Obama and the democrats are preparing for a luau on the White House lawn and Capital Hill. The party supplies are being bought. Sen Barack Obama brought the leis from his home in Hawaii. Michelle Obama is getting the hula skirts. Sen. Joe Biden is bringing those fashionable shirts. Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid are coming together to bring the pua'a pig (with lipstick) complete with an apple in her mouth.
There will be lattes and fine wine served. Celebs like Spike Lee, George Clooney, and Sean Penn will arrive in their limos. Ludacris, U2, and Madonna will be the entertainment for the evening. There will be a sign at the door asking entrants to be "patriotic" and pay the one million dollar cover charge. All proceeds will go to Planned Parenthood, ACORN, and the 40% of Americans that don't pay income taxes. It will be the party of the millennium.
The highlight of the night will be a rousing game of middle class limbo. First, the man of the hour, Obama will start. He clears it at the $250,000 mark. To just show how good he is, he goes again and clears it at $200,000. Biden is next. He clears it at $150,000. Surprisingly, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico clears it at $120,000. How low will they go? Will they get to their goal of $42,000? America is on pins and needles and holding onto their wallets while waiting for the results of the contest.
-------------------------------------------------
Over the past couple of weeks, Obama, his running mate, and one of his surrogates, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, have changed the definition of rich from its initial definition that was given at the Saddleback Forum all the way back in August. Are these just innocent slips of the tongue? Maybe. Are they freudian slips? Likely. Is it a carefully orchestrated decline in the definition to foreshadow what is really to come, if Obama is elected to the White House? Very possible.
Let's look at the spending promises of Obama. He wants to overhaul the health care system and provide government health care for those without insurance, noble but very expensive. The plan could conceivably cost billions. If you add the money that will be spent for the bailout and the tax "cuts" and a possible second stimulus package that is currently being to be talked about in Congress, there is no way he is going to be able to decrease the deficit much less balance the budget. Unless the Democrats plan on using the Navy, Coast Guard, and Marines to hunt for the lost pirate treasure of Blackbeard off the coast of North Carolina, I have no idea where they're going to come up with the money for all the new spending that he proposes. There is a huge possibility that these "slips" are in fact closer to what the truth is in respect to the Obama tax plan.
Obama says that he won't lower the starting income for the tax raises. He claims that he will "cut government programs that don't work", but when he is asked to name an example of a program he will cut, he can't name one except military research. However, he can't take too much away from the Pentagon without getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Those two options should be off the table. It seems that his budget will be the same kind of out of control spending that has become commonplace in government especially over the past few years.
The only way it won't be the same is if he breaks his promise and raises taxes on more than just the stated $250,000 for individuals and $200,000 for families. He doesn't exactly have a good track record for honesty. Now, all politicians lie or embelish the truth a little, but all of his flip flops would make the Tazmanian Devil dizzy. His associations with left wing activists and organizations change according to what the media can prove. He backed out of his promise to take campaign financing as soon as he realized he could get more without it. Now, it seems he may be laying the ground work to pull a Clinton.
Pres. Bill Clinton also promised to give tax cuts to the middle class before he got elected in 1992. After Clinton got elected, he told the American people that he looked at the budget with his financial advisors, and he realized that could not just cut the taxes but had to raise them.
Let's, also, look at his senate voting record. Obama has voted to raise taxes on the middle class earlier this year. According to Factcheck.org, Obama voted to let the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 expire. This made the taxes go up for people making just $41,500 for individuals and $83,000 for families. This was not the first time he voted to raise taxes on the middle class.
In June, Obama said that he would raise taxes for the top 5% of wage earners. According to Gerald Prante of taxfoundation.org, the actual bottom of the top 5% is slightly above $150,000 not $250,000. Which definition is Obama going to end up with after November 5th, if he is elected? Will it be $250,000, top 5%, or $42,000?
What will he do once he gets into office? Will he keep his promises that he made to the American people or follow Clinton's lead and raise taxes right when he gets in office? If he follows how he has voted in the past, he will no doubt raise them. If he cares about getting reelected in 2012, he will keep his promise.
Showing posts with label Taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taxes. Show all posts
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
"The Great Depression II" Brought to You by the Letter O
From the same people that brought you this past fall's blockbuster "Financial Crisis", brought to you by the letter D, comes "The Great Depression II", the exciting sequel to the 1929 hit - a thriller that topped the charts for 15 years. Everyone loved "Financial Crisis". The ensemble cast included superstars both young and old: Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, ACORN, and last but not least, a cameo by Barack Obama.
They are joined by George Bush and John McCain as the villains of the movie. Bush and McCain try to foil the success of Fannie and Freddie by putting unneeded regulations on them. Thankfully, our heroes were able to stop those evil doers from putting more regulations on the companies. Since 2001, McCain and Bush started talking about the possible failure of Fannie and Freddie. In 2003, Bush tried to create an agency to regulate government sponsored housing enterprises like Fannie and Freddie. Year after year, our heroes are able to stop those evil regulators.
Bill Clinton, who plays a minor role in "Financial Crisis", claims in a recent interview that the democrats were the ones who fought against the regulation of Fannie and Freddie all of these years.
The heroes were vigilant in their attacks on Bush and McCain. They accused them of being racist and supporting the rich by keeping the poor, who cannot afford the loans, from coming up in the world. They distracted people by focusing on Bush's high spending and "war-mongering ways". They called him financially inept, so how could he have known that Fannie and Freddie were going down?
Everyone remembers how the "The Great Depression" story went. Herbert Hoover and FDR starred in the 1929 blockbuster. Prior to the beginning of the story, Hoover canceled drilling for oil on government lands which took away jobs from people that could have used a job during the upcoming depression. The story started with the stock market crash of October 1929, shortly after Hoover took office. Hoover began by trying to let the crisis solve itself. Much to his dismay, the economy didn't rebound on its own. There was a run on banks. As a result, the banks had no money and collapsed. He finally tried helping the banks out in 1932, but it was three years too late. Then, contrary to normal economic logic, he raised taxes (tariffs, income tax of higher incomes, corporate taxes up 15%, estate tax doubled, and a check tax) during a depression which made us go into an even deeper depression. The tariff hikes made other countries raise tariffs in retaliation. We were buying our own products, but no other country was - at least until WW2. If it wasn't for World War II, and Europe buying military and other necessary supplies for the war effort, the high taxes and big government policies would have kept us in the depression for a long time.
The sequel stars a new, up and coming star named Barack Obama. He plays the role of a Hoover-like character by stopping domestic oil production and raising taxes in a recession, turning it into another depression. The high corporate taxes cause many companies to move out of the US or simply fire employees that they cannot afford to employ anymore, causing unemployment to rise. Many CEO's say that it is just too expensive to do business in the US. People cannot invest in the stock market because they've lost their jobs from the outsourcing and layoffs that the high corporate taxes cause. The US economy will cease to grow as a result of a government growing so big that it chokes national growth. Will it take World War 3 to get us out? You will have to wait until after November 4 to find out the fate of the United States.
They are joined by George Bush and John McCain as the villains of the movie. Bush and McCain try to foil the success of Fannie and Freddie by putting unneeded regulations on them. Thankfully, our heroes were able to stop those evil doers from putting more regulations on the companies. Since 2001, McCain and Bush started talking about the possible failure of Fannie and Freddie. In 2003, Bush tried to create an agency to regulate government sponsored housing enterprises like Fannie and Freddie. Year after year, our heroes are able to stop those evil regulators.
Bill Clinton, who plays a minor role in "Financial Crisis", claims in a recent interview that the democrats were the ones who fought against the regulation of Fannie and Freddie all of these years.
The heroes were vigilant in their attacks on Bush and McCain. They accused them of being racist and supporting the rich by keeping the poor, who cannot afford the loans, from coming up in the world. They distracted people by focusing on Bush's high spending and "war-mongering ways". They called him financially inept, so how could he have known that Fannie and Freddie were going down?
Everyone remembers how the "The Great Depression" story went. Herbert Hoover and FDR starred in the 1929 blockbuster. Prior to the beginning of the story, Hoover canceled drilling for oil on government lands which took away jobs from people that could have used a job during the upcoming depression. The story started with the stock market crash of October 1929, shortly after Hoover took office. Hoover began by trying to let the crisis solve itself. Much to his dismay, the economy didn't rebound on its own. There was a run on banks. As a result, the banks had no money and collapsed. He finally tried helping the banks out in 1932, but it was three years too late. Then, contrary to normal economic logic, he raised taxes (tariffs, income tax of higher incomes, corporate taxes up 15%, estate tax doubled, and a check tax) during a depression which made us go into an even deeper depression. The tariff hikes made other countries raise tariffs in retaliation. We were buying our own products, but no other country was - at least until WW2. If it wasn't for World War II, and Europe buying military and other necessary supplies for the war effort, the high taxes and big government policies would have kept us in the depression for a long time.
The sequel stars a new, up and coming star named Barack Obama. He plays the role of a Hoover-like character by stopping domestic oil production and raising taxes in a recession, turning it into another depression. The high corporate taxes cause many companies to move out of the US or simply fire employees that they cannot afford to employ anymore, causing unemployment to rise. Many CEO's say that it is just too expensive to do business in the US. People cannot invest in the stock market because they've lost their jobs from the outsourcing and layoffs that the high corporate taxes cause. The US economy will cease to grow as a result of a government growing so big that it chokes national growth. Will it take World War 3 to get us out? You will have to wait until after November 4 to find out the fate of the United States.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Obama Invents New Math
This week the economy has come to the full attention of the entire country. With the fall of Fannie and Freddie, the rest of the credit industry of this country came down as if someone took away a card from the bottom of a pyramid of cards. McCain and Obama have been pointing the finger of blame at each other, but neither have come up with anything concrete. McCain has not really come up with anything of importance. At least he's trying. Obama had to get with his team to discuss what he would do for this crisis. After all of the discussion and planning, his big solution was that he needs more time. Apparently, he is voting present again. Maybe this is above his pay grade too.
From both economic plans that the candidates as they have been presented, we will have deficits no matter who we elect. The real question who will be able to trust to control the amount of spending the best.
Palin has had experience in cutting budgets. McCain has already been against the overuse of earmark pork spending. Obama has made campaign promises that, if kept, will put the deficit of into astronomical amounts. He is chastising the Bush administration for increasing the national deficit, but his plans will raise it even more. He wants to add more spending to the federal budget. His health care plan will cost at least about 50-60 billion. Last week, he also pledged at least another 50 billion to fight worldwide poverty. Many believe that the final amount to both will be substantially higher, possibly in the hundreds of billions. Other than getting out of Iraq, he has not proposed any other spending cuts. He still going to fight in Afghanistan. Even though he chastises the Bush administration for the leap in the amount of the deficit, he has not come up with anything that will cut it. So far, it will seem to only increase under his administration. His tax increases to the wealthy isn't going to be enough to cover his ambitious aspirations.
Apparently, he has found out that if he spends more, we will get a surplus. He seems to believe that if you subtract money from the budget, it will actually add money to our budget. My elementary math teachers were wrong all of this time.
I want to go into the topic of the probable spending of hundreds of billions for worldwide poverty. Donating money to the poor is a very noble thing to do, but shouldn't we use that money to take care of our own poor. Recently there have been tent cities or "Hoovervilles", as they were called in the Great Depression, have been popping up accross the nation. From Reno to Seattle to Athens, Ga. they are growing at alarming rates. Many inhabitants of those "cities", whose homes were foreclosed on, have nowhere to go, and the shelters are full. With the amount of growing homeless population and economic insecurity, shouldn't we focus our limited financial resources on our own poor before we focus so much on other countries?
From both economic plans that the candidates as they have been presented, we will have deficits no matter who we elect. The real question who will be able to trust to control the amount of spending the best.
Palin has had experience in cutting budgets. McCain has already been against the overuse of earmark pork spending. Obama has made campaign promises that, if kept, will put the deficit of into astronomical amounts. He is chastising the Bush administration for increasing the national deficit, but his plans will raise it even more. He wants to add more spending to the federal budget. His health care plan will cost at least about 50-60 billion. Last week, he also pledged at least another 50 billion to fight worldwide poverty. Many believe that the final amount to both will be substantially higher, possibly in the hundreds of billions. Other than getting out of Iraq, he has not proposed any other spending cuts. He still going to fight in Afghanistan. Even though he chastises the Bush administration for the leap in the amount of the deficit, he has not come up with anything that will cut it. So far, it will seem to only increase under his administration. His tax increases to the wealthy isn't going to be enough to cover his ambitious aspirations.
Apparently, he has found out that if he spends more, we will get a surplus. He seems to believe that if you subtract money from the budget, it will actually add money to our budget. My elementary math teachers were wrong all of this time.
I want to go into the topic of the probable spending of hundreds of billions for worldwide poverty. Donating money to the poor is a very noble thing to do, but shouldn't we use that money to take care of our own poor. Recently there have been tent cities or "Hoovervilles", as they were called in the Great Depression, have been popping up accross the nation. From Reno to Seattle to Athens, Ga. they are growing at alarming rates. Many inhabitants of those "cities", whose homes were foreclosed on, have nowhere to go, and the shelters are full. With the amount of growing homeless population and economic insecurity, shouldn't we focus our limited financial resources on our own poor before we focus so much on other countries?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
