Originally posted at http://www.saveourcountry.us/node/104
McCain envy is the term used to describe a candidate's negative reactions towards another candidates success in fund raising activities. While this type of envy is nothing new it definitely has reached levels never before seen and therefore this term was coined in response to the 2008 Republican presidential candidate, John McCain. During the race Mr. McCain consistently failed to realize that the success of his opponent, Barack Obama, was a result of Obama's ability to reach out to the people. McCain could not comprehend how his own misguided Republican philosophies had proven to be dangerous and how they had nearly bankrupted the United States. Being unable to recognize these facts and being incredibly jealous of Obama, he began to imagine sinister alternatives which included Obama accepting funds from foreign entities and illegal donations, exceeding the federally mandated maximums, from the super wealthy. It was impossible for McCain to accept that millions of people from across the country all made relatively small contributions which gave Obama an unprecedented financial advantage.
Originally Posted at http://www.saveourcountry.us/node/101
After listening to John McCain and his Republican allies one would think that the organization, ACORN, set out to systematically perpetuate voter fraud on a grand scale. Firstly, no one questions the fact, even ACORN, that there were hundreds of voter registration forms that were turned in with false names. Some of these names were obvious, like Mickey Mouse, others were not since they were of people who recently departed this plane of existence. Obviously this is a problem and there does need to be an investigation of how it occurred and those found responsible must be held accountable. The problem is that McCain and his allies are making it sound as if someone is trying to “steal” this election and generate votes for Obama, since ACORN is a left leaning organization.However, McCain, in a truly Republican tradition, is only telling you part of the story and exaggerating the potential impact of these “false” voter registrations. ACORN hires people to participate in its voter registration drives and these people, in an attempt to fulfill their quota's and keep their jobs, created false registrations. ACORN not only acknowledges this occurred but also flagged registrations it believed to be problematic and agreed, up front, to work with officials in vetting them. ACORN did not want to simply throw these registrations away as this would be illegal. Simply put, how would you feel if you filled out a voter registration card and an organization threw it away. If it turned out a Republican's voter registration card was thrown away I guarantee you McCain and his allies would be making a fuss about that.It is truly unfortunate that these events occurred and it is going to require government resources to deal with these false registrations. However, a false registration does not equate to a fraudulent vote. First of all there is no risk that Mickey Mouse will be leaving his imaginary land to come and cast a vote for either McCain or Obama. Second, even for the names of the deceased, it would be required that someone to actually know that the deceased is on the voter rolls and then be able to obtain false identification to cast the vote. The penalties for casting a fraudulent vote are steep, ten years in prison, it would be irrational for someone to go through the expense, trouble, and risk to simply add a single vote in an election where tens of millions will participate. Finally, there is not a single documented incidence where a false registration led to a fraudulent vote. This is just another example of where the Republican's are wrong on the issues and knowing this are trying to fabricate a scandal.
Originally posted at http://www.saveourcountry.us/node/97
While it may seem like good news if they are it is more likely just a ploy. The Republican party is saying this as a method to encourage independents and undecideds to vote for Republican senators and house candidates. Sending the idea that one party control is a bad thing since it was when the Republicans had full control. The other reason why they are using this ploy is that they are hoping that Obama supporters will decided to not vote. There are many who may think, “why bother voting, Obama has it in the bag.” However, this is by far the most dangerous line of thinking one can take, the only way Obama can win is if we all get out there and vote!Also, Obama still needs donations to combat the lies that the RNC and McCain are pushing with their robocalls!
Originally posted at: http://www.saveourcountry.us/node/96
Today John McCain made the claim that if he had been president that the mortgage crisis which ultimately is responsible for dragging the whole economy down, would have been avoided if he had been president. Here is the problem, John McCain has been an active supporter of the deregulation that led to this mess. The reversal of regulations that were put in place after the great depression that would prevent banks from over investing the money of others in risky areas. Based on his long history of deregulation it is impossible to believe that he would have acted any differently than if he had run against Bush and won. It is clear that John does not understand how we got in this mess and that his policies were a direct cause!
Originally posted at http://www.saveourcountry.us/node/95
Hello, I am Scott the future guy, I am 85 years old and I just got off of a ten hour shift and now I am going to baby sit my grand children while my son goes and works his ten hour shift (can't afford a baby sitter). Unfortunately for me there is no longer any social security left because all our taxes are going to make the interest payments on the national debt. My 401K plan, which I thought would help me through, all but evaporated after successive blunders by executives who were running it. By the way, they all now live on some island they built using the money they collected from their golden parachutes (couldn't buy an island anymore because all the rest are under water - global warming).
Unfortunately all of this could have been prevented back in the election of '08, all we would have done was not have voted for the candidates that claimed the “other guy” was going to “spread the wealth”. I kinda feel like my wealth was taken from me and spent a few decades ago!
Hello, I am Scott the guy living in '08 – please help me avoid having to meet this future Scott by support Barack Obama for president. We can not afford another four years of tax cutting at the expense of increasing the national debt, we can not afford another four years of name calling, we can not afford another four years of questioning the patriotism of others just because we disagree on the issues, we can not afford another four years of calling those we disagree with terrorists, but the bottom line is our future can not afford it!
Please join me by support Barack Obama by making a donation at http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/saveourcountryus and also please post a message at http://www.saveourcountry.us/forum/4 telling us why you support Barack Obama for president!
Originally posted at http://www.saveourcountry.us/node/93
Recently the republicans have been making a big deal about Obama's tax plan. They are claiming that it is socialist in nature since Obama will increase the taxes on the wealthiest and cut taxes on everyone else. The republicans claim that 40% of US citizens do not pay income taxes but this is just a matter of how you define taxes. In truth, no matter what your income, we all pay FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act aka Social Security Tax) and FMHI (Medicare) taxes, although the republican's call these “fees”. I, like many hard working people are tired of the play on words, any time anyone has to pay the government it is a tax, plain and simple. Furthermore, these taxes are based on income and therefore are “income taxes”, from working, so the claim by republicans that only 40% pay taxes is patently false! (If you do not have income from working you will not have these taxes) Obama's plan is giving people a credit for these taxes paid, they do not get a “free pass” rather they are credited $500 for having paid these taxes. Currently all workers, unless you make in excess of $100K per year, pay 7.65% of their income for FICA and FMHI, Obama's credit would effectively protects the first $6,500 from that tax. Giving those in lower income tax brackets a tax cut is not socialism and charging those in upper income tax brackets a higher rate also is not socialism. It is all a matter of a difference in opinions of what the tax policy should be here in the US. Considering how badly those of us in the middle class are being pinched it makes good economic sense to allow us to keep more of our money. Furthermore, because we have more money we will have more money to spend thereby increasing business revenues and encouraging them to hire more employees to meet demand.No rational employer will hire additional employees because they received a tax cut, employers increase payrolls when they believe payroll expenses will be offset by additional revenues. Employers lay people off when the current workforce is capable of producing product that exceeds demand. Employers increase workforce when the current staffing levels can not produce a level of supply which meets demand. If consumers have more money in their pocketbooks then their demand for products will increase thereby resulting in more employment opportunities and thereby increasing profits for business owners. However, this is not a “transfer” of wealth, it is all about cutting taxes for one group and returning the taxes to another group to what existed prior to Bush's tax cuts. It is about restoring government revenues to offset the budget deficits that have been brought upon us in the last eight years.The problem with the republican policies is they cut taxes on the wealthiest and have financed those cuts with debt. In effect they are cutting taxes for a select group today at the expense of additional taxes on future generations. Someday, somehow this debt will need to be paid back, it is not going to magically evaporate. That national debt is nothing but an instrument to transfer debt from future generations to today. One would be hard pressed to even find socialists who would believe this was a justifiable redistribution of wealth!
Originally posted at http://www.saveourcountry.us/node/92
What if the supreme court had not stopped the recount and Al Gore really did win the 2000 election. How the last eight years would have been different. The United States definitely would have been in a different situation than it is in today. The nation's military involvement, its debt, dependence on foreign oil, and even the current political race would be drastically different.First of all we probably would have been attacked on September 11th. It is possible that a President Gore would have acted differently than Bush and would have taken actions to prevent it, but let us assume nothing could have changed that. Without doubt, contrary to the rhetoric of some conservatives, he would have ordered us to take military action in Afghanistan. However, we definitely would not have attacked Iraq, a President Gore would not have had the predisposition demonstrated by Bush and his allies, to attack this country. Without doubt the primary reason why Bush and his allies “read” the intelligence in a manner which led us to believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was because they wanted to find something to justify an attack. Without the Iraq distraction, the United States would have, by now, captured Bin Laden and been able to complete its mission there. Furthermore we would have rebuilt that country, transferred power back to its people, and our soldiers would be home.Without the enormous costs of these wars our national deficit would not be what it is today. Furthermore, a President Gore would not have given the richest, in this country, the tax breaks which Bush handed out (and Palin-McCain are calling us “socialists” for wanting to reverse them). These two facts alone would have significantly reduced, if not eliminated, the incredible increase in the US national debt. The national debt is what is causing the dollar's value to decline and does have an impact on oil prices. Simply put, as the dollar declines, the price of oil increases. The declining dollar is not the only reason why oil prices spiked last summer but it is part of the problem. The other part of the problem is the demand for oil and the United States does import 70% of its oil.Under a President Gore, we would have, without doubt, seen a decrease in our dependence on oil. Al Gore has been a strong advocate for reducing green house gases and eliminating our dependence on oil. Under his leadership this nation would be further along in its need to utilize alternative energy sources. The carbonites (those who advocate continued use of fossil fuels) have relentlessly attacked people like Gore, claiming that moving to alternative energy sources is too costly. However, the price of energy is definitely a reason why this country economy is in a downward spiral. It may cost us, in the short term, to switch over but if we do it then we never again will be dependent on foreign nations for our energy needs and our economy would be protected from the actions of foreign entities like OPEC. Eight years ago we all made choices, some chose to vote for George Bush, some for Al Gore, some for another person, and many chose to not vote at all. Many who did not vote believe that there was no reason to do so because it would not make a difference and there are some who believe that today. I would ask you to carefully consider how things would have been different had Al Gore won in 2000. How different the world would be today without the Iraq war, how our nation debt would not have gone from five trillion to ten trillion dollars, how the war in Afghanistan would be over, and how oil energy prices would not have caused enormous financial pain. Without doubt the world would be different, that is why on November 4th it is important to vote. On November 4th, you will have the choice between voting for the status quo or to vote for someone who will make a change. Make no mistake, Palin-McCain claim to be agents of change, however all you need to do is examine their record in this race to see they are no different than Bush. The fact that they will question the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with their stances, call people terrorists for holding a differing political view, and calling them “socialists” for having a tax policy that taxes the rich and not the poor. While John McCain may have been a “maverick” he has forfeited any right to continue to make that claim. He has allowed his campaign to be consumed by rhetoric which has become the cancer of this great country during the Bush administration. It is no longer a campaign based on the principals he claimed to believe in at its beginning, instead it has been preempted by Republican neo-cons under the leadership of Sarah Palin. This November 4th be sure to vote and remember your vote does matter, the only way we can put this country back on track is to put Obama into the white house!
With Obama ahead in the polls it would be all to easy to become complacent but Obama's lead is resulting in even more accusations from Palin-McCain. Every day we are seeing an increasing number of smeers from calling Obama a terrorist to calling him a socialist because he wants to roll back Bush's tax cuts. We need to get the truth out there and we need to push hard to make sure other voters do not fall prey to these lies.
The bottom line is this, we can vote for a ticket (Palin-McCain) that will transfer wealth from future generations to ours by continuing to grow the national debt or we can vote for Obama-Biden who will work to make sure that we pay our bills today. Palin-McCain come from the same fabric of Bush and Bush has thrown the biggest party for the rich of all time. Then when that party came to screeching halt and the bill came due we the US people had to shell out $700 billion dollars to keep the entire economy from tanking. While we all benefit from a healthy economy its the rich that have gained the most from this bail out, the CEOs who get multi-million dollar parachutes while the middle class and poor see their 401Ks drop.
Having higher taxes on the rich is not just wealth distribution but its about having those most able to pay to help out. It is about paying back into the kitty for the privileged in living in a society and under a structure that allowed you to obtain that success. The problem with today's rich is that they are all too willing to pull the ladder up after they get to the top. They are all too happy to receive hand-outs that benefit them (ie the bail out) but decry any assistance that will benefit others.
For the record, I am a small business owner, I pray for the day when I will be impacted by Obama's tax plan!
I invite you to listen to the video I have posted at http://www.saveourcountry.us/node/84. I found it disturbing, to say the least, when McCain said, "I’m not saying this is the perfect answer. If I were dictator, which I always aspire to be, I would write it a little bit differently." Its is possible that McCain was just trying to be funny but this is not something which we, as members of a Democratic Republic, find acceptable.
Originally Posted at Save Our Country
No matter what the crisis or emergency the rest of the world will continue moving on. Even though our economy is in crisis a war still rages on in Iraq and Afghanistan, the polar ice caps are still at the second lowest point in history, and the energy crisis continues. We have a major crisis that has the potential of dragging us into a deep recession or worse, a depression. However, it not, by any means, the only thing we are facing. With that said the presidential debates must go on!Nothing is going to change the fact that we have a major election rapidly approaching and we have a right to hear the two candidates debate. Their ability to debate in a time of crisis will be a test of their ability to operate as president when there is a crisis. In an emergency the president does not have the luxury of taking a break from everything else to just focus on that crisis. Obviously he or she will need to focus on that emergency and other items will not receive as much attention but they can not be ignored. The most important aspect of our country are our elections and our ability to choose a new leader. We have a right to hear our candidates square off and answer questions pertaining to issues they will fight for. Without doubt we can not rely on the campaign ads as even Rove pointed out, they do not pass the 100% truth test! John, if you want to show us you are presidential material than prove to us that you can handle the stresses of a crisis and still fulfill the full obligations of the job!
Recently the greatest bail out in all of history has been proposed by the Federal Government and without doubt there is a grave amount of concern. First and foremost the whole idea is to buy bad investments, from various financial institutions, which will prevent those financial institutions from going under and causing a domino effect which would prevent us from falling into another depression. Obviously we will all lose if another great depression would occur and spending nearly a trillion dollars is probably a wise move. However, we must also be 100% certain that this does not turn into a windfall for those corporations and CEOs that are being baled out. These corporations acted much like a gambling addict who took out a massive loan and bought up a million Powerball tickets. The problem with the assets being held by these financial institutions is that many of them are comprised of subprime loans. Loans that there is a high degree of default and its impossible to discern whether or not it will be possible to collect on them. The idea that the government will be able to make a profit by buying these assets is counter intuitive. While its unlikely that these loans would result in a complete loss it is highly unlikely they will be profitable. Furthermore, Bush's plan, as is, would completely remove all consequences from those who created this mess and transfer it directly to the tax payers. Therefore this buyout should have the following stipulations.1)Any institution that elects to be part of the bail out also agree that a portion of their pretax profits, for the next 30 years, be given to the government. This portion should be based on the amount of bad investments purchased from them. If the institution is liquidated, merged, or otherwise acquired than a percentage of that sale price must be paid to the government.2)Require all executive bonuses to be tied to five year performance and complete elimination of quarterly and yearly bonuses. Short term bonuses result in short term planning without regard to long term consequences. By requiring executives to take a longer term view and will insure they do not make decisions that will put the organizations long term survival at risk. 3)All assets be managed by an agency that is led by a bipartisan commission. This commission will oversee the sale of assets should it ever become possible to sell them. Furthermore, all disbursements would be opened to public comment and communicated openly to the US tax payer.4)Full elimination of President Bush's tax cuts. Without doubt the biggest benefactors to this buyout are those who belong to the wealthiest in this country. These are the people who will take the biggest hit should the government not buy up their bad investments. Furthermore, there were many who gained from this subprime mess and it would be wrong to purely rely on increasing our national debt and pushing the payback on our children.5)The institution of homeowner protection, anyone who has a loan purchased by the government would be eligible to refinance their debt. The debt restructuring should be reduced to match the current home value and the interest rate should be no higher than 7%. However, there must be a strict rule that any loan amount that is forgiven would be repaid if the home should ever be sold at a profit. In short, its a conditional forgiveness; the home owner will not be allowed to profit unless he or she pays the forgiven amount back.6)Home owners who received a subprime loan would be required to attend a series of personal finance workshops. These workshops would not only teach them skills to improve their ability to manage money but also help them understand the risks of taking on adjustable rate mortgages. Too many people were misled by the brokers issuing these products and clearly did not have the understanding of what they were getting into.7)Establish regulatory measures that would prevent the issuance of subprime loans until congress can fully evaluate the situation and provide strict guidelines for how they are issued and valued in the future.Under no circumstances should this money just be handed over to the financial institutions who caused this mess. They must carry some responsibility for their actions. Ideally we should just let them fail but unfortunately the consequences to our economy would be devastating. Instead let us institute a plan that will bolster their existence but will do in such a way that we can recover the costs. The probability that we would recover the costs by reselling these loans at a later date is minuscule. There is a reason why these firms have not been able to sell these loans to someone else and therefore improve their cash position through traditional methods! Furthermore, our national debt has grown to astronomic levels, we can not continue to transfer our mistakes to our children. Finally, this plan must put into place protections for the consumer, we must help Main Street, not just Wall Street!
Originally posted at Save Our Country
During this presidential election we will select a new leader that will serve for the next four years. As many of us know, four years can be a very long time, consider for a moment that four years ago the now distressed housing market was booming. Consider, four years ago the economy was relatively healthy and gas prices were half of what they are now. With this in mind it is critical that we choose a good leader and to do that we must know what leadership means. Leadership simply is the ability to define a vision, for the common good, and to motivate people to work towards it. I have worked as a leader in multiple capacities which include projects for employers, nonprofit organizations, and community organizing. One thing I have learned with absolute certainty, it is requires a much greater degree of skill to lead a group of volunteers than it does to lead a group of people when you have formal supervisor authority. In these situations your leadership position is purely a result of your ability to instill a sense of vision and shared purpose in others. Others will lead you only if they truly believe you have their best interests at heart and you are an effective leader. Consider for a moment, those who have lead community based organizations. These are people with humble beginnings who have risen to the challenge of leading a informal group of people to become a force that has lead to true change. Susan B. Anthony is one of those, Martin Luther King another, along with many who founded this country. Great changes have been the direct result of the ability of leaders, workin in their communities, to bring together and direct the abilities of others.Recently Sarah Palin directly attacked all the country's community leaders when she claimed Obama's experience is irrelevant. What Sarah clearly does not realize is that the president's authority can only extend so far. The president can use executive power to direct the actions of staff and over the military. However, to truly lead congress and the people the president does not have this authority, we are a democratic republic not a dictatorship. The president must be capable of leading without formal authority. Furthermore, our president not only acts as the leader of this country but also as the "leader of the free world". However, the US has little to no authority over sovereign nations. In both these situations the president must rely on his or her ability to build a shared vision and to motivate others towards achieving it.
Originally posted on Save Our Country
McCain in a speech this morning blasted congress for not doing enough to prevent the current financial crisis. I am in 100% percent agreement congress was instrumental in repealing the regulations that would have prevented the corruption and greed that led to this mess. However, what McCain did not mention in his speech is that the subprime meltdown did not just occur. It started two years ago! The mortgages that are going bad today were issued at least three years ago at a time when McCain was actively pushing for less regulation. It is concerning that a man who was instrumental in causing this mess, a man who is a member of congress, is now criticizing those very actions! Although equally amazing is how he is trying to blame Obama even though Obama was not a member of congress when this mess started. It was on McCain's watch when this problem was created. It is just that “today” is the day we pay the piper for the Republicans' poor judgment!Scott
