Do I hear a "Whooohoo Obama" from y'all? Didn't think so.

Dear R -- you & the family are looking to relocate to guam? too expensive to travel from there... and you'll still have to pay income taxes & capital gains taxes since it's a U.S. territory... you might look at Rota (Spain) or Aviano (Italy) -- large American military presence and access to NEX/PX

we're considering Rota, Spain... although we're afraid Obama will contract our military bases overseas and that Rota (Spain) and Aviano (Italy) as well as our German and Asian bases will all be targeted for closure (a big socialistic "bring ALL the troops home" move) -- because neither Obama nor any of his advisors understand STRATEGIC placement and forward standing (which of course would leave us WIDE OPEN for attack...) scary scary scary.

______ (a 23 yr old wounded Iraqi war veteran) is considering moving to Canada (his birth father was born in Canada to American parents who were living & working there in the early 50's, so he could apply for his Canadian citizenship; while the US doesn't recognize dual citizenship, Canada does, so he w/n have to give up his US citizenship to live in Canada...) but when his mom told him it won't be economically bad for him -- he told her that but he can't bear to watch Obama declare defeat in Iraq and to know that all his friends (12 in all) died for nothing... and he doesn't want to live in a country that has a President he couldn't in good conscience defend or take orders from?? how sad is that?

the family has been discussing a bunch of scenarios (including moving offshore, buying additional guns, our spending, saving & investment strategies, the long-term effect of Obama policies (it may take him 4 or 8 to do the damage -- but it would take DECADES to undo them) and especially liberal appointments to the Supreme Court -- and when you look at how many crucial SC votes were just 5-4 THAT is one of the scariest things for us -- the complete erosion of individual rights and the complete pussification of America is before us!!!)

as I explained to our kids: there are 3 sources of income for the US Gov't and it is a finite amount. if you lower taxes in just a part of one area (only SOME people benefit from Obama's new & improved personal income taxes) then you MUST raise the money elsewhere... or cut how much you need to spend. In Obama's case, he wants to spend LOTS MORE and -- since he never once said he will eliminate pork spending (it's how you BUY legislators to do your bidding), the money will then have to come from one or more of the 3 income sources: business tax, capital gains tax, pers. income tax.

now, if you raise the corporate (business) taxes, they must raise the price of their products because that is the ONLY source of revenue (to pay bills) for a corporation -- large or small. Let's take a look at a loaf of bread (substitute any product here: milk, shoes, clothing, meat...): extra tax on the farmer (he's a business you know), extra tax on the wheat mill, extra tax on the baker, extra tax on the shipper, and an extra tax on the grocery store. Do you think each of these business can or will absorb this tax (which comes from their profits), or do you think EACH will pass it on to the price of the bread? A five cent increase for each business adds twenty-five cents to the price of the bread -- which now also increases the amount of sales tax you pay on the bread (it's a vicious cycle don't ya know!!)

Now, each of these businesses can cut expenses to make up for the extra tax, and the quickest way to do that is to eliminate employees -- less salary, less benefits, less taxes to pay... and they will still make the same amount of loaves because even if they have to pay overtime wages, it is still only 1/2 of another FT employee wages & taxes (but no additional benefit costs.) Now, if they decide to keep the staff they have, they simply pass on the increased costs (i.e., taxes -- and that includes increased payroll taxes, social security, medicare, etc. -- they don't get paid out of thin air, ya know!) to the consumer. If the taxes get high enough and the bread too expensive, they sell less bread. Less bread means the need for less workers, so they lay off workers. Not rocket science, but you need to be smarter than a 5th grader. Do I hear a "Whooohoo Obama" from y'all? Didn't think so.

Same with this "punish the rich" theory of taxation: the highest taxes are on the highest producing individuals in a society. Let's take a physician. he/she pays 34% fed. income tax + 6.2% soc. sec. (to $109K in '09) + 1.45% medicare (no income limit) + 9.7% average state. inc. tax... on a salary of say $500,000, the doc has "disposable" income of about $267,500 or 53.5% (and in addition to all the expenses you and I pay from "disposable income" like mortgages, utilities, autos, etc., doctors pay all or some of their medical malpractice insurance premiums -- many tens of thousand of dollars -- continuing educational requirements, not to mention about $250,000 in educational loans, etc.)

