Don’t like higher taxes? You’re SELFISH!

257 Responses to “Don’t like higher taxes? You’re SELFISH!”

1. Carl Andrews on October 31st, 2008 2:54 pm

   I must be hanging out with the wrong crowd.
   Everyone I know is selfish, at least by this definition.

2. Two Dogs on October 31st, 2008 3:32 pm

   From Barry’s speech, “a virtue out of selfishness.” This is bad?

   Ayn Rand’s 1964 book, “The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism.”

   Barry is the anti-Rand.

3. littleguy on October 31st, 2008 4:45 pm

   Obama’s tax plan would take, not just from the rich, but from ALL tax-payers to give to folks who pay NO INCOME TAXES. Does anyone really think a few bucks extra a month will raise the poor into the middle class? If so, the Great Society would have done just that and would not have FAILED. The result of this experiment was to make us all poorer and make the poor even more dependent. Yes, it is socialism and, even worse, it DOES NOT WORK! Not then, not now, not EVER!

4. Pat on October 31st, 2008 5:32 pm

   I have the right to drive a Ferrari, but that doesn’t mean it is going to be provided to me free of charge…

   Good points

5. Mr. Socialism on October 31st, 2008 5:39 pm

   Gee, didn’t Obama go to Harvard?? You would think that he would know the definition of socialism. The a-hole just doesn’t want to admit he’s a socialist for fear of losing votes.

6. T L C on October 31st, 2008 5:45 pm

   WOW! My sentiment exactly! And people wonder why I’m voting for McCain? Keep Obama and his socialist ideas as far away from me as possible.

7. Realist on October 31st, 2008 5:45 pm

   The government DOES provide affordable healthcare. I see patients all day that have better a healthcare plan than I do. Its called Medicaid, and the Federal government spends 350 billion on it yearly. And they want the Ferrari: brand name medications galore, MRIs and I write them medical letters of necessity for housing because their government-provided one bedroom apartment isn’t enough, they want a two bedroom apartment.

8. cozmo on October 31st, 2008 5:47 pm

   Anyone who heard what Obama said in the context he said it, and takes away from it that”people who dont like Hih taxes are selfish” is either

   1. A despeate hack

   2 Incapable of comprehension

   Take you pick and get in the appropriate line

9. Paul Hsieh on October 31st, 2008 5:48 pm

   The kind of selfishness that Obama apparently opposes (and as Glenn Reynolds noted was promoted by Ayn Rand in her famous book “The Virtue of Selfishness”) is a completely noble and moral American virtue. This country was founded on the principle that men and women had the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” free from government interference and tyranny.

   Many immigrants (such as my parents) came to this country precisely to be able to work hard, prosper, and give their children a chance for a better life. They came to this country with little more than the clothes on their back, but did well over the years, sent two children to college and medical school, and are now enjoying a well-earned and comfortable retirement. Their life has been a real-life embodiment of the American dream.

   If we want America to remain a beacon of hope to millions around the world, we should re-affirm our commitment to free markets and capitalism, and reject calls for more socialism and “redistribution of wealth”.

   This country is great precisely because it allows people like my parents to attain selfish goals such as their lives and happiness. Americans should be proud of that fact, not condemn it.

   Paul Hsieh, MD
   Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM)
   http://www.WeStandFIRM.org

10. Scott Draper on October 31st, 2008 5:50 pm

    Current Economics 101
    In a nutshell, JAGTRRA forced the bulk of the responsibility of financing this country to the working class, for example, even today, the top {W-2} wage earners can pay up to 35% of their income to taxes. Where literally, those who live solely off of dividend and cap gain income, at the highest rates pay only 15% on that type of income. Let’s simply admit income is income, whether earned as wages, or earned on investments, and should bear equal tax burdens. It was to sunset in 2008 anyway. I vehemently suggest SUNSET JAGTRRA! This would barely increase taxes for the working class if at all, as their dividend income and cap gain income (if there are any this year,) is nearly completely acquired via IRAs, 401Ks, and Pensions and so being, not taxable…… at all!
    In 2003, A letter signed by about 450 of the nation’s top economists, warned President Bush about his tax plan with the following words: “passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation’s projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income.”
    Obama is no more a Socialist than Bush/Cheney and McCain are Fascists.
    If we indeed did not have a looming debt over our heads, there may not be a need to change the tax structures. HOWEVER, President Bush, having not an iota of economic plausibility, having bankrupted several of his own companies, has created a woeful economic state in the U.S. I would agree with McCain who questions the need for increased taxation. But the truth remains that the U.S. economy in four more years at the current rate of indebtedness, loss in jobs, and tax base; will not be able to borrow enough money to fill its greed! And Socialism will be imposed by hook or by crook, mandated by the majority of Americans who will have nothing and will be willing to physically spread the wealth, with or without the governments‘ help.
    It is time that the top income earners paid it‘s fair share of the national debt. The wisest of economists in this country foresaw the problem, urged a change of direction and their predictions have proved true. It is time to make the playing field even again, and not in a lop-sided sinking ship in favor of the most wealthy. This is not Socialism, this is FAIR TAXATION, with REPRESENTATION, APPLIED TO ALL AMERICAN PEOPLE LIVING ON AN INCOME!!!

11. Mr. Socialism on October 31st, 2008 5:51 pm

    Obama’s rich buddies say that they are more than willing to pay more in taxes. That’s fine. There’s no law that says you can’t pay more to the government than what you owe. But, these Obama Socialists also want to take away the existing tax system that made them rich in the first place.

12. Pat on October 31st, 2008 5:52 pm

    OH NO! The “you’re taking everything out of context police” are back.

    Sorry Cosmo. I don’t have to read complete transcipts of every one of Hitlers speeches to know what he’s about.

    I know what “economic justice” means…

13. hollygolightly on October 31st, 2008 5:55 pm

    So, let me get this straight. If I make 40,000 a year, I should pay 35 percent of my salary in taxes. But if I make a couple million, I should get a tax break?
    If paying a progressive tax is socialism, sign me UP!!

14. DavidL on October 31st, 2008 5:55 pm

    Health care is not a right. It is a commodity. The state can not give health care to one person, unless it first takes it away from another. Obama robs Peter to pay for Paul’s health care. As Paul has no right to Peter’s money, Pau has no right to health care.

    In a free society, it is impossible to create rights to commodties, other peoples’ property.

    Another point, if not wanting to pay higher taxes is selfish, BO is pandering to selfish voters by pretending to offer ninety-five percent of the lower taxes. If as BO asserts, paying higher taxes is good, then BO ought to promise to raise everbody’s taxes, so we all be not selfish.

15. Eduardo on October 31st, 2008 6:05 pm

    This is an essay I finished writing yesterday. It includes pretty much what I had to say about the subject. God bless you all…

    THE ECONOMY

    “Facts are stubborn things…”
    Ronald Reagan

    That I am starting with the Economy needs no further explanation. Not only has it become the permanent subject in the news; but also the source of deep worries to most American families. Feelings of insecurity and outright fear are gripping us, and with good reason.

    The last five to six weeks have seen an unprecedented meltdown of the financial sector, and an equally unprecedented government rescue plan, put together in record time _at least, legislatively speaking_. Close to double the current worth of the war effort in Iraq vanished in the turmoil of the last three weeks alone. The loud bang of the subprime mortgage bubble, the credit dry up, and the prospect of a repeat of some of the vicissitudes of the Great Depression sent shockwaves in every direction, and posed new urging questions to the two presidential candidates; whose understanding and involvement in the crisis origins, and proposed fixes, couldn’t be more different.

    A lot of finger pointing has taken place as of lately. In the end, Senator Barack Obama, his campaign and sympathizers have synchronized their voices to find a new bogey man: deregulation. They sell an explanation in which fat cats in Wall Street, moved by shameless greed, were able to reap their obscene profits, tap into banks’ irresponsible lending practices _banks would issue their loans because they could sell them to hungry investors_, so they could get high yields through securities that packed those subprime mortgages, and ultimately bring about the present day disaster, as too many borrowers found themselves with negative equity once the real estate bubble burst; everything due to the little and poor regulation and oversight exerted by Washington. Once more, they say, the blind forces of the free market fail to live up to the expectations… Those are only half truths… at best.

    The main problem with having the free market regulate and balance itself _in such a way that increasing prosperity is assured_, is that the market is rarely free. A minimum of government intervention is always unavoidable _and desirable_ to create the legal conditions for markets to thrive, in an atmosphere of law, order, freedom and peace. The amount of public officeholders employed towards that end should equal those strictly necessary firemen, policemen, street cleaners, health officers, judges, legislators and executives, whose services are _or should be_ as productive and important as those of anyone in private industries. However, any government intervention beyond that is almost sure to stir trouble, sooner or later, and no matter how noble the intentions. The current crisis is no exception.

    Let’s make a little bit of history to see why.

    Back in 1977, President Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which had been drafted by the overwhelmingly Democratic 95th Congress. Carter _being the very decent man he is_ and the legislators were moved by the best and purest reasons: to eliminate the practice of “red lining” by lending institutions, and address the deteriorating conditions of American cities, especially lower-income and minority neighborhoods, as well as many decaying downtowns. Red lining consisted in the practice by many commercial banks to avoid lending, blanket refusals it was called, in particular areas. These institutions would set shop in those low income, mostly black neighborhoods, and carry out most normal banking activities, including taking deposits; but would refrain themselves from extending loans there. When granted, those mortgages or other loans to African-American borrowers would require higher down payments, and faster repayment schedules. All of this had been documented since a 1961 report by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Besides sheer discrimination, the existence of only a limited secondary market for mortgages, the lack of coordination among credit agencies, and the lack of credit evaluation for poor income borrowers at the time, made the latter credible suspects of easily defaulting on loans; further discouraging banks to take the risk of extending them mortgages.

    The CRA demanded all banking institutions that receive FDIC insurance to be evaluated by the relevant federal regulatory agencies, to determine if the institutions met the credit needs of the entire community. When first passed, the CRA contained language intended to ensure that banks and savings associations served the credit needs of their local communities in a “safe and sound manner”, though it offered little prescriptive detail on how those potentially conflicting goals could be achieved.

    During the 1980s, the CRA was slowly implemented, and it proved useful to lure banks into the underserved secondary mortgage market (where mortgage loans and servicing rights would be sold by their originators, bought by securitizers and ultimately by investors), thus making credit available to all borrowers across geographical locations, and putting homeownership within closer reach for minorities.

    During the 1990s, the urge to extend access to homeownership to increasing numbers of low income families caused the arm-twisting of banks to reach new heights: lending institutions were required to keep extensive records of their minority lending practices; those that didn’t pass muster would face many obstacles _and sometimes outright denial_ to expand their branches, merge with other banks, or access new lending markets. By that time, not only the government had tightened their operation requirements (including those for record keeping and CRA ratings of compliance), but also many community groups, like ACORN, were policing financial institutions, to make sure they extended mortgages to minorities in the towns and neighborhoods were they operated. Failure to comply would prompt these groups to advocate against the specific financial institution before the government; affecting their CRA rating. In many cases, these community groups provided financial counseling, booking fees when connecting the interested individual with the desired mortgage, tailored to their needs. Intimidation, political favoritism, and micromanagement by regulators mushroomed.

    As a result, commercial banks became pliable, easy targets to pressures to extend those loans. No bank CEO wanted to be labeled an “enemy of the poor”. Most financial institutions developed community affairs or relations departments, with the main purpose of dealing with such groups. Chase Manhattan and J.P. Morgan paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to ACORN around the time they applied for permission to merge, to avoid poor reviews and delays in approval of merge talks, which could result from bad input from this and other community groups in the yearly bank reviews, capable of frustrating those merger plans, or even bringing about legal challenges by the Justice Department, on the ground of alleged discrimination practices through lending. In due fairness, it must be said that some of these community groups played a very positive role, even raising early concerns about the potential effect of lower credit standards and the resulting untenable increase in real estate values, which were gentrifying some low to moderate income communities.

    In 1993, the new Clinton administration implemented the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act, which was intended to achieve similar aims as those of the CRA. This time, the two privately owned, publicly run companies _or Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), as they are also called _, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, were pushed to increase their purchases of mortgages going to low and moderate income borrowers. For 1996, for example, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave both companies a specific target: 42% of their mortgage financing had to go to borrowers with income below the median in their area. The target later increased to 50% in 2000, and 52% in 2005, as the boom was riding the crest of the wave.

    This had a tremendous impact, by providing investors or purchasers of mortgage-backed security bonds (derivatives) with a tacit guarantee, as the mortgages, provided by commercial banks to those low income borrowers, would now be packaged into those derivatives by precisely the two companies that were understood to be backed up by the federal government (an assumption that had never been explicit, but which was proved completely right, as the Federal Reserve and the Department of the Treasury rushed themselves to put both companies into conservatorship, a few months ago). Those companies would then assume the credit risk, that is, the guarantee that the principal and interest on the underlying loan would be paid back, regardless of whether the borrower actually repays. If things got tough, the feds would fly to the rescue…

    By doing so, some pressure was taken off the banks, as the potential risk of having borrowers default would no longer affect them, as long as the mortgages were packed into securities that could be sold in the secondary mortgage market. The risk was managed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by only buying and securitizing loans that would conform to their own guidelines. Initial resistance by some of the private stockholders of both companies was quickly overrun when the secondary market grew up exponentially as a consequence; as did profits with every single derivative sold in it. More and more investment banks threw themselves to buy these, as they could be resold to second and third buyers in high risk-high yield operations, which would make sense as long as the value of the underlying assets securitized _a.k.a. houses_ kept on rising, (and therefore, mortgage default rates kept low). Bear Sterns did the first major securitization of CRA loans in 1997, a $384 million offering guaranteed by Freddie Mac. Within the next 10 months after that, Bear Stern issued $1.9 billion of CRA mortgages backed by either Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae.

    With an expanding market, both Congress and the White House kept on pushing. Demanding that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did more to increase homeownership among poor people, looked like a sure way to subsidize low-income housing outside of the budget, at least for the time being. The positive impact those measurements would have among blacks and Hispanics was not an indifferent matter to the Democratic Party either; as it was trying to lock a bigger hold of both demographics.

    In 1999, pressures from the government _exerted by Robert Rubin’s (a current Obama campaign economic advisor) Treasury Department_, as well as from stockholders used to the vertiginous growth of the company, prompted Fannie Mae to ease their guidelines to aid mortgage lending. The action, as correctly described by a New York Times article by Steven Holmes, published on September 30 of that year, lowered the standards for the kind of loans the company was willing to buy and pack into derivates, reducing _among other things_ down payment requirements. By expanding the types of loans it bought, Fannie Mae encouraged commercial banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit wasn’t good enough to qualify for “conventional” loans. Avid investors (thrifts, hedge funds and accredited investors) were also ready to jump on those high yield derivatives backed by subprime mortgages; Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae among them, as they would also buy those very same securities, for their own portfolios.

    This was all that was needed. By that time any remnant of conventional wisdom had been thrown out the window: Investors used billions and billions to buy and sell derivatives that went up in price every time they were re-packaged and changed hands, to the point that some of these reached up to 400% of the original value (buyers knew this, but still bought them with hopes to sell them out soon, and get some money for it. New buyers looking for the same opportunity would always show up, as long as the value of the underlying asset kept rising). Commercial banks like Washington Mutual, which had been allowed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act signed by Pres. Clinton in 1999 to enter investment bank operations as well, got in the game too. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, as well as other private securitizers, kept on buying more subprime mortgages and packaging them into those derivatives, which would be sold to eager buyers instantly. Commercial banks would extend a home mortgage to almost anyone asking for it. To offset risks and allow the extension of 0 down payment (or low ones) to poor credit, low income borrowers, subprime loans were put together as balloon or adjustable rate mortgages (ARM) _loaded with fees and surcharges_, which would allow borrowers to get the loans at convenient terms they could (barely) afford _something that was greatly incentivized by low interest rates_ for an introductory period, normally 5 years. Afterwards, their monthly payments would simply adjust to the market interest rates at the time. Commission seeking brokers made sure mortgages like these were extended to as many people as they would come across with. Income statement forgeries and all kinds of predatory lending practices became commonplace. Consumers at large thought it was OK to buy real estate beyond their means, hoping to flip properties over before the end of the introductory period, and pocket the equity as they rose in value; or get second mortgages for frivolous spending. The time bomb was ticking…

    To be entirely honest, the Bush administration did not tackle the problem as it was passed down. There were more urgent priorities after 9/11. The recession that had been brewing since the last years of the Clinton administration, and the economic havoc brought about in the aftermath of the terrorists attacks, were barely stopped by the aggressive tax cuts introduced by George Bush and the Republican Congress. At the same time, the continued growth of the construction industry kept on pushing the economy forward, and provided States with increasing revenues _particularly those in the Sunbelt and elsewhere, wherever growth was taking place_, thus relieving the federal government from supporting States with additional federal dollars, to offset potential budget deficits. The Federal reserve unwittingly made things worse, as well, by a continuous reduction of interest rates, which reached an all time low of 1.25% in 2003; thus postponing a necessary correction of the market, pushing the rates on adjustable mortgages to historic lows, and ultimately helping to fuel the housing boom.

    On top of that, Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, former Clinton White House staffers who in the late 1990s became CEOs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, respectively, found themselves in a very privileged position, at the helm of two companies generating exponentially increasing profits with the rising bubble. They and their successors made sure all attempts to rein them in would be dealt with effectively. The fact the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which was supposed to be the regulator of both, depended on Congress for the approval of its yearly budget _and therefore, its very survival_, didn’t help much. Being highly politicized, both enterprises employed a wide arrange of well connected, former political insiders _from both major parties_ as executives. Many lobbying firms were hired at one time or another. The support of legislators in Congress was secured through major campaign donations to about 350 House Representatives and Senators from either the GOP or the Democratic Party. The top receivers were Sen. Christopher Dodd (D), Chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, Sen. Barack Obama (D), junior member of the Federal Financial Management Subcommittee, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D), member of the Finance Committee, and Rep. Barney Frank (D), current Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

    After Clinton’s second Secretary of the Treasury, Lawrence Summers, voiced his alarm at the oncoming crisis, he sent Undersecretary Gary Gensler to Congress in 2000, looking for an end to the companies’ special status, including the assumed guarantee of federal backing of their obligations, as a means to bring them to their senses, and more power allowing regulators to boost both companies’ minimum capital requirements. Gensler was received with a Democratic led riot, and the proposals went nowhere. A few years later, Rep. Paul Ryan (R), from Wisconsin, also voiced his concerns with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae lending practices, only to find them actively lobbying against his reelection in his own congressional district. Florida Rep. Cliff Stearns (R), tried to hold hearings on both companies accounting practices in 2004, as Fannie Mae’s accounting scandal was starting to gain visibility, but was stripped of responsibility for their oversight by another Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae friend: House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)…

    In 2005, Sen. John McCain (R) and two other senators co-sponsored the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act, pushed by Sen. Charles Hagel (R), which aimed to provide a stronger regulatory agency for both companies, as well as other sounder operation requirements. The attempt was denounced by Sen. Harry Reid (D) as one intending to “cripple the ability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership”. The bill went nowhere either… John McCain warned at the time that “…if Congress does not act, Americans taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy, as a whole.” His was a voice claiming in the desert.

    Finally, a 2006 letter written by twenty senators, John McCain among them, to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R) equally prompted to action, but got no response that I know of. Any similar attempts from President Bush himself went nowhere as well, due to Congress resistance.

    And that’s how we got to where we are…

    In the end, the bubble burst when the real estate market became saturated with oversupply. Prices stalled, and then quickly started declining. Expired ARMs introductory periods and higher interest rates pushed many loans into default; thus driving thousands of homeowners _who were trapped into mortgages they could no longer afford_ into foreclosure. That pressed real estate prices further down in a self feeding cycle, and soon the value of all those mortgage-backed derivatives nose-dived as well; triggering the enormous deleverage and liquidity (cash) losses that brought down the big investment banks, and ultimately unleashing the whole financial meltdown.

    Right now, the Bush administration and the Federal Reserve are fine tuning the massive government rescue plan, a revised version of which passed through Congress on Oct. 3, after a prior attempt failed a few days before _not many Representatives or Senators wanted to risk being labeled as “rescuers of greedy bankers” prior to re-election, and quite a few, mostly Republicans, were duly aware of the risks of passing such a $700 billion blank check to Government. Others felt little help was being set aside for direct aid to struggling homeowners_. So far, this rescue plan seems to have a good chance to stave off a second enactment of the Great Depression. After all, it was precisely the Federal reserve inaction then, together with the lack of liquidity and consumer confidence _which prompted a domino effect of bank collapses_, as well as the negative effects of the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act _which strongly damaged our exports, produced an overstock of commodity supplies, and depressed real wages, all at once_, that played the largest role in the onset and aggravation of the Great Depression.

    Today’s conditions are not the same as those of 1929-1939, either. The prompt government intervention has calmed fears down _to some extent_, lower oil prices have provided a relief and small boost to consumption, there is no excessive oversupply in store inventories, and exports are still holding strong _after being favored for a long while by a weaker dollar, as well as the existing free trade agreements_, especially to growing markets in China, India, Latin America and elsewhere.

    Prior to the present day rescue plan, the federal government had been working to somewhat cushion the crisis. Placing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae under conservatorship, rescuing AIG International, and helping the big bank mergers we have seen throughout the year were all part of the effort; and are linked in intricate ways that are beyond the scope of this writing.

    In any case, the rescue plan is intended to achieve very specific goals. Namely: to provide investors in the markets with some predictability and a sense of relative security. A clear set of rules, for dealing with those banks that need to unload their “toxic portfolios” of devaluated derivatives, will calm the financial markets. In a situation where most banks are contaminated with them, the selective, case-by-case approach taken by the Federal Reserve to deal with troubled banks in normal times, produces insecurity (remember the frantic questioning of whether Lehman Brothers would be rescued or not), and with it, market volatility. The injection of liquidity and the increased backing of any bank account funds from $100 K to $250 K by the FDIC contribute to boost confidence and avoid walks on banks. Both measurements should favor a thaw of the credit dry-up, so that loans start flowing back to businesses and individuals. Finally, if we are to undertake the renegotiation of troubled homeowners’ mortgages that are about to face foreclosure, it should help _and not hamper_ the stabilization of the real estate market; something essential to keep the current recession from worsening.

    The next administration shall be tasked with implementing the rescue plan. It shall also come up with a new financial architecture in which, besides making sure that undue government intervention does not distort markets anymore, new sets of rules are put together for the operations of the financial industry, bringing more transparency and simpler rules to inter-bank transactions, and sounder practices when it comes to extending loans. The meetings of heads of state of countries belonging to the G-8, scheduled for early next year, is already being framed as a Breton Woods II kind of conference. Another essential task for the new administration must be to aggressively push a pro-growth agenda that will keep the real economy (that in which tangible articles and services are produced and offered, versus the “surreal” one, where paper assets are traded based on subjective appreciations of value) from further contraction. That will be essential in the future climate of credit scarcity.

    Make no mistake: besides finding ourselves in probably the most acute economic crisis since at least the 1970s, we are at a very vulnerable point of our history. How we get out of our present day predicament (and how fast) will shape our future, and either confirm our enemies’ hopes of American decline, or reassert our position as the beacon of freedom and most important economic, technological and political powerhouse of the world. The passed version of the economic rescue plan not only places an increased burden on American taxpayers, but also yields an enormous amount of power to the Executive; which can be used for the necessary corrective, regulatory intervention I have described, or otherwise abused to control and intervene the financial industry with political purposes. Ultimately, the questions to be asked are: what are the two presidential candidates concrete economic _and overall_ proposals? Whom do we trust at the helm in this time of crisis?

    Let’s see…

    Sen. Obama is promising to enact a Windfall profits Tax to “provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American families”; to provide $50 billion to “jumpstart the economy and prevent 1 million Americans from losing their jobs”; and to provide a “tax cut for working families”, which “would completely eliminate income taxes for some 10 million Americans”. Massive new programs are detailed, which are aimed to rebuild the existing infrastructure, provide government sponsored healthcare, achieve energy independence and develop sources of alternative energy _all of that with strong government intervention_. Plenty of other policies are put together to either alleviate the situation of seniors _like his populist proposal to eliminate Income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000_, or raise protectionist barriers to trade; openly advocating to “amend the North American Free Trade Agreement”, and making evident his distaste for, and willingness to strike down new free trade agreements, using alleged “fair” labor and environmental standard deficits as excuses. Capital gains would be taxed at 28%, whereas Dividends would be so at 39.6%. Sen. Obama has also proposed to restore the Inheritance tax, as well as restore Income taxes to pre-Bush tax cut levels for many taxpayers; and to create new taxes on fossil fuel consumption, etc. All of that in addition to his repeated promise to reduce taxes for 95% of Americans, and raise them for those earning over $250 K a year.

    What’s wrong with those proposals? A few of them sound even sweet to most ears… well, the truth is, a lot is wrong with them. I am sorry to break the news to Sen. Obama, but the middle class, whose interests he so loudly claims to defend, would be much worse off due to those very specific economic plans… Though I think he already knows that. In fact, those very proposals are nothing but a half veiled attempt to implement a clearly ideological, leftist agenda. They are part of a declared war on Capital; and its implementation would significantly alter the fabric of American society, as we have known it for decades. These policies would only deepen and prolong the recession.

    Raising dividend and capital gain taxes would do a lot of damage to the economy, and many people would suffer because of it.

    Doubling the tax on dividends would make people less likely to invest in companies that create jobs _especially start up businesses, or those trying to expand_, exactly when these companies need it the most: in the middle of a credit-scarce economic environment.

    Doubling capital gain taxes would hit the real estate industry and the stock market, precisely when they are suffering a major depression. Actually, just the prospect of a win in the General Election by Sen. Barack Obama _as indicated by the polls of the last two weeks, when published by the mainstream media_ has been enough to strongly contribute to the major drops in the stock market we witnessed last week, as many stock holders try to get rid of their stock, while there is still time…

    Those who hold no stock might think this is not too big a deal, and not see the connection between those seemingly unrelated events; but the truth is that if you have any money invested in IRAs, 401Ks, mutual funds, college funds, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, it will certainly affect you, as you will loose almost 40% of that income. Around 52% of American adults own stock in some form (close to 20% of all existing stock is owned directly by individuals), and not less than 8.5 million people paid capital gain taxes in 2006. Sen. Obama’s increase in the capital gains tax rate would hit all those Americans pretty hard.

    The 28% tax on capital gains would affect every single person selling a house. If you manage to close the sale, that percentage of your gain would be taken by the government. That would pose a serious problem for many seniors, who would like to downsize _or move into a retirement community_, and are counting with the income from their home sale as a big part of their retirement income.

    Obama’s real motives and attitude towards the capital gains tax were exposed during a primary campaign debate, which took place in Philadelphia, on April 16, 2008. When Charles Gibson, of ABC News, asked him why he would raise the capital gains tax, in spite of historical evidence that suggested that such an increase would not just fail to augment government revenues, but actually reduce them (when capital gain taxes were cut in 1981, 1997 and 2003 government revenues rose by a 49%, 49% and 88%, respectively. When those very same taxes were raised in 1986, government revenues fell by 44%), Obama simply answered: “Well Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness…” That is, economical sense is irrelevant. To him, all that matters is “fairness”…

    And what is exactly his understanding of fairness?

    He means that we should increase taxes on investors simply so they pay more _ignoring the fact they had already paid their full taxes when they earned the money, before being invested_. This is class warfare at its best: Sen. Obama wants investors to pay more in taxes, not to generate revenue, but to soak them so that the rest of the country can feel better about their own taxes. That is his idea of “fairness”.

    Sen. Obama is also proposing to restore the Inheritance tax, which had been repealed by President Bush. In the past, this very hefty tax had been the single reason why many families lost businesses, farms and ranches _which in many cases were the result of generations of hard work_, as they could not afford it.

    And then there is the much hyped promise to lower Income taxes to low and middle income Americans, and raise them to those earning over $250 K. This proposal is very attractive and quite deceptive as well… While it is true that its implementation would provide a tax credit to low and middle income families, equal or in most cases more generous than the present Bush era tax cuts, taxing families earning more than $250 K would affect more people than what Sen. Obama pretends to make us believe. Most small business owners opt to file their articles of incorporation defining their companies as S-type corporations. For practical purposes, it means that all company revenues will not be taxed, but passed onto the stockholders _which in most small businesses are reduced to one, or at the most a handful of owners_, and then taxed as their personal income. This is done to avoid having income taxed twice, first at the corporation level, and then as personal income. As a result, it will be very easy to find millions of small business owners whose gross income is above that arbitrary $250 K threshold.

    The consequence of this policy, as well as the higher corporate tax rate Sen. Obama is proposing too, would be an undeserved punishment on small businesses, which generate the bulk of jobs in America. These small companies would be forced to send as much of their operations overseas as they can. Those in industries where this is not feasible _the vast majority_ would have to tighten their belts even more to survive. