Now, listen, I’ve voted ‘present’ two or three times in my entire 25-year political career, where there might have been a conflict of interest and I didn’t feel like I should vote… In Congress, we have a red button, a green button and a yellow button, alright. Green means ‘yes,’ red means ‘no,’ and yellow means you’re a chicken shit. And the last thing we need in the White House, in the oval office, behind that big desk, is some chicken who wants to push this yellow button.
Instead of addressing the point made by Boehner, Turner, a wannabee-partisan-hack, discussed the affect these comments had on the “independent” members of the audience. Why aren’t their any objective and honest reporters, even among the amateur press? Instead of complaining about these remarks, why not actually research them? Why not compare Barack Obama’s voting record to John McCain’s? Why not actually do real reporting?
I am not afraid to admit that I agree with Boehner on this. Look at Barack Obama’s Illinois Senate voting history, much of it was in lock-step with his party, pretty much what you would see with spineless backbenchers. Anytime he was faced with something challenging, or he couldn’t make up his mind, he pressed the “Chicken Button”. That is fine when you have no real responsibility, but he is running for the country’s highest office, not for reelection to a “do-nothing” political post. Being President means you have to make bold choices, means you have to stand up and take a stand on an issue, not simply vote “Present”. The next President will be tested and will have to make tough decisions, the same kind faced by Truman, Reagan, Clinton and Bush, and that isn’t something you can simply “call in”…
Boehner hit the nail on the head, Obama hasn’t shown the kind of leadership necessary to be Command-in-Chief, and that is something voters should remember when they go to the polls November 4th. Cast your ballot for a real leader, someone with experience, someone who has taken a stand on important national and international issues, not someone who has made a name for himself pressing the “Chicken Button”…
The Obama campaign has decided to heave out three newspapers from its plane for the final days of its blitz across battleground states — and all three endorsed Sen. John McCain for president!
The NY POST, WASHINGTON TIMES and DALLAS MORNING NEWS have all been told to move out by Sunday to make room for network bigwigs — and possibly for the inclusion of reporters from two black magazines, ESSENCE and JET, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
Despite pleas from top editors of the three newspapers that have covered the campaign for months at extraordinary cost, the Obama campaign says their reporters — and possibly others — will have to vacate their coveted seats so more power players can document the final days of Sen. Barack Obama’s historic campaign to become the first black American president.
Some told the DRUDGE REPORT that the reporters are being ousted to bring on documentary film-makers to record the final days; others expect to see on board more sympathetic members of the media, including the NY TIMES’ Maureen Dowd, who once complained that she was barred from McCain’s Straight Talk Express airplane.
After a week of quiet but desperate behind-the-scenes negotiations, the reporters of the three papers heard last night that they were definitely off for the final swing. They are already planning how to cover the final days by flying commercial or driving from event to event.
Talk about megalomania, he wants to make room for “Documentarians who will produce hagiographies about his historic importance” (Ed Morissey’s words, not mine)? Let’s not forget his presidential seal, the fact that he started hiring a team to help him move into the White House months ago, let’s not forget his speech in Berlin, something that Mark Levin said reminded him of Hitler’s grand speech, or that “magic mystery tour” of his where he tried to hijack US-Iraqi negotiations. Who does this man think he is? Why is it that he must toss those critical to him off the plane? One would think that any responsible political figure would keep some of his critics close by to “keep him honest”, instead of creating this “harem” of partisan reporters.
The media has succeeded in shielding Barack Obama from journalistic scrutiny. It thereby irrevocably destroyed its own reputation and forfeited the trust that generations of others had so carefully acquired.
Instead of providing fair and balanced reporting, they have destroyed their own credibility to promote a man who can’t even live up to his role as a “respected” US Senator, let alone this “Messiah” persona they have projected on to him. This kind of partisanship would have got reporters fired just four years ago, as Dan Rather found out, but their blatant bias has gone unchecked, and what do we see? Wide scale indoctrination of the youth and other ignorant Americans. Hardly anyone, especially not MSNBC and CNN, has bother to mention that the “Obamamercial” was a ratings flop, watched only by the more dedicated “Kool-Aid drinkers”. Remember this, the main stream media has a long history of going against the interests of the country. An anti-American streak that goes all the way back to the Vietnam War.
What we still don’t understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just another day or two, we were ready to surrender! it was the same at the battles of TET. you defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it. But we were elated to notice your media was definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could on the battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won! - General Vo Nguyen Giap, Commander, North Vietnamese Army
Do you actually think they will be watching out for you when Barack Obama actually takes power? Do you think any of them would dare criticize this megalomaniac when he crosses the line? I don’t think so…
UPDATE:Michelle Malkin is now covering this story on her blog. What surprises me is that these three news outlets have invested quiet a bit of money into covering his campaign, and to have them tossed like this just doesn’t make sense. According to Fox News, even John Solomon of the Washington Times said, “I don’t think the explanation (they gave) makes sense to us”. I guess it takes a megalomaniac to understand another megalomaniac…
UPDATE:The Washington Times has already released a story on this. Tom Ramstack writes that this is all in reaction to the news outlet’s endorsement of John McCain for President, but not matter what he does, they will continue doing what they can to report on Barack’s behaviour up until the election. I guess in Obama’s America, it is a “crime” to even hint that he isn’t “The One” others are looking for, that he won’t actually solve everyone’s problems… Someone should remind Peggy Joseph of this…
I have been torn out by some of these “Kool-Aid drinkers” who for some reason believe themselves to be experts in economics since they listened to Obama’s speeches and read a few articles misinformed members in the media. To all those who doubt my expertise in this field, I remind you, I spent four years working on a bachelors in economics at the University of Ottawa, graduating in 2006. Seeing as I am the EDUCATED expert on this subject, especially when compared to the “arm chair economists”, I will spend a little time spreading my knowledge to those with obvious learning disabilities.
Raise the Minimum Wage to $9.50 an Hour by 2011: Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that people who work full time should not live in poverty. Even though the minimum wage will rise to $7.25 an hour by 2009, the minimum wage’s real purchasing power will still be below what it was in 1968. As president, Obama will further raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing – things so many people take for granted.
So what “The One” wants to do is raise a price floor (minimum wage) to help “the middle class”. Now raising minimum wage sounds good, people get more pay, and it is against the law to give someone a lower wage. You see many students jumping on board campaigns promising this, ignoring the wide scale ramifications to the economy, ignoring the damage to businesses which hire these students. Higher wages mean higher costs, costs which affect how the businesses operate. Now for those idiots who don’t understand, and looking at the latest poll numbers there are a lot of you, let’s go through a very simple example…
Wage rate is $6 an hour, and the business in question has only $20 an hour for employees. This means, by the wage rate, this business can hire 3 workers with money left over. Now let’s say the wage rate jumps to $6.50 an hour. This is approaching an equilibrium wage rate, where labour supplied is meeting the demand for it. $19.50 isn’t the $20 demanded by the business, but that is okay, there is still additional funds left over to be reinvested. Now lets say we make the jump to $9.50, the wage rate Obama is demanding by 2011. To keep all three workers, the business would have to spend $28.50 an hour, $8.50 above the their demand, above the price their are willing to meet. What we have now is an excess of labour, meaning one worker will have to be laid off. Not only are jobs being lost, but now two workers are expected to do the work of three.
Congratulations Obama and Biden, you have just enlarged the lower class. What about this Earned Income Tax Credit he talks about? Well for that worker who has just been laid off, that means welfare. For those who don’t understand where this money will come from, I’ll let you in on the big secret… It will come from other people’s wages. The math doesn’t add up, and when Barack figures this out, he will increase taxes on those earning a living. Back to our example, let’s say that tax is $2 off the $9.50 the other two employees are earning. So instead of $6 an hour for the three workers, we now have two workers making $7.50 an hour, doing more work, while the third worker, now unemployed, is living off $4 dollars an hour, not enough to meet his/her basic needs.
Supports Affordable Housing Trust Fund: Obama has supported efforts to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund to develop affordable housing in mixed-income neighborhoods.
and…
Housing: In the Illinois State Senate, Obama championed multiple pieces of legislation to help low-income families find adequate affordable housing.
Sounds good right? You’re wrong… I wrote about this previously in Grove Parc Plaza; A sign of things to come in Barack’s America, discussing one of these affordable housing projects he “championed”, Grove Parc Plaza, a slum which can’t even pass the most basic safety inspections. How did this happen? A price ceiling. Let me explain with another example…
An apartment building is opened up, charging $100 a month for rent. This $100 is broken down like this; $30 for rent, $20 for electricity, $20 for water, $20 for gas, $10 for maintenance. As long as the rent is competitive, the building owner can make a nice profit and, after a while, even open up a new apartment building, expanding housing in his area. Now a price ceiling, a cap on how much he can charge, is okay as long as it isn’t lower than the competitive market rate (where the quantity demanded meets the supply at a given price). Usually. however, it is meant to make housing more affordable for those who can’t afford it, meaning it is below the rent the building manager needs to charge to make a profit, at the very least. Let’s see how that works…
If the price ceiling is $80, well the manager might cut back on costs by letting go of the building’s maintenance worker, choosing to instead hire private repairmen to fix anything that might come up. He is still $10 short, so he will take a hit to the amount he collects for rent, meaning he most likely won’t be able to open up that new apartment complex as soon as he would hope, maybe not at all if he doesn’t believe he can make a fair profit. Now if the price ceiling is dropped lower, well now the manager can’t even afford upkeep, let alone expand housing. It isn’t just him however, other building managers can’t afford to expand housing to meet the rising demand. What does that mean? Well, instead of providing more housing, you actually prevent apartment building owners from expanding it, and those wanting to get into the housing market are scared off because they don’t see an opportunity for profit. What happens to those who do manage to find housing? See for yourself…
The “icing on the cake”, if you paid attention, is that he got campaign contributions from these “slum lords”, like Tony Rezko. Makes you think about his real reasons for supporting affordable housing legislation when he and his friends are the only ones benefiting from it…
Obama’s comprehensive tax plan – I honestly don’t know where to begin on this one, seeing how it makes less and less sense the more I hear it. I can’t see how any of this would add up but let’s start with what his website have to say and go from there…
Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan.
and…
Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.
After reading this I would like to say that I am a little confused. What “webpage Barack” is saying is far different than “campaign trail Barack” has been telling voters. I guess it is important not to let one “Barack” know what the other “Barack” is doing… Hypocrisy at its finest.
In an advertisement put out today by the RNC, we see this message change over, going from $250,000 a year, to $200,000 in a new Obama campaign ad, to $150,000 in a speech given by Joe Biden. As I discussed in my first article on wealth redistribution, we are starting to see a “slippery slope” on their tax cut promises. Now one could argue that this is all a mistake, various missteps on the words used by both Obama and Biden, so let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. Even ignoring this drop in the tax threshold, we have seen that he has tried to raise taxes on even the working class…
I stated this previously, and while the Obama/Biden campaign has denied it, Factcheck.org confirms (grudgingly) that Democratic FY 2009 Budget would raise income taxes on individuals making as little as $41,500, couples making as little as $83,000, which is far from the $250,000 we keep hearing about. This isn’t taking into account the repealing of Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (also known as the Bush Tax Cuts), which will raise return taxes to previous levels. With these tax cuts, we saw Americans of varying levels of incomes move to low tax brackets. For those as low as $6,000 single, $12,000 married, they moved from 15% to 10%, and for those as high as $307,050 move from 38.6-39% move to a 35% tax bracket. Following the repealing of the Bush Tax Cuts, adding the raise in income taxes thanks to the FY 2009 Budget (whatever they may be), I would imagine that we won’t see any of these “credits” he keeps talking about, not with these tax levels.
This claim about Regan era tax revenues, as a percentage of GDP, makes absolutely no sense. With all this spending, including $50 billion to “jump start the economy”, increasing revenue would be the goal, especially if he also plans to pay down the deficit, and that is what you see…
Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
That doesn’t sound like Reagan tax revenue levels, sounds more like increased taxes to drive up revenues to pay for all this new spending. Asking the wealthiest 2% to give back a portion of the tax cuts? Obama the “Indian giver”? As I stated in my previous articles, if he wanted to help the middle class, he wouldn’t be so hostile towards those providing the jobs. Why not preserve all the Bush Tax Cuts? According to The Heritage Foundation, while the budget deficit increased, this was due to increased government spending, not a loss of revenue. Following the 2003 tax cuts, government revenue went up by $47 billion dollars. Why do you want to reduce revenue but increase spending? The goal is to maximize what you bring in while minimizing taxes, allowing for the economy to grow. It’s okay though, he did the math, by taxing those who make $250,000 or over… No wait, it’s $200,000 or over… Huh? You mean it is $150,000 and over now?.. Anyways, like I was saying, by taxing those who he deems “rich”, he can pay to give those making below $41,500 welfare…Before he decides to tax them too…
*****
Now he can talk about “trickle up” economics, which makes no sense (how many people do you know, making less than $41,500, intending to open up multi-billion dollar businesses?), he can discuss how he will create jobs and help the middle class,which I have shown otherwise, he can even brag about his tax plan, which will cause serious damage to the American economy, but I think it is about time many of you who support Barack Obama wake up and realize that he has been taking you for a ride. Simply put, his math doesn’t add up. No matter what he says about “closing loop holes” and “cutting wasteful spending”, it is all rhetoric, especially when he himself requested nearly a billion dollars in earmarks during his short time in the Senate.
If you want to discuss his taxes on businesses, compare those to level under President Bush, I recommend you read Senator Obama’s Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k by Ned Barnett of American Thinker, a man who actually owns his own business. Barnett actually sat down and calculated it all out, check his numbers if you don’t believe me.
If after all this, if after reading my last two posts on wealth distribution, you still don’t believe me, I recommend you put the “Kool-Aid” down since you have had more than enough. He isn’t the “second coming”, he is just another politician, the “used car sales men” type, showing you a “pretty little number” while forgetting to mention that the sticker price isn’t the only cost you will be paying. By the time you add up all these “repairs”, you’re going to find yourself “hoping” you still had enough “change” to take the bus…
His economic plans will bankrupt America, not save it…
UPDATE:Hot Air and ABC News are reporting on this one… In a speech he gave to a crowd in Florida today, Obama said that those against his “spread the wealth” policies are “selfish”. I guess he is going to make sure taxes are high enough so that everyone gets a “piece of the pie” instead of “baking” a bigger economy. This isn’t just bad economic policy, this is blatant stupidity…
UPDATE: More economic news from Barack Obama. In an interview last January, he promised that anyone who builds coal plants will be bankrupted under his carbon tax plan. Bragging to the reporter that America should move away from such technology, killing thousands of jobs in the process. Doesn’t sound like good economics to me… Michelle Malkin has the audio, Hot Air is also has it, but it is also below for those who can’t access the link…
“But I don’t think I’m the single most important member of the House after Nancy Pelosi. There are also a lot of straight white men who are committee chairmen.”
I will be honest, I am new to American politics so I don’t know about how is and isn’t gay in Washington. We do have gay politicians in Canada too you know, I can name a few within the Liberal party, Scott Brison being the first name that comes to mind. With the Liberals planning to elect a new party leader, he might be in the running, and I wouldn’t mind supporting a man who was a member of former Prime Minister Paul Martin’s cabinet. Returning to my point, I don’t know anyone who judges a politician on their sexual orientation, and I can truthfully say I despised Barney Frank well before I knew he was gay. My hate for the man comes from the fact that he is part of the group of Democrats who prevented action from being taken against Fannie-Mae when sub-prime lending was out of control, and then blamed the very Republicans who were trying to stop the mortgage market collapse just a few years ago.
Through this election cycle we have seen the Democrats “play cards” whenever it suits them, and with only a few days to go before the election, I would say it is downright disturbing that no one has called them on it. The worst offender? Barack Obama himself, but it is no surprise, seeing that David Axelrod is his “number two”. Mark Cunningham of the New York Post wrote in September that,
Axelrod specializes in urban politics. He’s run a bunch of mayoral races (usually in cities with lots of blacks), plus contests in true-blue states like Massachusetts and New York.
David Axelrod has been playing this race card against every enemy to a Barack Obama presidency. In January, everyone from the Washington Post to the right-wing bloggers, believed that Bill Clinton, the “First Black President”, was a racist. Don’t ask me why, I really don’t see it in this comment…
Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in ’84 and ’88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here.
Looking back now, Bill was simply comparing one race baiter (Barack Obama) with another (Jesse Jackson). We remember his speeches, saying that Republicans would try to scare voters by reminding them that he was “black”, that “he didn’t look like the other Presidents on the dollar bill”, and that “his name sounds Muslim”. Anyone with half a brain would see that Obama has been using skin colour to hide his obvious faults, but once again, very few are willing to admit it. So what do we see now? The entire Democratic party has now begun following his lead, crying racism every time they are criticized for one thing or another.
Let’s be honest: The fact that some of the poor people are black doesn’t hurt them either, from their standpoint. This is an effort, I believe, to appeal to a kind of anger in people.
Let’s not forget that Frank himself has played the “race card” before, accusing President Bush of “ethnic cleansing” during Hurricane Katrina. I don’t care who is affected by this, black or white, the fact of the matter is sub-prime lending was a bad idea to begin with. I don’t care about what Jimmy Carter was thinking when he signed the Community Reinvestment Act, what he did was force banks to give loans to a certain percentage of people who most likely couldn’t pay them back. That isn’t about reaching down to help the disenfranchised because you don’t want to be seen as a racist (come on Jimmy, admit it, you just don’t want to be seen as “whitey” anymore), this is bad economic policy and a lack of foresight, and look where we are now? Doesn’t matter what you do it seems, Barney Frank and the Congressional Black Caucus will call you and other “enemies” racist, especially Republicans trying to fix their mess…
Why is it that the answer to every question? I mean this isn’t a surprise, this kind of thinking is bred within certain pockets of the black community. Look at Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright even Spike Lee “rooting out racism” by accusing everyone with light coloured skin of being racist. I have had other blogger calling me a racist for critcizing Barack Obama’s tax plan, siting my name as proof of the racist feelings I supposedly hold. Regular Brotha, one of these race baiters, said,
Dude. Your blog name is “Clancop”. One is supposed to take your perspective seriously and with merit?
So now I am a racist because of my name? Every time a politician or any authority figure for that matter discusses how “whites” are the source of racism, they justify this sort of behaviour. I was reading Michelle Malkin’s webpage today and found a story done by OpenMarket.org about comments made by Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree, a long time associate of Al Sharpton. According to Ogletree, that since Obama is “biracial”, “whites” will vote for the “white side” of him, ignoring his “black side”, proving that they are still racist. How does all this talk bring Americans together?
Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them “lazy,” “violent,” responsible for their own troubles… “We still don’t like black people,” said John Clouse, 57, reflecting the sentiments of his pals gathered at a coffee shop in Somerset, Ohio… Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word “violent” strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with “boastful,” 29 percent “complaining,” 13 percent “lazy” and 11 percent “irresponsible.” When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment.
Hot Air covered this story, questioning if it is really race that keeps people voting for Obama, especially when you look at the questioned asked which “determined” this. What about his lack of experience? What about the fact that no one, not even his own supporters, can name any of Barack’s accomplishments? What do we see though? Many in the MSM decided that none of this matters, reporting that it was really because of Obama’s perceived race. Olgetree, as stated previously, is now saying that this isn’t the case, that “whites” will vote for Obama because he actually isn’t black, where is this racism now? This is one of those “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” moments I think…
Like black civil-rights activists of the 1960s, Obama symbolizes the destruction of a social order they see as fundamentally American, which is why terms like “socialism” are used to describe the threat… Conservatives, now and in the past, have turned to “socialism” and “communism” as shorthand to criticize black activists and political figures since the civil-rights era.
Excuse me? Let’s forget that this twerp, this schmuck, was discussing how people at Palin rallies were screaming “Kill him”, something that has been debunked since, this partisan hack ignores that Barack Obama himself openly discussed wealth redistribution on numerous occasions, a tenet of socialist/Marxist thought, and somehow links Republican claims to remarks made by J. Edgar Hoover about Martin Luther King Jr, a registered Republican. What planet are you on? Talk about media spin, I myself need to sit down because of the motion sickness I endured reading his article. I guess Adam Serwer likes to forget that Obama has admitted that his political thoughts originate from the socialist/Marxist rallies and meetings he attended in his youth, something you can find out by reading Dreams From My Father. Reporters like Serwer easily forget that this man wants to “spread the wealth around” through a “Robin Hood” approach to economics, “steal from the rich, give to the poor”. Instead of bothering to use their brains and hold onto the last shred of dignity they have, they follow parrot Obama’s talking points that Republicans are racists…
I applaud the coverage of this story by Uppity Woman. I honestly don’t know how anyone could actually believe this, especially since those who historically represent socialism, are “old white men”, not these Civil Rights era leaders that reporters like Serwer want us to think about. I guess we should simply accept the fact that card carrying Democrats now also carry the “race card” along with their ACLU membership and their photos of them protesting the Vietnam War. It is no surprise Joe Lieberman and other Democrats have thrown their support behind John McCain, especially with these radicals “running the show”.
Honestly, for someone with ties to real racism, like that found in Trinity United, I find it hypocritical that Barack Obama would call anyone a racist, but sure enough, he has been the “Pot calling the kettle black”, he has been the race baiter during this election. Sure enough however, the MSM has been marching lock-step with “The One” over this, calling anyone who dares to criticize Obama a racist. I could site more examples, but I think I have made my point. For anyone still not convinced, I recommend you read Michelle Malkin’s post about this topic, it offers more insight into some of the topics I raised. With only a few days left, I really wonder whether Americans know about this, or even care. In Canada you wouldn’t see this behaviour being tolerated, and seeings as how the Civil Rights Era is very much over, I am dumbstruck by those trying to continue a fight they already won…
Same goes for gay rights Barney Frank. Don’t think “playing that card” will buy you any sympathy once you are brought up on charges for your part in the sub-prime lender fiasco. You should be happy though, I hear they love gay men… In prison… You’ll probably be even more popular than your “straight” Democrats colleagues who will be joining you there very shortly. Equality for all in pinstripes, no matter their ethnic background of sexual orientation…
This is more or less a follow up to my previous article on wealth distribution. I could discuss price floors and price ceilings, discuss what deadweight loss and supply shortages are and, in doing do, explain what is so dangerous about Barack Obama’s plan to raise minimum wages each year of his term, but let’s stick with “neighborliness” as “The One” put it…
…if I am sitting pretty, and you have a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can’t, what’s the big deal for me to say I’m going to pay a little more… that, that, that is neighborliness..
We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle class people… (Anybody making over $250,000) is going to pay more.. You got it, it’s time to be patriotic Kate, time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut…
I don’t see how anyone in their position can argue about it being an issue of “neighborliness” or “patriotism”, especially with their “Robin Hood” economics plan. You can’t tax the rich without hurting the middle class, but we already know that. What I haven’t discussed yet is why they are so obsessed with spending your money, spreading YOUR wealth around, when they wouldn’t do it themselves. You heard me, for two people discussing “spreading the wealth”, they sure seem hypocritical when you look at their record for donations. To be fair, let’s also list John McCain and Sarah Palin to give a little “context” to this discussion…
2006
Republicans Candidates
John McCain – $129,390 (19% of total income)
Sarah Palin – $4,880 (3.8% of total income)
Democratic Candidates
Barack Obama – $60,307 (6.1% of total income)
Joe Biden – $380 (0.15% of total income)
2007
Republican Candidates
John McCain – $210,933 (27.2% of total income)
Sarah Palin – $3,325 (2% of total income)
Democratic Candidates
Barack Obama – $240,370 (5.8% of total income)
Joe Biden – $995 (0.3% of total income)
The amounts might be misleading, so take a look at the percentage of total income. For such a wealty individual, John McCain and his wife Cindy donate a fair chunk of their income to charity. Barack Obama and his wife Michelle, being the pioneers of this new charge towards wealth dsitribution, they sure don’t like “spreading around” their own wealth do they? And what have they spread much of their wealth on? As Michelle Malkin reported the last night, Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s manison.According to Sam Stein at the Huffington Post (of all places), in 2005 and 2006, Obama donated $27,000 to Trinity United Church of Christ, showing support for the “spiritual adviser” he doesn’t seem to know anymore. He also classified $13,107 to the Congressional Black Caucus as a charitable donation… More like a kickback to the bottom feeders for assisting him in defending Franklin Raines and Fannie-Mae to me. Surprisingly, up until 2005, the Obama’s gave only 1% of their income to charity. Didn’t seem to please even the radicals of the Huffington Post…
Obama and his wife have a hard time making ends meet on only $480,000 a year, plus the money they receive from book sales, I heard his wife complain about that, you know paying for piano and dance lessons and everything else for themselves. That must be the reason she doesn’t like this country.
and…
Easy there. Bottom line: 1% out of Obama’s paycheck went to charity. Can you digest that, or is your head going to explode first?
Looking at Joe Biden’s “unpatriotic” donations I think is proof positive of his own hypocrisy. The simplest form of wealth redistribution is charitable donations, so why is Biden demanding other Americans to pay more when he himself isn’t willing to do the same? Once again, this comes down to the fact that he and Barack Obama would rather spend everyone else’s money then their own. Why haven’t we heard about this now with all this talk about wealth redistribution? Why aren’t we hearing about all these suspicious donations to his campaign for that matter?
Charity starts at home Barack Obama, why don’t you even help out your own family?. If you really cared, you and your running mate would donate more of your own money. Don’t tax the wealthy through your “Robin Hood” economics plan, those like McCain already give enough…
UPDATE:Flopping Aces is now covering the credit card deception, something that was also mention by other sources, such as the Washington Post. Why isn’t anyone in the MSM reporting on this? The story is making its way through the blogosphere, but I doubt even the recently defiant CNN and ABC would put it in their nightly news casts…
“So let me get this straight. Millionaire Obama doesn’t use his wealth to help his poor illegal alien Aunt get out of public housing, but if I complain about Obama wanting to raise my taxes to ’spread the wealth around’ I’m the selfish one?”
That’s right tony4951, we are the selfish ones because “The One” is the “second coming”, or so I keep hearing. This reminds me once again of Peggy Joseph, the woman who can’t see what is wrong with the “Obama Picture”…
