[Merris]

The simple fact is that Obama's tax plan will increase the unemployment rate. That's not good! More unemployed people=less goods and serveces purchased=more jobs lost. You should get the picture.
I have no idea how we will ever pay off the national debt, but Obama's way will just dig this hole deeper.

Gal--- I understand your points and I do understand your apprehension. I don't think that anyone believes taxing people to death is going to solve everything. I'm certainly not for this long term. But I do think we are so off track right now we have to do something for the short term and becoming anymore indebted to China is just downright dangerous for us. I know that Obama doesn't believe endless taxation is the answer and any liberal I talk to doesn't believe it either. I think the issue right now is getting back on track. John McCain wants a spending freeze on domestic spending (which is a tiny amount compared to war spending) and he cares about only one segment of the population. Veterans. That means people like you and me and our kids have to give up things like national park maintenance and protecting endangered species and help with education (even though America has never needed more skilled workers to compete in the global economy as it does now) It means infants born into poverty dying. It means doing NOTHING about the fact that the U.S. has the one of the highest infant mortality rates for an industrialized nation (so much for having the best healthcare system in the world). On the flipside we have Obama who wants to start thinking about ending a war that we aren't and can't win and who is asking huge corporations like Exxon who had record profits to the tune of 40 billion dollars to chip in some more to help the country in a time of crisis. Hmm... infants dying, grizzly bears going extinct, students not going to college or Exxon and companies like them paying some more in taxes.

I have to go with investing in the people on this one. If the people's needs are neglected things start to fall apart, education levels plummet, the crime rate goes up and we'll never be able to compete again in the global economy.

[inthebox]

I know that Obama doesn't believe endless taxation is the answer and any liberal I talk to doesn't believe it either. ... That means people like you and me and our kids have to give up things like national park maintenance and protecting endangered species and help with education (even though America has never needed more skilled workers to compete in the global economy as it does now) It means infants born into poverty dying. It means doing NOTHING about the fact that the U.S. has the one of the highest infant mortality rates for an industrialized nation (so much for having the best healthcare system in the world).. .

On the flipside we have Obama who wants to start thinking about ending a war that we aren't and can't win and who is asking huge corporations like Exxon who had record profits to the tune of 40 billion dollars to chip in some more to help the country in a time of crisis. Hmm... infants dying, grizzly bears going extinct, students not going to college or Exxon and companies like them paying some more in taxes.

I have to go with investing in the people on this one. If the people's needs are neglected things start to fall apart, education levels plummet, the crime rate goes up and we'll never be able to compete again in the global economy.

What dose Obama believe in?


Don't be mesmorized by his rhetoric - ANY POLITICIAN CAN PANDER WITH MORE ENTITLEMENTS.

Thomas Sowell : Record Versus Rhetoric - Townhall.com

We don't know what Barack Obama will actually do because he has actually done very little for which he was personally accountable. Even as a state legislator, he voted "present" innumerable times instead of taking a stand one way or the other on tough issues.

"Clean up the mess in Washington"? He was part of the mess in Chicago and lined up with the Daley machine against reformers.

He is also part of the mess in Washington, not only with numerous earmarks, but also as the Senate's second largest recipient of money from Fannie Mae, and someone whose campaign has this year sought the advice of disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines, who was at the heart of the subprime crisis

What do we know of Obama:

Despite his association with known terrorist Bill Ayers, and spreading the Annenburgs money around ;) - he/ they wasted the money and had no effect on improving academic performance. Obama was an adult, not 8 years old when he began this relationship.

Capital Research Center:


A 2003 CAC final report on the effectiveness of the Annenberg grant compared test scores in so-called Annenberg schools, which had received the benefit of some $150 million in outside grant money, to test scores in comparable schools. It concluded:

“There were no statistically significant differences in student achievement between Annenberg schools and demographically similar non-Annenberg schools. This indicates that there was no Annenberg effect on achievement.”

He flip flops for political gain;

Weapons of Mass Discussion: Collection of Obama Flip-Flops


He spent 20 years at Rev Wright's church yet did not know of Rev Wright's anti American rhetoric?

