Good Point about the shoe throwing

On Coach John Thompson's (Georgetown,retired) radio show he spoke of this. Saying that we shouldn't be surprised that this despicable act happened since in our own country many people don't just disagree with the President, they disrespect him and the office. He went to say all Americans should be disgusted by this. You may disagree with the man, but don't disrespect the office for us " it is a sacred position".

Not even Nostradamus

Not even Nostradamus could have foreseen the breath and depth, but this is a good qustion

But this is the most important one: "Mr. Geithner, the job of the New York Fed is to -- now I am quoting its own web site -- 'supervise and regulate financial institutions in the Second District [Wall Street]. Its primary objective is to maintain safe and competitive U.S. and global banking systems.' You have been in your current post since 2003 and during that time the U.S. financial system has come close to complete disintegration. Why do you deserve a promotion?"
James Pethokoukis


http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/11/26/timothy-geithner-obamas-teflon-treasury-secretary.html

Déjà vu: Jimmy Carter

Former US President Jimmy Carter has said the crisis in Zimbabwe is "far worse" than he had imagined According to the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7746229.stm

Didn't he have the same reaction when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan?

Will he ever learn: You can trust communist to act like communist and thugs to act like thugs.

Check Barney Frank's Car Loans

Has someone checked Barney Franks car loans? Frank: $25 billion from bailout should go to carmakers. What rate did Chris Dodd get?

The President of us All

Barack Obama will be the President of us all. We should all wish him well

I hope my apprehension and fear prove false. I am completely aware that elections have consequences and to demonize for the sake of political gain, as has gone on in the last eight years to great effect, is wrong. Just as true criticism is not divisive but in fact patriotic

Why Fear an Obama Election Part B:

1. Union check-off elections. To “stop” employer intimidation in a secret ballot vote, monitored by government workers The Obama/ Democrats will now allow the vote on a post card, handed out by Union workers, collected by union workers, and handed in by union workers. Does this even pass the smell test?

2. Increase in Capital Gains Tax. The first effect of this will come as many long held family or closely held businesses sell out to avoid the increase. Then the simple economic formula of “capital creates jobs” will kick in... When there is less capital to invest there will be less jobs created. SPECIAL NOTE: Watch for the “bump” in capital gains tax revenue increase to be used as evidence that the increase in the rate won’t hurt. HMMM… but the increase will come on the old rate to get it in before the new rate kicks in.

3. Social Security turns into welfare: The “deal” on Social Security was between generations. You pay in for your grandfather and your grandchildren pay in for you. It was not meant to be a redistribution plan. All were in and all got a benefit. Over the years this lessened some as demographics changed and COLAs were introduced. Now Obama/Democrats want the “rich” to put more into now and get less later and not only that but also give a tax credit to low income workers for their social security contribution. BTW these low income workers pay no income tax now.

4. Cutting Taxes for 95% currently almost 40% pay no income tax now because of tax credits, the standard deduction/exemptions and the Earned-Income Tax Credit, basically a reverse tax that pays people in low income groups. Obama/democrats want to up this level to about 50%. So essential 50% of people who work will pay NO INCOME TAX AT ALL and in most cases actually get money from the government. Talk about class warfare!

5. Healthcare, Fairness Doctrine, Revenge on Bush.........All things the Obama Election will bring. It is a checklist. Print it out and check back in four years

Why to fear an Obama victory: Part A: National Security

Why to fear an Obama victory

Part A: National Security

1. Will neuter American power and influence, to fit in with the UN view of how America should act in the world. We will no longer be “THE” nation at the table, but just one of many sitting at the table.
2. Will be much more accommodating and conciliatory to nations such as Iran, Syria, North Korea and Venezuela, as if, it is our current policies that “force” them to behave as they now do.
3. Will diminish the value of our military, so all we will end up doing in times of crisis is “talking loudly” instead of being able and willing to back it up with a “big stick”
4. Will force our allies to take actions that they otherwise would not, because they won’t be able to trust that we will stand by them. Ukraine, George and other former soviet dominated countries will seek accommodation with a resurgent Russia rather than standing on principle or protecting their own sovereignty. Worst of all Israel will be forced to deal with Iran on their own with all the dire consequences that will bring.
5. How will Japan, Columbia, South Korea, Taiwan, the countries of Eastern Europe as well as the Gulf States react to the “New” America. ?
6. Trade Agreements? There won’t even be a need for a Trade Representative.

Before You Vote: Lesson 2

Dollars and Sense
By Duncan Currie Friday, October 17, 2008

http://american.com/archive/2008/october-10-08/dollars-and-sense

What would the McCain and Obama tax plans mean for the capital stock, economic growth, and effective marginal rates?

Earlier this week, John McCain proposed temporarily slashing the capital gains tax rate from 15 percent to 7.5 percent for 2009 and 2010. Barack Obama supports raising the capital gains rate to 20 percent for individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and couples earning more than $250,000.

This is a bigger issue than many people realize. As UCLA economist Lee Ohanian points out, the U.S. capital stock is extremely sensitive to changes in capital income taxation. Before McCain called for a temporary reduction in the capital gains rate to 7.5 percent, Ohanian calculated what the McCain and Obama tax plans would mean for the capital stock. He did so when McCain was backing a 15 percent rate (the status quo). Ohanian estimated that in the long term, America’s capital stock would be “about 18 percent lower” under the Obama plan than it would be under the McCain plan. (Again, this was before McCain endorsed a temporary rate cut to 7.5 percent.)
“Taxing capital is not a good idea for anybody,” Ohanian told me. Indeed, a higher capital gains tax rate eventually translates into lower wages for the average worker. Over time, Ohanian says, the Obama plan “would reduce growth of wages and growth of GDP.”

In terms of individual income tax rates, Obama advocates lifting the highest rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent and boosting the second highest rate from 33 percent to 36 percent. If such a tax hike were implemented, both the number of hours worked by top earners (many of them business owners) and the number of jobs created by those earners “would go down, perhaps considerably,” says Ohanian, citing evidence from Western Europe.

Obama frequently assures voters that he would only increase taxes on families and businesses with annual incomes above $250,000. But what would his tax plan mean for effective marginal tax rates? According to a report by the Tax Foundation, “Most low- and moderate-income couples would see their effective marginal tax rates rise, in some cases, significantly.” While the Obama plan “lowers taxes for the bottom four quintiles, marginal tax rates would fall only for the very lowest-income couples.”

Over time, says UCLA economist Lee Ohanian, the Obama plan ‘would reduce growth of wages and growth of GDP.’ How is that? As the author of the study, Tax Foundation vice president and former Bush economic adviser Robert Carroll, explains, statutory tax rates and effective marginal tax rates are not the same thing. The effective marginal tax rate that households pay “is the amount that they pay in tax on their last dollar of income.”
McCain wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, and he also hopes to introduce a new health insurance tax credit ($2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families). “His proposal to replace the exclusion for employer-based health insurance with a new health tax credit boosts taxpayers’ taxable incomes by their health insurance premiums,” says the Tax Foundation study, “which generally pushes taxpayers into higher tax brackets, but not to as great an extent as Senator Obama’s tax plan.”

On Social Security payroll taxes, Obama’s intentions remain uncertain. His campaign “has indicated that Social Security taxes might rise by 2 to 4 percent for taxpayers with earnings above $250,000.” If the Obama tax plan were implemented along with a 4 percent hike in Social Security taxes, the effective marginal tax rate for high-income earners could swell to 47.2 percent, according to the Tax Foundation.

Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center economist Jeffrey Rohaly and researcher Katherine Lim have conducted their own analysis of what the McCain and Obama tax plans would mean for effective marginal tax rates. “In 2009,” they conclude, “Senator Obama’s plan would reduce the effective marginal tax rate for far more households than would the McCain plan. This is true both overall, and for all income classes.”

But whose plan would produce lower rates? “Overall, the Obama plan would leave average effective marginal tax rates virtually unchanged at 24 percent whereas the McCain plan would lower the average EMTR to 23 percent.” The Obama plan “would reduce average EMTRs dramatically” for households with annual cash incomes of less than $10,000 (in 2008 dollars) but increase average EMTRs markedly for households with annual cash incomes above $1 million. The McCain plan would not affect average EMTRs for either of these groups.
“The impact of the two plans on taxpayers in the middle would be more complicated,” Rohaly and Lim report. “On average, McCain’s plan would tend to lower effective marginal rates more than the Obama plan. McCain’s proposal does not contain the numerous phaseouts that the Obama plan uses to limit the benefits of tax credits to households with lower or moderate incomes. Nonetheless, the Obama plan would lower average EMTRs for those in the $50,000-$200,000 income class relative to current law.”

More specifically, Rohaly and Lim reckon that in 2009, households in the $30,000-$40,000 income class would pay an average EMTR of 16.8 percent under the McCain plan and 19 percent under the Obama plan. Households in the $50,000-$75,000 income class would pay an average EMTR of 18.6 percent under the McCain plan and 19.9 percent under the Obama plan. Households in the $100,000-$200,000 income class would pay an average EMTR of 25.1 percent under the McCain plan and 26 percent under the Obama plan.

What about corporate income taxes? McCain has suggested reducing the federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, a former Bush economic adviser, argues that this “is perhaps the best simple recipe for promoting long-run growth in American living standards.” As economist Zachary Karabell, president of River Twice Research, observes, it is precisely because the United States has such high corporate taxes relative to countries in Europe and Asia that “even U.S.-listed companies that operate globally keep their profits outside the U.S., and thereby avoid those high taxes altogether.” A recent National Bureau of Economic Research paper coauthored by economists at the World Bank and Harvard notes that higher corporate taxes “have a large and significant adverse effect on corporate investment and entrepreneurship” and “are also associated with a larger size of the informal sector, greater reliance on debt as opposed to equity finance, and slower economic growth.”
As for who shoulders the burden of corporate taxes, a 2006 study by Congressional Budget Office economist William Randolph found that “when capital is perfectly mobile and the tax does not affect the world prices of traded goods, domestic labor bears slightly more than 70 percent of the long-run burden of the corporate income tax.”

On capital gains taxes, effective marginal tax rates, and corporate taxes, the McCain campaign has a good case to make. But the Arizona senator has not made that case successfully. Indeed, less than three weeks before Election Day, McCain has yet to find his voice on the economy. That’s just one reason why his presidential bid is facing such long odds.

Duncan Currie is managing editor of THE AMERICAN.

Before You Vote: Lesson 1

Obama Wants Social Security to Be a Welfare Plan
His tax credit amounts to a radical change in the system.
By ANDREW G. BIGGS
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122480907545265123.html?mod=todays_us_opinion


Imagine this: Barack Obama proposes a Social Security payroll tax cut for low earners. Workers earning up to $8,000 per year would receive back the full 6.2% employee share of the 12.4% total payroll tax, up to $500 per year. Workers earning over $8,000 would receive $500 each, with this credit phasing out for individuals earning between $75,000 and $85,000.

This tax cut would make an already progressive Social Security program even more redistributive. Under current law, a very low earner receives an inflation-adjusted return on his Social Security taxes of around 4%. That's a good return, given that government bonds are projected to return less than 3% above inflation. A high-earning worker, on the other hand, receives only around a 1.5% rate of return. Under Sen. Obama's proposal, returns for very low earners would rise to around 6% above inflation -- about the same return as on stocks, except with none of the risk. Compounded over a lifetime's contributions, the difference in the "deal" offered to workers of different earnings levels would be extreme.

While Social Security has always been progressive, many would say this plan goes too far and risks turning Social Security into a "welfare program." Low earners receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes -- meaning their "net tax" is already negative -- and Mr. Obama's plan would increase net subsidies from the program.

Moreover, this payroll tax cut plan would reduce Social Security's tax revenues by around $710 billion over the next 10 years. If made permanent, the Obama tax cut would increase Social Security's long-term deficit by almost 60% and push the program into insolvency in 2034, versus 2041 under current projections.

To fill the hole in Social Security's finances, Mr. Obama would increase income taxes on high earners and pour that money into Social Security. This would be the first time that income tax revenues have been used to finance Social Security, which has always relied on its own dedicated payroll tax to differentiate itself from other government programs. Filling the gap with higher taxes on high earners would further increase Social Security's progressivity, pushing it closer toward a welfare-program approach.

Now, you haven't heard Mr. Obama describe anything like this plan. If you had, it's likely you wouldn't support it. But it's almost exactly what his headline "tax cut" would do. The Obama campaign took the idea described above and made it much more complicated.
Under the plan, which he claims would cut taxes for 95% of Americans, provides an income tax credit worth 6.2% of earnings up to $8,000, for a maximum credit of $500 per worker or $1,000 per couple. The 6.2% figure is important, because it matches the employee share of the Social Security payroll tax. Because around a third of Americans currently pay no income taxes -- a fraction that would rise to almost half under Mr. Obama's plan, according to the Tax Policy Center -- Mr. Obama's tax credits would be refundable, meaning you could collect the credit even if you paid no income taxes.

While Mr. Obama calls his plan "Making Work Pay," under standard economic assumptions his plan would actually discourage work for anyone earning over $8,000 per year. The tax credit itself would increase workers' take-home pay, an "income effect" that reduces incentives to work. Moreover, for workers in the $75,000 to $85,000 income range, where the tax credit is phased out at five cents for each dollar of additional income, this would add five percentage points to their marginal tax rate.

So Mr. Obama has in essence proposed cutting Social Security taxes for low earners, which would shift the system toward a "welfare" approach and sharply increase its long-term deficit. To fill the funding gap, he will raise taxes on high earners and funnel the money into Social Security, making the system even more progressive and breaking a long tradition against funding Social Security with income taxes.

The complex way in which Mr. Obama structures and describes his plan would make it harder to administer than a straight payroll tax cut. But it is also more difficult for the typical American to understand. This may explain why he chose complexity over clarity.

Mr. Biggs is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. He blogs on Social Security policy at www.andrewgbiggs.blogspot.com.

Adelman, Noonan, Powell, McClellan, etc

With Adelman, Noonan, Powell, McClellan, etc, conservatives hard, soft and wet(or not at all) all looking with rose colored glasses at Obama. I can't help to think that all have had major criticism from or for their friends/colleagues on the right before this, and maybe the simple answer is not "race" or "excitement" or "temperament" but PAYBACK and as the saying goes Payback is a Bitch.

God help us all!

"I feel like we got a righteous wind at our backs here." Sen Obama

Need some help with codes

I need some help with code words. I was just told that saying any of the following about Sen Obama were code words for racist attacks.

Who is Barack Obama?
( How do we know how an inexperienced, less then one term Senator will act in office, he has adjusted positions at each stage of this race, who is the "Real" Obama)

Pals around with terrorists.
(Had his first political fund raiser in the living room of an admitted terrorist. Then worked with him on an education project that he called significant as a qualification when he was running for Congress)

His policies are socialist
("I want to Spread the wealth around"-Sen Obama)

He doesn't view our country like you and I do.
(See all the above)

Too risky for America
(see all of the above)

What can I say about Obama and not be called a racist?

MUST READ: Obama and the Tax Tipping Point

This is where we are headed:

"In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million -- 40% -- paid no income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute), this will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama's cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What's more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes -- less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually."---ADAM LERRICK

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463231048556587.html?mod=todays_us_opinion

Sad, Funny and True

Obama's Magic Act.

"To kick off our show tonight, Mr. Obama will give 95% of American working
families a tax cut, even though 40% of Americans today don't pay income taxes!
How can our star enact such mathemagic? How can he "cut" zero? Abracadabra! It's
called a "refundable tax credit." It involves the federal government taking
money from those who do pay taxes, and writing checks to those who don't. Yes,
yes, in the real world this is known as "welfare," but please try not to ruin
the show."-----Kimberley Stassel

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122360618747721991.html

A Steward for Our Future

We face an election in unprecedented times. Engaged in two wars, a serious global economic disruption and the ascendancy of world powers who neither share our values or faith in the rule of law. Our choices in the election are presented as: A new face, who offers “Hope” not weighed down by the mistakes of the past, “change we can believe in”. Or: A time tested warrior, his own man, a “maverick” who will put “country first.” This is how each side presents their candidate.

The circumstances of our situation will dictate their course in office as well as the assertiveness of Congress, not their political promises made on the campaign trail. The real question all voters should ask is who is the best steward of our future. Who will lead us back to prosperity, protect our interest abroad, restore confidence and trust at home and make decisions in good faith. It is Experience vs. Hope.

In another time hope might be the answer. When things were calm, challenges diminishing and a Congress with an effective minority to dampen the partisan excesses of the majority. This is not that time. Our time calls for the hand of experience. For a tested leader with accomplishment, who will stand for the right versus the political pandering, who will bring a proven record of cross party initiatives, who has seen the world’s goodness and faced its evil.

John McCain is that hand of experience. Barack Obama, although articulate and well meaning has no substantial accomplishments or an effective stand on principle at any level to even give his idea of hope a serious look.

Does anyone really believe we can raise taxes in a recession? Change the basic delivery system of healthcare with vast new spending? Can we afford to “Europeanize” our forgien policy by negotiating and accommodating? Will a President Obama be able to stand up to a dominate Democratic majority in Congress? Would he even want to?

A presidency of John McCain with no major initiatives other than doing what needs to be done to bring back prosperity, protect our interest and restore confidence and trust, would be far superior to one of Barrack Obama leading America down a disastrous road.