
http://www.ntu.org/main/components/r...?senate_id=180
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending Issues
Citizens against Government Waste is a leading taxpayer group that monitors wasteful spending and in its most recent ratings Obama was rated at 10% while McCain was rated 100%.
Another fiscal watchdog group, The Club for Growth, said this about Obamas spending record:
As Senators, it often seemed like Edwards, Clinton and Obama were congenitally incapable of saying no to government spending Clinton and Obama voted to keep the $223 million boon-
doggle known as the Bridge to Nowhere, for the expansive 2005 highway bill, and for
corporate welfare.
Once again, there is no comparison between the two candidates. In addition to all the pork spending, Obama has voted for every wild-eyed federal spending program that came before him, all increasing federal government involvement in areas that our founding fathers never envisioned. They are too numerous to list here.
This reckless spending is also evident in his campaign proposals. The best way to summarize these proposals is to turn to Investors Business Daily in an article titled, Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism:
It's clear from a close reading of his two books that he's a firm believer in class envy. He
assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense
of the poor. Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step
in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through
government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.
Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the
front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" "to make America more
competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means. Among his
proposed "investments":
"Universal," "guaranteed" health care.
"Free" college tuition.
"Universal national service" (a la Havana).
"Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made
by "low- and moderate-income families").
"Free" job training (even for criminals).
"Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels).
"Free" child care and "universal" preschool.
More subsidized public housing.
A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor."
And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third
World, first and foremost Africa.
His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed
to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers"
who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't. That's just for
starters first-term stuff.
Obama doesn't stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human
resources department from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering
even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and
hourly workers alike.
These proposals alone will bankrupt the nation. Lastly, we need not forget about one of the most irresponsible spending bills ever introduced in American history. Its Obamas utopian foreign aid proposal called the Global Poverty Act. It has already passed the house and a key Senate committee and will surely be implemented if Obama becomes president.
It calls for the US to turn over $845 Billion of our tax dollars to some UN agency to distribute to third world countries to end poverty. Im not kidding. Yes, these are the same Third World countries which currently receive $300 billion in aid from America and basically waste it thanks to corruption and socialism.
The Obama campaign is refusing to comment on many of the details of the plan, but it will cost every American taxpayer around $2,500 each. Furthermore, the agency set up by the UN to implement the anti-poverty effort would have the power to tax nations, so Obamas bill will unconstitutionally give the power to tax American taxpayers to a foreign entity. American taxes are bad enough but Obama apparently now wants global taxes.
There is really no other way to describe Obamas philosophy of government than socialism. Is this what he means by reform?
http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News...ticle&id=11590
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...02137342405551
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/12...hite_paper.php
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...02222641317480
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=56405
Taxes
The chart below was assembled by Americans for Tax Reform, perhaps Americas leading tax watchdog group and is based upon the actual statements of McCain and Obama. If you still dont know who to vote for by now, you better show this to your accountant and figure how much more in taxes you will pay if Obama is elected.