If the tax rates go up 5% federal (as Obama proposes), and the income cap comes off soc. sec. (as Obama has suggested), medicare ins. rates double (also a waggle from Obama), and state taxes rise 2.5% (to cover the federally mandated programs and reductions in federal funds available)... that's $197,000 in disposable income. But the doctor's personal expenses are the same (or more as other expenses rise) and he needs to make up the additional $70,500 in income taxes. How do you think he does that? Yes,!! Of course!! He/she raises the cost of their services!! So now the "middle class" can either pay the bigger fees when they need medical service, pay increased insurance rates because the insurance companies have to pay more (and higher business taxes, I might add), or you can skip medical care. Do I hear a "Whooohoo Obama" from y'all? Didn't think so.

And how Obama's proposal for health insurance will fix this problem is a mystery -- unless of course we're going fully into socialism and your income is capped and you can make no more than some amount (set I suppose the same way Obama defines "rich" and "unrich"... whatever number he likes on any given day...)

now let's look at investments. When we save for retirement, we put money in our 401k plans -- tax free but when we take money OUT we will get taxed on it -- so if the income tax rate goes up, we won't be taking money from these retirement funds unless we absolutely have to... instead, we'll spend less and won't make any unnecessary or large purchases. That hurts in 2 ways: businesses suffer AND state & local governments (which rely on sales taxes for THEIR revenue) make less. Of course the local governments still need the same amount of money and their other source of income is PROPERTY TAXES. We're hit again. Do I hear a "Whooohoo Obama" from y'all? Didn't think so.

Then there's capital gains taxes. In addition to our investments in our IRAs, like good responsible citizens, we saved money and invested it in stocks, bonds & mutual funds. We were taxed on the money we invested because it came from our income. Every year if our investments pay dividends and interest, we pay tax on that as well. If we need money for a purchase -- a car, a vacation -- whatever -- we sell a stock or two or a mutual fund... and we get taxed on any profit we made on the sale (if you take a loss, your losses are limited and it may take years of carrying the loss from one tax year to another to recover your money -- there is no limit on the profit that can be taxed in a year -- funny thing.) Right now we pay 15% tax on our capital gains (the max. is 28%) -- for investments you have had at least two years. Lots of retired people actually live on the income from their investments or the sale of the investments. Obama proposes to increase these tax rates until the highest rate is 38%.

Keeping in mind that money invested in stocks & bonds are investments in American companies -- which they use to build and expand factories, invest in new equipment... and if you increase expenses of those businesses, they have less money to return to shareholders and if you're going to take about 40% of the profit every time and investor sells a stock , bond or mutual fund AND these companies are paying smaller dividends anyway (the higher the dividend = the more investors you attract!) why should anyone bother investing in these? I'd just as soon put my money in cash -- at least I'd only be taxed on the income and I could take my money out any time I wanted without being punished for having the smarts to save it in the first place!!! Imagine what happens when companies can no longer attract money? They DON'T expand or they look for FOREIGN investment and foreign ownership. Do I hear a "Whooohoo Obama" from y'all? Didn't think so.

Now let us move on to energy. Obama proposes to add taxes to our CURRENT sources of energy to fund NEW sources of energy. So, if the taxes on the oil -- and gasoline, deisel, kerosene and heating oil, natural gas, and electric are raised (or on the comapnies that produce these products -- and whether it is an increased tax rate, a new tax or a "loop hole" that's closed... whatever -- the result is the same) ... who do you think will get to PAY those increased taxes (and don't forget the new business taxes!) Yup -- smarter than a 5th grader -- WE DO!! Higher electric prices, gasoline & heating costs! And don't forget -- these higher costs for energy ALSO hit businesses (like our loaf of bread, gallon of milk, school shoes...) AND YOU'RE GOING TO GET TO PAY FOR THOSE AS WELL!!! Do I hear a "Whooohoo Obama" from y'all? Didn't think so.

