Posts with the tag tax

My Health Care Proposal

Amir — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:03:44 EDT

1. Those who have private health insurance; keep it.
2. Those who don’t have private health insurance but can afford it based on income after taxes but excluding house payments, cars, etc; tough. You shouldn’t live beyond your means.
3. Those who don’t have private coverage because they can’t afford it would get it via the government similar to what gov’t workers get with payments they can afford or none at all if they just can’t pay. This is through a private company; just subsidized by the feds. They can opt out for private coverage when they get on their feet.
4. Those who aren’t covered because they’re poor and not doing anything about it or having more and more kids would be limited to coverage for a max of 2 kids. If they can’t provide for their other kids, the children are taken into protective custody and the parents are charged with criminal neglect.
5. Government does not decide what treatments any gets; only physicians would do that.
6. Minimal insurance coverage (like liability for autos) would be required for all but monthly/semi-annual premiums would be capped so not to be excessive.
7. No denial of service due to pre-existing conditions. A higher premium would probably be necessary however.
8. Smokers and the obese are not covered except for programs designed to quit smoking and lose weight. Too great a burden on the system to cover these slow-cook suicides.
9. No coverage for abortion procedures except in the case of rape, incest, or life of the mother. (don’t agree? Don’t pay your taxes)
10. benefits only extend to US Citizens and legal permanent residents who are employed and, therefore, paying taxes (and into the system)
11. Emergency rooms no longer required to treat everyone for everything. If it can wait until morning (headache, moderate fever, etc) it will. No more “Dollar Store” medicine via the ER.
12. Small tax on refined sugar and high fructose corn syrup.
13. Maximum 1-year patent on new drugs.
14. Gigantic grant for cures to shift R&D from treatment to prevention by big pharmaceuticals.
15. Provision allowing for possible co-ops.

Problems with USA tax laws!

Unknown user — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:44:35 EDT

Certainly not many of you follow the ongoings of cases where people try to take advantage of tax laws to benefit themselves because the law itself is murky. However, there is a case that is drawing much attention unto itself, because of the nature of the "supposed" crime.

A fellow citizen who thought himself smart saw a loophole in the way he could pay his employees. If he payed them with gold or silver, which has to still be recognized by our society as a legal form of payment, he could give them more for less. This worked in the way that the legal system binds the value of these metals, to the current standings on the market. However when tax time comes around you are only taxed on the "face" value of the metals, not the current value of the market.

Citation is here

http://www.lvrj.com/news/48145032.html

and here http://www.lvrj.com/news/46074037.html.

Now to do this is wrong...absolutely not, seeing as the law is clear on how it wll tax its citizens and what is legal in payment. However, the point they are trying to make, is that this is fraud ...tax fraud because the person doing the action is doing this on purpose to avoid paying taxes.

OF COURSE HE IS, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU GAVE AWAY OUR MONEY TO BIGGER CRIMINALS (GM, CHRYSLER) AND WE HAD NO SAY IN THIS!

So he is trying to save a few people from paying more money then they have to. If I get a slip saying I can not deduct a full amount of gas receipts on my business because technically the gas is also used for personal use, then send me a letter saying I can only report 80% or something likewise...dont bring me to jail because I did not quite know you could only declare a percentage.

They are trying to say he meant to avoid paying taxes, but then so was I when I declared 100% and not 80% of my gas receipts! This is a government that stone walls other investigations which could impact this one, on purpose because they do not want to give a chance to the defendant to have the upper hand. I am talking about an unlawful seizure by the FBI and IRS and the defendants home without proper warrants prepared, yet that case which was started before this one, has yet to see the light of day, and should that case rule that the seizure was unwarranted, then it would be thrown out of court, yet you can not discuss another case that has yet to be tried, therefor, it was a tactic to stone wall that is now leaving the defendant without any options.

He payed his employees with gold, the employees could have refused and he would have paid them cash, or cheque, but they accepted....so who is really at fault...the employer, employee or the goverment for not seeing that one law presided over another?

The government sees this action as a possible sore point where people will end up paying less taxes and the value of gold keep climbing, which BTW we have no real mines left in the US, all te gold mines are off this continent, we would end up being again stuck with foreign policies dictating our current economy!

I am signing out, however I think about Obama going off to jail because he gave as a gift to someone, a friend or family member, some gold coins and was found guilty of fraud. Can a gift be taxed, I don't know ....luckily I live in Canada!!!

Taking the middle class? Kennedy & Obama Why???

Brian Dooley — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:41:02 EDT

So, as a CPA, if I understand the news, Senator Kennedy plans to required each employee to have health insurance.

Then, President Obama, you are considering taxing the benefits.

Sorry to say, I am speechless (which of course why I am writing).

This sounds like a Republican proposal to tax the middle class; have you been hanging out Dick Cheney?

So you don't want to pay tax?

Unknown user — Tue, 05 May 2009 08:48:35 EDT

Well, I am displeased to hear this, unless of course Obama was directing his attack towards the corporations and not the people. It is sad to say, but in this economic crisis, big coporations making billions of dollars profits, need to stand by their country, and support the failing infra-structure.

It is not by forcing the poor people, who work so hard , but cant afford the legal representation or accounting council to find all the loopholes, that should be targeted. Too often I find myself watching as the poor get poorer and ...well you know how it goes. Britney Spears is making millions, is she paying millions too in tax, or is there a glitzy accountant following her around calculating everything that can be deducted.

I would love to see a flat rate for people (corporations are a different matter) , that way less energy, effort,time and money is invested in making this happen. Think about it, no deductions, no receipts, no time wasted calculating, no time wasted getting documents, or contacting accountants that charge you through the nose to break even. If we had a flat 20% of whatever you did make, poor would not be poorer, then the rich.

They would be even. We would have alot more money in our coffers, because for once the rich would be paying the FULL amount,.....remember no deductions...so from 100 million dollars for one person's gain in a year (Arnold Schwarzenegger) would equal about 20 million for the US! Thats it thats all. No extra wasted money on the government figuring out new ways for people to pay, and have that side lined by another loop hole.

Why not, I ask you....why not? The person making 10$ an hour, does not have to worry about spending extra money to make all the weird calculations, to figure out this and that , and just pay an even 20%, easy! The rich guy, wont have the luxury of avoiding paying anythnig, because now, even with the best accountants, it wont matter....he still pays 20$

Where’s That Tax Cut?

Don — Mon, 04 May 2009 11:34:09 EDT

We’re still waiting for our middle class cut Mr. President. Huh??? We’ve already gotten our tax cut but most people don’t know that because the White House hasn’t hammered the message home. President Obama has delivered a tax cut for 95% of working Americans but Republicans are still drowning us in noisy claims that the president is raising taxes.

Don’t Pay Them To Outsource Jobs

Don — Mon, 04 May 2009 11:30:31 EDT

We are actually paying companies to ship our jobs overseas. Corporations receive tax cuts for outsourcing jobs to other countries. The president wants to eliminate those tax breaks, saving us $210 billion over the next four years. The White House needs to drive that message home tirelessly.

Budget: Promises Made; Promises Watered Down

Don — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 00:07:49 EDT

Why does it seem that the President is watering down his budget proposal to chase votes he won’t get? Republicans proved during the stimulus bill that despite all the concessions made to them then, they would never vote in favor of anything the President wants.

With Democrats, Independents and Moderate Republicans like me on his side, the President should focus on keeping his campaign promises because John Boaner, Mitch McConnell, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are opposed to fresh air, sunshine and Jesus, so long as they think President Obama is in favor of them.

Mr. President, you have helped them marginalize themselves to the maximum extent imaginable. Now it’s time to stand true to your word. Frankly, not everything you promised was what I wanted, but if you do what you told us you’d do, I will continue to support you, and I will vote against those who oppose you, regardless what party they’re in.

Terrorizing the Terrorists

Don — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 13:34:58 EDT

How do you deter an enemy who is willing to kill himself in order to kill you? You strike at something more important to him than his own life. Defining that will be easy for me. The next question is can America be as ruthless as our enemies?

The time has come to end the fruitless and unsustainable effort to search and destroy every cave in Afghanistan and bomb every campground in bordering Pakistan. It’s counterproductive anyway.

What will put the fear of America into terrorist masterminds and those who would follow their orders is simple and radical revenge. Masterminds have families: Cousins, brothers and fathers. Eliminate them. All at once, or one at a time, it works just as well. The ones who survive an initial “hunt” will go into hiding. Having some adult male relatives killed and the rest hiding out in caves will demoralize masterminds and their loved ones. You cannot work and support your women like that. You can’t make more baby masterminds that way. You cannot continue the blood line. The women and children will pressure them to stop their plotting and bombing.

People want to leave a familial legacy, and they can’t do that under those circumstances over the long term.

Should America do that? Yes. Do we have the “intestinal fortitude” and sustainable motivation? I don’t think so. But we should, and it shouldn’t take another terrorist attack to get us there.

For the last seven years the CIA has been kidnapping people from other nations and torturing them. Why not just go in there and quietly shoot them to death?

Frankly, by not killing women or children the way those terrorists routinely do, we can even claim the moral high ground.

Ltr to Congresspeeps: Tax Health Care Benefits???!!!

Grayson from Fort Myers, FL — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:49:19 EDT

Dear Senator Wyden,
I heard on NPR that you and Mr.Baucus are considering taxing worker's healthcare benefits.To be blunt, are you all on the same planet as me?I just finished reading Perfectly Legal and I am about to read Free Lunch. These (2) books were written in 2005 and 2007 respectively, by author David Cay Johnston.You need to read both of these books. They detail how the superrich 'donor' class has raped us, the working people, for the last 30 years, using the Federal Tax Code.That you could even float the idea of taxing something that is already incredibly overpriced and subject to a captive market that is distorted by EXECUTIVE pay, is unbelievable.Sincerely,
Grayson Porter
cc: Senator Baucus
     Pres Barack Obama
     Senator Chuck Grassley
     Senator Bill Nelson     Senator Olympia Snowe

Thanks all were active - Stop the AIG Bonuses - over $ 90 billion tax money to banks, to banks of Europe too

! Steffen from European Union, Dr. - Together We Can! Yes. We. Can. — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:36:05 EDT

Thanks for all were active again: U.S. House Passes 90 Percent Tax on Employee Bonuses

But it seems like we must still help President Obama! There can be other problems President Obama could need help. It's still a lot to change.

"Every six and half seconds, AIG loses the equivalent of the median household income in the US. Americans spent at world's largest retailer Wal-Mart Stores in the fourth quarter is $67.4 billion, so AIG's loss amounts to 92% of the spending! In other words, It's more like, It would take a person spending $1-million per day, everyday, the next 169 years to spend as much money as AIG lost during the fourth quarter, which lasted just 92 days."

- And one point more about tax money: over $ 90 billion were going from AIG to banks like Deutsche Bank, Société Générale, BNP Paribas, Barclays, Royal Bank of Scotland, UBS and some banks of US.

$2.85 billion Taken From Fathers' Tax Returns

George McCasland — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:47:14 EDT

“A record $2.85 billion in alleged delinquent child support was collected from federal income tax refund offsets in 2008 under the Federal Offset Program.”

The U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services Admin. for Children and Families announced that the 2008 collection record broke the previous one in 2007 by over $1.15 billion.

That’s well and nice, but it’s partly a LIE.

Men NOT paying child support isn’t the only reason for arrears. Men also have arrears when they are hit with up to 23 years of retroactive child support (Michigan Law) on a child they never knew existed.

My nursing home roommate was in arrears for 15 years due to the mother moving away and not telling him where. He found the boy last year, resulting in her renewing the CS claim. She got his 2008 return, but not anymore. After the boy came to see him, the father died of cancer.

There’s also active duty reservists whose child support was based on their private sector income. Only Missouri and Illinois allows for emergency or retroactive reductions for reservists. The rest just fell behind, as only 55% of their gross income can be taken, PLUS their tax returns.

There is far more to the problem of arrears than what is given to the media, or the media is willing to report on.

The Real Abominations Against God and Jesus

Don — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:04:47 EDT

The fact that Americans vote in favoring of paying our farmers to produce LESS milk in order to keep the gallon price of milk HIGHER than a gallon of gasoline while millions of American babies' parents can't afford milk is an abomination against God.People who, in the name of Jesus, vote to DENY medicine and treatment for babies in nations where it is otherwise not available suffering from AIDS because adults delivering help condone use of condoms to staunch the spread of AIDS are committing an abomination against God.People who vote against public sponsored healthcare for babies and children who cannot otherwise obtain it are committing an abomination against God.People who allow others to go hungry, homeless and sick, thus disobeying Jesus AND God himself, find the energy to rail against adults who behind closed doors have sex with other consenting adults are committing an abomination against God. They spend money, cast votes and change constitutions to deny those people rights to get divorced like 50% of the self-righteous people do every day.People who blatantly ignore the commands of Jesus and stated in all the gospels to care for the sick, the hungry and the homeless, and “judge not lest you be judged” while trumpeting an obscure sentence fragment from the Old Testament taken out of context while calling themselves Christians are an abomination against God and Jesus. Theirs is the greatest of blasphemy imaginable.When the mere idea that a person would not CHOOSE to be reviled, persecuted, fired from the military, and in some cases savagely beaten to death -- in other words, be gay -- is met by 'conservative Republicans' with such rabid, savage hostility, then one could reasonably believe that their position and their associated rage is intended merely as a distraction from their own actions which are immoral, inhumane and even criminal (refer to first five paragraphs).

The George W Bush Recession and Depression

Don — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 02:13:08 EST

We need to give credit where credit is deserved: NAME this economic crisis after the man most responsible for it's creation.

$10 trillion deficit is what we had at the end of the Bush administration. In eight years, Bush more than DOUBLED all the indebtedness America had accrued in more than 200 years.

This is more than a talking point, this is a necessary reminder that should be made every day, so that the notoriously SHORT memories of Americans shall be stimulated on a regular basis.

How we can revive the economy, and take gangs off the streets?

John from Milwaukee, WI — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:55:00 EST

The epidemic proportions of the drug problem in younger people are in direct correlation of the strict laws against alcohol. Alcohol is sold only by licensed merchants that require strict identification to purchase their products. When is the last time you saw an alcohol "dealer" on the corner? I'll give you a hint, it was just before prohibition was repealed. Young people who no longer have access to alcohol are turning to other more accessible drugs. The so called drug problem in this country is not because of the drugs themselves, but the laws that make them so lucrative to unscrupulous persons who are willing to do anything to sell their product. If drugs were legalized they would be regulated, keeping them out of the hands of children. PS A's could be aired on the dangers of harder drugs. Not to mention they could be taxed! Imagine this, a pack of cigarettes cost under a dollar to produce but often cost over $5 to purchase. Where does the extra $4+ go? TAXES! If drugs were legalized it would take drug dealers off the streets, squash dangerous gangs that thrive on illegal drug money, take them out of the hands of kids, and could pay for this "bail out" with the tax revenue in under 5 years. Not to mention creating jobs to make, distribute, and advertize different products. To me Sir it really seems like a no brainer. The likes of Al Capone in the 30's, Frank Lucas in the 70's, and Pablo Escobar in the 80's, made millions due to illegal drugs. I'm quite positive there are drug dealers still making millions that just haven't been caught yet. Prohibition didn't work then and it obviously doesn't work now. I hope that one day there won't be a drug problem in this country, but unfortunately that wont happen until it is properly distributed by licensed merchants.

"Marijuana" is NOT the proper name for Cannabis. Marijuana is a Mexican slang word for "weed". The use of the term was widely popularized in the 30's during the attempts to oust Mexican laborers who were taking American jobs in the depression. Please take note of this and stop using this derogatory term.

"Many people took out loans they were never going to be able to afford!

Jake from San Jose, CA — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:52:53 EST

"Many people took out loans they were never going to be able to afford,
never! That means somebody knew from day one they were never going to
be able to pay back the loans." The bankers approved these loans and used the money to pay themselves bonuses and payed our government representatives to look the other way…that’s where we are…any suggestions for getting us out of the mess are welcome…but if you just want to play the blame game…where does that get us?

Read what was spammed on the comments section of my blog:

The people that bend the rules GET PAID!

You too can bend the rules by printing out fake paystubs w-2 w2 1099 forms using
http://www.PROOFOFEMPLOYMENT.com

Buy a home, car or get a huge irs tax refund just for being you! Do what you have to do to get yours! EVERYONE ELSE DID!!

http://www.FAKEPAYCHECKSTUBS.com

Print out Fake Employment and Fake Income, Wages, 1099, w2, w-2, using your home computer printer!

Oy vey!!

Let She Who Has Paid All Her Taxes Throw the First Stone

Henry M — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:27:22 EST

Maybe President Obama should grant some sort of amnesty for some percentage of back taxes up to some cutoff point.

I think that it would encourage people who owe taxes to try to make ammends.

Palin owes tax on per diem, state says
EXPENSES: Governor received meal money while living in Wasilla.

By LISA DEMER
ldemer@adn.com

(02/17/09 21:53:17)
Gov. Sarah Palin must pay income taxes on thousands of dollars in expense money she received while living at her Wasilla home, under a new determination by state officials.
The governor's office wouldn't say this week how much she owes in back taxes for meal money, or whether she intends to continue to receive the per diem allowance. As of December, she was still charging the state for meals and incidentals.
"The amount of taxes owed is a private matter," Sharon Leighow, Palin's spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. "If the governor collects future per diem, those documents would be a matter of public record."
The revelation about Palin comes as U.S. senators, including Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, are under scrutiny over back taxes. A survey by the political newspaper and Web site Politico (www.politico.com) found that Begich was one of seven senators who acknowledged having paid back taxes.
Some other state employees also owe back income taxes for travel payments and will be getting revised tax forms, Annette Kreitzer, state administration commissioner, said in an e-mail.
She wouldn't say which, or how many, employees will be receiving the notifications.
The payments became a touchy issue for Palin last fall when she was running for vice president and campaigned as a budget watchdog.
The Washington Post published a story in mid-September that said she had charged the state almost $17,000 for meals and incidentals while staying in her own home.
The state considers Juneau, where she lives in the Governor's Mansion, to be Palin's official duty station.
Palin billed the state for 312 nights spent in her Wasilla home during her first 19 months in office, according to the Washington Post. She received $60 a day tax free, money intended to cover meals and incidentals, while traveling on state business, her travel forms show.
"Last fall we raised questions about longstanding practices within the Department of Administration regarding tax treatment of per diem payments," Kreitzer wrote in an exchange of e-mails over the past few days with the Daily News.
"At the Governor's request, we reviewed the situation to determine whether we were in full compliance with the pertinent Internal Revenue Service regulations," Kreitzer wrote. "As a result of this review, we determined that per diem needs to be treated as income, requiring a revision of W-2 forms for any affected employees."
The new determination by administration officials won't affect state lawmakers, said Pam Varni, director of the Legislative Affairs agency.
Under IRS guidelines, legislators receive tax-free payments to help with living expenses while in Juneau for the legislative session -- if their home is at least 50 miles away, Varni said.
The current rate, set by the U.S. Department of Defense, is $189 a day. That goes to everyone except the three Juneau-based legislators, who get smaller payments that are taxed as compensation.
Legislators can also charge the state $150 a day for time spent on state business when the Legislature is not in session, but those payments are taxed as income, Varni said.
Begich's situation came to light through a political survey released last week by Politico about senators and their taxes.
Fifty-five senators, including Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, didn't answer the questions, and a few others owed money but didn't consider it "back taxes" for one reason or another.
On his way out of a meeting with veterans on Monday, Begich answered a few questions about the back taxes he paid on a vehicle provided to him by the city when he was mayor.
"I refused the car the first 10 or 12 months," Begich said. "I didn't want the car.
"Then they told me I had to have it because of liability and a need and security and blah, blah, blah. So I ended up getting a used car. The first time a mayor has gotten a used car." It was a former police SUV.
The tax obligation came to his attention in late 2007, as he remembers it, after a regular IRS audit of city issues. The city then sent him revised tax statements.
"They gave me a letter and said you got to pay taxes on it. So they revised my W-2s." He wouldn't say how much he owed. "It's irrelevant," Begich said.
Generally, people are supposed to pay income taxes on the value of an employer-provided vehicle that is for personal use. Police vehicles are among the exceptions -- officers can drive them home and not be taxed on the value of the commute.
There's no specific exception in the law for mayors or governors. Palin has had a state Chevy Suburban.
Begich said a mayor is always on the job. No other Anchorage mayor ever had to pay income taxes on a city vehicle, he said.
"That's the point. I'm always on call. Always. ... And I think that's what the city's view was, for the city manager and me, was that we were always on call," Begich said. "But the IRS viewed it differently."
"After that issue came up, I got rid of the car," Begich said. He was in a downtown parking lot getting into the Toyota Highlander hybrid he bought in late 2007 to replace the city rig.
The Politico story about the survey said his situation echoed that of Tom Daschle, who had to step down as President Barack Obama's pick for health secretary after revelations about back taxes, including taxes owed for a limo and driver.
"For Politico to say it's the same as Daschle -- that's bunk," Begich said.
Henry M

KCUF, 128 Kb/s on Shoutcast Unlimited and still the Most Eclectic Music on the WWW:
http://tinyurl.com/kcuf-on-shoutcast-limited/ to play, http://www.urdomain.us/kcuf.htm to see what's playing, and now available on RECIVA Internet-Radio receivers, http://tinyurl.com/kcuf-on-reciva

KCUF can now be listened to using a Windows Vista Sidebar Gadget: http://gallery.live.com/results.aspx?bt=1&q=KCUF

THANKS...AMERICA...reply

Citizens for Change in America! — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:55:16 EST

Where are the thanks for AMERICANS...

we pay our taxes

we pay our bills

we pay our house off

we pay our car off

we pay our childrens educational expenses

we pay our childrens college expenses

we pay into our 401k

we pay into our retirement

we pay for our business expenses

we pay for our food

we pay for our clothes

we pay for our gas

we pay for our heat and electricity

we pay for our cost to be an American...explain it to me...

WHAT DID I DO WRONG...what went wrong in AMERICA?

tell me your thoughts...

Bankers CAN be heroes -- No 'vetting' required

Don — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 03:01:53 EST

Senator Dodd went rogue and inserted some crazy stuff into the new law, so the President will need to be creative. Perhaps we are looking for HEROES to run our troubled banks. A lot of wealthy patriots have made great financial sacrifices to serve in the Obama Administration. Like-minded people who don’t want to go through the vetting process and insane pubic humiliation of being outed on every little tax related or other embarrassment can now serve their country without becoming federal employees but while still consenting to be paid wages not all that far above that.

Gregg: Is This Petty Partisan Politics

Don — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:47:23 EST

I see nothing different Obama has said or done since 2004 and today -- perhaps Gregg's understanding of it morphed overnight between the time he was begging for the job and yesterday, when it came time to vote on the stimulus plan. Gregg seems to claim otherwise.

Obama should have known Gregg either hasn't the courage of his convictions or , far more likely, hasn't got any deeply held beliefs other than politics. We demand omniscience! How DARE the President not realize a man like Gregg would say anything to further his own personal ambitions?

There's something wrong with a vetting process that cannot discern that a politically savvy adult who somehow got himself repeatedly elected to the US Senate would claim to have turned his back on Petty Partisan Politics but actually lack the moral fortitude to stand by his decision.

Economic Recovery Meeting -- Financial Stimulus Ideas

Brian Chesney — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:26:09 EST

Continuing with the ideas form the Economic Recovery Meeting...

Financial Stimulus Ideas
- HOPE bond: this is Tommy's idea that I really liked and seemed to be generally well-received. I'm not sure I understand all of the details of how this would work, so please feel free to add/correct here. The idea is that the Treasury would issue inflation-adjusted, tax-deductible bonds (I believe I series was the model alluded to, but without the purchase restriction) that would facilitate funding certain projects. The government would set up certain types of projects and letter the bond according to the project. For instance, there might be a G bond to invest in greener energy. This would allow the bearer of the bond to financially support certain projects as well providing a stable asset for them. It would also help diffuse some of the partisan wrangling over how to pay for programs that are sorely needed. Making this project useful would rely on it being marketed heavily to the public -- that's the only way we'd be able to generate enough cash to fund significant projects with it. It seems like a good step in that direction occurred today -- CNBC's Dylan Ratigan mentioned a similar program on the Today show with Matt Lauer.
- An SBA EZ form -- another one from Tommy -- that would simplify the process for getting money from the SBA and actually circulating it in the economy. It would consist of either an online requisition form or some kind of debit card that a small business could use to make purchases. The loans would come in smaller chunks and the small business would have to go back to the SBA for more once they've paid that off. However, they'd be free to circulate the money into the economy in a way that would help their business: hiring people, purchasing capital equipment, etc... in a much more streamlined way. This would help speed up the effect of investing in small businesses on the economy.

We Have To Do Better!

Ivan from Christiansted, VI — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:52:06 EST

As a retired vocational art educator from the V.I. Dept. of Education, St. Croix, I am still trying to have an impact on the vocational curriculum.

The message, I would like to leave is most of the petty and the felony crimes that are committed in our society can be prevented. Today’s educational system is out dated and under funded. We graduate thousands every year and the thousands of dropouts, are sent out into our communities with a certificate / diploma. Some barely able to fill out an application for a job . It leaves and puts a lot of them in a survival mode. Malchom X said, by any means necessary. The youth refer to the crimes committed in the community as, “Street Tax”. All are not college material. To send our children out into society without a viable trade or a marketable skill, we are breeding generations of beggars, criminals, thieves and welfare recipients. No child should leave school without a trade. Those college students with a trade could easily supplement their education without going into deep student loan debt.

The Arts can be the educational catalyst to Change!

Ivan Butcher II

My Stimulus rant

Rick — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 12:50:07 EST

My story is simple, just like many other fellow Americans that voted for change last November. I am out of work and bills are piling up. I agree that the country needs a stimulus, I just dont think that tax credits should be the biggest part of it. Lets see, 11 million or so out of work and you want to give THESE people tax credits?? Tax credits on what?? Unemployment?? That's all fine and dandy, but a lot of people are self employed and a tax credit does nothing for them. Lets look at the big picture. No child left behind is the biggest waste of money. Aside from bailing out billion dollar corporations and banks that are doing nothing more than hording the billions they were given. Money that they have been using to buy troubled banks!!!!! There are enough banks in this country, lets let some fail for a change. Its about time the government takes a look at the real people, not the fat cats that have done nothing more but screw hard working Americans out of their life savings. But you dont, you look at health care, tax breaks, 600 million for a fleet of government vehicles?? Excuse me, American auto makers cant sell the supposedly good American cars now and you want "green" cars from them?? What is wrong with you people?? 21 million to re-sod the National Mall. Here's an idea throw down some grass seed and fence it off. Bet that wont cost 21 million!!!!!!! The whole point is to create jobs. You go out and ask any unemployed American what they would prefer for help. A tax rebate, or a job and I would guarantee you that the majority would want the job. So lets stop with the same old spending habits and do something for the people that put every single politician in office. Create some jobs, your pet bills can be addressed at a later date. Most of you have 2 years left. And when I say 2 years left I mean if you all dont do something, you will be out of a job.

Economic Stimulus and Recovery

Faron, NC — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:08:17 EST

Unemployment: Regardless of the tax breaks, housing issues and all other ideas in any proposal. If you don’t stop the unemployment and put people back to work so they actually have money to benefit from the tax breaks and housing benefits proposed and so they can start purchasing items, getting loans for homes and vehicles, investing in stock and or otherwise spending money, then regardless of the amount of the package, you will not have stimulated spending or our economy. JOBS are the foundation of stimulation.

JOBS: It is vitally important that the jobs created are created throughout the country with various skills. I assure you that those that have lost their jobs and will lose their jobs are from various locations and with various skills. So specific projects, proposed in any bill, will not suffice since they are limited in both location and skill.

How do you create Jobs?: I continuously hear everyone say, including the President, that our small businesses are the backbone of job creation and our economy. Why is that? It’s because they are all across the country and provide a variety of jobs and they borrow and spend?
How do you stimulate small business?: Normally small businesses which are existing or that which wish to start up seek private funding through investement, loans and federal assistance. However due to the current economic EMERGENCY, the private sector options are no longer available. This leaves only Federal funding for small businesses.
Our Federal agencies hold many applications from small businesses.: Various agencies have applications from small businesses that want to do work, some of which the government is requesting to be done. Some of which they have come up with on their own, which are called “unsolicited proposals” but which could still be of value. Some of this work is manual labor, some of this work is research and a lot of it is a variety of other opportunities.
Some funds could already be available!: Many of these Federal agencies most likely already have some funds set aside for Grant funding or other funding. These agencies could pull all small business applications and Grand Total the amounts needed to fund all of them and the stimulus package could authorize additional funds, which may or may not be needed. The stimulus package and/or a Directive by the President should order these agencies to "clear their coffers". This may seem like an extreme measure, but these are extreme times.
Some may argue that this will diminish private investment opportunities.: Contrarily by providing these small businesses with funding to start up or perform work, they can begin to invest and seek investors with the capital which is provided to them and/or with their success as they grow .
Perhaps some of the funds being directed to the TARP packages could be redirected here.: Since the issue for our financial institutions is not neccesarily having the money available, but rather a way to move the money, our small businesses can provide for two means of helping with this issue. First they can provide the monies through creating bank accounts and/or making deposits into existing accounts. They will conduct daily business that will begin to rotate these funds and stimulate the economy.
The definition of small business has already been defined.: The Government has already defined the term "small business", so there is no need to redefine it or figure out what articulates into a small business.
These small businesses have already gone through the Grants.gov verification processes!: Before applying for Grants, SBIR’s and/or STTR’s each business must go through a verification process.
There are already established monitoring systems set up.: Government auditing, reports and etc..are already established by each agency.
Grants.gov already has bank routing numbers for each business.: As a requirement during the verification process, Grants.gov requires that a bank account already be established. The funds could be dispersed quickly and put to use quickly.
Unfortunately the amounts they offer, $100,000 to $150,00 in most case are not sufficient to actually start a business. A business beginning with nothing has to have the funds needed to buy supplies, lease property, purchase equipment etc… and cover salaries for at least a year to allow the business to grow and build a customer base which can sustain them. Another source for small business interest is the Small Business Administration.
It is important to provide enough funding: to allow for these businesses to start and to have enough to sustain them for at least a year, two years would be best, so that they can build a customer base to sustain themselves. Not all will succeed and it could be required that unused funds be returned if they fail. But I believe there will be many more that will succeed and some may even provide us all with some unexpected benefits.
So have theses agencies, a list of Granting Agencies is on Grants.gov, pull all small business applications and provide funding. Open up more opportunities for small businesses. These small businesses are ready, willing and able to begin work and put others to work, so let them.
What is the real benefit of small business?
They employ, they buy, they bank, they borrow, they invest, they provide investment opportunities and they spend all across the country.: This stabilizes current businesses and allows them to hire more employees, to buy, to borrow and to spend. They all pay taxes to their states, they pay for permits from municipalities, counties and/or other forms of government, creating State and local revenue. They are perpetual, in that they continue, whereas a stimulus check to Americans may help, it does not provide a continuing of spending and rotation of capital as small businesses would while conducting daily business. They do not require any trade agreement specifications or a “Buy American” provision.
Their employees buy, bank, invest, borrow and spend all across the country.: They pay State and local taxes which creates revenue for them.

In the end, the only real stimulation you could provide which can do what needs done, is through creating jobs all across the country with a variety of work skills. To meet that objective effectively you have to build up your small business base.

Taxes: This is another key part of the stimulation and recovery. Tax cuts can clearly help to build business and encourage spending by both the businesses and the workers, however to reiterate, if you don’t have a job, it does nothing.

Housing: Can be a part of helping and some legitimate proposals along these lines should always be considered.

State Aid: Some state aid can help, but keep in mind if you’re putting people to work you can reduce a large amount of funding for unemployment and Medicaid since it want be needed.

In closing, let's create jobs, create futures, stimulate capital rotation and continue this rotation and provide the ability to help pay back the debts incurred by the Federal Government. If small business is the backbone, then let’s support our back so we can stand up and walk, then maybe as we walk, we can soon begin to run again.

That way when all the other bills such as TARP and others can actually do some good.

Americans have a way of pulling themselves up. Give us a chance to show you how well we can do that and help us, help you, help us all.

Small Businesses, existing and new, could play a big part of stimulating our economy and progression to recovery. It should be included in conjunction with other ideas which are currently a part of the plan.

Hopeful signs in stimulus legislation process

Independent Voter for Obama — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 10:36:36 EST

As an independent voter who was/is a strong Obama supporter I'm watching the stimulus legislation negotiations for signs that the new administration will deliver on the promise of change to the partisan political process. So far I'm encouraged that Obama and the Republican leadership are at least talking and have some hope that the result will be better, more balanced legislation.

Just by way of background, in 2000 President Bush had also run partly on the promise of a bipartisan approach. Apparently he was not sincere because there was almost nothing bipartisan about his 8 years except briefly after the 2001 attacks when the Democrats came to him.

I believe that Obama is sincere about bipartisanship but I'm still afraid that the strong partisan currents will sweep his good intentions away. I'm enough of a realist to understand that partisanship will remain, but enough of an idealist to hope that our elected representatives may sometimes choose in favor of the greater good of the country rather than partisan advantage and that balanced, moderate legislation may sometimes result.

In the latest report on the stimulus neogtations I see both good and bad signs http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/24/AR2009012400661.html.

Bad:

- The Republicans say they were completely shut out of the stimulus drafting process

- The legislation bears some Congressional Chrismas tree imprints; such as money for the National Endowment for the Arts. (I don't object to funding the arts but don't understand why that should be in the jobs bill. Bills should be kept clean and specific to their purpose, not used as a way to sneak in funding for other things in a non-transparent manner)

- The bill will be very expensive and I don't understand how our country will ever pay off all its debts and if/when foreigners stop buying our Treasury bills we'll be ruined

Good:

-Obama met with the Republican leadership, listened to their input, and hopefully gave them reason to be constructive and bipartisan in their turn

- One of the ideas that Obama and the Democrats will reportedly consider is abatement of the effect of the AMT tax. (This tax is an abomination because it continually increases without Congressional transparency and accountability. And its abatement is arguably stimulative to the economy so it is not another Christmas tree ornament.)

Democrats Lose Senate Majority (circa 2010)

Don — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:38:40 EST

(Can I say 'circa' if it's in the future?)

Democrats won't be controlling the Senate after 2010.

They rushed like lemmings to declare they'd never accept Blago's appointee.

A little time and forethought should have enabled them to reason that in order to create the illusion of innocence Blagojevich would be likely to find someone eminently qualified, of stellar reputation and far removed from the (alleged) illegal activities.

That would only be in his own best interests. And if there is one thing we have learned about Blago, it is that his own best interests are his first and last consideration in decision-making.

Senate Democrats have now pitted themselves against the Chicago Democratic Machine. Despite that Dick Durbin has lost touch with reality and thrown in with them, this is a battle Senate Democrats cannot and will not win. In this, there is no winning, only degrees of losing.

Should he be denied, Burris can run against any Illinois Democrat, including Durbin, and win.

As for that silly mausoleum? All politicians are narcissists. He's just 'concrete' about it.

Remember Republican Senator Ted Stevens who actually looked jurors in the eyes and told them he didn't notice people stuffing hundreds of thousands of dollars into his pockets. I dare say Bill Gates would notice if you stuffed a few hundred thousand dollars into his pockets. Ted Stevens,... now THAT'S a big ego!

It is also necessary to remember that this is the same US Senate that gave a seven-time convicted federal felon -- Ted Stevens -- a two-minute standing ovation, and two hours of praise-filled testimonials. And they are claiming to be observing their PRINCIPLES???

Republican and Democratic Senators must think we are stupid, stupid, stupid.

GOP needs America to fail (Democrats helping them)

Don — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:51:49 EST

Imagine what would happen if the immediate and long-term success, and even viability, of the Republican Party depended on Barack Obama failing to pull America back into PROSPERITY. Oh, wait, we don't have to IMAGINE that because it happens to be the current condition.

While refusing to offer any better ideas, Republicans stand in adamant opposition to everything the President-Elect suggests, even without knowing any details. I have to admit, he's been somewhat vague.

History suggests that America's realization of a sense of success by spring of 2012 will mean the GOP will be broadly out of power for one to two generations.

Every month that another 600,000 Americans lose their jobs is the direct result of Republicans acting on what they see is their own best political interests. While one of their many changing SLOGANS last year was "America First", in truth it is plain that they hold the Republican Party's interests above those of America and our people.

Every day that our children continue to suffer from a declining educational system in which mediocrity is celebrated; every day that more taxpayers lose high wage jobs only to go on welfare food stamps and unemployment; every day that more and more Americans are forced to sign up to work at the country's largest employer WalMart whose own accidentally leaked internally study said 43% of their full-time employees are on welfare and food stamps; every day that we lose what little remains of our manufacturing base so that when we next need to really go to war like in WW2 we won't have car factories to swiftly convert to making fighter jets and tanks so we'll have to order them from CHINA which the most likely enemy in a real war; remember that Republicans see that as MERELY another day closer to the time when they regain power over the White House, Senate and House -- which if not for the horrendous disaster they have created over the last eight years might not be so terrifying.

America stopped keeping up with the demands for maintenance of our infrastructure with the Reagan administration. We were told that things like that "the free market" would take care of things like that, but tell that now to New Orleans and their crumbling levees, or Minnesota with their collapsed interstate bridge, or Kentucky with their billion gallons of toxic sludge that spilled out of a mine containment area.

America's best defense against precisely the current financial system collapse, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, enacted not coincidentally in the wake of the financial collapse of 1929, was REPEALED on the demands of deregulating Republicans -- with help from Bill Clinton in 1999. That law alone prevented financial institutions from becoming "too big to fail". That is, it kept each of the insurance, banking and real estate conglomerates within their own area. They could still become behemoths, but it's when they get into all three of those industries and start making up new ones that are totally unregulated like 'derivatives' that the failure of one company can bring down the American economy, even the world economic system.

The only thing the President-Elect can do to get us out of this disaster is to go back the way we came in, by resurrecting modern-day Glass-Steagall style regulations and stimulating the middle class segment of the system while taking back the giveaway tax cuts from the wealthiest 1% that over the last eight years gave money to people who already had more money than they knew how to spend. They squirreled it away someplace, or bought yachts built in Greece. Republicans love to claim that tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy leads to the creation of small businesses. In reality, it's Steve Jobs and Bill Gates when they had nothing who created small businesses that became leading world companies. Billionaires DON'T start small businesses, they BUY huge corporations then fire 50,000 or 100,000 employees to increase productivity and thus profits for themselves and large bonuses for the three to five top executives of each company. Oh, and they CUT wages of the few employees they do have to keep on.

That doesn't grow anything but unemployment and declining wages. Less taxpayers and more people surviving on public assistance.

If we don't stand up to these self-serving Republicans very few of us will have jobs in 2012, and they will be at WalMart. There won't be any real taxpayers to support the public assistance people need to get back into good paying jobs.

I'll get to the CRAZY DEMOCRATS on another post. I'll give you a hint that after 2012 Democrats will no longer be in control of the Senate.

3 Moves In 3 Weeks -- Way to Relocate

Don — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:26:33 EST

“A President must be able to do more than one thing at a time,” said then-candidate and now President-Elect Barack Obama, a few months ago when McCain was trying to weasel out of the big debate.

Evidently, President-Elect Obama CAN do far more than one thing at a time. He and his family are MOVING three times in three weeks! This, the weekend of 4 January 2009, he moves from his Chicago home to DC’s Hay-Adams Hotel. On the 15th, they move to Blair House, then on the 20th, they move into the White House. Yes he can! For most of us, the dreaded process of a single relocation is more stressful than death and taxes. But Superman is tripling-down on it.

At the same time, the President-Elect Obama is interviewing and hiring a government, from cabinet members, agency administrators, secretaries and ambassadors. He’s working feverishly on the economic crisis, the transition and inauguration, as well as homeland security and two wars. Throw in taxes, healthcare, unemployment, social security, Medicare and the crisis of the Big 3 automakers, plus Iran, Cuba, Russia, China, the Palestinians and Israel, plus all those special interest groups here at home, such as the disabled, veterans, senior citizens and gays, and you’ve got an enormous inbox.

After those daily national security briefings in which the President-Elect Obama is beginning to learn just how badly Bush has screwed things up for us around the world, it’s a wonder the President-Elect Obama can sleep at night. He needs all the rest he can get.

Enjoy your vacation, sir, you need all the recharging your batteries can get.

What Page of The Bible?

Don — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 00:07:57 EST

There are only two reasonable choices.

To evoke the vision of the world economy rising from the ashes of the torched-earth strategy of the Bush-Cheney-Rove administration, BHO should open the Bible to the gospel account of Jesus’ rising from death. Not only will it give us hope, but it will reinforce our knowledge of BHO’s Christianity, helping put aside the invocation guy.

Times are so serious that BHO should keep the Bible closed and put his hand on the whole thing – we’re gonna need ALL of it right now, and it underscores BHO’s whole ‘inclusiveness’ thing.

Welcoming the Ministry of Hatred and Scapegoating

Don — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:08:01 EST

There are always those who make their fortunes playing to the fears and insecurities of people frustrated with their own lives who need someone to blame, someone to hate, and it's easy for them to agree on certain groups to focus on.

Obama is moving America toward the point where those people will realize that if they don't have a good job, they have too little money, too much debt, their kids are in and out of jail and/or on drugs, or failing in school, it's not the fault of some group of "OTHERS". Not the gays, the jews, the blacks, or even those pesky illegal aliens, to name just a few.

It's time for a new era of Personal Responsibility in which we all take charge of our own lives while working together for all of us to achieve the American dream while making government do what it can to enable us.

Rick Warren is just an updated version of the same old Ministry Of Hatred represented by Falwell and Robertson (and so many others).

The coming of that new era is a direct threat to Rick Warren, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and all the other leaders of the Ministry of Hate. Just like the Republicans did during the long two year campaign, they will go down kicking and screaming all the way.

Crisis Briefings: Lies Like Iraq War Pretenses: Bushiness

Don — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 02:18:41 EST

The President who told at least a dozen lies to get us to go to war in Iraq has conjured up more than a dozen lies to set up President Obama for failure? The most miserable failure of an excuse for a President is leaving directions for the next President?

If it weren’t so serious, it would be funny! If your memory is longer than that of 99% of Americans you know that’s not a line I made up, and you may even know who did. Details.

I’m just saying, George Bush should be planning out where he’s going to hide to keep from being arrested and delivered to the Hague for trial in the World Court for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

We didn’t let Hitler’s assistants off the hook, and neither can we afford to let Bush’s (the New Hitler’s) people go Scot-free.

We all know that all these recent attempts by Bush to rewrite history are mere hopes that America doesn’t do what’s right. If we intend to restore any sense of moral authority or regain any worldwide respect, we must follow our own laws and those international laws we largely wrote and have been demanding everyone else follow for decades until “W” took office.

If we don’t want our soldiers tortured when they in the future are captured, we must deliver to justice George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, their generals and other high officers who ordered torture and passed on those illegal and immoral orders.

America is a chief signatory to the Geneva Conventions. In fact, before 2001, we liked to claim we largely WROTE it. What good is international law if those who claim to have written it are the worst violators?

America has long had laws against torture of prisoners of war. We cannot allow one power-mad egomaniac (or moron, depending on who is providing the facts, and there are plenty on both sides) to cause us to abandon our Constitution, or it won’t be worth anything, ever.

To put it simply, we cannot defeat terrorism by becoming the worst terrorists on earth. Long before we got to that point, any real President would have caught himself and found a better way. Why? Because Bush’s route could be seen even by people as unworldly as me to be a fool’s plot.

It started with Bush’s WAR-PRAYER-MEETING, right after 9/11. That was disturbing to me THEN, because, as a Christian and an American I wondered if Jesus would say that we should “turn the other cheek”.

What? “Turn the other cheek”. I know. I certainly wasn’t in the mood for that. But that’s what Jesus would have us do – according to the Bible. Those so-called religious Republicans have still never mentioned that, and they would castrate me for mentioning it if they could. (They don’t have the balls for it, so they’ll try to get you to do it, just like the Romans, according to the Bible, were forced to murder Jesus. Just reading it objectively and making no assumptions. NO benefit to me which side you take).

Strange, but when you think about the things that really were surprises, you can’t find any that Bush created that much cohesion to in that short a time. Can you? I can’t.

Almost makes you wonder WHEN Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush KNEW 9/11 was going to happen, doesn’t it? Naaaaaaah. Certainly not. I don’t really know. Do I???

It WAS amazing that five seconds after the first jet crashed into the World Trade Center, Bush’s officials declared they knew it was Osama Bin Laden! Before the first tower collapsed, the Bush administration told us who to blame. I wondered why they didn’t PREVENT it since they obviously knew so much about it in advance.

Worse yet is the fact that for all of 2000, Bush campaigned claiming “America’s military is not ready!” Yet, during all of 2001, he did NOTHING to get our military ready. Why would you TELL our enemies that our military isn’t ready? Then, once in power, why would you fail to GET it ready/ Bush should spend the rest of his days in Guantanamo for that alone.

I always think you can know who caused something to happen by figuring out who BENEFITTED from whatever happened.

But I’ve already gone LONG, so I’ll have to finish the facts later. In the meantime, don’t read into what I’ve typed, anything you imagine I said. You may end up looking foolish by the time I tie it all together.

What To Do About It

Don — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:07:18 EST

Previously, I argued the likely consequences of the collapse of the Detroit automakers. And already my predictions are beginning to bear out in facts. Today, the Wall Street Journal reported, “Toyota will delay production at its new $300 million plant in Mississippi, citing a steep decline in the auto market.” What could we do about preventing it?Rather than pumping cash into them over the long term, what we COULD do is just take over something like 60% of the healthcare burden of only the pre-2007 retirees of the Detroit automakers.What? That would fundamentally lower the per-car cost while requiring them to bear their own burden of current and future labor costs. They will still have to make reasonable pay agreements going forward, but they won’t have to fire tens of thousands of workers who actually are cranking out cars that are of competitive quality. We CAN and should require that they immediately begin moving at an accelerated pace to make their entire fleet of cars meet California’s progressive fuel-economy standards.Why? Because that’s a smaller hit to the national economy than letting those people go on welfare, food stamps and unemployment and disability insurance. It helps keep those people paying taxes based on good wages. If those companies collapse, Medicare and Medicaid WILL be forced to take on 100% of all of those retirees from every decade. The few of us who still have jobs or own businesses will pay for that.Remember, according to THEIR OWN study, 43% of full-time WalMart workers are on food stamps and welfare. 43%. They are the largest employer in America. We cannot afford to doom another class of workers to that, because it’s costing us dearly.I don’t know if “60%” is exactly the right percentage, or if “pre-2007” is exactly the right year, but that can be worked out soon and by more knowledgeable people. What I do believe is that we can find a way to take on a much smaller share of the burden than the 100% we will inherit if those companies go down. What I know is that the rest of us will be better off with those people working and paying taxes alongside the rest of us than not.Rather than stirring up jealousy among people about UAW wages and demanding they take pay cuts, Republican conservatives ought to be working to get the pay other OTHER Americans increased so that more of us will be paying taxes at that higher rate, thus decreasing the burden on each taxpayer.Walmart workers, who continue to work full-time while having to also collect food stamps and welfare, are a major burden to all American Taxpayers. We need more high-wage jobs, not less. All that money spent at Walmart goes on a long trip, making a brief stopover in Bentonville Arkansas before flying directly to China to create more factory jobs – in China. If they have their way, conservative Republicans will have all Americans working seven days a week in 12 hour shifts making 90 cents a month like the Chinese.

How We Save America By Saving American Autoworker Jobs

Don — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:53:57 EST

Previously, I argued why all Americans, of all political persuasions, will suffer from the collapse the Detroit automakers. What can we do about the problem?I am far from being an apologist for the UAW or Detroit. There have to be consequences for this mess. But right now, we face bigger problems than that.American Taxpayers should consider carefully the consequences of letting another huge block of Taxpayers be forced to become dependent on welfare, food stamps and unemployment. It’s a double-whammy heaped upon the rest of us. Not only will they no longer be bearing their fair share by paying taxes and Social Security alongside those of us who still have jobs, but they also will be draining vast amounts of Taxpayer-funded money and other resources. What other resources? It takes more government employees, thus money, to hand out and track all those handouts. Can you guess who gets to pay for that?I am scared to death at the prospect of both taking on the burden of another half-million or so workers who will lose their jobs every month – like last month – but also paying much less in taxes myself due to the fact that I won’t be making nearly as much money once most of my customers are out of work. Come hell or high water, those people need to keep paying federal taxes just like me, and they can only do that if we keep them working.If you look at recently published studies on Appalachia – basically W. Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama and northeastern Mississippi – the only place those unemployed people who will be living primarily on government assistance will be spending money is at WalMart* . All that money goes straight to China to create more jobs – in China. (Although it does pass through Bentonville Arkansas on the way.)As a direct consequence, many more jobs will be lost, though probably in northern states among people who tend to vote for Democrats. At least, that must be what Senator Shelby and the other conservative Republicans and southerners who subsidize those Japanese auto-plants down there must be thinking. But there are a lot of Republicans up here too. I voted straight GOP all my life, until November when I had to take an Independent stand. My non-auto-related small business will be killed, as will many others, and lots of individuals. Plus, many of those “plumbers” and others who work for small and large businesses that are not directly linked to Detroit will be financially killed. During the campaign Republicans swore they cared about them more than anything.People like that don’t go out and replace our Lexus or Toyota or other Japanese car or truck with next year’s model no matter where it’s built – even in the south. Moreover, people like that don’t switch parties and start voting with the GOP. People like that, including myself, don’t return to the Republican Party. People like that might not even REMAIN in the GOP. Republicans always campaign about being for plumbers and other workers and small businesses. Once the votes are all counted, the GOP kicks us right in our ‘bleepin’ behinds.From what I have seen, once out of work, those high-dollar hourly workers don’t take lower-paying jobs flipping burgers. Unemployed autoworkers sit at home and live off the Taxpayers, even by resorting to disability payments by making claims, not all of which are legitimate**. Those payments cost money, as do the investigators required to catch some unknown percentage of those making bogus claims. It costs more money to house them in jail, plus they never seem to get caught holding enough money to reimburse the Taxpayers for what they fleeced us out of.The bottom line is that we have to work hard to keep people working – especially those making good wages, thus paying more in taxes than those working at WalMart and McDonalds. We have to CREATE more high-paying jobs like that rather than focus on cutting their pay until they make the 9 cents a month they pay in China. To underline a point I’ve been arguing for quite a while, the Wall Street Journal reported today that “Toyota will delay production at its new $300 million plant in Mississippi, citing a steep decline in the auto market.” *To be fair, the studies show, the Appalachians also spend a great of money on liquor and guns. Those are available at WalMart too, but mostly not made in China. They also tend to spend a lot of time and money in church. These observations are in no way offered as commentary on lifestyles. This is all about where our money goes.**This is a concern based on studies which were not based on large sample groups, so they in no way can be asserted to reflect a majority of the group. Yet, any substantial percentage of this group engaged in this behavior would have a significant effect on an already severely depressed economy. Moreover, autoworkers were only a subset of the skilled workers discussed in the studies in general. No lifestyle judgments are implied.

Keep UAW workers paying taxes, not on welfare

Don — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:17:53 EST

Wall Street Journal: Toyota will delay production at its new $300 million plant in Mississippi, citing a steep decline in the auto market. The company says jobs in the state are "secure."

This is the beginning of proof of what I've been saying all along.

The most important detail not understood by southern voters and conservative Republicans is that they, too, will suffer by causing the collapse of the Detroit auto industry.

It's not only northerners whose non-auto industry jobs will be lost in the fallout. Those millions of former taxpayers on welfare, food stamps and unemployment and those around the country, including even the south, who will be dragged down with them, WILL NOT be buying those Japanese cars and trucks being manufactured in those taxpayer-subsidized southern plants.

People won't have the money, won't be able to obtain credit, and won't have the consumer confidence that enable such major purchases.

So all those high-paid UAW people Republican conservatives want to destroy will be merely the BEGINNING of the calamity.

We cannot afford at this time to have high-wage people lose taxpaying jobs while America’s largest employer, Walmart, according to their own internal report, pays wages so low that 43% of their full-time workers are on welfare and food stamps.

Blagojevich? Emanuel? Is that anything?

Don — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 01:42:47 EST

Blagojevich? Emanuel? Is that anything?

The FBI tapes may end up proving that Emanuel’s talks with Blagojevich only related that the President-Elect would offer the governor nothing more than “appreciation” for nominating one of then-Senator Obama’s “acceptable” candidates. Unless Emanuel “went rogue”. All stay together, and all hang together -- that's how they play it in the big leagues. Over the weekend, Mr. Emanuel apparently sent out his personal operatives – his ‘emissaries' – to put out his own SPIN on his alleged contacts with governor Rod. That would seem to point out that he’s the “weak link” – the person who screws up, then tries to protect himself at the expense of the team. His refusal to go to work last week was suspicious enough.

Innocent people don’t have to BREAK RANKS with their fellow patriots, shun the office so they don’t have to look into the eyes of their colleagues, or hide from the press, rather than just smile at the cameras and say “the Team will have something to say at the appropriate time”.

In addition to that, I do not understand why – if news reports and his statements are true – Mr. Emanuel would be getting threatened, or by whom. Regardless whether he is honest or dishonest, I don’t understand that at all – it seems illogical. Was he lying when he said that? Was the reporter lying about him having said that? I’d like some information on that.

You may not appreciate my questions, especially regarding the alleged claim of alleged threats, but I am someone who has been paying attention. Also, I have a very long memory, especially of politics.

I was just a kid more or less during the 80’s, but right then I was asking why we were crazy enough to be capitulating to the Japanese automakers. I seemed to be the only one in the 80’s who articulated that it was absurd for American automakers to keep making rounds of layoffs of tens of thousands of American autoworkers and then wonder WHY their sales continued to fall. “Who do they think are buying their cars?”, I asked. “The workers who build the cars are their best customers” I argued, “With their wages, they are the ones best able to afford them.”

More than twenty years ago, I could see that you can’t keep putting tens of thousands of your best customers out of work and then wondering why your sales keep declining. If a mere kid could see that over twenty years ago, why can’t beyond-middle-aged voters understand that now? American voters in general have very short memories.

There’s a reason they used to say “what’s good for GM is good for America!” Those workers made good wages. They paid equally large TAXES. They bought only American cars. They spent money only at American businesses that sold only American-made goods and services. One dollar spent on an American-made car meant eight-teen dollars (give or take a dollar) spent in America, to other Americans who paid TAXES in America. It pumped up the economy and created jobs for many AMERICANS.

Right now, we are at best buying cars made at plants in the south owned by Japanese companies that pay LOW wages, sending ALL the money we spend to Japan. Those low-wage workers spend all their meager income at WalMart. That money goes straight to China, where it creates more jobs – in China. Those workers reportedly make 9 cents a month. Do we want to “catch up” with them?

WORSE, when all those high-paid Detroit autoworkers lose their jobs, they will go right onto welfare, unemployment and food stamps. The rest of us will be paying ALL the taxes to support them.

I am terrified at the prospects of MY income decreasing due to the lack of customers directly and indrirectly linked to the Detroit autoworker economy. I am horrified that I will make LESS money but have to PAY MORE to support the government assistance to those people who should have been able to keep their jobs and PAY TAXES alongside the rest of us.

Rather than CUT the wages of union workers, Republican politicians should be RAISING the wages of the rest of American taxpayers, and NOT putting Americans out of work.

Southerners Don't See They Will Go Down With Us, Eventually

Don — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:59:26 EST

What's the most important detail not understood by southern voters and conservative Republicans?
That they, too, will suffer by causing the collapse of the Detroit auto industry.
It's not only northerners whose non-auto industry jobs will be lost in the fallout. Those millions of former taxpayers on welfare, food stamps and unemployment and those around the country, including even the south, who will be dragged down with them, WILL NOT be buying those Japanese cars and trucks being manufactured in those taxpayer-subsidized southern plants.
People won't have the money, won't be able to obtain credit, and won't have the consumer confidence that enable such major purchases.
So all those high-paid UAW people Republican conservatives want to destroy will be merely the BEGINNING of the calamity.
Moreover, those newly unemployed UAW members will have to head south, where, with their experience and new-found openness to accept lower wages, they will be the first to get hired at those soon to open Japanese plants if and when they do open. Even those openings in the works will be substantially delayed by the ongoing economic crisis.
But when those UAW people get down there and get the chance to vote, they won't forget which party is to blame for what they will be continuing to go through.
They will continue to vote for Democrats. That will increase the trend toward Red states turning into Blue states that start in 2008.
That, along with Republican tactics, will further ensure that the GOP becomes, for two generations, the party of Appalachia, Utah and Texas -- completely insignificant within the current Electoral College system.
Having just left the GOP last month to become an Obamican, or Independent in 8 years, that's a chance I'm willing to take.
Rather than trying to cut the pay of people who tend to vote for Democrats, those Republican politicians ought to be working to increase the pay of the rest of us. That's the only way we will BE ABLE to buy those Japanese cars over the next five years -- including two federal election cycles.

Blackberry Problem Solved -- Seriously

Don — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:03:05 EST

The President-Elect's communications are recorded and published, so he can't chat candidly on his own, but he can still keep in touch.

He has a close friend who is his new personal assistant. He can chat privately with his assistant, who can chat on his own personal Blackberry, which is private. What Obama's friends tell his assistant -- who is their mutual friend -- also is private. Use of such a go-between renders all that back and forth as mere gossiping, which, if not done on the President's phone or computer are entirely private.

The President's personal, in-person talks with friends can no more be public than the particulars of the bedtime stories he reads to his children. If some word of that got around "through the grape vine" through private channels, that's not the Peoples' business. Likewise, if information somehow gets back to him through a friend when that person just happens to be in the presence of the President, that, too, is his personal business.

President Obama can even sign a rule making it illegal for White House staff and also administration officials to profit from revealing what they learned during their work.

Federal Agent Insults All Illinois Citizens

Don — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 17:33:06 EST

99.9% of Illinoisans are law-abiding citizens. People who work hard and pay taxes should not be labeled corrupt by federal law enforcment officials, as was done in the announcement of the charges against the governor. Since that official has such a low opinion of Illinois and such a disdain for the citizens he should RELOCATE. At the very least, he should apologize and be fired.

Republcan Senator Ted Stevens is a seven-time convicted federal felon. Republican Senator Norm Coleman is a common criminal who merely hasn't been charged yet but has committed the crimes Rod has been charged with conspiring to committ. Are Alaska and Minnesota "corrupt" states? Should all their citizens be tarred because they've sent a few bad apples into elected office?

Admittedly, Alaska nearly re-elected Stevens, so virtually half of them actually ARE corrupt, one could argue.

Madigan's Blagojevich Blunder

Don — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 17:23:31 EST

Too bad Madigan didn't take a little time to think through her "evil plan" before acting.
She and other legislators could have drafted some legislation to be passed upon the Governor's temporary removal, and reach an agreement with the deputy governor on who would be appointed to the Senate once Rod's out of the way. Those could be acted on by the deputy governor immediately upon taking over, since it's likely that an appeal by Blagojevich would quickly see him back in his office holding things up once again.
If this wasn't just about furthering Madigan's chances of being elected governor, she would have done that and more. But like Rod's actions, Madigan isn't putting Illinois first because she's too busy looking out for herself.
Beyond that, even a layman can see that the Illinois Supreme Court would be as crazy as Blagojevich to jump into this mess this early in the game. It might set a precedent so that in the future any unpopular governor could have his tenure ended by his politic opponents filing a lawsuit, which is all Madigan has done.
He's not physically disabled, and though it appears so there is no scientific evidence that he is psychologically unfit. There is an unprecedented but good argument that under the circumstances he can't function because his most important business is appointing a Senator and the Senate is unlikely to seat his appointee, but she should have gotten affidavits from 51 Senators attesting to that -- 41 if you want to consider a filibuster. Because of the other claims in the complaint, his other actions, especially finance related, might be considered to be furthering a "crime spree". The weakness in the "inability to function" argument is that the fool keeps going to the office, apparently completing at least minor functions of his office.
Bottom line: I want him out of office, but even I can see Madigan didn't take time to plan this out. The court is likely to decline to take up the case. If they do hear it, there is a chance they could find in favor of the governor, which would further add to the perception that Illinois is lax on crooks in office.

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

WEBMASTER — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 02:26:14 EST

The Pickens Plan: For those who would like to become an active participant in a solution for our nations energy needs I urge you to join with T.Boone Pickens in his quest for a cleaner planet through alternative energy.

Also see Green Wave Energy: Green Wave was founded by Mark Holmes and was formulated for viable alternative energy solutions. Green Wave Energy is promoting state-of-the-art energy-saving products and services throughout the country.

Green Wave Energy understands alternative energy technology will become “main stream” when

individuals and organizations understand that alternative energy technology exists and
when people see the economic benefits of using alternative energy technologies

Call 949.645.1701 for information on how Green Wave Energy can help you save the planet.

Alternative Energy
Source: David Apperson

url: http://veterans.barackobama.com/page/community/tag/alternative-energy

How to roll back Bush's last minute law changes

Don — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:49:59 EST

While President Obama won’t be able to simply undo every one of the midnight hour presidential signings President Bush is using to change American laws, there is a way to render them meaningless. I would suggest that Obama can simply “amend” Bush’s rules by signing new rulings that create laws or rules contradictory to those made by the previous administration.

Example: Bush says agencies can decide for themselves when to consider endangered species in their decisions on construction and other matters. Obama then states that after an agency makes it’s determination it must then submit that finding to the same body it used to have to go through for the same review process as before.

As for the sale of lands and oil drilling rights, it may be true that the federal government would have to buy back those contracts. However, what Obama could do is sign an order rescinding the sales. That way, the process is quicker and the owners don’t get to negotiate a higher price than what they paid.

Congress would have to legislate to overrule Bush’s changes, and right now Republicans can filibuster in the Senate. Yet, the same is true for Obama’s rule changes. The incoming Congress of Democrats won’t overrule changes that render meaningless the rules made by Bush, and even future Republican Senates can be filibustered by Democrats – in fact, there are some Republicans who don’t want oil companies to rape the land.

Senator Vitter the whoremonger claims moral high ground?

Don — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:14:19 EST

David Vitter the Republican Senator who confessed to being a regular patron of a whorehouse, is trying to claim he's on the moral highground by taking a stand against the workers. The Republicans have once again campaigned saying they are for working people, only to turn against workers right after the election. Those autoworkers are American taxpayers and it's far better for the country for them to keep working and paying taxes than to be unemployed and on welfare, food stamps and unemployment. Because they tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats (I wonder why) the Republicans are trying to financially kill them -- but this will take the rest of America down along with them. More petty politics. Republicans didn't learn anything from their losses in 2006 and 2008 elections.

Republicans Play Politics While America Burns!

Don — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:52:51 EST

Or was that "Nero fiddles while Rome burns"? Well, whatever.

So much for "Joe, the Guy Who Works for a Living".

As has been the case all my life, as soon as the election is over the Republican party screws the people it promised to work for during the campaign. That's been no surprise to me for a long time now.

What still confounds me is that there are still tens of millions of people possessing the right to vote in American presidential elections who don't have enough working brain cells to understand that. They fall for it every time.

Fortunately, this time there are enough of us -- people who think for ourselves, rather than rely on Fox Noise to tell us what to believe -- that we overruled the zombies.

Even now, the party in power when the government spent $13 trillion more than it took in now claims that the Detroit automakers don't know how to manage money.

Highest unemployment rate since 1982 -- when Ron Reagan was president!

Even as America is showing them out the door, Republican politicians are nutty enough to be 'warning' the President-Elect about what he should and should not do with respect to the economy.

As they lick their wounds after spending $13 trillion dollars more than they took in, they now are stammering on about being for fiscal responsibility.
It would be funny, if it weren't so serious.

McCain says Bush, Rumsfeld committed war crimes

Don — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:10:46 EST

Senators John McCain and Carl Levin -- after the election -- published a finding cited in a Washington Post article at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/11/AR2008121101969.html?hpid=topnews

They stated unequivocably that the orders to tortune prisoners of war were issued from the top of the Bush administration, beginning with an order Bush signed in February 2002.

Next year, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their chief assistants should be arrested and turned over to the World Court at The Hague, where they should stand trial for crimes against humanity and violations of the Geneva Convention.

Their actions have made it a certainty that American soldiers captured in future conflicts by enemies WILL be tortured. Unless decisive action is taken by the appropriate authorities, the world will ignore our cries of outrage.

Americans cannot afford failing to repudiate the lawlessness of the Bush administration, which according to Republican Senator John McCain, has "strengthened the hand of our enemies".

As I have always said, we cannot succeed in our fight against terrorism by BECOMING terrorists. George Bush's conduct goes directly against everything Americans stand for -- at least "Real Americans".

By issuing those illegal orders to our soldiers, while writing decrees declaring those orders to be legal, Bush has made himself a criminal of unprecedented notoriety around the world. Only by delivering him to justice in an unprecedented manner can America restore claims of being a land where justice prevails.

The minds of American children have been damaged by the impact of Bush's immorality. How can we teach them that America is ruled by the Constitution and that we abide by the international treaties we sign, while tolerating Bush's blatant violations of the Constitution and the Geneva Convention, of which we are a signatory?

Lastly, every officer who obeyed and passed on those illegal and immoral orders must be court-martialed, as required by the United States Code of Military Justice. We didn't excuse the conduct of Nazi officers who claimed they were "just following orders", and neither can we afford to do so with our own.

Mr. Bush's two terms have been sad days for America. He has destroyed our economy. Let us not allow him to destroy our Constitution, our Justice System, and our military as well.

Even Richard Milhouse Nixon didn't believe he was THIS far above the law.

Blagojevich's state of mind

Don — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:02:25 EST

The President--Elect could open his remarks today by saying, "Look,... how was I supposed to know Blagojevich was crazy? And by "crazy" I don't mean mentally ill. I mean CRAZY. Only a crazy man would do what he is alleged to have done."

Then promise to have more to say about the matter tomorrow and leave the room.

Barack Obama has nothing to explain. The governor called him a "motherf@#$er" who "won't give (the govenor) anything but (his) f@#$ing appreciation", then said "f@#$ (him)".

Before Obama enters the room his aides should pass out a copy of that part of the criminal complaint to put his remarks in perspective.

He has absolutely nothing to explain. The guy who apparently did something said on FBI tape that Obama didn't do anything. Until something different happens, he doesn't need to do anything but remind everyone of that fact.

Just like in the last months of the campaign whe Obama kept saying, "McCain said that 'if we keep talking about the economy, we'll lose',... that's why I keep talking about the economy."

3 things he COULD have said about Blagojevich

Don — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:02:49 EST

Why didn't Barack Obama just say something less 'conventional' when asked about the arrested governor?
I wish he had said: "I want to thank the governor for his kind words... not the ones where he called me an unspeakable name, but the ones where he said I didn't participate in his schemes"
Or: "No one has ever been so happy to have been insulted than I am after hearing the governor's words."
Or: "I've never been so glad to NOT know about something."
When they play the soundbites that's funnier and more dismissive of the entire matter. After reading the quotes in the actual complaint -- yes, I read the entire complaint -- that's really all the President-elect needed to do. There was nothing left for him to confirm or deny.

The Fox Noise political operatives who tell the fascists who have hijacked the Republican party what to believe would not be able to so easily twist any of those quotes the way they have what he actually said. For people who don't think for themselves -- the Faux News watching zombies -- it's not what Obama says, but what the political operatives CLAIM he said that counts. He has to think about their likely talking points before making sound bites.

On the other hand, if he'd followed all my advice, he never would have gotten elected. For example, after those remarks by Rev. Wrong (Wright) I thought it was over. After the election, for the first time I viewed Obama's speech on race, on youtube, because I had to see what on earth he possibly could have said to get himself out of a jam like that. Turns out the truth was all it took.

THE CRISIS IN DETROIT

Don — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:50:00 EST

No car czar named by the same man who appointed those who drove our economy into the New Great Depression. When the first Great Depression occurred, America was not in two wars and was not buried beneath $13 trillion dollars in debt (counting the trillion Bush gave to Wall Street). A "Bush-named car czar is a non-starter".

Those who have run the big car companies into the ground deserve to face consequences -- so, too, do those who ran Wall Street into the ground, including the Bush administration and the Republican party deregulators. Bush and those who helped him rape the American economy are not the ones who should decide what those consequences are -- they are only trying to take the spotlight off their own failures and Mr. Obama needs to do what he did during the campaign -- point out their smokescreen.

The big banks we gave all that money to should be strongly asked by President-Elect Barack Obama to go in and try hard to work out a deal to loan the automakers the money they need, at least for three months until Obama is inaugurated and has time to find a long term solution. Obama should suggest that those bankers "will be sorry" if they don't try very hard to work out reasonable terms. Maybe the free market can ease the transition, especially after we gave Goldman Sachs $10 billion and they turned around and passed out $6.5 billion in "bonuses". Bonuses for what? Going bankrupt. After we gave Citigroup $50 billion then they turned around and fired 75,000 workers right before Christmas.

Mr. Obama should publicly excoriate the Republican senators for playing politics with America's future by refusing to bail out the autoworkers for purely political reasons. Republicans campaigned on the false claim that they were all about helping "Joe the Plumber", but now they are working hard to financially ruin "Joe the autoworker because: 1. they are union workers who tend to vote for Democrats (and now we see why), and 2. southern Republicans believe that if Detroit goes out of business Japanese automakers will build more plants down south.

Republicans are again betraying ALL Americans who work for a living, right after rushing to pump nearly $1 trillion directly into the pockets of the wealthiest 1%. They forced us into giving $12 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% before that. Now they are killing "Joe the guy who MANUFACTURES things, which America does far too little of already.

Further, it would take the better part of a decade before any cars come out of any new southern auto plants. The Japanese will take two years to THINK before deciding to build more plants here or anywhere in this economy (or any economy, that's how they operate). They will take another two years milking tax abatements and other subsidies from American taxpayers by letting southern states "compete" for the plants, one plant at a time. It takes two to three years to BUILD a plant once that's all agreed to. As much as a year to dry run things, making sure the process works by building test cars before pumping out any cars for sale to the public. That's seven to eight years of absolute misery for all Americans while the southern Republicans get their non-union workers.

Mr. Obama should lobby hard for legislation prohibiting ANY tax abatements or other subsidies by any state or local governments for businesses. Why? Those subsidies directly hurt taxpayers and the overall economy by: 1. Paying corporations to move from one town to another, which is of no benefit to the overall economy. If they want to relocate, they should do it with their own money, then they will only do it if it makes sense to their operations. Taxpayers should not be forking out money to shift existing jobs from one American town to another American town. 2. Foreign comanies who decide to build plants in America should not be subsidized. They want to manufacture their products here because it is of financial benefit to them -- they avoid currency exchange costs. Why PAY them for doing something they already NEED to do? Giving them taxpayer money to entice them to build plants in one American town rather than another is of no benefit to the overall American economy, and it directly takes money out of the pockets of American taxpayers who must make up for the losses in government tax revenue. Don't pay foreign companies to do what's already in their best interests -- let them pay their own way.

Tax abatements to corporations are un-American and they harm local, state and national economies. Rather than subsidize individual companies, LOWER taxes for ALL taxpayers, or keep rates where they are -- isn't lowering taxes what those Republicans claim to be for?

KEEP ALL THOSE CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Don — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:48:36 EST

Now is the time for bold and decisive action -- not a rethinking of Obama's priorities. America thought over Obama's priorities for two very long years and now is the time to ACT.

The economy was crashing before and during the election and America elected Mr. Obama, so the bad economy is NO EXCUSE for failing to fulfill Obama's promises. The worst thing Obama can do for the economy is be reluctant to do everything he said he'd do -- he must do it all, and be quick about it.

Work to do everything Mr. Obama pledged to do right away -- in the first 60 days of his term. Why? America somehow elected Barack Obama AFTER two years of Republicans and rival Democrats arguing that we shouldn't let him do what he said he'd do. Obama won, by a landslide of electoral votes -- he has both a mandate and an obligation to carry through on his promises. He didn't get elected on some Nixonian "secret plan". American took two long years coming to terms with Obama's proposals, and we bought into it. I didn't really like some of Mr. Obama's promises, but after a lifetime of voting Republican I voted for Obama -- and all his policies.

One good example is cutting taxes for 95% percent of working Americans AND repealing the Republican tax giveaway to the wealthiest 1% -- those who don't work at all. Republicans will argue that "raising taxes during a recession is the worst thing we can do." Then, when Obama turns things around and gets the economy going again, Republicans will argue that "raising taxes during a soaring economy is the worst thing we can do." It's the same tired old Republican disingenuous argument that America finally rejected in November 2008. Should Mr. Obama fail to immediately strike while the iron is HOT -- while he has this resounding mandate that's fresh in the minds of all Americans -- Obama will lose this opportunity forever.

This is the only moment ever where Barack Obama can do the things he promised to do, and he probably won't be reelected if he doesn't manage to get the job done. Right now, we will have two or three years for things to shake out and level off before the next election cycle. This is the time to take those very bold steps, before Congression Democrats lose what little resolve they have.

Obama will probably have to publicly tell Democrats that they will either vote like Democrats or else when they need money for reelection campaigns they need not line up at the Obama money trough. If they want to show the voters how "independent" they are, they way congresspeople like Marcy Kaptur did right after Clinton took office, they should expect that some NEW candidate will be receiving money from me and others who donated money to the Obama phenomena when it comes time for them to run for reelection.

We need to pick out five or six week Republican senators and fund a recall drive against them. If they have to essentially run for reelection in the middle of their term they and others won't be so quick to do what they always do -- vote against America as represented by a Democratic President merely for the sake of petty politics.

Economy and the opposition

Don — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:47:03 EST

President Obama should not accept ANY advice on the economy from Mr. Bush and the Republicans whom America has convicted in November of destroying the economy by creating the current crisis.

That Republicans are "warning" Obama on their way out the door as to what he can or cannot do is LAUGHABLE, and Obama should publicly castigate them on that issue. They are seeking to rerun the election they lost, and if they want to continue to play politics Obama must call them on that every day in press conferences. Obama WON the election and if Republicans want to continue arguing that they have any authority on economic matters then that is precisely the fight Obama should take them up on. He won that fight and it's the perfect battle to keep in the forefront of American politics during the transition and pretty much his whole first term -- especially while he's using his mandate to keep all those promises he made.

Republicans spent two years losing that war and if they want to spend eight more years losing then they only rational thing for Obama to do is to let them. Help them.

It's how the political office is used that's really important

Don — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:22:24 EST

The Office of Political Affairs is like any other tool -- it's value or detriment depends on whose hands control it. Reagan and Bush used the office with bad intentions, using heinous tactics, and to literally evil ends.
Now the Office of Political Affairs will be used properly, for the benefit of the American people in the Obama Administration. We have seen in Obama a man who behaves differently from other politicians. He doesn't operate out of the small-minded, abusive motivations of Bush, Rove, Reagan and Rollins.
We mustn't let our memories of the past abuses of the Office of Political Affairs by the Republicans color our perceptions of the future uses of the office.

Way to get beyond the "Clinton Problem"

Don — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:02:31 EST

The Clintons are not in talks with Obama's team because the Clintons are not team players. They have, from the beginning, made every effort to steamroll their way into the position of Secretary of State through leaks of false information to the press that supports her goal while undermining Obama.
The President-Elect needs to bite the proverbial bullet and flat out say that ALL "candidates" for the position must submit to the same vetting process and that the process evidently is too rigorous for the Clintons and that the country's need to get the process completed quickly means he must name someone else immediately.
With the Clintons causing this much trouble now, Obama must realize that should he name her, he will have absolutely NO control over anything related to foreign policy, plus she WILL leak defense and homeland security information to advance their interests.
It's time to wrap this thing up and call it the mistake it has been. Every President makes some mistakes, and life goes on if they don't let them grow and fester.

Mandate For Change

Don — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:42:10 EST

In the context of the current transition process, I am advocating for a more forceful attitude from Barack Obama on pushing through his agenda. Our agenda.

How should he do it? What will stand in his way? What can WE do about it?

I examine the real reasons we arrived at this point and what it means.

Carbon Tax Credits

Tim Schram — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 23:32:14 EST

I would like to see carbon tax credits expanded from just commercial producers to include individuals and municipalities. Anyone that reduces their carbon footprint below the corresponding average would be entitled to carbon credits proportional to this reduction. To simplify the marketing of these credits, individuals would organize into coops or mutual fund like entities to sell their credits in bulk and be compensated for their “shares”. This will reward individuals, neighborhoods, and municipalities to conserve and invest in alternative green energies.

America - Together (post election)

Alex Karoub — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:44:40 EST

..... Contact: http://Alex.Karoub@gmail.com

WHO IS THAT GUY BARACK OBAMA? HE IS US.

We have made historic headway by together pointing our nation in the right directions. After decades, we have America focused on the issues of fundamental importance. Now, each of us acting in concert can together move our country to lead the world to the fruitfulness of moral goodness. I have no doubts about my abilities and the abilities of fellow Americans to work smart and hard to achieve these goals.

Barack Obama has the visions, leadership, and integrity for us to correct and redirect our country to once again lead the world for the fruitions of good. Let's closely listen, learn, and move forward based on that which we know deep inside is good and which we can validate with our hearts.

I hope that those who had but a few reasons to support Obama, look further into the other issues more deeply. I found the more I explored, studied, and listened to Obama the more I found us in agreement. The couple of issues that I did not have depth of knowledge of, quickly became obvious in need. This was unusual for me since I have always refused to be any kind of a follower, and still am not. I find Obama to be a deep thinker who is articulate and inspirational; and, of most fundamental importance, Obama makes excellent moral sense.

Hopefully, our country has learned lessons from the past of mistakenly following leadership blindly, as was done with Nixon and Bush. There are leaders who are simply in it for themselves and will cater to individuals or groups in order to grab for their own benefit. Corrupt and bad leaders hide at all levels. This is especially true in city government as well as county and state government. The corrupt deals of politicians need to be exposed, and those responsible need to be weeded out in the coming local elections. Others need to be investigated by law enforcement and be prosecuted for illegal dealings; for deals they often make for their hidden personal agendas. Let’s look at the bad experiences of the past as bitter medicines, let’s eliminate the need for such bad medicine in the future. Let us use what we know is good to go forward.

I believe we have chosen wisely, not by greed and not by misguided retaliatory anger. I believe this time our country has chosen with open eyes, with each of us listening and examining our choice of leadership closely, driven and validated by our hearts.

I hope we can continue to make our efforts even more inclusive (in many more ways than I touch on here). Far right republicans will be stubborn to change, but we will need to include them to change if we are to succeed. Sure a few more will leave our country, but that is not the American way. No, we really don't need their false fronts of power, money, insider knowledge, or other trappings that they have taught many to 'respect?'. Let's recruit as many as we can, that's the American way, evolving and changing together as one nation. Try to be understanding as we move forward; by better understanding each as individuals and people with various desires and needs we will find ways to reach out with friendship and have them join our causes of good.

Be on the lookout, and root out bad leadership in government and business. Do not be intimidated by those who use the false fronts of power and give a false sense of security in order to lead. Be extra leery of those who say or imply ‘Trust me’; those who give a sense that they somehow omnipotently know better. No longer will Americans be dazzled by phony displays of brilliance or baffled by baloney. There are government aristocrats and business leaders who still believe in the old adage of: “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle em with bullshit”. We can embrace complexity by demanding true, fundamental, and understandable explanations. We can root out falsehoods by not accepting double speak. We as Americans know how to grow ourselves by first believing in ourselves. Don’t be a follower. Don’t be a follower of followers.

However, when we find leaders who are good; a leader that thinks, speaks, and acts from their heart; one that is honest, has integrity, and leads by sincere examples; then we need to in a big way, join them, support them, and promote their causes of good. From much research, investigation, and scrutiny, I believe Barack Obama is such a person. I hope we search for and find many more who are similar, who we can add to service at all levels of government. We need to add/replace leaders in business with ones that have honesty, integrity, and show quality in leadership. We need more people in leadership roles who are moral, like Barack Obama.

Remember, we are not fighting a battle, we are the artisans and sculptors of the future for ourselves and generations to come. Rarely do societies have opportunities to make such dramatic moves forward as we now have in this opportunity of today. Take pride and practice in being inclusive as we stride forward. In moving forward, create opportunity not only for yourself, but also for all. Hope is a wonderful thing to behold; but without opportunity, hope can become but a dream never achievable. We can, will, and must, create opportunity.

In the coming year I hope that we do not lose our spiritedness, but instead continue to build and make headway. I hope we all continue our campaign for change in government and business. We will succeed in moving forward once again, it will take much effort and good oversight on the part of each of us. We will make great strides in the months and years ahead in order to achieve the fruitions of good. Let's keep our enthusiasm progressing through these coming toughest of times. Let us use the light of goodness and love to motivate us with historic momentum.

I have chosen Barack Obama because he best represents my deepest beliefs in America. Please take time to read the issues that Barack Obama has published on this website. Also, give your attention to see how he leads us to move our nation forward in the time ahead. Most importantly, be part of America's great future, participate in the greatness that together we will make. Participate!

We will each and all flourish, if we think, speak, and act, by using the love in our hearts.

Your reply is welcome. Contact: Alex.Karoub@gmail.com

Ronald Reagan on the Business tax

Silentboom — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:12:31 EST

Here’s how Ronald Reagan taught this principle during an interview with Reason magazine:

Who pays the business tax anyway? We do! You can’t tax business. Business doesn’t pay taxes. It collects taxes. And if they can’t be passed on to the customer in the price of the product as a cost of operation, business goes out of business. Now what they’re going to do is make it easier for demagogic politicians–and you’ve got plenty of them in the state legislature–to say to the people, look, we need money for this worthwhile project but we’re not going to tax you, we’re going to tax business, now that we can do it by a one vote margin. So they’ll tax business and the price of the product will go up and the people will blame the storekeeper for the rise in the price of the product, not recognizing that all he’s doing is passing on to them a hidden sales tax.

If people need any more concrete explanation of this, start with the staff of life, a loaf of bread. The simplest thing; the poorest man must have it. Well, there are 151 taxes now in the price of a loaf of bread–it accounts for more than half the of a loaf of bread. It begins with the first tax, on the farmer that raised the wheat. Any simpleton can understand that if that farmer cannot get enough money for his wheat, to pay the property tax on his farm, he can’t be a farmer. He loses his farm. And so it is with the fellow who pays a driver’s license and a gasoline tax to drive the truckload of wheat to the mill, the miller who has to pay everything from social security tax, business license, everything else. He has to make his living over and above those costs. So they all wind up in that loaf of bread. Now an egg isn’t far behind and nobody had to make that. There’s a hundred taxes in an egg by the time it gets to market and you know the chicken didn’t put them there!

Georgia Referendum #1 (of 3): Input requested!

EMK — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 02:51:29 EST

Hey guys,

There are these referenda on the ballot in GA where I would like to have some input on before I vote.

Can you take a look at the resolution, Georgia HR 1276, and give me your feedback.

I've included some of my understanding of what I think it means in the extended post, but read the document first.

Just reply to my post if you have any idea, especially if you live in GA.

Additional Reference: State Constitution of Georgia.

[UPDATE: SEE ALSO GEORGIA HB 1211, AS THIS BILL "FILLS IN THE BLANKS THAT GEORGIA HR 1276 LEAVES OUT!!!]

Thank you,

EMK

$69,000 Per Year Salary Willing To Accept a 4-7% Tax Increase

Randy Z — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 15:58:48 EDT

Hey Everyone,

Ok, I am a hard working Middle Class man with a Salary of just $69,000 per year. Well, even that is much higher than your average hard working middle class man.

I wanted to write this post because I hear the McCain campaign trying to bash Mr. Obama raising taxes on a $250,000 Net income of a small business to help our country. Well, in my eyes the way I see it is if I were to receive a tax increase of say 4 - 7% I would have no problem with that at all knowing that my contribution is going to help our economy..

The way it is, if the economy continues my $69,000 salary may become a $0 salary, then not only could I not help this Country but wouldn't be able to help my family or myself either!

So, if it means anything, I am way below the higher tax bracket but if a slight increase in my taxes would save not only the economy but my JOB as well, than heck yeah, take a little from me now and then give me back a little when we are in a position to do so...

AMERICA IN THE YEAR 2016

Peter from Portland, OR — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 06:02:06 EDT

I had a dream: We are writing the year 2016, America has left behind the economy crisis of 2008 and developed to a green, social and prosperous society. The unemployment rate is down at 2.3 %, the number of poor people dropped from 37 to 9 million, the national deficit is only a fourth of that in 2008. Every American has affordable health care now, and Obama`s tax cuts have put more money into the pockets of the middle-class American, which led to higher consumption, re-fueled the economy, and created millions of new jobs. Above all 5 million new created green collar jobs and a better, more effective environmental policy with solar, wind and other renewable energies dropped America`s energy bill, air pollution and CO 2 balance by 25%, making the country cleaner and almost independent of foreign oil. America´s is about to become the world leader in green technology, especially due to the broad-scale introduction of US built hybrid cars. In foreign politics America has restored faith and regained respect in the world community of nations as a wise and peaceful mediator in all conflicts. This and other measures also led to an improvement of the national security. The dark Bush years are history and America has made the real CHANGE to a better future - YES WE COULD - And due to the great achievements of Barack Obama`s successful 8 years in national and international politics a committee was founded, proposing the extension of his presidency for 4 more years, as applied during the Roosevelt administration.

Was all of this just a dream ? - No, you can make it happen by voting for OBAMA next Tuesday - It is now up to you, America !

SHOP AMERICA SUPPORTS OBAMA

Redistribution of Wealth

"Voice for Humanity" — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:21:49 EDT

The latest assault weapon for Senator John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin against their opponent Senator Barack Obama is the “Socialist/Marxist/Robin Hood” tag on him.

Such rhetoric and false propaganda is to create doubts in the minds of entrepreneurs against Senator Obama.

The distortion of Senator Obama’s policy leading businesses to believe that,

“In Taxing 1% of the population in the 40% tax bracket while shifting the tax burden to the top 10% percent with 70% of tax exacerbates the entities from active participation in the economic growth.”

The reason behind similar branding is the fair tax proposal presented by Senator Obama to alleviate the socioeconomic problems that has currently widened the canyon between rich and poor in our country.

Thus slowly but gradually eliminating the middle class in our society.

Senator Barack Obama’s tax policy is based on relieving all citizens including small and medium sized businesses earning less than or equal to gross income of $250,000 per annum from any tax hikes to offset expenditure.

This strategy creates financial liquidity among households and businesses alike that is desperately required to stimulate the ailing economy.

By exempting the average households from any tax increases, the consumer spending is generated that will benefit the Retail economy which in turn will permeate throughout the economic spectrum.

The strengthening of the Retail economy will boost the manufacturing, service industry… reaching all the way to the top of the corporate growth.

The Corporate growth means investment prospects for both private and public sectors resulting in healthier and consistent stock market performance that has been highly volatile recently.

It is simple economics.

Supply and demand forces determine a free market system.

Unless, there is a demand for any particular goods or services the supply chain link cannot remain in force.

Simultaneously, the demand can be a catalyst in the process only through affordable consumer spending.

This is where the small and medium sized businesses come into play with the tax breaks from Senator Obama’s policy.

It is noteworthy that small and medium sized businesses deal with wholesale industries for raw materials and other items ultimately owned by major corporations in a market economy.

There are valid reasons to embrace the market economy worldwide.

A. Induces competition apart from enrichment of ideas

B. Competition enables choices in quality and price

C. Controls inflation or deflation

Therefore, the retail consumers benefit from the market economy that facilitates all small, medium and large players in competing with one another effectively for common good.

All of the above factors directly and indirectly influence the fiscal, monetary and economic policies in a Capital economy.

Briefly, the cash flow offered through tax relief by Senator Obama to a substantial group of taxpayers who are also the consumers trigger consumer spending and exponentially elevate the economic status among various groups in the society.

It also eventually contributes to the wealth accumulation by the top ten percent in the society whose welfare alone is a major concern for McCain/Palin candidacy.

Ironically, the McCain/Palin candidacy in their zeal to own Capitalism as their trademark, fail to recognize the importance of fundamental growth in the lower and middle income groups vital for the survival of small businesses and retail industries, the structural components of a successful Capital economy.

Senator McCain’s tax policy to freeze tax increases across the board by asserting that the Bush administration’s permanent tax cuts to wealthy individuals and Corporations would miraculously revive the economy is a fantasy beyond reason.

It is worth remembering for McCain/Palin campaign that the current Bush administration, as their supporter will depart shortly leaving the nation with multi-trillion dollar debt, on-going wars in Iraq and Afghanistan requiring constant capital injection, declining dollar and hosts of economic commitments willfully neglected in the past eight years.

The undecided/swing voters in every battleground state must realize that there are no precise solutions from McCain/Palin candidacy to resolve the humongous challenges confronting our nation in the absence of any meaningful tax policy.

Senator McCain’s policy to create new jobs as economic solutions again fails to meet the criteria of capital requirement in the present economy with severe financial liquidity crisis.

In fact, the recent economic strategy to bankroll the corrupt and failed financial institutions with the taxpayers funds, along with the economic stimulus package by the Bush administration fits the profile of the political stigma - “Socialism/Marxism” except,

Here, the beneficiaries are the financial institutions and their wealthiest CEO’s rather than the taxpayers i.e. the average citizens.

Since, the same political party represents the Bush administration and McCain/Palin candidacy, it would be more appropriate to assign the factoid to the respective contenders.

Fact Check: In a progressive tax structure, Senator Obama’s policy to exempt the vast majority of taxpayers/consumers from tax increase would,

1. Promote economic status as highlighted above…

2. Ultimately, create a fair system of sharing the economic burden by all rather than only by the affluent ones.

Such farsighted and permanent solutions to persisting economic problems is in direct contradiction to the myth and misnomer cast by McCain/Palin doctrine against Senator Barack Obama to win the election.

Socialism/Marxism may well be the nemesis to Capitalism,

Capitalism cannot thrive without consumerism – That is the fact.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

John McCain – New Corporate Economy and Old Boys Corporate Club in Washington

Unknown user — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:07:20 EDT

(Dark humor and sarcasm)

I agree with John McCain, George Bush, and the Old Boys corporate club in Washington that we need to increase the already huge tax cuts to the corporation that have caused huge Federal deficits over the years and that have lead to the economic crisis and catastrophe. In fact, I would agree with just giving them all the money and stop the redistribution of wealth and taxes. I definitely want to be on the good side of the gravy train, if you know what I mean ;)

I know some would say the economy will not work this way, sort of like now, but it can work. The corporations will simply have to buy all the cars and houses and provide them to their members, a bit like having a butler and a maid living in a little house next to your mansion. We could all get corporate tattoo’s to show our allegiance and bar codes too. Instead of the hassles of having a wallet, paper money, and plastic cards our bar codes could simply be scanned and Voila! It’s paid for. The new corporate economy will provide safety and eliminate crime (not corporate crime). How is someone going to steal your wallet if you do not have one?

The only people who may have a problem with the new corporate economy are the trouble makers, lazy people, and people who have a bad or negative attitude. There’s a bit of a down turn to it though, corporations are about profit. So future conversations may go something like this “our earnings were a down a bit in the last quarter so we won’t be able to pay for your child’s medical bills” and “we are not in the elderly care business and your performance was not optimal in the last review, just how will your parents death affect your productivity?”

But it is Capitalism and Darwinism at its best! I’m certainly not a wealth “redestributor” supporter, I hate taxes, and too much government regulations just like John McCain does; And just like John McCain, I also have great confidence in the American worker’s ability to work until he can’t work no more.

Note:

I strongly believe in capitalism but this is not the kind of future I would like or want. Capitalism, Darwinism, Crime (like fraud), and Freedom all have different meanings but some people seem to confuse them.

Corporations are not the evil entities depicted above and they are in the profit business. Some of them do commit crimes and this is why regulations are needed.

250k

Amous — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 03:42:18 EDT

If palin brought “Joe the Plumber”, to swing undecide 250k income voters, here we will show that we are the real 250k , and will only choose Barak Obama, Bloggersmosaic is 250k income startup for Obama. Why Barack Obama should be our president, each photo on our main page will link to blog post from Barack Obama supporter. A supporter like you a doctor , a small business owner, unemployment, a school teacher, American without health insurance, first time voter ...ect if you are one of those who want to join , use link below upload your photo or any other human face, and your blog post.. If you don't want to submit your photo , just the link, its ok , i will use default photo from Mr.Barack Obama photos collection i have at the end we hope to create a real mosaic of Barack Obama supporters, because he is really representing each one of US. 1. We will show as many 250k income voters on main page which will link to their own post. 2. We also want to create real mosaic photo for Barack Obama from voters

now bloggersmosaic.com

McCain Uses Scare Tactics About Business Tax

Madera Strong - Team Co-ordinator For City of Madera — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:17:10 EDT

McCain tries a pitiful last ditch attempt to scare middle class that they will be taxed. McCain want to tax health benefits for the poor and middle class.

All business people know that to earn $250,000 net, you will earn a lot more as gross income and write off a lot of things as business expenses. While the big corporations spend our bailout money at spas and big dinners, at our expense, thay will be able to write these expenses off as legitimate meeting and business costs. The list of deductions is long and can shelter a lot of money. Businesses will not suffer by Obama's tax on the rich, because the rich shelter their money, and the tax is only on that money which is unsheltered and exposed.

Even Cindy McCain never revealed her wealth and investments, because she did not want the government to have access and knowledge about her funds. (She said it was none of the public's business.) Oh yeah, she is hiding it BIG TIME.

Progressive tax rates = Marxism? Ridiculous. Here's data.

Disillusioned former member — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 01:34:31 EDT

The claims that a 39% tax rate is outrageously high -- MARXISM -- are laughable.

Was President Reagan a Marxist? His top tax rate was 50%.

Was President Nixon a Marxist? The top marginal tax rate under Nixon was 70%.

Was President Eisenhower a Marxist? The highest income bracket's tax rate under Eisenhower was 91%

Yes, that's right. 91% (ninety-one percent).

E I S E N H O W E R <=> 9 1 %

That's how they paid for (for example) the infrastructure (e.g. Eisenhower's national highway system) that the current generation of Republicans has been leaving to crumble and rot today. It costs money.

Should we tax top incomes at 91%. I don't think so.

But the idea that our economy would be crippled by a tax rate of (oh, blush) 39% on incomes greater than $250,00 or that this is Marxism, or that this is a Democratic Party level of taxation -- anyone with a sense of the economic history of the 20th century should find this a very sad joke.

For more historical data, http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

Invest in America

Ivan Richmond — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:57:10 EDT

Obama's tax plan will invest in the average American worker who drives our Capitalism economy. It will get water to the root of our economy and it will really invest in two ways. It will give ordinary working people financial relief in this economic crisis. Under his plan, if you make less than $250,000 a year, you'll get a tax break. Also, small businesses will get a tax break as will any business that keeps jobs here in America

But it will also invest in society. By having big business carry more of the burden, it will invest in things like schools, roads, public transportation and health care. All of these things will benefit everybody. Our children will be able to get the education they need. Families will be able to have continuous, affordable and fair health coverage. People will be able to take improved public transportation systems to work instead of having to pay huge gas prices at the pump.

All of this will provide the groundwork and opportunity for us ordinary Americans to regrow our economy from the roots up. But, we'll have to do our part. We'll have to take advantage of it and participate by using our savings wisely and by going to work and working hard. But, I know that we Americans are up to the challenge, provided the opportunity to rise to it and that's what Barack Obama will provide us: the opportunity to rise to the challenge as a nation.

If you'd like to contribute to my grassroots campaign, clickon the link below. We've got to keep fighting to make the Obama movement a reality. Even as little as $5 will make a difference.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/ivanrichmond

Sarah Palin’s Song: Doin’ What the Lord Tells Me. The Video

mathpol — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:45:28 EDT

Here is the video, Karaoke style.

Here are the lyrics.

Frightened by McCain Rhetoric

Aaron — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:33:25 EDT

Recent rhetoric from the McCain campaign is frightening. Since the early years of the 20th Century America has had a history of a progressive income tax; taxing those with the smallest disposable income the least. The McCain campaign suggests such an idea is un-American. I don’t get it. Senator Obama’s plan to increase taxes for those who can afford it the most is consistent with the long traditions of this great nation. That is hardly an unpatriotic idea! It is frightening to think that Senator McCain and Sara Palin condem ideas that are so central to the core beliefs of the American public. It is more frightening that the American public allows them to get away with it.

McCain (Mis)Uses American Dream to distract from American Reality

Dyresha from Philadelphia, PA — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:06:48 EDT

I respect Joe the plumber. I don’t agree with him, but I respect him. He seems like a hard-working, down to earth single dad who the McCain campaign has unfairly thrown into the limelight and some media have unfairly assailed. I think he is being genuine when he voices his concerns that the Obama tax plan would take away from the American Dream. That said, I think he is wrong.

Joe says that graduated taxes punish people for being hardworking and successful whereas government should reward these traits. But we all know that there is much more to success than just hard work. What I’d like to ask Joe and the rest of American voters is: “Do you know anyone who is smart, dutiful, patient, hard working and who doesn’t make $250,000 a year?” Chances are you know lots of these people. Chances are you are one of them. I know people who work multiple jobs and still make under $40,000 a year. I know people who put in free overtime in inner-city schools, who own local businesses and skimp on their own salaries to pay employees, who spend the night shift saving lives in local hospitals and who still make less than $250,000. If we are doling out rewards for hard work, certainly, these people should benefit.

The McCain campaign wants us to imagine that right now income is perfectly matched with effort and Obama’s tax plan would disrupt this equilibrium. But this couldn’t be further from the truth. According to United for a Fair Economy, the average CEO salary in 2005 was 411 times the salary of the average worker. CEO’s may be hard working, but it would be hard to argue that CEO’s work 411 times harder than the rest of us. What’s more, this difference has grown almost fourfold since 1990. While incomes for the richest %5 of families has risen %81 over the past twenty years, income for the rest of us have gone up less than %25 (Economic Policy Institute).

Tax codes where benefits go to the wealthy and then supposedly “trickle down”, are partially responsible for making the United States 95th out of 135 countries rated for social equality. According to the 2008 United Nations Development Report, we currently have more economic inequality than countries like Pakistan, Iran, Russia, and Vietnam. Bush’s 2006 tax cuts—which were based on the same principle as McCain’s —gave an average of $448 to people in the middle %20 of the economic spectrum while giving $39,020 back to the top %1 and $200,523 to the top 0 .1% (Urban Brooking Tax Policy Center). The current state of the economy gives us a good indication of how well that policy worked. Yet, expert, Bob Williams, of the Tax Policy Center states, “Senator McCain would mostly would extend the Bush tax cuts, make them permanent. Most of the Bush tax cuts benefit people at the top end of the distribution and [McCain’s policy] would continue that benefit.” The truth is our current economic system does support a redistribution of wealth—toward those who already have it.

As a result social mobility (the ability to “pull oneself up by one’s bootstraps”) is lower in America than it is in most other industrialized nations including France, Germany, Sweden and others. One third of families will be worse off then their parents were despite the increase in 2-wage households and in worker productivity (Economic Mobility Project). This is the real threat to the American Dream.

Obama’s plan uses taxes to invest in projects like education, new jobs in a green economy, and health, which help people translate hard work into success. Williams notes that “Obama focuses most of his tax cuts on low and middle class households” and includes special compensation for workers, retirees, homeowners, savers, students, and new farmers. In doing so he reverses the trend of redistributing wealth to the rich and helps return the country to a time when the American Dream was more possible to achieve.

The increase on the wealthiest 5% of the country (an addition of about %3, still lower than taxes under Reagan) is not a punishment for the rich. Rather it is an acknowledgement of the fact that --in addition to hard work-- luck, connections, access, schooling, inheritance, and a tax code that has long benefited the wealthy more than the average person, contribute to success. And to whom much is given, at least a little more is expected. Furthermore, even those with high incomes can expect to benefit from their investment. A thriving, energized middle and working class are what really stimulate the economy. Increasing their buying power grows the pie for all while at the same time evening the slices.

The ironic thing is that even if Joe were to buy the business of his dreams, calculations show that his personal income would still be under $250,000 a year, below the level where taxes would increase under an Obama plan. Certainly at his current earning level Joe would do better under an Obama plan than a McCain one. So would Rose the Teacher, Phil the Bricklayer, Wendy the Waitress, and any of the other %95 of the population that McCain claims to be fighting for. So why, in a time of such economic unrest are American’s being asked to trade gains on the real wealth they actually have for gains on the imaginary riches it might be nice to one day own, while people who are not struggling benefit? This is a perverse twisting of the American Dream and I think we American voters are too awake for that.

Followup Comment on The Party of Debt and Deficit

Sahil — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 08:39:57 EDT

Thanks for your comments. I would like to say the following in response:

The figures are for annual deficits not for federal debt which everybody knows is $10 trillion now. That figure effects the US credit rating and the currency. The federal debt has been growing almost all the time over the past forty years. The years it has shrank, it has shrank by very little i.e.

1970: $2 billion,

1974: $2,

1975: $4,

1999: $2,

2000: $105,

2001: $102 billion

The deficit each year adds to the federal debt. Even if you balance the budget the federal debt still remains at the same level. The only way to reduce the debt is to have budget surplus.

I still tend to think that the Obama campaign may have missed the clarity of these figures. It is at least better to talk about than defending against remarks about Joe the plumber.

If at this point the Obama campaign needs to introduce a new talking point it should be something like this because of the economy and it will also help other democrats running for the Congress.

Is there a way to make sure that the Obama campaign knows about the apparent clarity of these figures? Please.

The Economic Plan that is needed.

John from Berkeley, CA — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 04:22:48 EDT

What Obama needs to do is lower taxes for the middle class, that way their will be a larger effect on consumer consumption. The old trickle down effect of hoping the upper class' tax breaks can benefit the economy is no longer working; they are the ones who caused this financial crisis. We need to urbanize the country and create more inward growth of our administrative systems, knowledge, and innovation while still maintaining a steady control as the world's central economic generator.

It will be particularly advantageous to create the right alliances right now. China is on the brink of entering its mass urbanization phase. Chinese media, such as "Still Life" directed by Jia Zhanke, depict the demolition of old Chinese cities and in order for mass reconstructive urbanization projects mainly consisting of infrastructure and industry. America needs to begin capitalizing upon the economic benefits that helping and fostering economic growth of a quickly developing brings. This mutually beneficial international partnership of trade, coupled with the tax breaks for the "Joe" consumers, will undoubtedly help boost America's economy, not just to its former state, but rather to that next level. It is time to embrace the intelligence of a Harvard graduate running this country.

Reframing McCain's description of Obama tax plan as "welfare"

Ivan Richmond — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 20:30:28 EDT

As the elections drawing to a close, McCain is just going to get nastier. His latest frame has been to call Obama's tax cuts "wellfare". Now, it may sound ridiculous for a Republican to criticize a Democrat for wanting to give people tax breaks, but here's how that frame works. Part of the conservative view is that rich people deserve their wealth, because conservatives tend to assume that people who are rich got that way by being disciplined. It's true that Obama wants to give people tax cuts, but not to the rich. The conservative view is that this punishes people for being disciplined.

Obviously we Obama supporters disagree with this conservative assumption, but we also need to be aware of how McCain's frames operate if we're going to win. By framing Obama's tax cuts as "wellfare", it underscores the notion that it's rewarding undisciplined people. The progressive view we have is that we should invest in society. That's what Obama's tax plan does.

I was surprised that Obama said, in his Missouri speech, that his tax plan is "not wellfare". According to UC Berkeley linguist, George Lakoff's book _Don't Think of the Elephant_, negating a frame actually reinforces it. When Nixon said he was "not a crook", for example, it reinforced the notion that he was. When Obama says his tax plan is "not wellfare", it reinforces the notion that it is.

However, if you reframe it, that will undo the power of McCain's frame, since McCain's position is in reality weak. Obama's tax plan is great. As I've said, we progressives believe in wise investment in society. That's exactly what Obama's tax plan will do. It will get water to the roots of our economy, where it's needed, rather than just sprinkling some at the top. It will empower millions of Americans to grow their prosperity. If wereframe his tax plan like that, I think it will very easily destroy McCain's "welfare" frame and make sure voters see how truly great Obama's tax plan really is.

Yours very truly,

Ivan Richmond

FALLING ASSET VALUES ARE A TAX

L.Diamond — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 08:45:24 EDT

When assets like your homes or your stocks lose value, it is a type of tax. What matters is your purchasing power. Even if the government lowers taxes, especially for the rich, if your holdings lose value, you are not a winner. If paying more government taxes translates into a strong economy in which your asset values and purchasing power rise, then you are going to come out ahead.

Maybe our current financial instability has, as a significant factor, too much borrowing and wealth taxes that are too low. In any case, as our presidential candidates compete for the best tax policy, it is important to remember, it seems to me, that low taxes alone are not necessarily beneficial, especially for the rich.

Joe Not My Foe Bro

Khaidji — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:07:59 EDT

The assumption that Barack is not catering to the needs of the people is farcical. Now, to make it all seem like a redistribution of wealth and if it were to presume that this would be a bad thing, giving all people in America a fair chance is not understanding the needs of the country. Given that the increase in taxes is not over 5%, I wonder why the rich seem so threatened.

Joe Not My Foe Bro

John McCain how dare you

Ostracize my policy as if you knew

Every ramification and yet you didn’t know

No penalties will be charged to plumber Joe

Or how could you sit with that grimacing smirk

There when you realized your attacks didn’t work

My campaign has had nothing to hide

You should have known having searched far and wide

For months we have been telling you about the middle man

On TV you cited Joe as rich, you still can’t understand

Every single person in the middle class

Bears a burden I want to change by new Laws I’ll pass

Remove all taxes from them but the rich who can give

Ought to pay back some from the affluent lives they now live

Easy Download or hard copy of
”Path To The White House”
By Khaidji

the $250,000 mark and Taxes

Naomi Comerford — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:40:58 EDT

Based on independent research, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html and others, it looks as if, under Obama's tax plan, if you make between $251,000 and $603,000 that your taxes will not go up. The won't go down, but they won't go up - which is really, really important.

If this is true, then why isn't he highlighting it? Why does he say in EVERY debate that taxes won't be increased if you make under 250,000...why doesn't he say under 603,000...a number I have NEVER heard him use.

At the moment, the perception is that if you make over $250k that you will be taxed and it is scaring off undecided and independe voters. It is also making voters question the fairness of his tax plan. I think this would be far more effective in relieving the fears of the upper middle class if he used the $603k figure rather than the $250k benchmark.

Any insight on this strategy or is the data wrong?

The Presumption of Ignorance

Brian Normoyle — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:34:49 EDT

Brian 1:2 So spake the Fool in prayer before the angry masses on that 11th Day of October 2008, the year of our Lord: "there are millions of people around this world praying to their god—whether it's Hindu, Buddha, Allah—that [Barack Obama] wins, for a variety of reasons. And Lord, I pray that you will guard your own reputation, because they're going to think that their God is bigger than you if that happens."

Brian 1:3 And lo, the huddled mob—rabid with loathing and stricken, like others before them, with a fear of change and leaders of color—praised the Fool with applause. And both were pleased in their ignorance.

The fool in question of course is Arnold Conrad, former pastor of Grace Evangelical Free Church, pleading with God at a John McCain rally in Iowa. However, unlike the shrewd fools in literature from Socrates to Shakespeare, this one is anything but wise.

For the sake of argument, let's ignore the fact he's a pastor and alleged scholar of religion and give the Fool the benefit of the doubt. After all, an imbecile can't reasonably be expected to know that Hindu is not a god (or even a proper noun for that matter), Buddha isn't a deity either, and neither are prayed to by anyone. Anywhere.

And of course, while any average idiot—except this one apparently—knows Allah is the same God prayed to and worshiped by Christians and Jews, we needn't require Pastor Arnie to understand these or other religions and cultures. Why? Because, despite his Doctor of Ministry degree, that brand of cultural sensitivity and theological understanding is anathema to a myopic and intellectually incurious fundamentalist.

The pomposity of this self-righteous dolt notwithstanding, I'm always amazed by proselytizers who pray, prattle and pontificate with the arrogant assumption they know who God is rooting for—as if God has a stake or interest in a particular candidate.

Prayers like Pastor Arnie's are futile of course and as patently absurd as asking the almighty to intervene in the Superbowl. But the obvious silliness doesn't stop so many evangelicals from so frequently contending Republicans are the party of God and John McCain (R-Nazareth) is Christ's personally vetted nominee for President. Their presumption is as comical as their worldview is provincial.

My personal hunch is that God doesn't much care about American electoral politics but, if s/he does, I doubt s/he'd be categorically opposed to a Democrat. Barack Obama is a Christian. He was "saved," he was baptized, and he was a regular congregant in a Church of Christ for over 20 years.

Besides—from the right to universal health care, nondiscrimination, and racial/gender equality to the eradication of poverty, earning of a living wage, dealing with AIDS and tax relief for those who actually need it—Democrats and their standard-bearers have traditionally favored policies uniquely more suited for and geared towards the middle and working classes and the poor/disenfranchised. In other words, Obama's policies tend to support the very people that the foolish pastor's God named "the Salt of the Earth" in the best-selling book s/he "authored" thousands of years ago.

Christ didn't say much in favor of the free market, unprovoked war, assault weapons for "hunting," or tax-cuts for the rich and he was completely silent on those "cardinal sins" of abortion and gay marriage. But he did have an abundance of opinions about equality, justice, compassion, tolerance, forgiveness and love, as well as leaving judgment of others to God and taking care of our neediest brothers and sisters.

So frankly, Pastor Arnie, I still don't think God is rooting for either candidate, but if s/he is, given their agreement on the issues, my money's on Obama. I'll give you 5:1 odds on your money for McCain, but I'd call that a Fool's Bet.

Matthew 25:40 "And the King answering shall say to them, 'Verily, I say to you, Inasmuch as ye have done it to one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it to me.'"

Barack Missed This One

Bill in HI — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:31:43 EDT

There is a rule in the IRS code which PENALIZES taxpayers for not liquidating part of their IRA or 401k.The penalty is pretty stiff. So much so, that you are better off taking the loss than paying the penalty. The number of people affected is small, but they ALL VOTE! They are turning 71 next year. For me, that is only 6 years away.
The real problem is two fold. One, it will REQUIRE people to sell stock into a soft market. Two, the amount which will be added to income will be smaller than otherwise and thus there will be a real loss in tax revenue. This would be like with the bank bailout where the government would be forced to sell under-performing assets in say six years and thus take a forced loss rather than waiting say twelve or fifteen years and breaking even or even making a profit.
The real problem, though, is that in four years if not addressed, this will become a real issue.

Sarah Palin’s Song: Doin’ What the Lord Tells Me

mathpol — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 09:13:06 EDT

(To be sung to the tune of "Doin' what comes natur'lly", from the Broadway musical "Annie Get Your Gun", music and original lyrics by Irving Berlin. New lyrics by Gregory Bachelis.)

Folks are scared I’m not prepared

To govern if elected

But I’ll make a great V. P.

Doin’ what the Lord tells me

(Doin’ what the Lord tells her)

Gals like me could never see

The point of facts and figures

I’ve done well politic’lly

Doin’ what the Lord tells me

(Doin’ what the Lord tells her)

You don’t have to know much foreign affairs

When you can see Russia from your front porch stairs

From my earliest days in the PTA

Religious/social issues were my forte'

God advises me

(God advises her)

I Am Not A Maverick

Richard from Denver, CO — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 22:37:06 EDT

I have heard enough!!! McCain professes that he’s a "Maverick", but tonight he said something that caught my interest. He said he was a Maverick and don’t always get along with my own party... let alone their party (Democrats). My question is that when McCain reaches across the aisle… who will be there to take it? John McCain has already alienated everyone who he could work with.

Further, John McCain alleges "I'm not going to raise taxes, in fact I not going to raise taxes at all..." Doesn't this sound familiar? George bush said it!!! "Read my lips no new taxes"... w

hat happened to being a maverick John???

Reducing oil dependancy through increased fuel efficiency

Stefan from Titusville, NJ — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:44:50 EDT

Abstract
The plan outlined here has two main goals: on the environmental side to quickly (as possible) reduce the green house emissions due to the high number of fuel inefficient vehicles in US; on the economics side- to reduce the dependency on foreign oil, help the auto industry and ultimately, help struggling Americans. The program can pay for itself by reducing the amount of imported oil in as little as seven years even with no further tax increases.

Summary
•   Expected Effect
o   Significant decrease in oil imports
o   Boost to the auto industry and associated areas
o   Reduction in green house emissions
•   Economics parameters
o   Tax increases and import duties for fuel inefficient vehicles
o   Deficit reduction due to lower oil imports
•   Timeline
o   The plan can be implemented in a very short period of time (less than 6 months)
o   First effect would be felt within the firs 6 months of its implementation
o   The full effect would be realized within 2 to 3 years
o   The program would pay for itself within a 7 to 10 years period

Background
Americans now use old and largely fuel inefficient vehicles. For example NADA reports the median age of a passenger car in US being over 9 years (http://www.nada.org/NR/rdonlyres/93F45723-C66F-4437-BEAB-8F523221C8BA/0/NADA_DATA_2007_Vehicles_Operation_Scrappage.pdf).
According to Department of Energy (DOE) the average fuel economy in 2006 was 22.4 MPG for passenger cars (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/consump.html). For SUVs, minivans and light trucks the estimate is 18 MPG.
It is easy to see that the average fuel efficiency is too low. For example, Ford Escape 4WD, 3.0L engine has combined fuel efficiency of 20 MPG, more than 10% better than the average SUV or minivan. Likewise Ford Focus has combined fuel efficiency of 27 MPG, almost 20% better than the average. This shows the huge potential for oil consumption reduction. Since the transportation sector used more than 40% of the total demand for oil for US (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/dem_image_us_cons_sector.htm), a 10% increase of the average auto fuel efficiency will decrease the US demand for oil by as much as 4% (58 billion dollars per year, assuming oil price of 100).
Another significant source of conservation would be the 450,000 school busses with 4 billion miles traveled each year (http://epa.gov/cleanschoolbus/basicinfo.htm). The average consumption is between 7 and 13 MPG (www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35764.pdf). As an approximation, school busses use close to 400 million gallons of gas per year and bringing the fuel efficiency to 20 MPG would create a staggering savings of 200 million gallons of gas per year. Since the ratio between gas and oil is 1:2, then this increase would save the US the need to import 20 million barrels of oil, which would amount to saving of 2 billion dollars.