He won't cross party lines even if it for the good of the country

Obama Voted 'Present' on Mortgage Reform - WSJ.com

Instead, by his own account, Mr. Obama wrote a letter to the Treasury Secretary, allegedly putting himself on record that subprime loans were dangerous and had to be dealt with. This is revealing; if true, it indicates Sen. Obama knew there was a problem with subprime lending -- but was unwilling to confront his own party by pressing for legislation to control it.

Obama, despite being a father, does not know when life begins :( because it is "above my paygrade." Obama is NARAL endorsed.



For one who wants to be our next commander and chief, he had not visited Iraq or our troops till this year and then in Germany canceled visiting the sick at the last minute.

No Troop Visits for Obama in Germany | The Trail | washingtonpost.com

Check out the fifth comment using Obama's own "factcheck"



"It's a fact that Obama canceled a visit to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center at the last minute after planning it for weeks. And it's a fact that reporters and their cameras would not have been allowed to accompany him. Furthermore, Obama probably did go to the gym that day, as he does practically every day. So the bare facts stated in the ad are true, but they don't support McCain's insinuation.

We can't read minds and so are in no position to know Obama's motives" ;)



SO, how can you truly say that Obama does not believe in endless taxation:confused:



The endangered species you have to worry about is hardworking, ordinary, taxpaying citizens of the US.

[excon]

How many plumbing contractors do you think DON'T have a quarter million in receipts per year?

Hello Steve:

Well, you got your plumbers - you know the guys who's a$$ crack you see when he's working on your pipes...

And then you got your plumbing CONTRACTORS who OWN their business's and sit in their offices wearing suits and ties... THOSE guys make BIG BREAD, like you said.

But, I think Joe was the shlub plumber employee. He has great dreams, and that's good, but he, LIKE ALL THE SCHLUB WORKING STIFF'S OUT THERE, doesn't make any where NEAR a quarter of a million.

Obama's tax policies will help HIM better than McCains.

excon

[Galveston1]

My youngest son is a tool & die maker working for a small family owned business. I'm certain that their gross income is in 250,000+. Now if they are taxed at the rate Obama is calling for, they won't be able to expand or modernize or hire new employees. Maybe they will even have to lay someone off. If so, I hope it is the dope who works there that intends to vote for Obama, if he gets elected!

[tomder55]

I'm not about to get rid of the FDA after seeing thousands of infants sickened in China because corporations lacked oversight and wanted to make a quick buck.

Lol you don't deal with the same FDA I do . All their oversight doesn't guarantee that dangerous drugs will not get on the market ,and some of the regs make it impossible for benifical products to get to the market. If aspirin were a new drug today it would not be on the market... or if it were it would be an over-priced perscription.

And people like you who bought the republicans talk that we should go on business as usual are being convinced by politicians who were bought by CORPORATIONS making too much money to lose it.

Don't make assuptions. Cleaning the air is a good thing on it's own . We don't need phony science to justify it. Right now, being green is cheap and easy. Consumers are willing to pay a premium for “green” products.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1840562,00.html?imw=Y
When true costs start getting added to consumer prices - in the midst of a recession,we'll see more investigation into the science and, more importantly, its economic effect. And if they're indeed wrong, we'll likely see a complete repudiation of the scaremongers and hucksters.

A purist free market disciple is no better than a communist. Both philosophies are too extreme and it leaves people at large vulnerable.

And you have NEVER heard me argue for pure unregulated capitalism

[speechlesstx]

Obama's tax policies will help HIM better than McCains.

That's what "SOME analyses" say, at least according to the AP in my paper today though they didn't mention who did the analyzing, but that isn't my point. The point is Obama wants everyone to think he's not going to hammer small business when he's not being forthright about small businesses in America. Plus he's playing on class envy with that arbitrary quarter million figure he keeps repeating and it's all a distraction. The small businesses he's going to hammer are the ones that hire Joe the Plumber... or at least used to.

[excon]

Hello again:

Well, ifin it was me, and it is, and ifin I didn't like to pay taxes and I don't, who do you think is going to pay for the dufus in chief's spending spree?

Should we just pretend that it's play money and doesn't really count??

excon

[ETWolverine]

Merris,

There are a lot of topics being covered in this post. I want to try to touch on all of them.

