Organizing for America | Lubbock supports Barack

Lubbock supports Barack

A group of like minded supporters of Barack Obama focused on supporting Barack's candidacy through dialogue, communication, and financial donations.

Page 1 of 9 | Next | Last

Andy Wilson announces candidacy for Congress in the Texas 19th District

By Alan Sill - Nov 2nd, 2009 at 10:43 am EST

Also listed in: Lubbock supports Barack | TX Call Team | West Texas Supporters of Barack Obama

Andy Wilson will announce his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for U.S. House of Representatives at 3:00 pm Monday (today) at the Mahon Library Community Room in Lubbock, 10:30 am at Everman Park in Abilene. Be there, or check out the web site! Please come and join us in either location, or check out the web site and show your support. VOLUNTEERS are welcome and needed to work walk lists, help gather signatures and to call and talk with people in support of this campaign.

Web site: http://www.istandwithandy.com

* * * * * PLEASE COME HELP ELECT ANDY in the Texas 19th District! * * * * *

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Time to really make a change!

By Alan Sill - Aug 30th, 2009 at 9:09 am EDT

Also listed in: Lubbock supports Barack | TX Call Team | West Texas Supporters of Barack Obama

I wrote the following letter of support on the White House site just now. Everybody please do something to help, small or large -- we really need to make this change!

And if you haven't viewed the video of the eulogy for Sen. Kennedy yet on the NYTimes or White House site, please do so.

Alan

Dear President Obama,

I am getting up early on the Sunday after your eulogy for Senator Kennedy to send this message. Thank you for your touching, careful and personal message of tribute to this great and humble man.

Last year, while normally a person of very moderate politics both in intensity and in terms of range along the spectrum, I took a week of vacation and time away from my family to travel to walk and work as a campaign worker in another state to get you elected. Your message of practical government that is informed by high ideals and works on behalf of people led me to do this.

I support this message and was willing then, as I and my family are now, to help you carry it out, and to see the changes that we elected you to perform come true. Many of these changes have taken place: you and the people working for you have shone light into dark practices of the previous administration and started steps to correct them, moved us closer to the original and true heart of the nation in terms of being one that is governed by laws and supervised, as transparently and closely as possible, by representatives who are accountable and who report in a proper way to the people.

You have moved in a variety of ways to bring us as a country into a better set of relationships with the governments of other nations and with science-based policies with respect to issues in which science impacts public policy. Now, with respect ot health care, I would like to urge you to act and to move strongly to achieve the change that we elected you to do, keeping in mind that the American people (including me) voted strongly to change the character and balance of Congress at the same time and for similar reasons.

We cannot let a set of actions by the opposing party interfere with this program of legislation, and we have already given up too much in pursuing what appears to be a fruitless and hopeless mirage of bi-partisan participation in this change. Those of good will in the opposite party are, in my opinion, too much captured by the extremist fringe of that party to let their practical better instincts emerge, and will not cooperate in pursuing and implementing the change that this nation needs.

I strongly urge you and your colleagues and fellow elected officials in the House of Representatives and in the Senate to pursue the change that this nation needs in terms of health care AND health insurance reform -- two topics that are closely related but are not the same -- and to pass and enact legislation of which the late and greatly missed Senator Kennedy would be proud. I do not often express myself on public policy, but believe that this change is important. We cannot let the equivalent of vandals who are now operating in the public forum to slow down or derail the achievement of this change.

With great respect and thanks,

Alan Sill, Ph.D

Lubbock, Texas

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

My visit with Con. Randy Neugebauer's office.

By Ray Kinserlow - Aug 12th, 2009 at 4:44 pm EDT

Also listed in: Lubbock supports Barack | Seniors for Obama | Veterans for Obama

I went to the Congressman's office around 1:20pm and was greeted by a staff member. The Congressman appeared not to be in his Lubbock office. I gave her a letter to show my support for health care reform and she said she would give it to the Representative. My girlfriend came with me and the staff member told us about a town hall meeting which would be at an undetermined location on Aug 25th in Lubbock. I think I will go to it though I doubt I would be given a chance to speak. As to the content of my letter, I will try to post it later in this blog.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

The Gay Rights Movement, and Church/State Separation

By Arch - Apr 26th, 2009 at 6:54 am EDT

Also listed in: Action Wire | Lubbock supports Barack

When the California Supreme Court ruled that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional, many of the more conservative districts decided on a solution. Since the courts were stating that, in order to offer hetero-sexual marriages, they had to offer homo-sexual as well; they decided not to offer any marriages. I agreed with that sentiment; albeit on very different grounds, as I will explain. 

Conservatives, particularly the religious right, like to think this is a simple issue. They like to quote Judeo-Christian values, and Bible scriptures condemning the immorality of homosexuality as a defense against the Gay Rights Movement. Unfortunately, while I agree personally with their assessments from a spiritual standpoint, their arguments do not hold a lot of water in a Constitutional debate. In fact, if they continue down this course of maintaining marriage as a state institution, but mandate a requirement that it is for hetero-sexual couples only, they are a threat to themselves; and they will lose this fight. 

If the government decrees, either through judicial review or legislation, that gay marriage must be protected as an equal right; then since marriage is a state institution, they will have legal justification to require churches to marry homosexuals or be penalized for discrimination. However, if marriage is seen as simply a religious observance; it can be stripped from the state entirely, and the churches will have the right to marry whomever they want. In the case regarding these conservative districts in California, this was the more constitutionally-sound way to go. The only way for the religious right to keep marriage as between a man and a woman is to completely take the state out of the picture. Basically, the government should not have the right to marry anyone, period. 

I realize that, for some, this is an emotially-charged issue. Many hold very conservative religious views regarding homosexuality, and I am one of them in that regard. Unfortunately, the Bible, or any religious text, is not admissable in a US court of law as a valid argument for or against in a political debate. This is a fact. Having said that, I am of the opinion that the Gay Rights Movement is right on constitutional grounds. If the government is going to be in the marriage business, they can not discriminate because certain couples do not live a certain lifestyle condoned by a certain religion. 

