What kind of president will Obama be? Friday, Nov 7 2008

Let’s face it – none of us really know what kind of president Barack Obama will turn out to be. And it could happen that despite all of our hopes, he could wind up being a total disaster. I mean, it’s not like it hasn’t happened before.

Think about it:

Wouldn’t it be terrifying if President Obama was repeatedly told about imminent threats against the nation, and he simply dismissed them out-of-hand? And what if the US was attacked, and he just sat in a classroom, reading a kids’ book, because he didn’t know what to do?

Wouldn’t it be just awful if President Obama started ignoring the Constitution, and declared himself unaccountable to anyone? And what if he started cranking out “signing statements”, began pardoning people who were instrumental in outing a covert CIA agent, or allowed White House emails to be deleted in complete defiance of the law? Worse yet, what if he started wiretapping American citizens’ phone calls, and started snooping into their internet activities?

Wouldn’t it be truly dreadful if President Obama lied our country into war, and then started handing out no-bid contracts to war-profiteers who didn’t give a flying fuck about the safety of our troops if it cut into their obscene profits?

Wouldn’t it be downright disillusioning if President Obama poured billions into an unwinnable war while our infrastructure, our schools, our hospitals and our entire economy were left in complete ruin?

Wouldn’t it be devastating if President Obama encouraged the deregulation of everything from banking practices to the inspection of food coming into the country?

Wouldn’t it be profoundly disturbing if President Obama continued on one of his many vacations while a major US city was wiped-out by a natural disaster? And what if he completely ignored the victims of said disaster in the aftermath, and just allowed them to die?

Wouldn’t it be absolutely disastrous if President Obama appointed incompetent cronies to important positions, like Attorney General? And what if his appointee started purging the department of experienced, competent people based solely on their political affiliation?

Wouldn’t it be morally reprehensible if President Obama condoned the use of torture, or the unlimited detention of people without charge or trial?

Wouldn’t it be an incredible outrage if President Obama insisted on tax subsidies for corporations making record profits, or tax incentives for companies that outsourced American jobs?

Wouldn’t it be unbelievably humiliating if President Obama consistently made a fool of himself in public settings, and became the punchline of every late-night monologue due to his ignorance, his inability to speak coherently, and his drunken displays at international meetings of import?

Wouldn’t it be overwhelmingly embarrassing if the stature of the United States was irreparably harmed every time President Obama opened his mouth and proved how God damned stupid he was in front of the entire world?

Wouldn’t it be fantastically detrimental if President Obama was deliberately divisive at a time when the country most needed to come together? And what if he started saying things like “You’re either with us or against us” and you knew he meant YOU were against your own country if you didn’t just toe-the-line and accept his way of thinking?

Wouldn’t YOU find it totally unacceptable if President Obama did any of the above?

Well, I’m sure YOU would – and I have no doubt that if President Obama even thinks about doing any of the aforementioned, we will be hearing from ALL OF YOU immediately.

That’s because real Americans don’t bow their heads and accept such behavior without speaking up, despite being called anti-American, terrorist-loving appeasers, non-patriots and socialist freaks.

Despite your abject silence over the last eight years, I am sure you will suddenly find your voices again, at-the-ready to decry even a perceived affront to your rights, your freedoms, and your liberty as citizens.

What a pity it will be eight years too late.
by NanceGreggs

Leave a Response »

 

Obama Plan Jeopardizes Thousands of Coal Jobs Tuesday, Nov 4 2008

“What I’ve said is that we would put a cap-and-trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there,” the Democratic presidential candidate said. “I was the first to call for a hundred-percent auction on the cap-and-trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted-down caps that are imposed every year.

“So if somebody wants to build a coal power plant, they can,” Obama concluded. “It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greeenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

I just received that in an email, but I watched the video earlier today. The people who made it are 1) taking what Senator Obama said out of context and 2) let me explain a Cap-and-Trade system.

The Cap and Trade system It is an “administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.” What senator Obama is proposing is that our Emissions are capped at their current level.

That means that current plants will have to pay for the amount of emissions they exceed over their current level, and new coal plants (Which is what he said would be bankrupt, not current ones) can be built, but they will probably go bankrupt because they will be charged for all their new emissions because there is a cap on the emissions. Emissions can be traded, but over all there would be a cap on new emissions in the country.

In fact, in the same interview (the part that was not shown in the tape) he mentioned how he is from a coal producing state and that eliminating the coal industry is an unattainable “illusion.”

It is the way of encouraging the free market to go green rather than the government having to step in and do it all.