Let's not even begin to discuss Obama's stated desires to dismantle the military and its funding... abandon Iraq and Israel, capitulate to Iran, Russia, Syria... make nice with Cuba and Hugo Chavez... Can I get a "Whoohoo Obama" from y'all? No, didn't think so.

Nothing that the government does can be done for free. If the gov't is going to rely on taxes for its programs... and adding programs only adds government jobs -- it does not create opportunity and it does not create wealth... and this country will go broke paying for it all.... well, except for those who pay no taxes and are expecting to get something for nothing). Can I get a "Whoohoo Obama" from y'all? Yeah, I thought so.

the whole being careful of what you wish for -- sometimes you get what you deserve keeps ringing in my ears.

I saw this written on a car this morning already: Dear Obama: now we will HOPE you're as good as you say you are AND that you will represent ALL Americans and not just some.

And as I said to a friend this morning, this man represents nothing that I believe in or stand for... I cannot imagine at any time in my life that I will ever consider this man "my president". I am sure there are worse things in the world right now, I just cannot think of even one today. I think it was all hYpe -- and there is no hOpe.

'Twas the night before elections, and all through the town
Tempers were flaring-emotions upside down

I, in my bathrobe with a cat in my lap,
had cut off the TV, tired of the crap

When all of a sudden there arose such a noise
I peered out my window saw Obama and his boys

They had come for my wallet-they wanted me to pay
To give to the others who had not worked all that day!

He snatched up my money and quick as a wink
Jumped back on his bandwagon as I sat trying to think

He then rallied his henchmen who were pulling his cart
I could tell they were out tearing this country apart

On Fannie, on Freddie, on Biden and Ayers
On Acorn, On Pelosi he screamed at the pairs

They took off with a jerk as he flew out of sight
I heard him laugh at us who wouldn't stand up and fight

So I leave you to think on this one final note
IF YOU DONT WANT SOCIALISM GET OUT AND VOTE!!!!!!!

Undecided???

click to enlarge image
x
x

a cousin forwarded a condescending email that an Obama supporter had sent her when she told him (or her) why she was supporting McCain... and she asked me what I thought... here was a portion of my response...

notice that this person NEVER ACTUALLY DISCUSSED any of the issues... just slung mud and launched into a bunch of personal attacks.

as for [his assertion that Obama's affiliation with] Wright [was inconsequential], obama's "audacity of hope" book is NAMED after a famous Wright sermon... and if you attended the church for 20 years and "didn't ever hear" any of those sermons, what the heck was the point of attending?? FOR 20 YEARS???

they attack the "theory" (a proven theory I might add) about how reducing taxes creates jobs and stimulates the economy, but they don't defend Obama's position that taxing the "rich" (above some arbitrary [and moving] $$$ amount) and reducing taxes for everyone else creates jobs and stimulates the economy (which esteemed economists reject.) Even common sense tells us that if you increase a business's expense without being able to increase profits (or just plain income), something's gotta give -- and it's jobs first.

we can actually discount half of what BOTH candidates say... but I say, given the current economic situation, increasing taxes on anyone or businesses will NOT help the economy. I already think that taking more than 40% of some people's paychecks (our current tax & soc. sec. tax rates) is so outrageous when 40% of the population doesn't even pay taxes! so my outrage meter goes off the charts when Obama proposes to GIVE REFUNDS to people who don't even pay taxes -- and do it by taking over 50% of "rich" people's money... as if those people somehow don't work hard for their money (think doctors -- making life/death decisions!!, lawyers, business executives and many successful small business owners!)

Taxing people to assist the less fortunate in our society has been an accepted norm in our country since the institution of the progressive tax code [which is really marxist in its origin), but at the rates Obama proposes, it crosses the line to PUNISHMENT. When exactly did it become OK to punish successful people -- who studied hard, worked hard and live responsibly?? And where's the incentive to work harder and do better if to do so just means it will be taken and given to someone else?? I don't get why so many people aren't more nuts about what is clearly income and wealth redistribution. (I like this analogy http://votingformccain.blogspot.com/2008/10/difference-between-democrats.html

and this person's assertions on Obama's position on the Illinois bill is a REALLY BIG SPIN job. here's an unbiased review... the conclusion being that Obama objected to the 1st & 2nd versions of the bill which did not contain the language of the Federal bill protecting the right to abortion but still requiring assistance to born alive fetuses -- but the 3rd version did AND HE STILL OPPOSED IT.

Obama and 'Infanticide': The facts about Obama's votes against 'Born Alive' bills in Illinois. (Judge for yourself.)

as for voter fraud & acorn -- ACORN is engaged in voter fraud -- they say "ACORN's problem is that some of its employees file fake voter registration forms in order to look good to the organization and earn bonuses" -- is he/she excusing this by saying that ACORN just HIRES STUPID PEOPLE??

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=acorn+voter+fraud&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

and using the LA Times as your "authority"??? for every assertion? just plain laughable. There is no more a biased piece of toilet paper masquerading as journalism... well, except for maybe the NY Times! how about some independent source??

and as for the condescending little rebuke to

Take a little time to read their web sites and see what both candidates are advocating as policymakers and political leaders. Make your decision based on what they really say they're going to do in office.

are they calling you "stupid" or maybe just a "sheep" because you're supporting McCain? I have found this attitude so prevalent in the left and liberal base -- that somehow we HAVEN'T looked and read and INFORMED ourselves because we haven't fallen at the feet of "the One"???? and he/she may be able to dismiss the spin of conservative journalists' written words, but you cannot dismiss Obama's OWN WORDS (the videos). yah.

and as for "what they really say they are going to do in office" -- words. just words. Me?? I look at

1. what they SAY they will do
2. a candidate's actual record of accomplishments,
3. solid meaningful experience,
4. whether a candidate has held and supported their position for more than a presidential campaign,
5. their character references

I see that as +5 in the McCain column and a big "0" in the "O" column. heh.

Thanks for passing this along anyway. I needed a chuckle this morning!!

yer cuz,

This article puts the whole socialist charge against Barak Obama in its fair and proper perspective. Are others equally guilty? We have been accepting creeping Socialism since the New Deal. Please read the whole thing. It may surprise you.

By Pat Buchanon

If Barack Obama is not a socialist, he does the best imitation of one I've ever seen.

Under his tax plan, the top 5 percent of wage-earners have their income tax rates raised from 35 percent to 40 percent, while the bottom 40 percent of all wage-earners, who pay no income tax, are sent federal checks.

If this is not the socialist redistribution of wealth, what is it?

A steeply graduated income tax has always been the preferred weapon of the left for bringing about socialist equality. Indeed, in the "Communist Manifesto" of 1848, Karl Marx was himself among the first to call for "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax."

The Obama tax plan is pure Robin Hood class warfare: Use the tax power of the state to rob the successful and reward the faithful. Only in Sherwood Forest it was assumed the Sheriff of Nottingham and his crowd had garnered their wealth by other than honest labor.

"Spread the wealth," Barack admonished Joe the Plumber.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," said old Karl in 1875. When Barbara West of WFTV in Orlando, Fla., put the Marx quote to Biden, however, Joe recoiled in spluttering disbelief.

West: "You may recognize this famous quote: 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.' That's from Karl Marx. How is Sen. Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"

Biden: "Are you joking? Is this a joke?"

Biden's better defense, however, might have be the "Tu quoque!" retort: "You, too!" -- the time-honored counter-charge of hypocrisy.

Indeed, how do Republicans who call Obama a socialist explain their support for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare and the Earned Income Tax Credit? What are these if not government-mandated transfers of wealth to the middle and working class, and the indigent and working poor?

Since August, the Bush-Paulson team has seized our biggest S&L, Washington Mutual, and largest insurance company, AIG. It has nationalized Fannie and Freddie, pumped scores of billions into our banks, bailed out GM, Ford and Chrysler, and paid the $29 billion dowry for Bear Stearns to enter its shotgun marriage with JPMorgan Chase.

And with federal, state and local taxes taking a third of gross domestic product, and government regulating businesses with wage-and-hour laws, civil rights laws, environmental laws, and occupational health and safety laws, what are we living under, if not a mixed socialist-capitalist system?

Norman Thomas is said to have quit running for president on the Socialist ticket after six campaigns because the Democratic Party had stolen all his ideas and written them into its platforms.

Did Ike repeal the New Deal? Did Richard Nixon roll back the Great Society? Nope. He funded the Great Society. Did Ronald Reagan cut federal spending? Nope, defense spending soared. Bill Clinton slashed defense, but George Bush II set social spending records with No Child Left Behind and prescription drug benefits for the elderly under Medicare. Surpluses vanished, deficits returned, the national debt almost doubled.

Is the old republic then dead and gone, in the irretrievable past? Are we engaged in an argument settled before we were born?

In his 1938 essay "The Revolution Was," Garet Garrett wrote:

"There are those who think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of the Depression, singing songs to freedom."

Nevertheless, there is a difference not just of degree but of kind between unemployment compensation for jobless workers, welfare for destitute families, and confiscating the income of taxpayers who earned it -- to hand out to chronic tax consumers who did not.

This last is the socialism Winston Churchill called "the philosophy of envy and gospel of greed." And it is this suggestion of socialist ideology in Obama's words that has produced the belated pause by a nation that seemed to be moving into his camp. What did Barack say in 2001?

He spoke of the inadequacy of the courts as institutions to bring about "redistributive change" in society, of the "tragedy" of the civil rights movement in losing sight of the "political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."

Normal people don't talk like that. Socialists do.

This is ideology speaking. This is the redistributionist drivel one hears from cosseted college radicals and the "Marxist professors" Obama says in his memoir he sought out at the university. It is the language of social parasites like William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Father Pfleger.

Enforced egalitarianism entails the death of excellence. For it seizes the rewards that excellence earns and turns them over to politicians and bureaucrats for distribution to the mediocrities upon whose votes they depend. One need not be Ayn Rand to see that Barack has picked up from past associates utopian notions that have ever produced nightmare states.

Don't Judge Me...

x
x
x

click to enlarge image
x
x
x

The residents of Broward County, Florida have recently received misleading robocalls telling them that they can vote by phone on Election Day, according to a report in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel on Friday. EVERYONE VOTES NOV. 4 IN PERSON UNLESS YOU ALREADY VOTED BY ABSENTEE BALLOT OR VOTED EARLY. ONE VOTE TO A CITIZEN, HOWEVER.

The report didn't provide many details, other than the fact that the voice fallaciously identified itself as Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes.

When asked whether she had heard about the calls, the supervisor's public service director said that she hadn't, and that of course voting by phone is not an option.

The call is just one of a number of dirty tricks being pulled off around the country just before record numbers of voters are expected to turn up at the polls on Election Day.

Another unknown group is distributing flyers (see the flyer after the jump) with official-looking letterhead around the area of Hampton Roads, Virgina that erroneously inform recipients that because of the crowds at the polls, the Virginia State Board of Elections is scheduling Republicans to vote on November 4th, and Democrats on the 5th. EVERYONE VOTES NOV. 4 IN PERSON UNLESS YOU ALREADY VOTED BY ABSENTEE BALLOT OR VOTED EARLY. ONE VOTE TO A CITIZEN, HOWEVER.

Democratic congressmen Jerry Nadler of New York, John Conyers of Michigan and Bobby Scott of Virginia on Thursday asked the Justice Department to launch an investigation into the matter and to bring criminal charges against the originators of the flyers.

Meanwhile, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that people in the area have been receiving robocalls with the same message. This particular trick is an old one: In 2004, the New York Times reported the same message going out in the Pittsburgh area via flyers.

click to enlarge image