McCain vs. Obama on Taxes
Present Law McCain Obama Obama (primaries)
Top Personal Rate 35% 35% 39.6% (1) 39.6%
Capital Gains Rate 15% 15% 20% 28% (2)
Dividends Rate 15% 15% 20% 39.6%
Death Tax 0% by 2010 15%/$10
Million (3) 45%/$7
Million (4) 55%
$1 million
AMT Rate(5) 28% 0% (Repealed) 28% 28%
Small Business
Employer Rate(6) 37.9% 37.9% Up To 54.8% 54.9%
Tax Hike
Marriage Penalty N/A N/A $250,000 MFJ
$200,000
Single(7) Full from
Dollar
One
Corporate Income
Tax(8) 35% 25% 35% 35%
Business
Infrastructure(9) Long and
Complex
Depreciation Full Expensing Long and
Complex
Depreciation Long and
Complex
Depreciation
Windfall Profits
Tax On Energy
Companies(10) None None Yes
Rate
Unknown Yes
Rate
1This would give the U.S. a higher national top marginal tax rate than Canada, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, South Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway,
Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Turkey (Source: OECD Tax Database)
2 CNBC Closing Bell. March 27, 2008
3 The first $5 million ($10 million for a surviving spouse) of an estate would be death tax-exempt (Source:
johnmccain.com)
4 The first $3.5 million ($7 million for a surviving spouse) of an estate would be death tax-exempt
(Source: barackobama.com)
5 The alternative minimum tax (AMT) requires taxpayers to calculate their taxes two ways, and pay
whichever method results in a higher tax owed
6 Self-employed taxpayers pay both ordinary income tax and self-employment tax (Social Security and
Medicare). According to the NFIB, most small business employers make at least $250,000 per year
(Source: nfib.org)
7 Barack Obama has said he would raise taxes on married couples making $250,000 and individuals
making $200,000 per year (Source: barackobama.com)
8 The U.S. corporate income tax is currently the second-highest in the developed world. The average
European corporate income tax rate is about 25%
9 It takes larger businesses several years to deduct machinery and equipment, even though they purchase
the business asset in year one (e.g. a computer must be slowly-deducted over six calendar years)
10 Above and beyond the current 35% corporate income tax rate on energy companies
Yes, youve probably heard Obama claim he will cut taxes for the middle class, but it turns out his proposal is really a clever campaign trick. Heres what the Investors Business Daily says:
But whats touted as tax-cutting hides tax increases for the middle class. According to
the American Enterprise Institutes Alex Brill and Alan Viard, Senator Obamas proposed
tax cuts for the middle class are actually marginal rate hikes in disguise. The reason: Obamas
plan rescinds tax breaks as some taxpayers incomes rise, reducing their incentives to earn
more .the increase happens because Obama phases out the child and dependent-care credit
for one-child families in the $30,000 to $58,000 range.
The Wall Street Journal also attacked Obamas tax plan:
He proposes to raise marginal rates for just about every federal tax. He also proposes a raft of
tax credits that taxpayers can receive if they engage in various government-specified activities.
Moreover, the tax credits would mostly go to those who pay little or nothing in federal income
taxes such credits are not tax cuts. Indeed, they should be called The New Tax Welfare.
In effect, Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand a slew of government spending programs
that are disguised as tax credits.
And his record as a US Senator confirms his pro-tax record. The Club for Growth published a paper analyzing Obamas tax record in the U.S. Senate:
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards have very similar voting records and policy
proposals on the issue of taxes, sharing a strident antagonism toward lower tax rates and
economic freedom Barack Obama joined Clinton in opposing the extension of the Bush
tax cuts; in opposing the extension of decreased tax rates for capital gains and dividends.
And the ratings published this year by the taxpayers watchdog group, Americans for Tax Reform, also confirm Obamas recklessness. He received a rating of 15% (100 being the best) while McCain received an 80%. Another taxpayer group, National Taxpayers Union, rated McCain as an 88% or an A and Obama as 16% or F.
Obamas record in the Illinois State Senate is also horrific. Heres CBS News:
Obama occasionally supported higher taxes, joining other Democrats in pushing to raise
more than 300 taxes and fees on businesses in 2004 to help solve a budget deficit.
I guess CBS considers 300 tax hikes as occasional, but you gotta hand it to them; theyre putting the most positive spin than can on Obamas anti-business history. Unbelievable.
Obamas tax proposals are a recipe for disaster but they illustrate something alarming: this is a man who doesnt seem to understand the impact escalating taxes have upon ordinary Americans, particularly small businesses. His desire for new taxes is driven by his utopian desire to remake society with all his new programs that need funding. This elitist attitude will not reform government, it will make it more onerous and more under the control of various special interest groups.
Over and over again, Obama has lied to Americans about how the rich dont pay enough taxes; indeed, he is so steeped in his hard left ideology he has never bothered to check the stats produced each year by the IRS. Here they are:
Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What
For Tax Year 2006
Percentiles Ranked by AGI AGI Threshold on Percentiles Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1% $388,806 39.89
Top 5% $153,542 60.14
Top 10% $108,904 70.79
Top 25% $64,702 86.27
Top 50% $31,987 97.01
Bottom 50% <$31,987 2.99
As one can see, the top 10% of all taxpayers the rich is paying over 70%; in other words the rich pay disproportionately more than their share. Any more taxes on this class as Obama proposes will only stifle job creation and chase jobs overseas. The bottom 50% pay only 2.99% of all taxes.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...04297643560219
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219...googlenews_wsj
http://www.atr.org/content/pdf/2008/...n Matrix.pdf
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/12...hite_paper.php
http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArtic...03952499910291
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2369157.shtml
http://www.atr.org/national/ratings/...teratings.html
http://www.ntu.org/main/components/r...?senate_id=180
Energy Issues
The real issue regarding our soaring gas prices is the coalition formed between the Democrats and radical environmentalists to prevent oil drilling and to stop the construction of oil refineries and nuclear energy plants. This is gone on for decades and now the Democrats are blaming the Republicans for the energy crises? What am I missing here?
Instead of calling for drilling, Obama wants a windfall profit tax on the oil companies. That term implies that oil companies dont pay enough taxes as it is. In fact, the average profit margin for oil companies this year was 8.3%, which is a lower profit margin than many industries. Furthermore, its not some fat cats sitting on this profit; its millions of stockholders who benefit. Indeed, many Americans are invested in oil companies by virtue of their pension funds investing in oil. The reality is that the oil companies pay three times more in taxes than theyve made in profits. Mobile alone paid $61.7 billion in taxes this year, which is more than all the taxes paid by the bottom 50% of all taxpayers. Any new taxes would simply be passed on to the consumer. Doesnt Obama understand this? How does adding more taxes increase our energy supply?
In 2005, when the Senate filibustered on a measure that would open up drilling in Alaska, Obama voted to continue the filibuster (keep drilling banned) and McCain voted to end it. In other words, we are now missing out on 10 Billion barrels of oil in the marketplace. Indeed, the US Geological Survey issued a report estimating 90 billion barrels of oil in the artic, but without the law being changed oil companies will not invest money to drill.
When house speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked all efforts to allow drilling this summer, she guaranteed that the oil crises would continue for years. If the law was changed and drilling allowed, even this announcement would send oil prices tumbling as markets respond to new investments, but instead Obama seems to think this is an energy plan:
Making sure your tires are inflated . And getting regular tune ups
You can see this incredibly stupid remark on video here:
http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed...s-energy-plan
This alone should disqualify Obama for president
From an environmental perspective, drilling is very safe; the latest technology has made it safer, which is why the oil derricks off the coast of Louisiana took a direct hit from Katrina and didnt leak a drop. The vast majority of oil spills come from ships so the more oil we import, the more oil spills we will have. But Obama dismissively referred to drilling as the latest scheme.
It will be decades before alternative energy wind, solar, etc. will provide us enough energy to meet our needs, as the technology is simply not where it needs to be yet. In the meantime, we can dramatically expand our oil supply within three years if drilling is allowed.
Nuclear energy is also a clean, abundant source of energy and indeed, most of Europe derives a large amount of their energy from nuclear energy. France, for example, gets over a third of their energy from nuclear plants. But we must remember that Obama has deep connections to 60s style wacky anti-nuke groups, so logic does not come into play here. Heres what he says on nuclear energy:
I start off with the premise that nuclear energy is not optimal. I am not a nuclear energy proponent.
In conclusion, Obama opposes oil drilling, opposes nuclear energy, and wants us to fill our tires up. What a plan. Since alternative energy will not even come close to meeting our needs for decades, his energy planor lack thereof -- will have disastrous effects on our economy. This is not leadership; this is plain stupidity. Once again, he is making his extreme environmentalists friends happy at the expense of America.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_5/...inter_friendly
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27645
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...02483718997031
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1217...w_and_outlooks
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...99977602247481
The real issue regarding our soaring gas prices is the coalition formed between the Democrats and radical environmentalists to prevent oil drilling and to stop the construction of oil refineries and nuclear energy plants. This is gone on for decades and now the Democrats are blaming the Republicans for the energy crises? What am I missing here?