If you want to know what John McCain’s position on it is, Mr McCain talks about it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP6iqcrHvsE

According to the Obama campaign: “The point Obama is making is that we need to transition from coal burning power plants built with old technology to plants built with advanced technologies–and that is exactly the action that will be incentivized under a cap and trade program,”

Leave a Response »

 

Obama is a Socialist Sunday, Nov 2 2008

Economy:

OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST!

·       An Absurd inflammatory charge meant to panic American voters into supporting McCain, lest their traditional rights be taken away.

·       Most people throwing around the word do not even understand what it means.

o         Definition “a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.” (such as I believe is the case with resources in Alaska)

·       Obama’s quote in context: On 12 October 2008 Samuel J Wurzelbacher, also known as ‘Joe the Plumber’, approached Obama on the street in his Holland, Ohio neighbourhood and claimed he was close to buying a plumbing company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year. He complained that Obama would tax him more, punishing his success. Obama responded that he was raising the top tax rate so he could decrease taxes for those who make less than $250,000.

·       Obama: “It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success too.”

·       Wurzelbacher: “Seems like you would be welcome to a flat tax then.”

·       Obama: “You know, I would be open to it except for here’s the problem with a flat tax, you’d have to slap on a whole bunch of sales taxes on it. And I do believe that for folks like me who have worked hard but, frankly, also been lucky, I don’t mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress who I just met over there who — things are slow, and she can barely make the rent. Because my attitude is if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s going to be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re going to be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you. And right now, everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

 

·       Wurzelbacher asked about the flat tax and Obama countered by supporting progressive taxation, the foundation of American taxation since the first income tax was instituted by president Lincon in 1863. Even the symbol of Capitalism, Adam Smith, also favoured progressive taxation in his book The Wealth of Nations (I can send the excerpt if you don’t believe me).

·       Flat taxation would cripple federal government operations, jeopardise national defence spending, and is wholly un-American. John McCain supports progressive taxation.

·       John McCain in 2004: “I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportionate amount that went to the wealthiest Americans. I would clearly support not extending those tax cuts in order to help address the deficit. But the middle-income tax credits, the families, the child tax credits, the marriage tax credits, all of those I would keep.” [11 April 2004 – watch: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=F5v-1ifm93g ]

o         Under George Bush, 31% of the tax cuts were given to the wealthiest 1%.

o         Under McCain’s plan, 58% of tax cuts will go to the wealthiest 1%.

This is not the proper way to grow the economy. We’ve been trying it eight years, and the wealth has not trickled down.

 

·       Senator Obama’s plan gives tax breaks to 95% of American families.

·       Today the top tax rate is 36%, Obama wants to raise it to 39.6% – the top tax rate was 38.5% in 1987 percent, 70% in the 60s, 91% in the late 50s, and 94% in 1944.  Was America socialist during the anti-Communist 50s?

·       The top two tax brackets will merely revert to what they were under Clinton

o         The top tax bracket will go back from 36% to 39.6%, the second highest bracket will go back from 33% to 36%

§          THIS WILL NEGLIGIBLE IMPACT ON ECONOMIC GROWTH

o         Couples making below $250k, and singles making below $200k will not have their taxes raised. Most (95%) will see tax cuts.

 

 

The Facts:

 

BREAKING DOWN THE NUMBERS

Here’s how the average tax bill could change in 2009 if either John McCain’s or Barack Obama’s tax proposals were fully in place.

MCCAIN OBAMA Income Avg. tax bill Avg. tax bill Over $2.9M -$269,364 +$701,885 $603K and up -$45,361 +$115,974 $227K-$603K -$7,871 +$12 $161K-$227K -$4,380 -$2,789 $112K-$161K -$2,614 -$2,204 $66K-$112K -$1,009 -$1,290 $38K-$66K -$319 -$1,042 $19K-$38K -$113 -$892 Under $19K -$19 -$567

Source:The Tax Policy Center

 

 

John McCain is trying to fool voters into thinking that they actually make enough money to be worried about Obama’s tax plan. That is perhaps the biggest joke this campaign has managed to play on this nation.

 

DEBT: Both candidates increase debt, but Senator Obama’s plan is also far more fiscally viable.

·       McCain’s tax plan will increase the deficit by $5 trillion;

·       Obama’s tax plan will increase the deficit by $3.4 trillion.

·       BOTH candidates are big on spending.

o         Obama’s budget will add $286 billion to the deficit,

o         McCain’s budget will add $211 billion to the deficit.

·       Obama’s overall plan increases debt by far less.

·       Obama’s claim that his spending cuts will account for all of his spending increases are tenuous, and thus I will not make that claim, but even without that you can clearly see Obama’s plan is still superior to McCain’s for our nation’s collective wallet.

 

Not included is the fact that Obama is also not supporting McCain’s calls for slashing the Corporate Tax (which costs hundreds of billions). McCain’s claim that we pay the second-highest corporate tax is only true on paper, but in reality the US has one of the lowest corporate tax rates due to our loop-holes. “The General Accounting Office reported recently that more than half of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes during the boom years of the late 1990s, and those that did were able to shelter much of their income, generally by claiming deductions and credits. The GAO report showed that 61 percent of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1996 through 2000, a period of rapid economic growth and rising corporate profits. An estimated 94 percent of U.S. corporations reported tax liabilities amounting to less than 5 percent of their total income in 2000.” http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/10/debate-fact-check-highlights.html

If redistribution of wealth is to be discussed, we should discuss Sarah Palin’s socialist redistribution of wealth in Alaska:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/svjim/2008/10/redistribution-of-wealth-in-al.php

Obama’s plan is no less capitalist than John McCain’s or Abraham Lincoln’s; it’s called middle-class tax cuts and a progressive tax system, from which you will probably benefit.

 

WELFARE

OBAMA’S TAX CREDITS ARE NOT WELFARE. Welfare is a loaded word and most of the people receiving his tax credits do pay taxes, even if they are not income taxes. McCain himself supports refundable tax credits, as part of his health care plan, but he calls them “reform.”

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_welfare.html

 

OBAMA WILL DESTROY SMALL BUSINESS: FALSE

Firstly, According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Obama’s tax hikes apply only when personal income, not the value of the business, rises above $250,000.

Out of 34.7 million filers with business income on Schedules C, E or F, 479,000 filers fall into the top two brackets, according to an analysis of projected 2009 filings by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The other 34.3 million – or 98.6% – would be unaffected by Obama’s proposed rate hike of 3%. Further, a 3% tax increase on these 2% of businesses can be easily absorbed if they’re making over $250,000.

“What goes on your income tax form is your profit, not your gross receipts,” – The Tax Policy Center

If you still have doubts, here: http://www.cbpp.org/8-29-08tax.htm

Obama proposes to reduce federal income taxes to zero for persons 65 and over who make less than $50,000 a year. No other seniors would see an increase in what they pay to the IRS unless their income is $250,000 for a couple, or $200,000 for a single filer.

Obama voted to raise taxes 94 times

False: The total includes seven votes that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on corporations or affluent individuals; 23 votes were against tax cuts; and 17 came on seven different bills. A closer look reveals Obama has consistently voted to restore higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers, but not on low- or middle-income workers. Using the same methods of determining a tax increase, McCain has voted to raise taxes 526 times.

 

Conclusion:

 

By growing the economy through the middle class, our economy will be strengthened and be more attractive to investors, domestic and foreign. Obama will give tax breaks to companies who keep jobs in America and will penalize those that ship jobs overseas.  Middle-class consumerism is what drives our economy, not wealth sitting in offshore banks.

 

It’s quite myopic to dismiss everything good about Obama’s policies as impossible to institute whilst following everything McCain says as absolute fact – especially when McCain’s plan is far less fiscally viable (i.e. it increases our deficit far more).

 

SARAH PALIN: “And Alaska—we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs. … It’s to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans.”

Leave a Response »

 

Inexperienced Sunday, Nov 2 2008

Inexperience is one of the few claims I find valid against Senator Obama, however, I respectfully disagree.

Barack Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and at Harvard University he was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review and graduated Magna Cum Laude. John McCain did not attend any college; his education came from the Naval Academy where he was admitted as a legacy student and where he graduated 894th out of 899 cadets. Sarah Palin attended six colleges before graduating from Idaho State. She majored in journalism, and after her interviews it makes me wonder how much she actually gained from her college experience. But of course asking ‘gotcha’ questions like “how many newspapers do you read?” is entirely the main-stream-media’s fault.

While he lacks traditional Washington experience, his insight, judgement, intelligence, policies, and articulation have eased this concern for me. Senator Obama has 20 years of public service, 12 of which have been spent as an elected official (8 years in the Illinois senate, 4 years in the US Senate).

John McCain said he doesn’t know much about the economy and would pick a running-mate to advise him on economic matters. With his poll numbers dipping, he picked Sarah Palin to rally the base. McCain completely debased his inexperience claim by picking Sarah Palin, a wholly unqualified, corrupt partisan to be his running mate. Picking such an inept person in order to excite your base and win disgruntled Hillary-supporters by dividing the Democrats is not putting “country first,” it is the farthest thing from it. He is a massive hypocrite, and it would be completely blind to ignore his blatant motivations for picking her.

Most importantly, I feel that Obama’s judgement on the issues that are important to our lives – taxes, foreign policy and diplomacy, health care, education, and economic policy - have been consistently superior to John McCain’s, and for me it boils down to his judgement, policies, and intelligence over his “experience.” He will make a better president whether he has been in the Senate 26 years or not. Senate experience and getting shot down and put in a PoW camp do not equate to a good presidency for me.

McCain squandered his claim to superior experience with the way he mishandled the financial crisis anyway. “Now, on the other hand, if you look at what Barack Obama’s ad says, it’s just talking about what John McCain did the last two weeks. He was erratic. One day, no bailout. The next day, a bailout. One day, “I’m suspending my campaign.” The next day, “I’m not.”

One day, “I’m going to debate.” The next day, “I’m not going to debate.” The next day, I go ahead and debate. One day, “I’m not going to leave Washington until we have a deal,” and then he’s on a plane out of Washington after the deal’s kind of blown up. So it really — there has been a lot of erratic behaviour.”- Senator Claire McCaskill

The suspension was a complete, phony ruse. All of his campaign offices were up and running all week. He didn’t truly suspend it, he didn’t save the day, and he didn’t win the debate.

Experience isn’t everything.

One Response »

 

Oil Prices Wednesday, Oct 22 2008

With oil dropping to $66.75 a barrel today, less than half it was when it crossed the $140 mark, I am rather disturbed by something.

Companies, who were so quick to spike their prices amidst rising prices at the pump, have failed to reduce their prices back to normal levels in face of lower oil costs. Therefore, the American consumer is left paying more and companies are left reaping in the profits. I don’t blame them, what else would be expected of these companies but screwing over the American people?

_{That said, this has had no press coverage and I have been able to find no research to support it. However, I have done my own research and asked people in Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, and California whether the prices on goods have fallen now that oil prices have, and the response is a complete no. When the companies were so eager to raise their prices in tandem with oil spikes, it’s rather disconcerting that they’ve failed to lower them back and give the American people a break}

Leave a Response »

 

McCain appointed Hussein Aide Wednesday, Oct 15 2008

I just finished reading this article at the Huffington Post.

Hilarious! After McCain’s incessant bringing up of Ayers (who is inconsequential to how an Obama administration would lead the nation) named an aid to Saddam Hussein as the man who is in charge of planning the McCain administration. McCain’s campaign proves yet again to be a joke.

I hope Obama is able to deal the final blow tonight, we shall see.

Also, tonight oil is below $75 a barrel for the first time in 14 months. I was just wondering how many companies who spiked their prices when oil it $140 a barrel have brought it back down. I tried to google it, but came up with nothing. My guess is not much! Typical!

I know this is just a quick blog, but I’m filling out something for my guidance counselor, and to add I am stressed about something. *sigh*

Leave a Response »

 

That Pesky Woodpecker! Saturday, Oct 11 2008

There is an extremely bothersome woodpecker on the side of my house that is driving me bonkers! The incessant pecking is mind numbing! I’ve banged on the wall and tried to get it to go, but it keeps returning… AHHHHHHH!!!

By the way, I just watched this:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0YIq5Q15L1o

I found McCain’s handling of the obtuse pig that came forth from her ignorant hole to be relatively well executed!

Leave a Response »

 

The Case Against Obama Saturday, Oct 11 2008

Posted by: La80136

America has the best and most helpful medical system in the world. Now we have a Marxist- Socialist named B. Hussein Obama who wants to NATIONALIZE the heathlcare system. Wake up Americans!

 

This is the typical harebrained attitude that rouses countless Republicans into an anti-Obama frenzy as it opiates them in their mindless support of McCain. Unsurprisingly, the real fear about Obama is based on rumours and lies. He is black, thus he will give blacks extra privilege (which I will touch on more later), he hates whites, he is a MUSLIM (zOMG! we cant have a NONCHRISTIAN president!!! ahhh!), he is an Arab, he is ‘palling around with terrorists’, he is anti-American, he is a Marxist, he will raise taxes, his birth certificate is false, his name rhymes with Osama, his middle name is Hussein, etc etc.

 

The list is literally endless, and why? It is because a campaign of hatred, ignorance, and racism is being waged against him. Not outright by McCain’s campaign, but his supporters. Obama is a half white Harvard-graduate, related to Winston Churchill and Dick Cheney, so what does it matter that he is half black? Does that really make him invalid? Should his colour really strike up so much fear and mistrust? All the mistrust against Obama is baseless, in my opinion.

 

He is not a Muslim, he is a Christian, and he isn’t an extremist like Palin to boot. He isn’t an Arab, and if he was, why on earth would that disqualify him? How much more blatantly racist can this become?

 

He is going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans, and only raise them on the very rich. Trying to constantly link him to raising taxes on the middle class is absurd. I can’t even get into how patent the arrant lies about his policies are. His tax plan is on his website, everything is right there. Seriously. Normally I would go into a huge tirade proving all this stuff wrong, but I can’t be bothered: If one is intelligent, he or she knows it is all republican tomfoolery; if one is a base ignoramus, he or she will never understand and thus there is no point in trying to educate.

 

Obama doesn’t champion nationalising healthcare. He wants to provide every American with it (as if that is really so bad), but it is not nationalisation. Nationalisation would be establishing a system similar to the NHS in Britain. The US has neither the best nor the most helpful healthcare system, especially not for the 40 million Americans who cannot afford insurance, unlike the claim made here…Typical oblivious favouring of the homeland to make yourself feel better.

 

People like Mr La80136 are so ignorant in their assertions, tossing around words they don’t even understand, that it is almost comical – in a bittersweet way.

 

It would seem from reading virtually all comments posted by Republicans on AOL news articles that the only thing they have against Obama (besides lies), is that his middle name is Hussein. It is a very common name globally, and it isn’t a valid reason against him. The attacks against skin colour, name, and faith are all xenophobic abuse which combine to form the base of the Republican contention against Obama. Every time I hear someone honestly say why they don’t support Obama, this mistrust fostered from the fact that he is ‘different’ is the underlying reason. It doesn’t matter that, unlike McCain, he has been a faithful upstanding husband. It doesn’t matter how much superior he is at oration. It doesn’t matter he is a Harvard graduate, while McCain graduated near the bottom of his class. Nothing matters except that ‘mistrust’ of him because of these rumours and his skin colour.

 

I originally did not support during the beginning of the primaries as I have been wary of preferential treatment by mindlessly politically correct leftists. I have been wary of nobody being able to criticise minorities or women without being silenced by the labels of “racism” and “sexism,” when neither were ever a factor. I have been wary of the deep divide in our society that has prevented us from truly becoming colour-blind. I didn’t want to see someone who didn’t know what they were doing catapulted into the white house simply in the name of political correctness.

 

However, Barack Obama has proven that wrong. As the primaries wore on and he never once brought race into the election, I gained great respect for him. He has proven time and time again that he isn’t going to bring race into this. I applaud him for that. Further, his vision for America is the best we’ve had in the past eight years.

I never supported McCain, but as the race has gone on, his blatant lies about Obama, ad hominem attacks ad infinitum, his policies, his poor oration, his constant use of the POW card, his insinuations, his VP pick, his temperament, and everything else about him have done nothing but feed into my support for Obama.

 

I am not a fervent Obama supporter by any means, I disagree with a number of his beliefs, but I feel he can have a positive impact on this country and help turn around years of denigration. He can restore our respect on the world stage and improve our relations in the world, and I think Obama is the way to go.

Leave a Response »

 

Destination Procrastination Monday, Sep 22 2008

“Positive Social Change We Can Believe In, Because Quality Matters.”What change? All he keeps saying is change, yet he continues to prove every day he’s nothing but a typical politician. Obama won’t change anything except the size of your bank account. And Biden thinks if you don’t want to pay more taxes you’re just not patriotic. How can you people vote for these two???

Obviously this person didn’t watch the DNC (as I showed, the change was laid out for any bimbo), and is just a typical ignorant naysayer. Is this the best the republicans have? Instead of saying “What Change?” because you think it sounds clever, why not say what you feel the problem with Obama’s platform is, that is, if you even know what he stands for beyond what John McCain says he does. I’m wary of these platitudes, why can’t people just debate properly? Saying Obama will only make one poorer (which, in terms of real income, has happened under the bush administration) is a baseless assertion, amongst other things. Just shut up, everyone.

That’s what I feel, I couldn’t be bothered to log in and reply to said bimbo as I’ve got work to do.

Peace.

Leave a Response »

 

The Kite Runner Saturday, Sep 13 2008

I just finished The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini a few minutes ago. I’m at a loss for words to describe it. It was extremely powerful, and not at all what I’d expected. Not at all. I thought it would be just a silly novel, the title betrays how deep it goes. It spoke so much to me, put so much into perspective, and really struck a cord hard and strong.

I don’t wish to ramble, so I’ll stop myself here. Please read the book if you haven’t already.

Leave a Response »