In addition, I want to set the record straight in regards to hate-crimes legislation. I understand the intent; and I do feel that the far right is exaggerating this a bit. However, I am wary of the slippery slope we are on. There are some on the far left that believe a pastor or priest who condemns homosexuality from the pulpit is somehow committing a hate crime. I disagree. Because of freedom of speech, as well as religion, they should have the same equal protections under the law as the KKK Grand Master who preaches his hate of the Negro. I am not equating these two. I am simply stating that they should have the same protections under the Constitution; and in regards to religious sermons, even moreso. 

Again, the religious right needs to heed some caution in regards to how they fight these things. Quoting the founding fathers as being pro-Judeo/Christian values being legislated from the government is an innacurate and ignorant depiction of what transpired when this nation was created. The Constitutional Convention was extremely heated in regards to religion's influence in our government; and the belief that our founding fathers were in unity on this is intellectually dishonest. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison opposed religion's influence adamantly, in debate and action; and it was of much controversy even at that time. Our government, at the beginning, supported a very strict separation of church and state which could not be any more demonstrated than in regards to their reactions to the treaty signed between the United States and the Barbary Pirates of Tripoli, in 1796. 

The treaty included in its wording the statement that "the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...." When the treaty was presented to Senate for ratification in May of 1797, it was read in its entirety. There were 23 Senators present at this reading. There was no debate over the treaty, and no documented statements criticizing it. When the votes were counted; the treaty was ratified unanimously. John Adams then signed it into law on June 10, 1797 without a word decrying the use of this sentence. I am not arguing that John Adams or the US Senate at the time of this treaty were not Christians. On the contrary, I am simply stating that the separation of church and state was essentially worn into the fabric of the responsibilities of our government. 

In conclusion, I must hold the position that, in spite of my own religious convictions regarding God's view of the immorality of homosexuality, the most powerful enemy of those who wish to keep marriage between one man and one woman is the United States Constitution itself. The Gay Rights Movement's position on this issue is constitutionally sound. The only solution would be to have no secular observance of marriage at the state level; and simply delegate marriage as a religious sacrament the equivalent of baptism or ordination. Anything less than this will only breed a new battle; as the government will be obligated by law to combat discrimination against any organization, religious or otherwise, who refuses to participate and recognize same-sex unions. 

MF

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

President Obama deserves an A+

By Melinda Jones - Apr 24th, 2009 at 10:36 pm EDT

Also listed in: Lubbock supports Barack

President Obama and his administration must be very pleased with his accomplishments his first 100 days in office. I have been tracking his progress since he took office, mostly on CNN. I'm impressed with the focus and determination towards the goals set during his campaign, and setting them at record speed. Most Americans are pleased with his performance and give the president a high rating on honesty, being trustworthy, and pretty much being a super president. It is my opinion that while we struggle for stability in our own lives, we are relieved to see our president taking charge on the issues that are important to us in our daily lives. It's like a sigh of relief, knowing that we finally have a president who gets it. He has created an economic plan that most Americans approve, he's been diligent in improving the lives of children in health care and eduction. and he fought for and won equal pay for women. He is the perfect role model as a husband and father and emphasizes hard work towards a positive world. I'm proud of him and his progress. I personally rest better at night knowing President Obama is in the White House. Over all, President Obama deserves an A+.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

McCain VS Obama

By La Susa - Nov 2nd, 2008 at 4:11 pm EST

Also listed in: 9 groups

Im not in favor of McCain because he wants to cheat workers, and give more money to the extreamly rich that make 250,000.00 or more! Yo no estoy en favor al McCain por que el quire enganiar a los trabajadores y dar mas dinero a los ricototes, la cual que hacen 250,000.00 y mas!

Im not in favor of McCain because he is too old, 72 years old, and placed Palin as VP. Poor Palin dosn't know much about the world, much less about how to run Our Nation. Yo no estoy en favor al McCain por que ya esta muy viejo, 72 anos, y puso a la Palin de VP. La pobre Palin no sabe mucho del mundo, menos como correr nuestro Nacion!

Im not in favor of McCain because he says he knows how to do everything, but really what has he done in, practicly nothing in 20 years. Yo no estoy en favor al McCain por que el dice que el sabe como hacer de todo, pero a la deveras no ha hecho casi nada en 20 anos.

Im not in favor of McCain because he lies too much! There are so many lies I cannot place them all here, it is an embarrasment! Yo no estoy en favor al McCain por que miente demaciado! Hay tantas mentiras que no los puedo ponerlos todos aqui, es una veruenza!

I voted for Senator Obama because he wants to help those workers who pay way too much in taxes. He wants the rich that make 250,000.00 or more to pay taxes as it was during the years of President Clinton. Yo Vote por Senador Obama por que el qiere ayudar a aquellos que trabajan y pagan demacido taxes. El quiere que los ricos que hacen 250,000.00 y mas que ellos pagan taxes como era en los anos del Presidente Clinton.

I voted for Senator Obama because he realized when his mom was ill that the insurance companies didn't want to pay the bills because her illness before she died being cancer was considered 'pre-existing'. And she sadly died with the worries of the bills. Yo Vote por Senador Obama por que el se dio cuenta que cuando su mama estaba enferma las companias de seguranza no querian pagar los cuentos por que querian decir la cual que la enfermedad que cancer que tenia su mama antes de murir que era 'pre-existing'. Y la pobre murio con penas de los cuentos!

I voted for Senator Obama because he knows what it is like to live in poverty, for when he was a child he and his mom were on foodstamps. And his manerism is one of humility. Yo Vote por Senador Obama por que el sabe como es vivir pobre, cuando el era nino, su mama y el estaban es las estampas. Y tiene un modo de ser que es humide.