Instead of calling for drilling, Obama wants a windfall profit tax on the oil companies. That term implies that oil companies dont pay enough taxes as it is. In fact, the average profit margin for oil companies this year was 8.3%, which is a lower profit margin than many industries. Furthermore, its not some fat cats sitting on this profit; its millions of stockholders who benefit. Indeed, many Americans are invested in oil companies by virtue of their pension funds investing in oil. The reality is that the oil companies pay three times more in taxes than theyve made in profits. Mobile alone paid $61.7 billion in taxes this year, which is more than all the taxes paid by the bottom 50% of all taxpayers. Any new taxes would simply be passed on to the consumer. Doesnt Obama understand this? How does adding more taxes increase our energy supply?
In 2005, when the Senate filibustered on a measure that would open up drilling in Alaska, Obama voted to continue the filibuster (keep drilling banned) and McCain voted to end it. In other words, we are now missing out on 10 Billion barrels of oil in the marketplace. Indeed, the US Geological Survey issued a report estimating 90 billion barrels of oil in the artic, but without the law being changed oil companies will not invest money to drill.
When house speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked all efforts to allow drilling this summer, she guaranteed that the oil crises would continue for years. If the law was changed and drilling allowed, even this announcement would send oil prices tumbling as markets respond to new investments, but instead Obama seems to think this is an energy plan:
Making sure your tires are inflated . And getting regular tune ups
You can see this incredibly stupid remark on video here:
http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed...s-energy-plan
This alone should disqualify Obama for president
From an environmental perspective, drilling is very safe; the latest technology has made it safer, which is why the oil derricks off the coast of Louisiana took a direct hit from Katrina and didnt leak a drop. The vast majority of oil spills come from ships so the more oil we import, the more oil spills we will have. But Obama dismissively referred to drilling as the latest scheme.
It will be decades before alternative energy wind, solar, etc. will provide us enough energy to meet our needs, as the technology is simply not where it needs to be yet. In the meantime, we can dramatically expand our oil supply within three years if drilling is allowed.
Nuclear energy is also a clean, abundant source of energy and indeed, most of Europe derives a large amount of their energy from nuclear energy. France, for example, gets over a third of their energy from nuclear plants. But we must remember that Obama has deep connections to 60s style wacky anti-nuke groups, so logic does not come into play here. Heres what he says on nuclear energy:
I start off with the premise that nuclear energy is not optimal. I am not a nuclear energy proponent.
In conclusion, Obama opposes oil drilling, opposes nuclear energy, and wants us to fill our tires up. What a plan. Since alternative energy will not even come close to meeting our needs for decades, his energy planor lack thereof -- will have disastrous effects on our economy. This is not leadership; this is plain stupidity. Once again, he is making his extreme environmentalists friends happy at the expense of America.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_5/...inter_friendly
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27645
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...02483718997031
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1217...w_and_outlooks
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...99977602247481
Health Care
One of Obamas main campaign issues is what he calls universal health care, but what this means is he wants the government to take over all health care. He is more candid when he says, Im going to give health insurance to 47 million Americans who are now without coverage. But what he doesnt say, is that this number includes at least 12 million illegal aliens. In others words, Americans would be required to pay for the health care of those here illegally. Another 15 million of the uninsured are eligible for Medicaid but they havent signed up. Another chunk of this number are people simply in between jobs and temporally without health insurance. Lastly, of the remaining uninsured, all their children are covered by the State Children Health Insurance Program.
So for a few million uninsured people, Obama wants to abolish all private health care and have the government take over 20% of the US economy! This is what Europe and Canada have done but bear in mind that America creates more jobs in one year than all the European countries combined. Obamas plan is a huge step toward becoming a socialist country. Under of government controlled system, the quality of health care will decline, which is why our Northern hospitals are full of Canadians who have fled south for surgery as opposed to waiting in line in Canada for six months.
A Government takeover over also scares doctors away from the profession, crowds out private investment in new hospitals and drains investment away from new drug research. The reason why America is by far the world leader in the creation of new drugs is due to our private system. There is hardly any medical innovation going on elsewhere.
The biggest reform needed is the limiting of the relentless lawsuits directed at doctor, providers, and hospitals, but the trial lawyers have blocked all efforts to reform this and they are lining up full force behind Obama. Indeed, Obama is the TOP recipient of funds from lawyers, having raised over $20 million from them. There are also plenty of free market reforms that will make our health care system better and cheaper, but Obama seems oblivious to such solutions. See the link below.
But once again, what Obama says publicly does not match what his family does privately. When his wife was an executive with the University of Chicago Medical Center, she developed a program called the Urban Health Initiative, which was an effort to refer patients without private insurance to other health-care facilities in the area. These people were typically poor minorities. Ironically, Michelle Obama hired out David Axelrod Obamas campaign advisor to sell the program. With his plan, Obama doesnt mind overwhelming our hospitals with millions of illegal aliens but he wife certainly wont stand for that!
Once again, the deal has been cut. Obama has created a crisis which then needs a government solution. When the Democrats and Obama in particular refuse to support tort reform, the cost of health care rises, leading the Democrats to then call for a government takeover. This is a very clever tactic but it is not is the best interest of America, its taxpayers, or our health care system. And it is certainly NOT reform.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politic...hosp23.article
http://www.newcoalition.org:80/Article.cfm?artId=17963
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_23...ml?CMP=OTC-RSS
http://www.capoliticalnews.com/s/spip.php?article790
http://www.opensecrets.org/industrie...e=2008&ind=K01
One of Obamas main campaign issues is what he calls universal health care, but what this means is he wants the government to take over all health care. He is more candid when he says, Im going to give health insurance to 47 million Americans who are now without coverage. But what he doesnt say, is that this number includes at least 12 million illegal aliens. In others words, Americans would be required to pay for the health care of those here illegally. Another 15 million of the uninsured are eligible for Medicaid but they havent signed up. Another chunk of this number are people simply in between jobs and temporally without health insurance. Lastly, of the remaining uninsured, all their children are covered by the State Children Health Insurance Program.
So for a few million uninsured people, Obama wants to abolish all private health care and have the government take over 20% of the US economy! This is what Europe and Canada have done but bear in mind that America creates more jobs in one year than all the European countries combined. Obamas plan is a huge step toward becoming a socialist country. Under of government controlled system, the quality of health care will decline, which is why our Northern hospitals are full of Canadians who have fled south for surgery as opposed to waiting in line in Canada for six months.
A Government takeover over also scares doctors away from the profession, crowds out private investment in new hospitals and drains investment away from new drug research. The reason why America is by far the world leader in the creation of new drugs is due to our private system. There is hardly any medical innovation going on elsewhere.
The biggest reform needed is the limiting of the relentless lawsuits directed at doctor, providers, and hospitals, but the trial lawyers have blocked all efforts to reform this and they are lining up full force behind Obama. Indeed, Obama is the TOP recipient of funds from lawyers, having raised over $20 million from them. There are also plenty of free market reforms that will make our health care system better and cheaper, but Obama seems oblivious to such solutions. See the link below.
But once again, what Obama says publicly does not match what his family does privately. When his wife was an executive with the University of Chicago Medical Center, she developed a program called the Urban Health Initiative, which was an effort to refer patients without private insurance to other health-care facilities in the area. These people were typically poor minorities. Ironically, Michelle Obama hired out David Axelrod Obamas campaign advisor to sell the program. With his plan, Obama doesnt mind overwhelming our hospitals with millions of illegal aliens but he wife certainly wont stand for that!
Once again, the deal has been cut. Obama has created a crisis which then needs a government solution. When the Democrats and Obama in particular refuse to support tort reform, the cost of health care rises, leading the Democrats to then call for a government takeover. This is a very clever tactic but it is not is the best interest of America, its taxpayers, or our health care system. And it is certainly NOT reform.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politic...hosp23.article
http://www.newcoalition.org:80/Article.cfm?artId=17963
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_23...ml?CMP=OTC-RSS
http://www.capoliticalnews.com/s/spip.php?article790
http://www.opensecrets.org/industrie...e=2008&ind=K01
And one more for now :laughing:
Pork Barreling and Earmarks
Obama keeps saying hes for change and claims McCain wants more of the same, but the record tells a different story when it comes to spending federal dollars in a way many constitutional scholars regard as illegal.
Earmarking is when a legislator takes federal funds for a project in his district that the federal government has no interest in and which should be funded by the local government or the private sector. The act of earmarking is simply marking off a section of the federal budget for your pet project. Over the years, this abuse of federal money has cost taxpayers billions of dollars. McCain doesnt do earmarking at all, period.
Obama, on the other hand, is one of the worst offenders of this practice. Moreover, Obama has procured federal funding for people who have in turn contributed to his campaigns.
This is illegal but some strange reason, the media refuses to cover this story. This is what sent Congressman Randy Cunningham to prison.
One example of this abuse is the Adler Planetarium whose chairman is Frank Clark, a major Obama supporter who has raised in excess of $200,000 for Obamas campaign. A short time later Obama earmarked $3,000,000 for the Planetarium. Furthermore, two other Planetarium board members, Brian Cressey and Peter Thompson were also Obama donors. What makes this even more troubling is that Mr. Cressey had never given to Sen. 0bama before the Adler Planetarium received federal funds. This is an illegal quid pro quo arrangement.
Another example is when Obama earmarked a million dollars for the hospital where his wife works. Around this same time period, this hospital gave Michele Obama a massive raise they more than doubled her salary.
In another example, Obama earmarked $8 million for a defense contractor linked to General Dynamics, upon whose board of directors sits Jim Crown, Obamas Illinois finance chairman.
Even after all the public controversies about earmarks, Obama arrogantly announced on his own website the 108 earmarks for 2008 which total over 300 million dollars. His earmark request the previous year topped $100 million. Joe Bidens earmarks totaled $90 million this year. Obama and Biden are spending OUR hard earned tax dollars for pork projects as if theyre entitled to it. Indeed, both even voted for the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska, a pork project that despite what the media says, was killed by Gov. Sarah Palin.
Anti-pork reformers introduced 15 different amendments this year in Congress to limit pork and earmarks. Obama managed to conveniently ditch out on 9 of these votes. On the six anti-pork votes he was present for, he voted correctly on only two of them. The Club for Growth has released a report card on anti-pork votes. Obamas rating was 33%. McCain rating was a perfect 100%.
You cant be considered a reformer when you are grossly abusing the trust and the money of the American taxpayer.
http://obama.senate.gov/press/070621-obama_announces_3/
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008...oliticall.html
http://www.thenextright.com/davidb11...ou-can-earmark
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122100927525717663.html
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/11...e_repork_c.php
Pork Barreling and Earmarks
Obama keeps saying hes for change and claims McCain wants more of the same, but the record tells a different story when it comes to spending federal dollars in a way many constitutional scholars regard as illegal.
Earmarking is when a legislator takes federal funds for a project in his district that the federal government has no interest in and which should be funded by the local government or the private sector. The act of earmarking is simply marking off a section of the federal budget for your pet project. Over the years, this abuse of federal money has cost taxpayers billions of dollars. McCain doesnt do earmarking at all, period.
Obama, on the other hand, is one of the worst offenders of this practice. Moreover, Obama has procured federal funding for people who have in turn contributed to his campaigns.
This is illegal but some strange reason, the media refuses to cover this story. This is what sent Congressman Randy Cunningham to prison.
One example of this abuse is the Adler Planetarium whose chairman is Frank Clark, a major Obama supporter who has raised in excess of $200,000 for Obamas campaign. A short time later Obama earmarked $3,000,000 for the Planetarium. Furthermore, two other Planetarium board members, Brian Cressey and Peter Thompson were also Obama donors. What makes this even more troubling is that Mr. Cressey had never given to Sen. 0bama before the Adler Planetarium received federal funds. This is an illegal quid pro quo arrangement.
Another example is when Obama earmarked a million dollars for the hospital where his wife works. Around this same time period, this hospital gave Michele Obama a massive raise they more than doubled her salary.
In another example, Obama earmarked $8 million for a defense contractor linked to General Dynamics, upon whose board of directors sits Jim Crown, Obamas Illinois finance chairman.