Example:
According to VIUS (http://www.census.gov/svsd/www/vius/2002.html), almost 5% or nearly 300 SUVs had average mileage bellow 12 with an average of 9.83 MPG. Assuming that half of those SUVs are updated to Ford Escape 4WD, 3.0L, and the average mileage per year is 12000 miles, which would result in lowered consumption of 180 thousand gallons of gas per year (4,300 barrels of oil). The basic trim of Ford Escape can be purchase at around 20000 dollars. The price of the program (not counting both negative and positives of the trade-ins) would be therefore around 3,000,000 dollars. At the same time, with an average price of oil around 100 dollars for the next 3 years, the cumulative savings will be 1.3 million dollars. If the oil price holds steady for the next 7 years the program would have paid for itself in this same time period.

Financial plan
The program can be executed in 2 stages- pilot and full. The pilot stage could target only high value vehicles, with fuel efficiency more than 10 MPG away from the new model. If we use the above example, we could expect up to 10000 SUVs to be traded (based on the growth of the SUV number in USA). The number of passenger cars can be established at twice the number of SUVs- 20000. The number of vans would be probably not as high as the number of SUVs (according to VIUS is almost 10 fold lower) so at this first stage vans can be excluded. On the other hand the number of low efficiency pickup trucks is much higher, but due to the insufficient data and the fact that some of those can be used in a business activities, where trade in with a more efficient model might not be a viable option we should exclude this category here as well.
Given the average price of lower trims for cars and SUVs, the pilot program budget should be set at around 500,000,000 dollars.
The second stage can be set with wider net, where the owner would pay part of the new vehicle cost as specified in the table:
Subsidized part (percentage)   Last taxable income (thousands of dollars)   Efficiency difference (MPG)   Used for business?*   Years of no sales/trade-ins**
100%   Any   >10   Yes/no   7
90%   Any   8-10   Yes/no   7
75%   <100   5-8   Yes   7
70%   <100   5-8   No   7
65%   >100   5-8   Yes   7
60%   >100   5-8   No   7
50%   <100   2-5   Yes   5
45%   <100   2-5   No   5
40%   >100   2-5   Yes   5
30%   >100   2-5   No   5
30%   <100   <2   Yes   3
25%   <100   <2   No   3
10%   >100   <2   Yes/No   2
*Vehicles used for business are likely to travel more miles per year, therefore the effect would be higher.
**Vehicles bought through this program cannot be sold or traded in for a fixed period of time.

The program can be paid in parts by applying import duties and tax hikes for “gas guzzlers” and expanding the current tax to include SUVs. Another important source of revenue is to tax directly the producers of gas guzzlers (for example 0.5% of the manufacturer price of qualified vehicles), which would hopefully discourage the future production of such vehicles.

Transcript of Debate 2: Biden v. Palin (10-02-08)

Stephanie Williams — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 19:12:56 EDT

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The vice presidential candidates, Democratic Sen. Joe Biden and Republican Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, debated in St. Louis, Missouri, Thursday night. Gwen Ifill of PBS was the debate moderator. Here is a transcript of that debate:

Sen. Joe Biden and Gov. Sarah Palin debate the issues Thursday night.

Employee Benefits and Business Tax Breaks

Wes — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 08:14:40 EDT

We can no longer allow Republicans to gain tax breaks for business, without increasing Employee Pay and Benefits.

To give in to business tax breaks for minimal gain to the employees, is to pad the pockets of CEO's and not the workers.

The two should go hand in hand. No more giving in.

I was quite unimpressed that add-ons to pass the "relief" bill, included business. It should not have changed, it should have remained clean of add-ons. Business taxs are not a problem, foreign underpriced goods are. Wake up and be leaders, and quit giving in.

Bush: "Take that Congress, thanks Mccain"

Nia "Hussein" J. — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 04:56:32 EDT

Sept. 29 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve will pump an additional $630 billion into the global financial system, flooding banks with cash to alleviate the worst banking crisis since the Great Depression.

The Fed increased its existing currency swaps with foreign central banks by $330 billion to $620 billion to make more dollars available worldwide. The Term Auction Facility, the Fed's emergency loan program, will expand by $300 billion to $450 billion. The European Central Bank, the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan are among the participating authorities.

The Fed's expansion of liquidity, the biggest since credit markets seized up last year, came hours before the U.S. House of Representatives rejected a $700 billion bailout for the financial industry. The crisis is reverberating through the global economy, causing stocks to plunge and forcing European governments to rescue four banks over the past two days alone.

``Today's blast of term liquidity will settle the funding markets down, and allow trust to slowly be restored between borrowers and lenders,'' said Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. in New York. On the other hand, ``the Fed's balance sheet is about to explode.''

The MSCI World Index of stocks in 23 developed markets sank 6 percent, the most since its creation in 1970. Credit markets deteriorated further as authorities tried to save more financial institutions from collapse.

European Rescue

European governments have rescued four banks in two days and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said today it helped Citigroup Inc. buy the banking operations of Wachovia Corp. after its shares collapsed. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index fell 3.8 percent and the cost of borrowing dollars for three months rose to the highest since January. The rate for euros hit a record.

``If people think the authorities may give in to fears, they are wrong,'' Financial Stability Forum Chairman Mario Draghi said today in Amsterdam, where the international group of regulators and finance officials is meeting. ``There is willingness and determination on winning the battle to restore confidence and stability.''

Banks and brokers have slowed lending as they struggle to restore their capital after $586 billion in credit losses and writedowns since the mortgage crisis began a year ago. The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. also sparked fears among banks they wouldn't be repaid by counterparties, driving up the cost of short-term loans between banks.

Funding Risk

``By committing to provide a very large quantity of term funding, the Federal Reserve actions should reassure financial market participants that financing will be available against good collateral, lessening concerns about funding and rollover risk,'' the central bank said.

The Bank of England and the ECB will each double the size of their dollar swap facilities with the Fed to as much as $80 billion and $240 billion, respectively. The Swiss National Bank and the Bank of Japan will also double their dollar swap lines, while the central banks in Australia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Canada tripled theirs.

All the banks extended their facilities until the end of April 2009.

The Fed is also increasing the size of its three 84-day TAF sales to $75 billion apiece, from $25 billion. That means the Fed will make a total of $225 billion available in 84-day loans. The central bank will keep the sales of 28-day credit at $75 billion.

Special Sales

In addition, the Fed will hold two special TAF sales in November totaling $150 billion so banks can have funding available for one or two weeks over year-end. The exact timing and terms will be determined later, the Fed said. The TAF program began in December, totaling $40 billion.

The bank-rescue plan being debated by Congress today would give the Fed more power over short-term interest rates by providing authority as of Oct. 1 to pay interest on reserves held at the central bank by financial institutions. That would make it easier for the Fed to pump funds into the banking system.

Paying interest on reserves puts a ``floor'' under the traded overnight rate, which would allow a central bank ``to provide liquidity during times of stress'' without affecting the rate, New York Fed economists said in a paper last month.

To contact the reporter on this story: Scott Lanman in Washington at slanman@bloomberg

* The story gets more intresting because it appears that McCain incoraged the whole thing*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/30/mccain-urges-bush-to-spen_n_130729.html#postComment

Jed Lewison

John McCain today urged the Bush Administration -- on more than one occasion -- to immediately and uniliterally spend $1 trillion buying up home mortgages.

I was watching live when he made the proposal this morning, and it seemed like such a staggeringly insane idea that I assumed he couldn't be serious. He couldn't think that Bush should just spend $1 trillion without asking Congress for permission...could he?

But then I saw his economic adviser try to back the idea up, and then I saw McCain make the proposal again during the NBC Nightly newscast. So he's serious. He really thinks that Bush should just spend $1 trillion without talking to Congress, without seeking approval, without building any sort of consensus -- without getting any protections whatsoever for taxpayers.

This is the same John McCain who just a couple of days ago was railing on the $1 trillion price tag of the bailout (when it was actually $700 billion).

But just a few days after railing against the unbridled power of government, McCain now seems to envision the presidency as a dictatorship. He now thinks that Bush should just spend $1 trillion without allowing anyone to ask any questions -- and he supports doing it just one day after the House of Representatives voted down a $700 billion bailout.

This won't suprise anyone on the left. The question I have is this: when are conservatives going to wake up and realize that despite all his bluster about being a conservative, the Republican nominee for president has proposed the single largest expenditure in the history of this nation -- and that he's proposed that it be made without the approval of Congress?

FairTax - an opportunity to help those of us that are not super rich - less than $200,000 / yr.

Joshua from Durham, NC — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:00:22 EDT

As a social liberal and Barack supporter I'm very interested in the Democratic stance on the FairTax Act (HR 25, S 1025). It's one of those rare pieces of legislation which is supported primarily by Republicans, but would do much more for the stated goals of the Democrats. It taxes corporations, tourists, and illegal immigrants, lowers taxes on lower and middle income families, and increases taxes on the wealthy. There is nothing regressive about a tax that doesn't tax below the poverty line (the prebate refunds all federal tax up to the poverty line at the begining of the year) and closes all the loopholes corporations and the very wealthy use to avoid taxes. It also makes April 15th just another day by getting rid of personal tax forms. No more hours spent filling out paperwork just so you can find you owe the government an extra $1000 in taxes. I love what Barack and Biden are planning to do and think the FairTax should become part of that plan.

Please read about this legislation after Barack has won the election. Right now our work is to put him in the White House. After that we still need to help support him and help him to move this country and the house and congress towards a better and more fair future. This legislation could truly help level the economic playing field for everyone.

Thank you,

Joshua

Paying taxes on health insurance benefits???

Marcy in Genesee WI — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:13:10 EDT

Are you kidding? It's hard enough to make it month to month on our net income. Now McCain is proposing a tax on our health insurance? How about life insurance and dental too? Pretty soon soon there won't be much left to take home.

The middle working class, along with the still-working Baby Boomer generation, are already struggling to pay for our kids' college education, dealing with the costs of special needs of our aging parents, and trying to save for retirement on top of it. There's not much left after all that for gas and groceries.

McCain just doesn't get it.

(I sent this letter to local and national newspapers.)

I Hereby Call For...

Gregg from Kittanning, PA — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 23:14:57 EDT

Congress to pass a bill that calls for charging a person $2 when they describe someone or something as being "in the tank" for one of the candidates. Give it a week, and there's your $700 billion for the bailout. No taxpayer heavy lifting required.

What About Us - We Already Lost Our Homes

Mario F Lopez — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 03:44:34 EDT

Ever since the Mortgage Meltdown started somewhere around the 04's, there has been talk about bailing out the Homeowner. But just that "a lot of talk".

But NOTHING, not even talk about those of us who already lost our homes.

Now that WE MUST BAIL OUT WALL STREET, administration officials have agreed to include mortgage help for beleguered homeowners but, nothing, not even TALK for those of us who already lost our homes.

I have nothing against help for homeowners, I just worry that is not going to be enough and I think that Congress should examine this measures and pressure the administration if they are not going to help homeowners or the funds are at risk to get lost in a beaurocratic mess; as we experienced after Katrina, believe it or not there are still victims from Katrina who have not been helped or funds still unaccounted for.

It bothers me a lot 'how quick we forget"

Just as the Katrina's victims who will never see help, the homeowners who already lost our homes to the great American mortgage meltdown, will be left out in the cold.

Like the millions of taxpayers who were left out of the stimulus package, because they did not qualify due to the existing tax laws. It amazes me to think that the administration actually made the ordinary folk believe that help was on the way. When most disabled veterans and social security recipients found out that they would not receive any money that would help them at least for that month, pay the rent or buy some extra food or clothing; they were devastated and extremely dissappointed.

The idea was good, not that it would fix the economy, but a band aid (a wet one, that is). It was the idea that it would make ordinary people believe that after its failure they would believe that the goverment did try to help ordinary people with the stimulus package but, the situation has gotten worse and now it is required to bail out Wall Street or things will get a lot worse.

The truth is this: the administration told us that this were extraordinary times that require extraordinary measures, but did not apply extraordinary ecxeptions to the existing tax laws which led to excluding social security recipients, disabled veterans and other taxpayesr who earned the amount required to qualify for the stimulus package but were claimed as dependents on someone elses return. In addition to that, the package was designed to reward with more money those who earned more money, with the max of $1200 for married couples who earned $150,000 plus $300 per child under the age of 17.

I am tired of the injustice, I am tired of watching the least fortunate always getting the dirty end of the stick.

I am not a firm believer of "conspiracy theories" although in retrospect, I have a very good one about the Iraq war.

Today, is becoming obvious that the present administration knew way in advance about the economic crisis we would face. I believe that months ago they (Bush, Paulson, Cheney and other very close players) after realizing that the Republicans did not have a chance to win the White House and, since the economy was about to take a plunge; try to prepare the American people mentally (with the stimulus package) and even more with the initial bail out of Fanney Mae and Freddy Mac and subsequently AIG.

Now that we are all brain washed, we can believe that they really need all that money, just like we believed that Dick Chaney did not have personal interest in United States invading Iraq, when now his company Halliburton is making Billions of dollars in the rebuilding of Iraq. And, I would not be surprised for a second if Halliburton would profit from the Bail Out as well as some foreign institutions.

Only in America you can imagine that the President and his Wall Street cronies are about to rob the bank and distribute the money among themselves. They figure that, with Barak Obama as president, Wall Street is not going to have a free ride, they will be regulated. So might as well take the money now and let Obama deal with the ONE TRILLION debt we will inherit and of course, there will be no money to pay for Universal Health Care or any other social programs that Senator Obama is promissing now.

Since we seem to forget so quickly, during the Obama's administration, when no money is available for those programs mentioned above, republicans will hammer on the fact that the Obama administration did not deliver; then, they will have enough inmunition to take the White House back in 2012.

They tell us that they are borrowing the money and that Wall Street is going to pay us back with interest. If they were no were around when we were loosing our homes, why should we bail them out, oh, is because if we don't there will be no money to keep business open therefore no jobs for no one.

That is call: SCARE TACTICS, republicans are very good at it, they have had plenty of practice, their motto is: keep them uneducated, sick and running scared, I have seen that all my life. I am afraid that we will eventually bail some business out, but hope that will be companies that got caught in the middle and no companies that actually caused and contributed to the crisis, we should find those accountable. If companies responsible for the crisis are rewarded with OUR MONEY, it sends the wrong message to future generations.

I would have no problem bailing out the Banks and Mortgage Companies, as long as I can have my home back.

Well, we gave you (out of your own money) alsmost 1/2 Billion with the stimulus package, why can't you bail us out with 1 Trillion plus dollars. "Folks, we can always count on the generosity of the American people" . Are we generous or stupid? Am I asking for too much when I want my house back?

It does not have to be that way, I believe that some monetary measures should be taken to correct the destructive course the Bush administration has taken our economy thru, but no ONE TRILLION OF OUR HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS.

Let's not get fulled by the fact that our economy is about 14 Trillion dollars and, 1 Trillion is just a drop in the bucket because, we are 9 Trillion Dollars in debt; thanks to the Bush administration.

When President Clinton left office, left us with a surplus, DO WE WANT 4 MORE YEARS OF REPUBLICAN DESASTROUS POLICIES?

I got totally of the track, WHAT ABOUT US WHO ALREADY LOST OUR HOMES? if you know of anything period, related to this forgotten group of Americans, please post a coment or contact me.

God bless you and get registered to vote,

Mario Lopez

Tax smears - spread the truth

North Carolina from Raleigh, NC — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:49:55 EDT

Dear Friends,

The economy is the number one issue on voters’ minds. Barack Obama laid out a plan this week to address this crisis and offered strong, practical solutions for American families.

But while Barack offered solutions, John McCain went before the nation to continue lying about Barack and to offer more of the same disastrous George Bush policies that got us here. The Washington Post even said, “On Economy, Obama Offers Ideas, McCain Blames Rival.”

Smear emails lying about Barack Obama’s positions on taxes and the economy have been circulating widely. The most common tax smear email has been debunked by the independent and non-partisan group FactCheck.org, which calls its claims “made up.” They continue, “This widely distributed message is so full of misinformation that we find it impossible to believe that it is the result of simple ignorance or carelessness on the part of the writer. Almost nothing it says about Obama's tax proposals is true. We conclude that this deception is deliberate.”

Do not let these lies go unanswered. Every time you receive the smear email lying about Obama’s plan on taxes and the economy, please respond with this email and these key elements of Barack's plan:

Families making less than $250,000 a year will get a tax cut three times larger than under John McCain's plan and will face absolutely no tax increases.
A $1,000 emergency energy rebate for families with high fuel costs right now while putting $50 billion into job creation to get our economy back on track.
While John McCain has voted against raising the minimum wage 19 times, Barack would raise the minimum wage and set it to rise automatically with inflation. Invest $15 billion a year in green energy research to reduce our economy's dependence on foreign oil and create 5 million American jobs a year.

Here are some more resources that you can pass on to others.

See the point-by-point refutation of the tax smear email from FactCheck.org.
Read Senator Obama’s plan to cut taxes for over 95% of all American families.
Watch a video contrasting the McCain campaign’s smears with reality.

Learn about this and other smears directly from the Obama campaign. This page includes a feature that allows you to spread the facts by forwarding it to your friends and anyone from your contact list you choose.

Please pass this information on to your friends and family. Spread the truth. Thank you for your vigilance.

Sincerely,

North Carolina Action Wire @ North Carolina Campaign for Change HQ

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/NorthCarolinaActionWire

Out Of The Mouths of Babes...

Linette — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 15:52:20 EDT

As Whitney Houston said, "I believe that children are our future". And our children are hoping for a future with Barack Obama as President of the United States, not John McCain. Why? Growing up in Toronto, my daughter sees homeless people, and people on our streets who are hungry. She's being taught to give money to the church to help people who need it, to pitch in at food drives, to pack up clothes and toys for others in need. So when she heard about John McCain owning so many houses that he couldn't even keep track of them all, it was all too much for her. "Seven houses?", she exclaimed, "Some people don't even have one. He can't live in seven houses at once. Why doesn't he just give some of them away to people who don't have any?" Why indeed? She's only four, and she's figured it out. An economy that has some people owning seven homes, while others sleep on cardboard is not working. Some people definitely have, others have not. And it's not fair. Sure, the economy is more complicated than that, but in essence, what we have now is not fair. And it's not right. A vote for Barack Obama can change that.

Will My Taxes Go Up or Down?

Jonathan Juillerat — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 01:14:10 EDT

My good friend Tim just sent out an email that really breaks down the Obama tax plan versus the McCain tax plan:

Hello all,Most of you already know my political leanings but after this email there will be little doubt. I wanted to take this chance to provide to you all the most recent report from the Tax Policy Center and the Brookings Institute regarding the proposed tax plans from both Barack Obama and John McCain.You can find the whole report here:http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/findtables_candidates.pdfBut, I will spare you the gory details and provided a two page file to this email. This file shows two tables lifted from the report. These tables show the tax implications to the average American household under both proposed plans. Look at both tables at the third column, titled "Percent Change in After-Tax Income" and you will find:Obama Plan:

99% of all households would see greater after tax income under the Obama plan.
The bottom 25% would see a 5.5% increase in after tax income.
The bottom 80% of all households will see anywhere from a 1.8% increase to a 5.5% increase in their after tax income.
The top 0.1% (one tenth of one percent) would see an decrease of 8.9% in after tax income.
The Federal Gov't would see an $824 reduction is tax revenue per household.

McCain Plan

The McCain plan shows an increase in after tax income across the board, but the lion's share IN PERCENTAGE AND DOLLARS goes to the top 0.1% of all households
The TOP 0.1% will see a 4.7% INCREASE in after tax income. The most wealthy households the US has are rewarded with the largest tax break (in percentage and dollars) of any other tax bracket.
The bottom 50% of all households will see less than a 1% increase in after-tax income.
The bottom 25% of all American households will see a $21 benefit while the top 0.1% of all American households will see a $290,708 benefit.
The Federal Gov't would see a $7956 reduction is tax revenue per household.
How can the US continue with such a MASSIVE reduction in revenue in a period where spending is at an all-time high? It isn't just the war and it isn't just wasteful spending. The US has committed nearly half a trillion dollars to beleagured financial institutions over the last month and you are kidding yourself if you think it's over.

What does all of this mean?

If you are in the top 1% of all American households in adjusted gross income then you should absolutely vote McCain.
If you are in the bottom 99% of all American households then you are better off economically under the Obama plan.
If you aren't planning on voting for Obama because he is a secret Muslim then no amount of analysis will change your mind and you probably quit reading this email a long time ago.

The size of illegal tax shelters vs. taxes and wages paid

Jonathan TE in VT — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:32:00 EDT

[Originally posted at ChelseaGreen.com.]

One of the most shocking tidbits in Robert Kuttner’s new Obama’s Challenge has to do with where Obama could come up with the money to pay for the programs Kuttner recommends. Nearly half the money Obama would need—at least $300 billion—could come from having the IRS crack down on illegal “tax shelters” that are used nearly exclusively by the richest sliver of the American population. In Kuttner's words, "the consensus among tax experts is that at least $300 billion of taxes owed by the richest Americans go uncollected mainly because IRS enforcement resources have been diverted from audits of tax shelters used only by the wealthy onto audits of working Americans." (Obama's Challenge, p. 29; Kuttner cites this report as his source.)

This is due largely to the fact that, under President Bush, the IRS has focused its enforcement efforts on “the little guy,” auditing lower-income tax payers and largely ignoring the creative accounting that allows the richest of the rich to avoid paying their fair share. (And that’s on top of the fact that Bush’s tax cuts already give the richest among us a legal free pass to avoid paying a truly fair share.) (See this and this and this.)

$300 billion in illegal tax shelters being ignored by the IRS!

You might wonder, as I did, just how much money is $300 billion? How does it measure up relative to how large our overall economy is?

Obama's 94 Tax Increase Votes

Nia "Hussein" J. — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 03:31:42 EDT

Factcheck.org: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/tax_tally_trickery.html
Tax Tally TrickeryJuly 3, 2008Republicans claim Obama "voted 94 times for higher taxes." But their count is inflated and misleading.SummaryThe McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee both claim that Obama has voted 94 times "for higher taxes." We find that their count is padded.

After looking at every one of the 94 votes that the RNC includes in its tally, we find:

Twenty-three were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all; they were against proposed tax cuts.
Seven of the votes were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals.
Eleven votes the GOP is counting would have increased taxes on thosemaking more than $1 million a year - in order to fund programs such as Head Start and school nutrition programs, or veterans' health care.

The GOP sometimes counted two, three and even four votes on the same measure. We found their tally included a total of 17 votes on seven measures, effectively padding their total by 10.
The majority of the 94 votes - 53 of them, including some mentioned above - were on budget measures, not tax bills, and would not have resulted in any tax change. Four other votes were non-binding motions related to conference report negotiations.

It's true that most of the votes the GOP counts would either have increased taxes for some, or set budget targets calling for such increases. But by repeating their inflated 94-vote figure, the McCain campaign and the GOP falsely imply that Obama has pushed indiscriminately to raise taxes for nearly everybody. A closer look reveals that he's voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers. That's consistent with what he's said he'd do as president, which is to raise taxes only on those making more than $250,000 a year.

Progressive Income Tax

Kelson Philo — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:57:47 EDT

Rate of monies gained from progressive income tax: let's do a quick hypothetical situation.

For a given set of income brackets, out of a sample of 100 people, how much money is to be had given a certain tax policy over a given year?

Tax and Spend versus Borrow and Spend

Tough Democrat — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:03:04 EDT

Imagine you need a new roof and the roofing salesmen, let's call him Barack O, tells you that it will cost you $20,000 for a new roof. Like any reasonable person you decide you need a 2nd opinion so you call another roofer. Let's just call the 2nd roofer J. McCain. The 2nd roofer tells you he can give you a new roof for $18,000. Sounds like a good deal right?

So you ask J. McCain the roofer why he can give you a $20,000 roof for only $18,000. And he says, "Actually it's a $20,000 roof. I will charge you $18,000 and borrow $2,000 from a foreign bank. Then your children will be responsible for paying the interest on the loan." You'd tell that guy to take a hike wouldn't you?

Yet millions of middle class Americans do this everytime they vote for a Republican based on the ideology that republicans want smaller government and will give you more of your money back to do whatever you please. The problem is not the republican ideology. It is the republican practice. Our national debt doesn't go down when republicans hold office. It goes up because they cut taxes but DO NOT cut spending. And we pass this loan onto our children. In fact, the last time our national debt actually went down was in 1960 when JFK, a democrat was in office. And since the Reagan administration, the only time our national debt even got close to zero growth was the last year of President Clinton's administration. There is an excellent paper on the web by Steve McGourty that analyzes over 50 years of US national debt history and who is responsible.

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

So I ask this, why can the GOP candidates get away with accusing the democrats of being tax and spend liberals but we can not accuse them of being irresponsible borrow and spend morons?

Get the Facts About Tax

Mike Ciriello — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:05:06 EDT

Who has the better tax plan for your future? Depends on you but before you read another email blasting one candidate with claims that "his plan will raise your taxes!" Get the facts.

The source of this comparison is the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan, unaffiliated, non-profit. It's not Republican or Democratic. They show the plans side-by-side: you get to decide what's important to you. The Tax Policy Center employs economists who also look at both plans and offer nonpartisan opinions of the impact of the both. Their latest summary (late August 2008) agree that neither plan will shrink the deficit. McCain's plan will raise the deficit by $4.2 trillion; Obama's plan will raise the deficit by $2.9 trillion. The other question is whether taxes for the "middle class" go up? In fact, the middle class actually gets more money back under the Obama plan. How the tax plans impact the economy; what they say vs. the facts, etc. are outlined below. Make up your own mind, but do it with the facts.

“Tax estimator” - we can show the change right now!

Sami from Rego Park, NY — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:29:54 EDT

We need to give people something concrete to build up their confidence in our platform. we can show the change right now! my idea is simple: “Tax estimator”We should create and post on BarackObama.com an online tax estimator that anyone can easily use to calculate his or her annual income, according to the Obama new tax policy to be. This will eliminate the “Obama will raise taxes” lies by the McCain people. It should be very easy and fast to put together, and it should be accompanied with TV and Web advertisement, showing the gains in income that most Americans will make with Obama as a president. When they’ll see it, they’ll believe it. Think seriously about this; don’t dismiss it as a gimmick. It’s not.Here’s a link to such calculator online – of course you’ll need to update the federal tax values according to Obama’s tax reform.http://www.hrblock.com/taxes/tax_calculators/index.html Sami(more to come) Prof. Sami S. Chetrit
Queens College, CUNY
office (718) 997-5574Home (347) 548-5917
schetrit@qc.cuny.edu

The Dems Should Hammer This Home

Anthony — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:33:24 EDT

While McCain waits in the wings and his moose-hunting surrogate peddles his lies and hides from the press, Obama, Biden and every other Democrat should be repeating this, posting this, and doing whatever they can to get this out there.

Obama wants to lower your taxes unless you are super rich...McCain wants to lower your taxes unless you're NOT super rich. CNN does the math:

CNN Fact Check on Candidates' Tax Plans

How can you determine how your tax dollars are spent?

Simon from Bradfordwoods, PA — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 21:44:19 EDT

Put on the voter forms categories to indicate where you want your tax dollars to be spent.

Tax Plans made simple!

Farheen Qurashi — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:34:56 EDT

So, everytime I talk to someone who is undecided or is for the Republican side/John McCain, and we get to taxes, it's always the same old story:

Them: "Dems raise taxes and Republicans lower them!"

Us: "Dems raise taxes for those who can afford them, the wealthiest, and Republicans lower them for the wealthiest!"

And we are deadlocked. But now, there is simple and effective proof through a source everyone trusts...

Tax Plans made simple!

Farheen Qurashi — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:22:43 EDT

So, everytime I talk to someone who is undecided or is for the Republican side/John McCain, and we get to taxes, it's always the same old story:

Them: "Dems raise taxes and Republicans lower them!"

Us: "Dems raise taxes for those who can afford them, the wealthiest, and Republicans lower them for the wealthiest!"

And we are deadlocked. But now, there is simple and effective proof through a source everyone trusts...

See through the spin

Gavin BC — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:20:58 EDT

Mccain and Palin have spun the facts in this election out of control.

I bring this up because we need to stick to the issues and not get carried away with trivial things like cosmetically challenged pigs.

The most important issue in America today is the economy. Both Mccain and Obama say that they will cut your taxes and that the other wants to raise your taxes. This is true but it all depends on who you are. If you make enough money to be in the top 19% of incomes in America then yes, Mccain will cut your taxes. But, if your not one of the privileged few then your taxes will go up.

This is the almost the exact opposite of Obama's plan in which the lower 81% of America gets the tax cut and the top 19% get a tax raise. We need to get this message out because this could turn the election on its head and give us a landslide victory.

Who is Increasing Whose Taxes?

Michelle — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:45:15 EDT

McCain likes to tell us that our taxes will go up if Obama is elected into office. The reason McCain doesn't say more than a sentence on this point is because if he went into the details of his tax plan, he would lose the votes of middle America. Since McCain isn't talking, I figured I would say a few words on his behalf. I can't say this message is approved by McCain, but we can't expect it would be now can we?

McCain's Mischaracterizations

McCain has said:

"Under Senator Obama's tax plan, Americans of every background would see their taxes rise--seniors, parents, small business owners, and just about everyone who has even a modest investment in the market."

McCain has been criticized for deceiving Americans by mischaracterizing Obama's tax plan. He fails to say "some" Americans (specifically those making over $250,000), who, admittedly, can be of any background, are the ones that may see tax increases under Obama's plan, NOT "every American" as McCain prefers to incorrectly generalize.

Define "Rich," Please

When asked, McCain quipped that if you're talking about only income, then $5 million is how he defines being "rich." In stark contrast, Obama pointed out that anyone making $250,000 or more is in the top 3-4 percent in this country and thus "doing very well;" rich by U.S. standards. One thing is evident -- the two men have quite disparate standards on what defines the wealthy.

Tax Decreases for Who, Exactly?

The Haves Over the Have-Nots According to McCain's Plan

While McCain is correct in saying he will decrease taxes, what he fails to mention (just as he and Palin failed to mention the phrase "middle class" at the RNC), is that the taxes he is promising to decrease are taxes on the rich, by his definition, those making millions in income alone every year.

Unless, your finances look like that of McCain, who out of the 535 members of Congress ranks the ninth richest, having assets valued at about $36.5 million (and a wife with assets estimated at $100 million), you will not benefit from McCain's promised tax cuts. This is because McCain, who once opposed the Bush-devised tax cuts for the rich, now not only supports the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, but has three or four additional tax cut proposals planned for America's socio-economic elite. The Arizona Senator's tax cuts are even worse than those put into place by Bush, being twice as expensive and thus adding to our nation's growing deficit.

Me, Me, and Others Just Like Me

McCain's tax cuts are even more focused on diminishing the taxes of the wealthy than Bush's were. "In fact, under McCain’s plan, John and Cindy McCain would get a $300,000 tax break while middle class Americans would save only $319. The McCains save $60,016 more under McCain’s tax plan than under Bush’s." Shouldn't McCain change his slogan to "Me First?"

Obama Actually Puts America First

Obama, on the other hand, promises a tax cut to the 95% of American families that make less than $250,000 a year. Obama's own tax reform plan is aimed at hardworking Americans -- the same Americans that are struggling with rising fuel prices, ballooning mortgages and record job losses - not at helping Obama himself. Obama's plan includes "a tax cut for 150 million middle-income Americans, a homeowners tax benefit for those stuck in the subprime mortgage crisis, an end to income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 a year and a tax code reduced in complexity." This is change that will benefit the backbone of America, the people that actually need it , and consequently work to stabilize and grow our economy over time.

“ 'McCain and the Republicans keep mischaracterizing my plan,'said Obama, seeking to clarify his own proposals. 'If you are a family making less than $250,000 a year, my plan will not raise your taxes. Period. Not income tax, not payroll tax, not capital gains tax, not any of your taxes. And chances are you will get a tax cut.' "

Taxing Those That Can Afford To Be Taxed

I will tell you one thing Obama isn't doing that McCain is -- Obama isn't guaranteeing that he won't increase taxes on the rich. While Obama's largest tax cuts are to those making the least, McCain will give his largest tax cuts to the very wealthy. When you really think about it, do the rich need their taxes decreased? If there's someone that can afford to pay into our taxes, isn't it the rich? A family making $30k a year that is taxed 30% only brings in $21k a year; someone making $5M a year that is taxed 30% still brings home $3.5. It's much easier to support your family on $3.5M than on $21k, don't you think?

McCain's Taxes Won't Create More Jobs

McCain has repeatedly said on the campaign trail, "My tax cuts will create jobs. His tax increases will eliminate 'em." As the experts have pointed out, "if McCain wants to create jobs, cutting the corporate tax rate isn’t the place to start. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a corporate tax cut 'does not create an incentive for [corporations] to spend more on labor' and 'is not a particularly cost-effective method of stimulating business spending.'" McCain has chosen to follow the Bush economic philosophy which forgets about America's working and middle classes. "Job growth in the eight years before Bush came to office was significantly better than in the eight years since. But to McCain, the Bush-Norquist agenda of tax cuts for corporations takes precedence over anything aimed at the anyone else." So much for McCain's promises to create more jobs through tax cuts.?

Focused on America, Not Himself
If someone should have our vote, it should be the man looking out for America, not the man looking out for himself and his equally placed friends in hopes of squeezing out some extra cash from their multitudes of homes, extensive stock portfolios and exorbitant yearly incomes. How can we expect our country to be led in the right direction if our country's leader is selfishly looking out for himself and the one percent of Americans with finances mirroring his? As McCain looks out for himself and others that are wealthy like him, he leaves the rest of America in the dust and, if you ask me, that's not exactly putting "country first," is it?

Responsibility is the REAL American Value

Alec Galambos — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 17:45:27 EDT

American citizens,
This November, we have a huge decision to make. We all want to step up and do the right thing for our country, but the back-and-forth in the media and the scathing, degrading campaigns aren't helping too much. Lately, the two big parties have been doing their very best to capture your vote based on values. They both understand that you are a person of integrity and spirit that cares about protecting the American dream - this is what presents us with a choice. Independent of any political discourse, of which there is much to be had, we, as voters, should be examining the choice at hand in terms of our responsibility as citizens.

The process of understanding what a citizen's responsibilities are is very introspective and personal, but hopefully you'll listen to a few of the things that I've come up with (and that, hopefully, we agree about):

1. It's our responsibility to make sure that the candidates actually are ready to lead.

2. It's our responsibility to elect someone that cares about the citizens that elected him.

3. Most importantly, it's our responsibility to make sure that no Americans suffer (and I mean REALLY suffer) as a result of a government policy.

Now, here comes the examination. First, a quick disclaimer: I was born (and much later, registered) an independent mind, and was taught to figure out what I thought was right before buying into political campaigns. Now, with this set of values in mind, I've discovered things in the past few months that have led me to write this article. In terms of the values I listed above, here are each of my observations:

1. It looks like Mr. McCain certainly knows how to deal with bad situations, and can solve problems well. Mr. Obama seems just as capable - he's dealt with a lot of adversity in his life and is definitely a smart guy. Now the VP candidates - Mr. Biden seems to have the know-how and determination to say what he means and lead with logic; the one I have trouble with is Mrs. Palin. Independent of any right-wing leanings, she hasn't been the most straightforward person in her political career. As mayor and governor, the facts show that she has fought corruption and pork-barrel politics, but has engaged in them at the same time - firstly, she ran for governor on a platform of building the "bridge to nowhere" before later rejecting it. As governor, she blocked investigations into corruption coming from her own office. This kind of shakiness in a leader would be a huge problem, and it's our responsibility to avoid those kinds of leaders at the ballot box.

2. In this case, I don't know if we can really make that judgment quite so fast about Biden or Palin - so let's just look at the big guys. After a little research, this choice got a lot easier. The fact is that McCain's campaign has 11 lobbyists that serve as advisers or are otherwise on the payroll - these are people whose job it is to express the interests of corporations in the pharmaceutical, oil, software (Microsoft) and airline (Delta) industries. Yuck. On the other hand, Obama's camp has no lobbyists on the payroll, and has raised an unbelievable $16 Million from individual donors that couldn't give more than $200 but gave anyway. To me, it's become clear which candidate is more accountable to the citizens directly, and that it's our responsibility to vote with that in mind.

3. This is a big one. While there are all sorts of ways to look at this problem, a lot of Americans have expressed that they and their families suffer most when they reach into an empty wallet. There's real weight to the GOP claim that Obama is another "tax-and-spend liberal," but let's take a look at the facts and the policies. Using the numbers that both campaigns have released, it turns out that Obama's tax plan does actually cut taxes for a staggering 95% of Americans, and that the only people that pay a little more are the richest 5% of us - by abolishing the Bush tax cuts, that wealthiest 5% are helping to reduce the financial suffering of so many Americans and still aren't being punished for their success. The "spend" part of that accusation doesn't make too much sense either - if you look at some recent history, you'll see that the last three 'fiscal conservative' presidents (Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.) gave us national deficits of 200+, 300, and 482 Billion dollars (respectively) while Clinton (the last "tax-and-spend liberal") left office with 200 Billion dollars in the bank. Again, it seems clear that one candidate is better prepared to safeguard the American people from economic turmoil. We wouldn't be doing our duty as citizens if we continued to support a set of policies that hasn't worked in decades.

So - it seems to be pretty hard to reach a conclusion as a 'values' voter, since both campaigns are begging for your vote; but for one such voter, it's become easier as the past few months have gone by. If there's one important thing to do as a citizen before this election, it's to evaluate the evidence and think for yourself. My evaluation has lead me to Obama over McCain, but I'm writing to preach the decision-making process more than the candidate. So when you step into the booth in November, remember to be independent, be a values voter, and be responsible - the prosperity of our nation depends on it.