Perhaps you have heard of the Laffer curve. The Laffer curve illustrates that increases in tax rates does not equate to increased income, and it has been proven correct over and over again in our history. Every time we have had a tax rate increase in this country, it has resulted in increased unemployment and decreased revenues for the government. If you want to cover the budget deficit, increasing taxes is NOT the way to do it. Lowering taxes, on the other hand, has the result of increasing employment rates and salaries, and thus increasing tax revenues.

Second, what is the sense of taxing oil companies like Exxon-Mobile? Corporations do not pay taxes. They increase the prices of their products so that WE pay the added taxes. So a tax increase to Exxon-Mobile is really a tax on us at the pump and on our home heating bills. In this economy, can you truly say that the guy making $40K a year is able to deal with an increase in his personal energy costs? And yet he is the one who will bear that tax burden, not Exxon-Mobile.

Third, as for whether a plumber can make more that $250K per year: As a banker and commercial lender I have financed the construction of building projects that were in the hundred million dollar range. I can guarantee you that the plumbers, electricians and other construction companies who sub-contracted the jobs were all making more than $250K per year. They were making more than that on one job alone, and that was not their only job of the year. But they are still small businesses. And increasing tax rates above $250K will directly and adversely affect them. With construction, which is a major economic driver in the USA, being down significantly as a result of the economy, do we really want to make construction MORE prohibitive by increasing taxes? Do we really want to slow construction down even more than it is?

Next item: the national debt. I keep hearing people talking about the national debt as if it were a bad thing. Debt is neither bad nor good. It is simply a financial tool, and a useful one when used properly. Talking about debt without talking about what that debt has gained us and whether we can service that debt is ridiculous. It misses the entire picture. It's like looking at a financial statement but only looking at the liabilities, without seeing the assets, the income or the cash flow of the financial statement.

The United states has debt. But it also has assets (military, roads, real estate, natural resources, the debt of other countries, organizations that provide services and products, and lots of cash). The assets offset the debt. The United States has income (tax revenue, interest earned on debt from other countries, various fees for services rendered, etc.), and that income is sufficient to cover the debt service requirements (interest and principal payments on debt) and expenses of the United States. Furthermore, the US government has NEVER failed to pay one of its debts, throughout it's entire history... even during the Great Depression. Taken as a whole, the picture is not a grim one. It is, in fact, quite good. We have good cash flow, a strong asset base, and a sufficient level of leverage. That's not to say that we can't trim a lot of fat in the US government's spending, because we can and should. But the debt picture is not the grim tale you have heard.

Besides, in order to pay off the national debt, what would we have to give up? What assets would have to be liquidated to cover that debt repayment? Have you thought about that part of lowering the national debt? What are you willing to sacrifice for that purpose?

Now on to the question (or should I say myth) of global warming. Having done the research, I can state for a fact that over the last 60 years of recorded weather history, there has been no clear pattern of temperature change, aither as an increase or a decrease.

I looked as several major cities throughout the world, and took the average temperature for a specific month for every year. I plotted them on a graph, showing a 60-year history of average temperatures for that particular month in that particular city. Do you know what I found? NOTHING. There was no pattern of any sort. No global warming and no global cooling.

Interestingly enough, for all the talk of the polar ice caps melting, there is a corresponding increase in the Alaskan glaciers and others. The net effect globally is ZERO.

Here's another little tidbit for you... did you know that global temperatures on Mars and Pluto are rising? Did you know that the temperature of the sun is also rising? I had no idea that there was human industry on Mars, Pluto and the surface of the sun.

Here's another theory that might explain global warming, if such is occuring: since the sun is getting hotter, the planets that rotate around the sun are getting hotter too. The sun increases and decreases in temperature over long periods, and that effects the planets, including Earth.

The most common theory of global warming is that it is caused by certain chemicals that pollute the air and break down the ozone layer, known as "greenhouse gasses". The proof of this is that there is apparently a hole in the ozone layer somewhere above the North Pole. (I find it interesting that this hole in the ozone is located in the one place on Earth where there is no industry of any kind.) The theory states that these elements bind with the oxygen atoms of the ozone layer, preventing it from forming ozone. The most commonly discussed gasses that are supposed to cause this problem are carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4).

There are just a few problems with this theory. First of all, CO2 and CH4 are produced by other sources than human industry, and in MUCH greater quantity. CO2 is produced by plants and algae (apparently something like 95% of CO2 is produced under water by sea algae and underwater plant life). CH4 is produced by the natural biological functions of animals (the single largest source for methane in the world is cow farts... yes, this is true, you can look it up yourself. It is also produced by decomposition of dead plant and animal life). Human industry accounts for less than 2% of all CO2 and CH4 emmissions. So unless we are prepared to get rid of all plantlife and all cows without killing them and letting them decompose, there is nothing we can do to significantly change CO2 and CH4 emmissions. Of course if we do that we will starve and suffocate to death. But hey, no big deal.

The other basic problem is that the chemical process doesn't work the way the global warming theorists (myth-makers) claim it does. They claim that the carbon of the CO2 and the CH4 bind with the oxygen molecules of the ozone. Heat energy from the sun is supposed to break up the CO2 and CH4 into sepparate atoms, which then combine with the O of the ozone layer, thus breaking up the ozone, forming carbon monoxide (CO).

The way that the natural process works is that O2 is hit by the sun, breaking it into sepparate O atoms, which is ozone. As more ozone is created, less heat and light reach the atmosphere, which means that fewer O2 molecules are broken down to ozone. When the ozone layer becomes too thin, more sunlight gets through to the atmosphere, and more O2 molecules are broken down to form ozone. The process is a self-correcting equilibrium process.

The argument is that when the ozone combines with the carbon atoms, the process of creating ozone from 02 is interrupted, causing the ozone layer to become depleted. The only problem with this theory is that the sun's energy is equally capable of breaking CO2 and CO down into ozone just as well as it can break up O2. In fact, if my understanding is correct, CO is much less stable than O2, which means that it breaks down more easily into ozone than O2 would.

So the science doesn't bear out the theory put forward by the global warming con artists... er, scientists. And more and more experts in the field of meteorology are comeing to the same conclusions.

Finally, did you know that the majority of "scientists" who have signed on to the global warming con game have no expertise or expereince in meteorolgy? Many of them are MDs, physicists, biologists, mathematicians and statisticians. They are NOT meteorologists. Most meteorologists have NOT signed on to the theory of global warming, and more and more of them are speaking out against global warming theory. Til now, they have been afraid to do so because of the public outcry they have received for not signing on to the "accepted wisdom" of global warming. But as more and more of them speak out, more and more of them are "coming out of the closet" to state their true beliefs.

Some thoughts to ponder.

Elliot

[Merris]

Elliot,

Thanks for you well thought out response. I'm sure having some national debt is a good thing like you said, but it seems to be growing... exponentially. If we can borrow and not worry about it, wouldn't it be nice if they'd borrow a trillion and split it up for every person in the country. Talk about economic upswing! :)

It's obvious you have given things a lot of thought and I appreciate the fact that you plotted temperatures on your own, but there is pretty much a consensus in the scientific community that global warming is caused by humans. Now for the sake of argument that we are being hyper-focused on the issue (I can be open minded) is prudence not the better course along with cleaner air and less kids with asthma and allergies? Sure it is. The quality of life only goes up if we can clean up our air.

With that said, global warming is only one issue. You see, McCain and especially his VP choice, Palin are the antithesis of everything I stand for when it comes to the environment whether it's pollution or saving the grizzly bear or drilling in the ocean. The republicans are bought by big oil. They are fighting what the scientists are saying because they ARE BOUGHT. It ain't hard to do... you have companies making billions of dollars and they pay politicians to have it their way. This is why I'm against corporations having too much power.

You spoke at length about taxes and I hear you. I think I am probably different from many of the people here... maybe even from others voting for Obama. While Tax rates are on the radar, they are low on my priority list. There is wisdom in the fact that the government is going to tax you to death no matter what. If they are, you should be seeing some of the benefits. Otherwise they will tax you the same and spend it how they damned well please. You see, I'd rather have a clean ocean and a good school for my kids. I don't mind giving extra to help someone go to college because I know it helps our nation. I am originally from the mid-west and it's rotting from high school drop-outs and meth and Oxycontin addiction. We have some serious problems on the home front that the republicans are ignoring because their only concentration is on defense. We need defense, but we can't let things fall apart at home and that's what the republicans have done. It hurts the basic structure of our society when you do this... It hurts the family.

We are not one nation of individuals but communities made of families. I am for changes that I feel will help us as a nation, I'm for changes that help families and I am willing to try something new when the old is obviously not working. Maybe that's the true difference between democrats and republicans. We know that it isn't money that makes you happy and we also know that you don't know what you've got till it's gone.

Have you ever read the story, "The Lorax" by Dr. Seuss? If you haven't, stop at a bookshop get a cup a coffee and read it. I read it for the first time to my two-year-old daughter the other night. By the time I was finished I thought, wow, the Onceler sounds a lot like... a Republican. I became interested in Dr. Seuss and looked him up. He was indeed a democrat. My codeword for republican now is Onceler. Do republicans even know that they appear this way?

You sound like a reasonable guy. With all this said, I know there is probably no way I can convince you to give the other side a shot... but could I ask that you to do a little soul searching? :o

P.S. Wolverine is my favorite X-men character, by the way... ;)

[inthebox]

You spoke at length about taxes and I hear you. I think I am probably different from many of the people here... maybe even from others voting for Obama. While Tax rates are on the radar, they are low on my priority list. There is wisdom in the fact that the government is going to tax you to death no matter what. If they are, you should be seeing some of the benefits. Otherwise they will tax you the same and spend it how they damned well please.


You see, I'd rather have a clean ocean and a good school for my kids. I don't mind giving extra to help someone go to college because I know it helps our nation.


I am originally from the mid-west and it's rotting from high school drop-outs and meth and Oxycontin addiction.

We have some serious problems on the home front that the republicans are ignoring because their only concentration is on defense. We need defense, but we can't let things fall apart at home and that's what the republicans have done. It hurts the basic structure of our society when you do this... It hurts the family.

How did you fit all these ideas in one paragraph and then tie it to the Republicans?

If you want to donate your own money to whatever cause you sit fit - I applaud you.
I think we as a society should do it on an individual basis.
However, do you feel that government should MANDATE IT? Especially since Biden And Obama [ not till 2006 ] do not even give to charity in the same percentage of income as your average American?

What does INDIVIDUAL abuse of drugs / meth / oxycontin have to do with either party?

Speaking of hurting families, isn't unfettered right to abortion the ultimate in hurting families? Is either candidate pushing stricter rules for divorce? Or 100% child support payments [ currently at 50% ] ? Or "free" college / technical school education?
Census statistics point to the fact that the traditional nuclear family is the best way to combat poverty.

I don't see bigger government as a solution to society's ills. I think the solution is in individuals doing the right things, the charitable thing with their family, their neighborhood, their town/ city and so forth.

You are correct, these politicians are all bought or influenced by big money.

I can't help that. I can help my own family, neighborhood etc..





ET:

As usual, a great post on a number of topics.

[Galveston1]

People say they don't want 4 more years of "Bush" but they are going to vote for 4 more years of "Carter".

[Merris]

How did you fit all these ideas in one paragraph and then tie it to the Republicans?

John McCain wants a complete domestic spending freeze with the exception of the wars and veterans... that 7% of the population he actually cares about.

[startover22]

Coming from a wife, mother, friend, and a worried lady...
I seriously do not want money from some "rich" guy/gal ("rich" until he pays for all the gropers) I can make my own money. The more they "give" us, the more we rely on the government. THAT is my take on the whole bit...

[Merris]

Coming from a wife, mother, friend, and a worried lady.....
I seriously do not want money from some "rich" guy/gal ("rich" until he pays for all the gropers) I can make my own money. The more they "give" us, the more we rely on the government. THAT is my take on the whole bit....

You know the spending I care most about is federal funding for research for the preservation of the environment, alternative energy, and other species (humans aren't the only creatures on the planet, you know). I think we need a better education system in the U.S. and we lag behind other industrialized countries in not only education but our infant mortality is one of the highest of any industrialized nation.

You seem to be referring to welfare, which is pretty small sliver of what I'm talking about.

[startover22]

Merris, I should have quoted speechless from the opening post, I was referring to the OP's first remark and question.
As far as funding for research and the preservation of the environment... welp, I agree we need to do a better job of taking care of our earth, every one knows it! (I do know that humans aren't the only creatures that are on this planet):)
The education system... well, lets start with the parents that think it's all right for their kids to say and do what ever they want when they are in school... IT MAY MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE TEACHERS TO DO THEIR JOBS, and maybe the kids would learn something! Teachers of course should have guide lines to follow and so should the students.
Infant mortality? I am not sure I understand what you are saying... we have to many kids? Or do I just not get your statement?

I am not only referring to welfare... people all around me seem to think everyone owes them something. I work with a guy his girlfriend was abused in a past relationship, she is able to work, but they are trying to find a way to make it a good excuse to get on social security. All sorts of stories like that around. I am not nor have I been on welfare. I have always worked two or three jobs to deal with things. FINALLY I only have to have one full time and man it feels good. I worked hard to get where I am, I can only imagine how hard the people that made over $250,000 a year. I can only imagine only getting 2/3 of a paycheck, when I earned a full one;) THAT would sincerely suck.

Don't get me wrong, McCain isn't perfect. But I still like him better than Obama. Either way, I have a feeling we are in big trouble there is no quick fix to what has happened in our country. Before I was even born it has all been the same, never changing. Obama doesn't and will not have that kind of power that people seem to think a president has. People voted for what the last administration has done. The one person that everyone hates got advice from others, he got votes from others.

I think that if we as people would just stop and take a serious and honest look at ourselves, we would see that it isn't just the government that is the problem.

Ohhh, I just can't stand politics, but I am trying hard to keep up here.

[excon]

Hello:

Hmm. If there's going to be a freeze, what did Sarah Palin mean when she said that disabled children will have a friend in the White House?

I don't know about you, but a friend in the White House who doesn't FUND her friends, ain't no friend at all.

We got plenty of people who are "friendly" towards the disabled, but they need more than "friendly". They need FUNDING. What's she going to do, wink at them? That'll make their lives better.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello:

Hmm. If there's gonna be a freeze, what did Sarah Palin mean when she said that disabled children will have a friend in the White House?

I dunno about you, but a friend in the White House who doesn't FUND her friends, ain't no friend at all.

We got plenty of people who are "friendly" towards the disabled, but they need more than "friendly". They need FUNDING. What's she gonna do, wink at them? That'll make their lives better.

Just a question first, how much do you suppose communities, states and the Fed have spent on meeting ADA mandates already? Regardless of what she might or might not spend, I think the first step in being "friendly" toward the disabled is promoting their right to be born.

[startover22]

Oh now I get what you were saying Excon. Hmm, we need to put our spending in the right places. I don't need a new bridge over I-5 to walk over, I would rather walk the five blocks around, than spend whatever it cost to build the beautiful thing. You see? Every pretty 50 dollar bush in front of the farkin BRAND new court house here in Eugene, well, I see a few packs of paper for the teachers in our schools that are spending their own money to make copies for their students. I just don't get it. The extra roof on top of that new one (just for looks) on that new strip mall... WHAT? LOL Sorry I get really pissy about these things.

[excon]

Just a question first, how much do you suppose communities, states and the Fed have spent

Hello again, Steve:

Nahhhh. I don't care about that... All I'm trying to figure out is what the hell she's saying, by telling people that they have a friend in the White House.

Is that rightwing code for something? Does it mean Obama is blacker than we thought?

Come, on Steve. You can tell me. I promise I won't tell any other liberal.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Nahhhh. I don't care about that... All I'm trying to figure out is what the hell she's saying, by telling people that they have a friend in the White House.

Is that rightwing code for something? Does it mean Obama is blacker than we thought?

Come, on Steve. You can tell me. I promise I won't tell any other liberal.

Excon

Why do you keep bringing up skin color, are you trying to goad one of us into showing our racism? I think I gave you my “code” for what she meant but I know it goes further than that. I’m sure she meant more money as well, her record reflects that, but I think this article explains more of the “code.”

Families with children with Down syndrome say they often feel the social pressure when they decide to have a child with a disability. Parents of children with disabilities hope Palin’s personal example will convince more parents that they can handle the challenge of a child with special needs.

They want to show the world that children with Down syndrome can lead lives just like other children.

Isn’t that what a friend does more than give money - encourage, support, sympathize, etc.