I voted for Senator Obama because he knows what it is like to live without a dad. His dad left when he was only two years old. And he knows that there are many mothers with children who are alone and suffering with mounting bills. Yo Vote al Senador Obama por que el sabe como es vivir sin un papa. El papa de el se fue, cuando el no mas tenia dos anos de edad. Y sabe que hay muchas madres con ninos que estan solas y sufiendo con biles demasiados.

I voted for Senator Obama because he wants to give many jobs to the people! Yo Vote al Senador Obama por que el quiere a dar muchos trabajos a la gente!

I voted for Senator Obama because he wants all students to have the opportunities to go to collage, not just the rich! Yo Vote al Senador Obama por que el quiere que todos estudiantes tengan la oportunidad a ir al colejio, no, no mas los ricos!

I voted for Obama because he knows we have to stop the war in Iraq, and look for that man Bin Ladden who killed nearly 4 thousand people here in the United States on September 11, 2001. Yo Vote al Obama por que el sabe que tenemos que parrar la guierra en Iraq y buscar al hombre ese Bin Ladden; que mato ha casi 4 mil personas aqui en Los Estados Unidos en Septiembre 11 del 2001.

I voted for Senator Obama because he dose not want American companies to leave to China, and he wants them to stay here in the Untited States. Yo Vote por el Senador Obama por que el no quiere que las companias Americanas se van para China, el quiere que se esten aqui en Los Estados Unidos.

I voted for Senator Obama because he wants to help companies make new inventions, so that we will not be dependant on other nations for oil. Yo Vote al Senador Obama por que el quiere ayudar a las companias hacer invenciones nuevas, para no estemos dependidas en otros Naciones para el aceite.

The tax calculator: El calculador de taxes:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gGgFgH

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Acuerdencen! Remember!

By La Susa - Nov 2nd, 2008 at 2:06 pm EST

Also listed in: 9 groups

Acuerdencen al los ancianos y gente debiles a llevar sillas para que se descansan cuando voten en el dia 4 de Noviembre, por que se me hace que va a ver mucha gente!

Remember to remind the elderly and weak to bring chairs so that they can rest, when they go vote on November 4, because I belive that there will be a lot of people!

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Driving home, getting things going in the right direction in West Texas

By Alan Sill - Nov 2nd, 2008 at 11:38 am EST

Also listed in: Lubbock supports Barack | TX Call Team

You may have seen my first blog entry at

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/alansill/gGgzYd

I made this entry while volunteering last week as an out-of-state
volunteer for the Obama campaign in Colorado. This was the
quintessential volunteering experience for me -- I can't imagine it
going better unless I had met Senator Obama or Senator Biden directly.

I walked neighborhoods, learned to use the VoteBuilder system, made
calls, did canvassing, and learned how to schedule volunteers and get
them involved. I met many volunteers from Colorado and other states,
and in response to my hard work throughout the week, got to go to a
rally for Mark Udall (the Democratic candidate for US Senate there),
where I met and got to talk to Robert Redford (really!) and to Governor

Ritter of Colorado.

Driving home, I passed through much "McCain country" and areas full of
folks who think of themselves as Republicans. I couldn't help
thinking of the good and decent people I had met who were committed to
improving the country during the previous week. As I said in the blog
entry above, there are many good and decent people living here also --
most of the people that I know, in fact -- but the alternative that
presents the Democratic party and ideals as being just as central to
the core of America, if not more, is not being represented here.

We need to do something about this, and do it right away. If you
picked up the Avalanche-Journal today and read the front page, it
confirms that turnout is low among portions of our community who
should feel empowered to vote, but who feel that their votes will be
washed away in "Republican" West Texas. It doesn't have to be that
way!! Having spent a solid week surrounded by and embedded within the
exciting environment of the volunteer experience I described above, it
seems to me that we can make calls, contact voters and encourage
everyone we know to think seriously about their vote and to use it well.

Please volunteer to help in some way -- a good place to start seems to
be at

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/actioncenter

and encourage everyone you know to go out and vote and to make their
voice heard. You can do this now!

West Texas is full of good and decent people -- let's make the voice
of those voting for Obama heard!

Contact me for more info:
806-790-7462 cell
806-798-3105 home
Alan.Sill@sbcglobal.net

Alan

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Bush's VP Dick Cheney

By La Susa - Nov 1st, 2008 at 5:26 pm EDT

Also listed in: 8 groups

Bush's VP Dick Cheney endorses McCain, praising Palin.

Sourse CNN

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (1) | Report Objectionable Content

Fight The McCain Economics LIES!!!!!

By La Susa - Nov 1st, 2008 at 4:29 pm EDT

Also listed in: 8 groups

EconomyObama's Stance on the Economy Barack Obama's Tax Savings Calculator:http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gGgFgH

Barack Obama has offered a detailed plan to get America’s economy back on track, by creating new jobs and easing the burden on hardworking Americans by offering middle-class tax cuts three times the size of McCain’s.

Plan to Strengthen the EconomyThe Problem

Wages are Stagnant as Prices Rise: While wages remain flat, the costs of basic necessities are increasing. The cost of in-state college tuition has grown 35 percent over the past five years. Health care costs have risen four times faster than wages over the past six years. And the personal savings rate is now the lowest it's been since the Great Depression.

Tax Cuts for Wealthy Instead of Middle Class: The Bush tax cuts give those who earn over $1 million dollars a tax cut nearly 160 times greater than that received by middle-income Americans. At the same time, this administration has refused to tackle health care, education and housing in a manner that benefits the middle class.

Learn More

McCain's Stance on the Economy

John McCain’s economic policy is the same as George Bush’s. It ignores middle class Americans, giving $200 billion in tax cuts to corporations, including $4 billion in tax breaks to Big Oil, while leaving over 100 million middle-class Americans with no relief. Economists say McCain’s plan will add $3.4 trillion to the national debt.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

McCain Lieing Again!!!!!!

By La Susa - Nov 1st, 2008 at 1:21 pm EDT

Also listed in: 8 groups

McCain says Obama wants to re-distribute the wealth!

Who has been burdened by taxes the last 8 years? The Middle Class, because the million and billionaires have enjoyed a tax break, that McCain wants to make permanent!!!!!!!

Obama wants to tax the million and billionaires, and belive me, those folks are not small businesses!!!!!!!!

McCain is using fearmongering to sway votes in his favor!

Who was with Bush on the 'Privatizing of Social Security'? McCain?

When Sen McCain claims to have been tested to be United States President; in 1962 when he sat in a plane cockpit, during the Cuban missle Crisis, why didn't McCain run for USA President way back then? It's only been 46 years ago.

McCain says he knows how to win wars, what wars has he won?

McCain says he knows how to fix corruption, what corruption has he fixed?

McCain says he knows how to fix Wallstreet, when has McCain ever fixed Wallstreet?

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Yo, Arnold R-Gov. of Calif.

By La Susa - Nov 1st, 2008 at 11:53 am EDT

Also listed in: 8 groups

We can take your 'skinny legs' insults, but we cannot take four more years of McCin-Bush economics!!!!!! Was it not you Arnold R-Gov of Calif. that asked for a bail out for the State of Calif. a few days after the AIG bail out? So you want the hard working middle class to bail out Calif., because you don't know how to balance a budget? And allow the billion and millionaires to get richer and richer?

Do the math!!!!!! See Barack's Tax Calculator!

http://www.my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gGgFgH

Get Educated! Use the Brain Muscle! Look it up in the dictionary!!!!!!!

The insults and fear mongering has gotten way out of hand! Just because Sen Barack Obama wants to make healthcare affordable for everyone, dose not mean a socialistic government! Way too many of our working families are going bankrupt because of the sky rocketing costs of healthcare! And those who don't have healthcare, are often treated when it is too late, driving up the costs of healthcare for all of us!!!!!!! Of all develped countries in the world, the USA is lagging far behind, with high infant mortality rates etc. etc.! The past 8 years the middle class has payed above and beyond their fare share, while the rich get richer! Now the middle class are loosing jobs left and right, they need a break! And I don't think it's too much to ask the million and billionaires to pitch in their fare share! Our economy depends on the middle class! they are the buying power of America! Small buisnesses fall under the catagory of middle class people because they earn far less than 250,000.00 dollars a year!!!!!!!!

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of ...
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Democracy is a form of government in which the supreme power is held completely by the people under a free electoral system. It is derived from the Greek ...
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Capitalism is the economic system in which the means of production are distributed to openly competing profit-seeking [1] private persons and where ...
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Marxism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Marxism is the political philosophy and practice derived from the work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Any political practice or theory that is based on ...
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Exxon Record Profits!

By La Susa - Oct 31st, 2008 at 2:41 pm EDT

Also listed in: 8 groups

Exxon Oct. 30, 08 third quarter record profits! Bush-McCain economics!

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Every Vote Counts!

By La Susa - Oct 31st, 2008 at 2:25 pm EDT

Also listed in: 9 groups

Vote Early, take friends and relatives with you!

Before and on Nov. 4, if one can help to bring people to the polls! If one has folding chairs, mark with your name and phone number and offer to help our seniors, and those with disbilities sit down while waiting in expected long lines!

Remind folks to sign their names on paper ballots!

In some areas one cannot wear political T-Shirts or pins!

If one has no car, is disabled and cannot be out and about, still vote early, call all of your friends and relatives and encourage them to vote!

We cannot afford to believe the polls! Every Vote Counts!!!!!!

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Joe the Plumber....

By La Susa - Oct 31st, 2008 at 11:43 am EDT

Also listed in: 9 groups

Joe the plumber said yesturday "I will vote for McCain the real American." 'The real American', wonder what he means by that? Or what is he implying by that statement? Unless one has Native American ancestry as dose Sen Barack Obama, I cannot see the connection to 'real American'. I personally find the comment offensive... Should Sen McCain win this election, what cabnet position will Joe the Plunger have, or did I hear wrong?

Poor Joe the Plumber, if he had studied small business (or at least googled it) he would know that overhead, payroll, utilities and a host of other expenses are deducted before talling up the total profit from business income on Schedule C of the Federal Tax Forms... It's sad to see gulable American people lied to, in such a decptive fashion! I wonder if Joe the Plumber is jumping for joy because EXON-MOBIL again anounce hudge profits! Will Joe the Plumber get any cash from EXON-MOBIL as McCain has implied that the rich will somehow benifit the poor and middles class?

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

McCain-Palin Small Business LIES, BUSH-ECNOMICS, DECEPTIONS!!!

By La Susa - Oct 31st, 2008 at 10:26 am EDT

Also listed in: 9 groups

McCain's Small-Business BunkJuly 14, 2008He claims 23 million small-business owners would pay higher tax rates under Obama. He's wrong. The vast majority would see no change, and many would get a cut.SummaryMcCain has repeatedly claimed that Obama would raise tax rates for 23 million small-business owners. It's a false and preposterously inflated figure.

We find that the overwhelming majority of those small-business owners would see no increase, because they earn too little to be affected. Obama's tax proposal would raise rates only on couples making more than $250,000 or singles earning more than $200,000.

McCain argues that Obama's proposed increase is a job-killer. He has a point. It's true that increasing taxes on those at the top would leave them less money for other purposes, including investment and hiring in the case of business owners. But the number of business owners who would see their rates go up would be only a small fraction of what McCain says. Many would see their taxes go down.
AnalysisSen. John McCain has been making this false claim over and over, starting with a July 7 speech announcing his "jobs for America" plan:

McCain, July 7: Senator Obama's tax increases will hurt the economy even more, and destroy jobs across this country. If you are one of the 23 million small-business owners in America who files as an individual rate payer, Senator Obama is going to raise your tax rates.

He repeated it in an address to the League of United Latin American Citizens the next day:

McCain, July 8: Keeping individual rates low isn't intended as a favor to wealthy Americans. 23 million small-business owners pay those rates, and taking more money from them deprives them of the capital they need to invest and grow and hire.

He said it again at a campaign event July 9:

McCain, July 9: If you are one of the 23 million small-business owners in America who files as an individual rate payer, Senator Obama is willing to raise your tax rates.

And he repeated it in the first of a planned series of radio addresses July 12:

McCain, July 12: If you are one of the 23 million small-business owners who files as an individual rate payer, watch out – because as your business grows, my opponent proposes to raise your taxes.

But repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. McCain's 23 million claim is a bogus figure.

Outdated, Inflated, Inapplicable

To justify the 23 million figure, McCain spokesman Brian Rogers referred us to a press release by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which refers to "23 million small business owners" without citing a source. That is actually an outdated count of all the businesses in the United States, produced by the U.S. Census for 2002, when the Economic Census counted a total of 23,343,821 business firms of all sizes. Of those, 16,845 firms employed 500 persons or more, which still leaves just over 23.3 million classified as "small" by the widely accepted definition that we will use here.

That figure is six years out of date. The U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy estimates the total number of "small" firms with fewer than 500 workers reached 26.8 million in 2006. That's the most recent estimate. But it is also inflated. Since the total U.S. population was just under 300 million in 2006, it would mean that one in every 11 Americans – men, women and children – is a "small-business owner."

It turns out, SBA's estimate includes more than 20 million "nonemployer" firms, an unknown number of them sideline or hobby businesses run by persons who actually make their living some other way. Census and SBA count as a "small business" anyone who reported as little as $1,000 of business receipts. By that very broad definition, John McCain himself is a "small-business owner," because his tax return shows Schedule C income from book royalties. For that matter, Barack Obama would also be a small-business owner, by virtue of his book income. As would President Bush and Vice President Cheney, as we pointed out in 2004. Of the 26.8 million that SBA counts as "small businesses," fewer than 6 million are actually "employer firms" with any payroll.

From this, we must conclude that to arrive at his 23 million figure, McCain is counting mostly "business owners" with no workers, including those who simply report small amounts of income from sideline or freelance work. McCain is arguing that Obama's tax increase would "destroy jobs," but he's counting mostly firms that don't produce any.

That in itself is seriously misleading. If McCain wants to focus on the effects of Obama's plan on employment, he would do better to confine his count to employers – the just under 6 million firms that actually have workers. And even that figure wouldn't be applicable because Obama's tax increase wouldn't fall on all employers, only on those in the top two income tax brackets.

McCain Campaign's Statement

1. These small businesses are subject to Sen. Obama's pay or play health care plan: The tax will either be in the form of health insurance to
workers or cash to the government.

2. Further, even giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, if they make
over $250,000 and file as individuals or have capital gain or dividends, their taxes go up, as Obama has promised.

Note US Chamber cites 23 million figure: "The U.S. Chamber is proud to pay special tribute to some of its most valued constituents: America's
23 million small business owners"McCain's Non-explanation

McCain cannot justify his 23 million claim. We asked McCain spokesman Brian Rogers for substantiation and received the statement that we reprint here. We find it simply won't do.

Rogers starts by saying that Obama's health care proposal to provide coverage for uninsured workers would amount to a "tax," either in the form of higher costs for covering employees or "cash to the government." But McCain was talking about income tax rates, not higher business costs. That's not justifying McCain's claim; that's trying to change the subject.

Furthermore – as we've just seen – the vast majority of those that McCain is counting as small-business owners have no employees and wouldn't encounter any added costs for covering workers. Obama's plan wouldn't apply to every small employer, either. It says: "Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt." Also, after Rogers sent his message, Obama announced July 13 that he is proposing to grant $6 billion per year in tax credits for small businesses that provide health insurance plans, covering up to half the cost of premiums paid to cover employees.

As for actual income tax rates, which is what McCain keeps talking about, Rogers says "if they make over $250,000 and file as individuals ... their taxes go up." But this leaves out all but a very small fraction of those McCain counts as small-business owners. Rogers also says taxes will go up if small-business owners "have capital gains or dividends," but Obama's proposal would not increase rates on capital gains or dividends for couples making under $250,000, or singles making under about $200,000, regardless of whether they are classified as small-business owners or not.

How Many Would Actually Pay More?

McCain is right about one thing. Many small-business owners would indeed see their taxes go up if Obama is elected and raises the top income-tax rates. According to a survey from the National Federation of Independent Businesses, about eight out of 10 small-business owners responding to the poll report that they are organized legally in a way that would require them to pay taxes on their business income as individuals, rather than as a corporation. But since Obama's plan wouldn't affect those making less than $250,000 for couples, or about $200,000 for singles, we need to estimate how many would fall into those high-income categories.

Obama's plan, according to his economic policy director Jason Furman, would return the top two federal income-tax rates to what they were before Bush lowered them. In addition, Obama would adjust the income-tax brackets to ensure that no married couple making under $250,000 or single filer making under $200,000 would pay the top rates.

The actual number of business owners who would be affected turns out to be well under a million, and the number of employers would be even less. Based on the number of taxpayers who now report any sort of business income on their returns, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center projects that 663,608 taxpayers with business income, or business losses, will fall into the top two tax brackets in 2009, when any Obama tax changes would first take effect. Not all of those can properly be called "small-business owners," however. Some are farmers. Many are lawyers, accountants or other professionals who get some of their income in the form of partnership distributions. Others may be passive investors in real-estate partnerships or similar investment arrangements and not really persons who own and manage a business.

It is also not clear how many who report business income actually employ any workers. In 2004, the Tax Policy Center found that hundreds of thousands of individual taxpayers who had business income from partnerships or subchapter-S corporations (whose owners pay taxes as individuals) did not claim any tax deductions for employee expenses. For all these reasons we judge that the actual number of small-business employers who would face higher tax rates under Obama is probably far below 663,608, and certainly a far cry from McCain's ridiculously inflated 23 million figure.

Lower Taxes for Many

While Obama's plan would raise rates at the top, it also would grant what he calls a “Making Work Pay” tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. Since this credit would not begin to phase down for couples making less than $150,000, we judge it likely that many, if not most of the 23 million that McCain counts as "small-business owners" would likely get tax reductions.

An Echo of Bush

McCain's claim struck us as wildly improbable the first time we heard it because we debunked a much less expansive claim that President Bush made about John Kerry in 2004. Bush ran a TV ad saying that Kerry's proposal to raise taxes on persons making more than $200,000 a year would affect 900,000 small-business owners. We found Bush's number to be far too high. We noted that Bush was counting as a "small-business owner" anyone who reported even $1 of business or partnership income, regardless of how the taxpayer made their living. At that time, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimated that a total of 471,000 small-business employers could be affected.

– by Brooks Jacksonhttp://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Volunteering lessons from a swing state (Colorado)

By Alan Sill - Oct 31st, 2008 at 12:42 am EDT

Also listed in: Lubbock supports Barack

Have been volunteering this past week in Colorado to help with its effort to become a swing state pulling for Obama. During the time I have been here, we have seen the lead of the Obama/Biden ticket grow by a factor of two from 4 points to 8 points in state-wide polling! Very exciting -- though I can't take any credit for this, of course.

We need to figure out how to do this in Lubbock County, and all of West Texas. The people who live there are by and large decent, hard-working people with a good amount of sense. If we can pull together over common issues, and direct and organize our efforts to good things that are healthy for the community, I'm sure we can grow the presence of the Democratic party back to where it should be among the fine folks who live in our community. Let's get started on this right away!

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Panhandle Young Dems on KWTS - 91.1 - the One! 10/31/08

By Lisa Caid - Oct 30th, 2008 at 11:08 pm EDT

Also listed in: 9 groups

http://www.wtamu.edu/kwts/

Hey everyone, if you are around a radio tomorrow morning and want to hear something unusually great.....tune in to the WTAMU radio station, KWTS - 91.1 - the One! from 8:15 till 9:00 am to hear the Panhandle Young Democrats for a full 45 minutes.

You'll get some great info on upcoming events, including the huge/amazing/spectacular "Watch/Victory" Party that will be at the Nat Ballroom on Tuesday night at 8:00.

Support your locals Democrat "Buds"........tune in!

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

McCain-Palin "Unethical?" LIES, MISLEADING, FALSE!!!!!!!

By La Susa - Oct 30th, 2008 at 10:55 am EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

'Unethical?'October 27, 2008http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/unethical.htmlA McCain-Palin/RNC ad claims Obama 'rewards his friends with your tax dollars.' It's off the mark.SummaryAn ad released jointly by the McCain-Palin campaign and the RNC claims Obama "rewards his friends with your tax dollars" and calls his actions "unethical." Some of what the ad says is false or misleading. Here are the facts:

The ad claims that Obama supporter and Chicago real estate developer Allison Davis received $20 million in taxpayer money. That's false. Davis didn't get this money. Instead, the federal grant went to the Chicago Housing Authority, replacing money it had already put forward for a mixed-income housing project on which Davis was a developer. The grant didn't go to Davis, nor did it help him pocket any additional funds.

The ad says Obama gave Tony Rezko $14 million of taxpayer money. That's misleading. It's true the housing project Rezko was working on cost $14 million in taxpayer cash. Rezko and his partner netted $855,000 in fees.
Obama worked to get Kenny Smith a $100,000 grant to build a park, which Smith later failed to complete. Smith has since caught the attention of the state attorney general. But, according to reports, Obama isn't under investigation for helping Smith get the grant.

The RNC and McCain may consider Obama's actions to be "unethical"; that's a matter of opinion. But the fact is, as far as these three incidents are concerned, Obama has not been officially accused of any wrongdoing, and there's been no report that his actions are the subject of any official investigation.
AnalysisThe joint ad from the McCain-Palin campaign and the Republican National Committee accuses Sen. Barack Obama of being "unethical," citing instances in which individuals connected to Obama received federal or state funds. Sen. John McCain's campaign and the RNC have spent $5.9 million so far airing the ad in 17 states, including Pennsylvania, where $1.2 million has been spent on the ad, and North Carolina, where it has aired a total of 1,629 times, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group of TNS Media Intelligence. The ad started airing on Oct. 14.

RNC/McCain-Palin Ad:
"Unethical"

Announcer: Obama rewards his friends with your tax dollars. Tony Rezko, fourteen million. Allison Davis, twenty million. Kenny Smith, one hundred thousand. That's unethical. Congressional liberals promise to raise your taxes to reward their friends with wasteful pork. Taxes for you. Pork for them. Who's gonna' stop 'em? Congressional liberals? Or him.

McCain: I'm John McCain and I approve this message. $20 Million? Try Zero

The ad claims that real estate developer Allison Davis received $20 million of taxpayer money thanks to Obama. But that's false. Davis didn't get any of this money. The ad cites a story from The Washington Times, but the article says that "city housing authorities confirmed" that the "grant money won't go to Mr. Davis or his company."

According to documentation provided by the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA), a letter was ghostwritten for Obama, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and others by the CHA in support of a project called Stateway Gardens – an urban revitalization effort to transition crime-ridden high-rises into mixed-income housing. The letter was sent to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in an effort to acquire a fiscal year 2008 grant of $20 million to support the project, of which Davis, a supporter of Obama, was one of the developers.

We spoke with Housing and Urban Development (HUD) spokeswoman Donna White, who told us that the money was not awarded to Davis, but to the Chicago Housing Authority:

Donna White, spokeswoman for HUD: The Chicago Housing Authority competed for [the Hope VI] grant. The housing authority applies for the funding, they select a developer. ... It's common for congressional members to submit letters of support when they know that a housing authority in their jurisdiction is competing for a grant.

We also spoke with William Little, executive vice president of development for CHA, who reiterated that the HUD grant was not awarded to Davis, but to the CHA, and that the grant allowed the CHA to reallocate funds it had already directed to the Stateway project. Davis did not see a profit as a result of the HUD grant, according to Little, nor did the budget for the Stateway project increase. When we asked Little about the charge in the ad that Obama "reward[ed]" Davis with $20 million, he told us:

William Little, CHA: That's totally false. HUD awarded CHA $20 million in a Hope VI grant, which allows CHA to reallocate funds it had previously earmarked for that particular project to other projects. The overall budget for the project did not increase. Allison Davis gets none of it.

A portion of the Stateway development is devoted to market-priced housing, and Davis stood to profit from the sales of those homes. But he did not pocket any of the HUD grant, which went to construction of low-income units.

Tony Rezko (Again)

The ad also claims that Tony Rezko got "fourteen million," because of Obama. But he didn't.

A 2007 report from The Chicago Sun-Times is the source, but the article goes over territory we've addressed before: that Obama wrote letters to state officials supporting a low-income senior housing complex Rezko was trying to have built. Both men say Rezko did not solicit the letters. The Sun-Times quoted Obama spokesman Bill Burton as saying Obama didn't write the letters as a favor but "in the interests of the people in the community who have benefited from the project."

Regardless, the ad is wrong to imply Rezko pocketed millions. The project cost $14 million of taxpayer money. But, as we've reported, Rezko and his partner, who was Allison Davis, received $855,000 in fees. It's not peanuts, but it's not $14 million either.

Kenny Smith's $100,000 Garden

The ad then claims Kenny Smith received $100,000 in taxpayer money as a "reward" from Obama. This claim holds more water than the rest, but it's still a leaky vessel.

The ad cites a New York Post report that details how Obama, then a state senator in the midst of a race for a congressional seat, worked on Smith's behalf in 2000 in an effort to raise $1.1 million in state funding for the "Englewood Botanic Garden Project." Smith, head of the nonprofit Chicago Better Housing Association and a volunteer for Obama's congressional campaign, planned to rehabilitate a plot of land in a Chicago neighborhood. He was awarded a $100,000 state grant to do so, a far cry from the $1.1 million he had hoped to receive.

But Smith never built the park. And, according to a report from The Chicago Sun-Times, state Attorney General Lisa Madigan, a Democrat who backs Obama, has started to look into whether or not taxpayer money was mishandled. While questions have been raised about how Smith spent the money, according to the Sun-Times, the paper notes that "neither Smith nor his wife are accused of any wrongdoing." The Post report cited by the ad said that "officials in Madigan's office said Obama's actions in giving out the member item aren't under investigation."

Democrats "Promise to Raise Your Taxes"

The ad swings away from the taxpayer hand-outs and claims: "Democrats promise to raise your taxes to reward their friends with wasteful pork." That linkage doesn't sound like a promise any sane politician would make.

The ad cites a Nov. 2007 article from The Washington Times, which chronicles a bill introduced by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.). The bill would have amended the tax code to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax and limit deductions that could be claimed by taxpayers making more than $250,000 a year, among other measures. But Rangel's bill, introduced a year ago, never cleared the Ways and Means Committee.

As for the "wasteful pork" claim, the fact is that securing earmarks is a popular practice among both Democrats and Republicans. Two oft-cited earmark recipients are longtime Sens. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). Both were listed in Porkbusters.org's "Hall of Shame" in 2006 and have been singled out as "Porker of The Month" more than once over the last eight years by the organization Citizens Against Government Waste – proof that, promise or not, Democrats and Republicans send money home for projects whether taxes go up or down.

– by Emi Kolawole

from www.factcheck.org a non-partisan watch dog group!!!!!!!!

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

"A License to Kill" Email and TV Adds FALSE, LIES!!!!!!

By La Susa - Oct 30th, 2008 at 10:08 am EDT

Also listed in: 8 groups

A License to Kill

October 28, 2008

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_license_to_kill.html

A new anti-Obama group runs a bunk-filled ad implying he'd give a driver's license to Mohammed Atta. SummaryAn upstart group calling itself the "National Republican Trust PAC" mixes a pile of false claims and the image of 9/11 mastermind Mohammed Atta to create one of the sleaziest false TV ads of the campaign.

The spot falsely claims Obama has a "plan" to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. In fact, Obama has said quite specifically, "I am not proposing that that's what we do."
The ad implies such licenses would enable terrorist attacks. In fact, Atta wouldn't have needed one to carry out his attacks.

It claims that Obama's health care plan will apply to illegal immigrants. But Obama has stated quite clearly that his plan "does not" cover illegal immigrants.

The ad falsely claims that Obama's plan "gives illegals Social Security benefits," which is also flatly untrue.

AnalysisDespite its name, the National Republican Trust has no formal connection to the Republican Party. It is an independent group with ties to the conservative Web site Newsmax. It sprang into being barely a month ago and has reported spending more than $900,000 to attack Obama through e-mail messages and, now, TV ads.

Its TV spot first showed up on the air in Columbus, Ohio, Oct. 26, and it has also received considerable circulation on the Web. It attempts to link Sen. Barack Obama to the 9/11 hijackers. The link? A spurious claim that Obama plans to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. NRT PAC, which is headed by a former writer for the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Insight magazine, says it plans to air the ad in other swing states.

Update, Oct. 29: Newsmax distributed a new NRT PAC fundraising e-mail today in which NRT boasts of having now raised "over $3 million." A postscript states that the group's ads are now running "in 5 battleground states."

National Republican Trust PAC Ad: "Social Security for Illegals"

Announcer: Millions of illegal aliens in the U.S. Barack Obama’s plan gives a driver’s license to any illegal who wants one.

But that’s not all.

Obama’s plan gives illegals Social Security benefits and raises taxes for his health care plan to cover them. Who pays? You do.

Driver’s licenses and government benefits for illegals. Higher taxes for us. That’s Obama’s plan. Obama. Too radical. Too risky.

The National Republican Trust PAC is responsible for the content of this advertisement. Drive Like a Maniac

The ad begins with the ominous warning that "Barack Obama's plan gives a driver's license to any illegal who wants one." More alarmingly, the ad flashes a picture of a Florida driver's license featuring 9/11 mastermind Mohammed Atta. The ad then goes on to claim that Obama's "plan" provides illegal immigrants with Social Security and health care benefits and would raise taxes to pay for it.

Hardly a word in the ad is true.

Let's start with the incendiary implication that Obama's "plan" would somehow enable terrorists like Atta. That's ridiculous. It's true that Atta did use a Florida driver's license to board the plane he hijacked. It's also irrelevant. Atta entered the U.S. legally, using a tourist visa, so laws about licenses for illegal immigrants wouldn't have affected him anyway. What's more, Atta could just as easily have boarded the plane with his Egyptian passport. The Transportation Security Administration lists foreign government-issued passports as acceptable identification for boarding a U.S. flight. For that matter, The Cato Institute's Jim Harper, who advises the Department of Homeland Security on data privacy, describes NRT PAC's claim as "despicable" and says that it is "terror-pandering of the highest order."

Plan? What Plan?

Furthermore, NRT PAC's claim that Obama has a "plan" to give driver's licenses to "any illegal [immigrant] who wants one" is just false. Obama has no such plan. "Plan" implies a worked out, formal policy. But NRT rests its claim entirely on comments Obama made during two Democratic primary debates. All candidates were asked whether they supported then-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Obama hedged, but when pressed, admitted that he agreed with states granting licenses, and requiring insurance. Here's part of the exchange:

CNN's Wolf Blitzer (Nov. 15, 2007): Barring, avoiding, assuming there isn't going to be comprehensive immigration reform, do you support or oppose driver's licenses for illegal immigrants?
Obama: I am not proposing that that's what we do. ... I have already said I support the notion that we have to deal with public safety and that driver's licenses at the state level can make that happen. But what I also know, Wolf, is that if we keep on getting distracted by this problem, then we are not solving it.

We take no position on the wisdom of Spitzer's proposal. But it's false to puff up Obama's comments into a "plan" when he quite specifically said, "I am not proposing that that's what we do." That sounds to us to be the opposite of a plan. The group would have been correct had it said Obama supported Spitzer's plan, but only in the absence of a federal effort to fix the immigration mess.

Health Care and Taxes. Again.

It is simply untrue that Obama plans to provide health care for illegal immigrants. To the contrary, in an exchange with CNN's Joe Johns during a January debate in South Carolina, Obama explicitly ruled out coverage for illegal immigrants:

Johns (Jan. 21, 2008): Senator Obama, we all know what universal health care is, as Senator Clinton just said, sort of the idea that everybody deserves health care. And I have not been able to sort of zero in on your position on this one question: Does your plan cover the estimated 12 million or so illegal immigrants in the country?
Obama: It does not.
Johns: Why not?
Obama: Well, because I think we've got limited resources. And it is important for us that, when we've got millions of U.S. citizens that aren't yet covered, it's important for us to make sure that they are provided coverage.

That sounds pretty clear to us. Furthermore, as we've said more times than we care to count now, Obama's plan raises taxes only on people making more than $200,000 ($250,000 for a couple). That's true for income taxes, capital gains taxes and payroll taxes.

Social Security Bunk That Won't Die

Just for good measure, the ad recycles some two-year-old bunk, too. The claim that Obama "plans" to grant Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants is nowhere to be found on his Web site. NRT PAC bases this claim on Obama's vote on an amendment to a 2006 immigration bill. But that amendment would not have granted Social Security benefits to any illegal immigrants, not unless they became U.S. citizens or legal immigrants first. We debunked this attack back in 2006 when it was a Republican favorite. The passing years haven't made it any truer.

Under current law, an illegal immigrant who later gets legal status can claim credit for any Social Security taxes he or she paid while still illegal. The 2006 amendment would have ended that practice. The bill failed 50 - 49, with Obama joining the majority to vote against it. Many illegal immigrants pay Social Security taxes even while working illegally. In 2006, for example, the Social Security Administration collected about $7 billion in taxes that couldn't be credited to specific workers.

Again, we take no position on the merits of the amendment. But it's a serious distortion to say that it would have granted Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants.

End-Game Sleaze

The National Republican Trust PAC came into being Sept. 26, when it first registered with the Federal Election Commission. By Oct. 15 it had reported raising $463,000 for its anti-Obama campaign. (Update: In an e-mail to supporters on Oct. 29, the group said it had raised more than $3 million.) It has reported spending a total of $902,604 to attack Obama, according to the most recent report filed Oct. 26. It has reported spending substantial sums to the conservative Web site Newsmax and to other vendors for "email communication" opposing Obama's election, and to a Virginia company called Integram for "direct mail." It has also listed expenditures for "media production" and a "media buy."

Its Web site lists its executive director as Scott Wheeler, who also writes articles for Newsmax, which the NRT PAC pays to distribute anti-Obama e-mail messages, many of which are little more than fundraising pleas.

It's not uncommon for the final weeks of the presidential campaign to bring out some of the most deceptive ads of the cycle. We thought it would be tough to top the whoppers we've seen already, but it looks as if some of the third-party ads are out to prove us wrong. If this gem from the National Republican Trust PAC is any indication, we'd best brace for a blizzard of balderdash.

– by Joe Miller

from factcheck.org a non partisan fact checker on-line

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (1) | Report Objectionable Content

Page 1 of 9 | Next | Last

Posts

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.