Even after all the public controversies about earmarks, Obama arrogantly announced on his own website the 108 earmarks for 2008 which total over 300 million dollars. His earmark request the previous year topped $100 million. Joe Bidens earmarks totaled $90 million this year. Obama and Biden are spending OUR hard earned tax dollars for pork projects as if theyre entitled to it. Indeed, both even voted for the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska, a pork project that despite what the media says, was killed by Gov. Sarah Palin.
Anti-pork reformers introduced 15 different amendments this year in Congress to limit pork and earmarks. Obama managed to conveniently ditch out on 9 of these votes. On the six anti-pork votes he was present for, he voted correctly on only two of them. The Club for Growth has released a report card on anti-pork votes. Obamas rating was 33%. McCain rating was a perfect 100%.
You cant be considered a reformer when you are grossly abusing the trust and the money of the American taxpayer.
http://obama.senate.gov/press/070621-obama_announces_3/
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008...oliticall.html
http://www.thenextright.com/davidb11...ou-can-earmark
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122100927525717663.html
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/11...e_repork_c.php
completelyme
New member
Obama just spoke in Dayton today! I just finished watching it. A friend of our's told hubby it was a nice and polite gathering and seeing Obama talk in person made him feel Obama was speaking from the heart...made it more personal. I wish I could have gone 
completelyme
New member
LMAO!! I'm a little ashamed right now to be an Ohioan :laughing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E
What's with the blond who keeps interupting? Me thinks she didn't like being made to look like a fool.
Part 2-Strongsville, Ohio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJghQMq49dw
They keep saying they aren't saying he's a terrorist(well, the majority-one actually said he was a "domestic" terrorist) so what are they trying to say? And why are they being so rude to the commentator? He's asking them to own what they believe and explain why? Is that so bad?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E
What's with the blond who keeps interupting? Me thinks she didn't like being made to look like a fool.
Part 2-Strongsville, Ohio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJghQMq49dw
They keep saying they aren't saying he's a terrorist(well, the majority-one actually said he was a "domestic" terrorist) so what are they trying to say? And why are they being so rude to the commentator? He's asking them to own what they believe and explain why? Is that so bad?
completelyme
New member
Really, GOP. I think it may be time to acknowledge that you don't endorse this type of ignorance if indeed you don't.
WARNING! DO NOT CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED! IT CONTAINS RACIAL SLURS! I CAN'T EVEN QUOTE IT.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1008082voter1.html
WARNING! DO NOT CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED! IT CONTAINS RACIAL SLURS! I CAN'T EVEN QUOTE IT.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1008082voter1.html
I am staying out of thread as much as possible but the link above is what I am scared of...I am really afraid for Obama's life! I know people are touting change and advancements for this country, but this is the kind of person that I fear. One of the old time 'good ol' boys' thats thinking is so wrong that they will do anything to keep him out of office...I feel like the poor guy has a target on his chest.
And McCain...bless his heart is so old...I worry about his health. I just don't know if he can make it...
Now the question becomes if the worst case scenario plays out am I comfortable with Biden or Palin as President ~ and I can't say that I am. Again I am back to my main concern with the whole campaign, I DON'T LIKE ANY OF THEM!! Do I want anything to happen to any of them? Of course not, but I feel like our country is in bad enough shape and things are only going to go downhill from here...
And McCain...bless his heart is so old...I worry about his health. I just don't know if he can make it...
Now the question becomes if the worst case scenario plays out am I comfortable with Biden or Palin as President ~ and I can't say that I am. Again I am back to my main concern with the whole campaign, I DON'T LIKE ANY OF THEM!! Do I want anything to happen to any of them? Of course not, but I feel like our country is in bad enough shape and things are only going to go downhill from here...
3mnkids1
New member
once again.. fact check~~ http://www.fact check.org/
once again.. liecount ~~ http://liecount.com/
I could find links all day long that support my position.. check fact check.. :laughing:
once again.. liecount ~~ http://liecount.com/
I could find links all day long that support my position.. check fact check.. :laughing:
Me too so who wants to stop first :laughing: