Obama’s dangerous economic plans for America

[drunken monkey]

and that is the sort of post/link that is useful, instead of posting clippings from obviously biased articles/blogs.


I have just been reminded of one thing though and that is the oft quoted

Originally Posted by from link

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

I have never come across a questionaire that only require a yes/no/maybe tick to represent my opinion correctly and my gut instinct in this case is that it is true in this case. Marketing people (and that covers marketing of all areas) use questionaires because it gives the illusion of a choice in the answers.

When it comes to something like gun control in the US, an issue that does not and will not have one for all, blanket resolution, there is no yes or no answer.

Incidentally, how much detailed info does the regular citizen have access to regarding bills and whatnot? In the UK, we have access to all government white papers (as well as others that are released for public consultation) that details all policies from our local council offices (if you so wish to see them). I guess my real question is, how easy is it for you make a real informed opinion?

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

Incidentally, that table also shows that 60% of people pay less tax under Obama's policies compared to McCains and that only the top 1% (more than $600,000 salaries) pay more tax.

No matter how the argument is parsed that is commonly referred to as socialism and redistribution of wealth. Even the New York Times newspaper criticized his plan as it relates to small businesses and the owners that file as sole proprietors making over $250K net per year which could be 33% of the small businesses in the U.S.

Here is a simple analogy of socialism and redistribution of wealth.

100 kids want candy for Halloween.

40 kids decide they don't like to dress up and would rather just sit and wait on the porch.

55 kids put on their costumes and gather candy from around the block.

5 kids, with a little more energy and work ethic, decide to walk the whole neighborhood, even though it might take a little longer. Then they decide they don't want to share their candy and they store their candy outside of town (overseas) to get it later, say after the next election.

Meanwhile, back on the porch, 100 kids share the little bit of candy that the 55 kids collected.

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

It also doesn't take into account capital gains tax and (do you have) inheritance tax?

Right now, my mum's biggest concern is what's going to happen to our assets when she kicks it.

The issue of capital gains taxes and inheritance tax is vague from both candidates. Some Americans believe the inheritance tax was repealed a few years ago but that is not true.

CAPITAL GAINS
On raising capital gains taxes, Obama has mentioned raising capital gains taxes, maybe as high as 28% but with an exclusion that would not apply to homes sold. As part of Obama's "Tax Fairness for the Middle Class" plan I recall there was an interview around March 2008 with CNBC where he stated he favored raising capital gains taxes from 15% to 20% but no higher than 28%.

Both candidates favor exempting the first $250,000 of gains from the sale of a primary residence ($500,000 for a married couple on a joint return).

INHERITANCE TAX

Here is the candidates position according to the Chicago Sun-Times. McCain would try to lower the inheritance tax while Obama would raise it on estates more than $3.5 million.

[drunken monkey]

I got sent an explanation of taxes a while back that is also very good reading.

Originally Posted by random e-mail from a mate

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay
nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20.' Drinks for the ten now cost
just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everyone's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid
nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay £5 instead of £7
(28%savings).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a pound out of the £20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got £10!'

'Yes, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a pound, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I did'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get £10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison.
'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill.

[-Davo]

Originally Posted by Maximus84

CHECK AGAIN!->> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/obamas_gloomy_biggovernment_vi.html On Gun Laws,etc->CHECK THESE LINKS OUT-> http://www.morebans.org/obama.html and http://www.gunlawnews.org/Senators/Barack-Obama.html ---Income Redistribution: Barack decides who pays
Why would the Party that has been relentlessly denouncing the Bush tax cuts turn around and give anyone another tax cut? Barack Obama’s “Making Work Pay” tax program would purportedly give 95 percent of Americans a tax cut—including 44 percent who would owe no federal income taxes. What seems a discrepancy, however, is really downright deception. Far from being a tax cut, Obama’s plan would actually give an income tax credit of up to $500 to folks who pay no income taxes. Rather it is based on what they pay into Social Security. As columnist William McGurn points out in The Wall Street Journal, this is not income tax relief but payroll tax relief. Of course, the relief wouldn’t come from the Social Security fund, as touching the Third Rail would be political suicide. Instead, it would come from “general revenues” —i.e., the taxes of those who actually do pay federal income taxes.
McGurn quips, “With one touch of the Obama magic, what otherwise would be described as taking money from Peter to pay Paul is now transformed into Paul’s tax relief: Where a tax cut for payroll taxes paid will not in fact come from payroll taxes. And where all these plans come together under the rhetorical umbrella of ‘Making Work Pay’.” Not only that, but it would also fundamentally change Social Security from an earned benefit, distributed based on an individual’s “contributions” into the system, into a welfare program, granted for not contributing. Propping it all up would be the confiscated dollars of wealthier taxpayers.
This week’s ‘Alpha Jackass’ award-

“Yes, I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money.” —Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)

You would rather see a dead child than your precious gun get a fucking child lock?

[Maximus84]

Originally Posted by -Davo

You would rather see a dead child than your precious gun get a fucking child lock?

Thats it? Thats all you think the whole 2nd Amendment rights issue is about? Gun locks? You think its better that no one has a firearm,but the people who dont give a crap about laws,or have a 2nd thought about home invasion,robbing your house,assaulting your family,carjacking you,holding up convenience stores,etc.You dont think 99.9% of Americans who own guns are responsible people who hunt,go to gun ranges with their freinds,are law abiding citizens who have some idea what gun safety is? ....By the way,whats a "fucking chid lock",& why would you be locking your child up?

[Maximus84]

The stakes have never been higher for the future of the country.
We either patriotically turn the country over to a man who has proudly served his nation in war time and peace — or we face electing a man who has a checkered past, a man who has counted domestic terrorists among his friends, and a man who spent 15 years in a church where his pastor regularly damned and condemned the United States.
Barack Obama is not simply a risky choice as our next president — He is a dangerous one.
The latest reports show Obama outspending McCain by 3-to-1 in key states.
Millions of dubious new voters with the help of groups like ACORN are being registered to put the most extreme liberal in the history of the presidency in the White House.
Obama has been trying to fool people and remake himself as a moderate to win over lower-income, white, Democratic and independent voters.
He wants to hide the facts about his record. He is the most extreme liberal ever to be nominated by a major party.
We all know his 100 percent liberal rating in Congress, his support for the TOTAL gun ban in Washington, D.C., his opposition to protecting babies born alive, and his support for tax increases.
But there is one issue almost all Americans agree on: Illegal aliens should not be given driver’s licenses.
Did you know that Mohamed Atta, the 9/11 ring leader, had a valid Florida driver’s license?
Did you know 13 of the 19 hijackers had obtained valid driver’s licenses? Armed with these licenses, eight of the hijackers even registered to vote!
Here is the shocking fact: Obama strongly supports giving illegal aliens in America driver’s licenses.
He said as much during two Democratic debates earlier this year.

The head of Homeland Security said such thinking was dangerous for national security.

Even Hillary Clinton backed away from Obama’s radical driver’s license plan.
Obama’s position is not a new one: We discovered that Obama has been a major proponent of driver’s licenses for illegals since his days as an Illinois state senator.
We have no doubt that, as president, Obama will also champion this radical plan.
With Osama bin Laden still at large, with al-Qaida promising “spectacular” attacks on the U.S homeland, with the threat of them using weapons of mass destruction against our cities — biological, chemical, and nuclear — can we risk putting such a man in the Oval Office?
Doesn’t he remember what happened on 9/11? More than 3,000 Americans were murdered.

Doesn’t he want to prevent that from ever happening again?
If he supports driver’s licenses for illegals, the answer is clear.

[jon@af]

Originally Posted by Maximus84

Never before in the history of our nation have we faced such a grave crisis: one of the most radical political figures ever to be nominated by a major party is just minutes away from becoming President of the United States.
That man is Barack Obama.

He promises to change America forever. If elected, he will do just that — but in ways you may not like.
Remember Obama is the most liberal member of the United States Senate.
He received a 100 percent Liberal Rating from the National Journal, making him the most left-wing Senator in Washington — more liberal than even Democratic senators like Ted Kennedy.
If you look at Obama’s record, you will understand just how dangerous this man is.
He even has terrorist friends he won’t denounce. One such man is William Ayers, a leader in the radical terrorist group the Weatherman Underground. The group bombed several government buildings, including the Pentagon, killing civilians and police officers.
In 2001, Ayers said he had no regrets for his actions and wished he could have done more.
The ties between Obama and Ayers are tight. Both served on two non profit boards and they worked closely together. Ayers even hosted a political event at his home for Obama.
Obama has acknowledged he is a friend of Ayers and defends his association by saying he, Obama, was only 8 years old at the time of the Pentagon bombing.
However, Obama has no explanation as to why he is still a friend of Ayers.
Obama has even been endorsed by radicals such as Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan.
No one can deny hearing about Obama’s relationship with the America-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
There should be little doubt that William Ayers and Louis Farrakhan and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright are rooting for Obama — because he is one of them.
In keeping with such friends, Obama has promised to meet with radical leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without “preconditions” even though Ahmadinejad has promised to “wipe Israel off the map” and “destroy” America.
Even radical Hamas terrorists have praised him.
“We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election,” Ahmed Yousef, senior Hamas leader was quoted by ABC radio as saying.

Below is an explanation of where the above quote has orignated from. We very much appreciate credit where it is due here. Especially when it is not due to you.

http://blogs.jsonline.com/raisingkan...and-dirty.aspx

[Maximus84]

DON'T ATTACK EACH OTHER
Attack the message, not the messenger. Criticize ideas, not the person. Don't attack others. Personal attacks and flaming on others will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully ... without insult and personal attack. No violent, discriminatory language or personal attacks are allowed. Personal attacks are defined as personal, racial, ethnic and or gender based insults, slurs or derisive comments. We reserve the right to edit and remove any inappropriate posts.
Politics, Philosophy (Religion), and Stress Release subsections:
These sections are, like in life, heavily debated and some are quite passionate in their views, beliefs, agendas and debates. Still, here in AF, please note that all topics within these sections should be rational and should not be a basis to start any argument over any issue that will always have two sides to it. As mentioned previously, attack and debate the message, not the messenger. No flaming of members and moderators are allowed

[-Davo]

Originally Posted by Maximus84

Thats it? Thats all you think the whole 2nd Amendment rights issue is about? Gun locks? You think its better that no one has a firearm,but the people who dont give a crap about laws,or have a 2nd thought about home invasion,robbing your house,assaulting your family,carjacking you,holding up convenience stores,etc.You dont think 99.9% of Americans who own guns are responsible people who hunt,go to gun ranges with their freinds,are law abiding citizens who have some idea what gun safety is? ....By the way,whats a "fucking chid lock",& why would you be locking your child up?

I was pointing out the fact that you did not even read your own link, which support my argument that you are motivated through lies and deception.

I had a longer essay, but I decided to just go with a short, sweet attack at your own personal credulity from ignorance.

Here it is.

------------


Finally you have a link to back a claim up, but your other two links are pure crap.

Your second link, http://www.morebans.org/obama.html, is pure propaganda. There is no actual sources for any of those claims. Not only that, but the failed red herring attempt to sway the reader from the actual truth has failed. I laughed at that you actually believe junk like this, you must be a creationist. Oh I went there.

In fact, I will go into depth on the pure failure that is your second link.

"I believe the DC gun ban is Constitutional, and will not be overturned."
--Barack Obama, Constitutional Scholar, 2/2/2008

"I agree with the Supreme Court decison that guns are an individual right." --Barack Obama, Political Pragmatist, 6/30/2008

"This is less of a flip flop and more of an outright contradiction. Why? 70% of independent voters are pro-gun, and without them, Obama can't win. He added a quick "we still have a right to create gun laws" at the end of this statement, to appease the Left. But unlike nearly every other Senator, he did not file in support of the 2nd Amendment." --Kitty Pilgrim, CNN

Fail. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu_LX...eature=related

I stopped reading there, the lies this website spewed was giving me a headache.

Your third link was laughable, do you actually know what the fuck you are arguing!?

Lets see what Obama voted against and for, according to your own source:

Obama voted for:
Trigger locks for child saftley (I assume you would rather see a Child dead than this? Do you even READ the fucking shit!?)
http://www.gunlawnews.org/Senate-Bills/sa1626.html


--------------

I stopped there and decided to go with an ad hominem because I felt it was justified considering I already knew you did even read it. You probably just cut and copied it.

Jswigs point is exactly that of my own, you can't do research for your self, you are spewing filthy fucking propaganda to these forums and you have absolutely no idea of exactly what it is you are copying! This thread is hours away from major lockage. I can feeeel it



I'll tell you what a chid lockis, it is your failed attempt to lie and deceive more, because you are a fucking snake.




FAILED


PURE


FAIL

[Maximus84]

Originally Posted by -Davo

I was pointing out the fact that you did not even read your own link, which support my argument that you are motivated through lies and deception.

I had a longer essay, but I decided to just go with a short, sweet attack at your own personal credulity from ignorance.

Here it is.

------------


Finally you have a link to back a claim up, but your other two links are pure crap.

Your second link, http://www.morebans.org/obama.html, is pure propaganda. There is no actual sources for any of those claims. Not only that, but the failed red herring attempt to sway the reader from the actual truth has failed. I laughed at that you actually believe junk like this, you must be a creationist. Oh I went there.

In fact, I will go into depth on the pure failure that is your second link.


Fail. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu_LX...eature=related

I stopped reading there, the lies this website spewed was giving me a headache.

Your third link was laughable, do you actually know what the fuck you are arguing!?

Lets see what Obama voted against and for, according to your own source:

Obama voted for:
Trigger locks for child saftley (I assume you would rather see a Child dead than this? Do you even READ the fucking shit!?)
http://www.gunlawnews.org/Senate-Bills/sa1626.html

If youre going to say links are "pure crap",then you should find some of your own that arent horseshit

[-Davo]

Originally Posted by Maximus84

If youre going to say links are "pure crap",then you should find some of your own that arent horseshit

See my updated thread, I decided to add just how much of a snake you are.

Also, to address your concern, I AM AUSTRALIAN my main goal was to just show how far from the truth you have swayed in an attempt for readers of this forum to prevent them being MISLED through your religiously motivated LIES and PROPAGANDA.

I do not have political claims of my own, THEREFORE I don't need to back anything up, but I have used your own sources against you which is better than any source I could provide next to making my own claims.

I pointed out the fallacies of your claims, and your lies I am done. Any more, and I predict its too far, this thread will be locked.

[Maximus84]

Originally Posted by -Davo

See my updated thread, I decided to add just how much of a snake you are.

Also, to address your concern, I AM AUSTRALIAN my main goal was to just show how far from the truth you have swayed in an attempt for readers of this forum to prevent them being MISLED through your religiously motivated LIES and PROPAGANDA.

I do not have political claims of my own, THEREFORE I don't need to back anything up, but I have used your own sources against you which is better than any source I could provide next to making my own claims.

I pointed out the fallacies of your claims, and your lies I am done. Any more, and I predict its too far, this thread will be locked.

Youre a real piece of... work,dude. Australian? Who gives a crap! Religiously motivated? What the hell R U talking about? lies and propaganda? What R U talking about? You do not have political views? Why are you even posting & getting involved in American politics in a political forum? Why dont you keep your views of American politics down under where the sun dont shine,Shiela? You havent pointed out anything but your complet lack of charactor,manners,respect for others,& complete lack of knowledge. Back that up! This is just 4 U-> http://www.nationalrepublicantrust.c...ight_nmxn.html -I think you should run,not walk,to get some serious anger management counseling,& get medication for the chemical imbalance in your brain

[03cavPA]

Hey, guys, this is getting all of us nowhere.

Maximus, no one is going to change their mind on the vote based upon a lot of cut and paste stuff.

Those of us who aren't voting for Obama already decided that a while ago. Those who are voting for him would still vote for him even if his mask fell off and he was revealed as some kind of demon on live TV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyvqhdllXgU



It doesn't matter. What does matter is this: this country is focked, no matter who gets the position. Neither one of these guys can fix it. This 2 party system has given us 2 choices, bad and worse. The clowns in that 3-ring circus we call congress are getting more and more comfortable by the day and we're all gonna pay no matter who wins.

I see no need for this sniper fest.

In the words of Rodney King: "can't we all just get along"?

[Maximus84]

Originally Posted by 03cavPA

Hey, guys, this is getting all of us nowhere.

Maximus, no one is going to change their mind on the vote based upon a lot of cut and paste stuff.

Those of us who aren't voting for Obama already decided that a while ago. Those who are voting for him would still vote for him even if his mask fell off and he was revealed as some kind of demon on live TV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyvqhdllXgU



It doesn't matter. What does matter is this: this country is focked, no matter who gets the position. Neither one of these guys can fix it. This 2 party system has given us 2 choices, bad and worse. The clowns in that 3-ring circus we call congress are getting more and more comfortable by the day and we're all gonna pay no matter who wins.

I see no need for this sniper fest.

In the words of Rodney King: "can't we all just get along"?

Just defending,not attacking.And yes,youre 95% correct. Mind boggling,isnt it.You know what voting for the do-nothing nobody from nowhere will get us,even more flocked if you think its bad now! I fear Biden was correct on one point

[J-Ri]

The thing I really dont understand is that barack has not released where he got all his campaign contributions from, or his birth certificate. Of the contributions I have seen, quite a few come out to odd cents... as if a whole dollar amount of another currency was donated. This man may not even be elligible to run for president because he was born outside the US. I know what I've read, and if someone wants sources, you find them, quite honestly I don't have the time. I know most people have already made a decision based on... well... something, probably; obama voters aren't thinkers, so there's no point in giving them something to think about. He's spending $60 million on advertising to reach the media-brainwashed masses, no amount of logic, voting records, or unethical practices will change their "minds". I think we'll be going from a media-run state to a state-run media... of the two, I don't know which is worse.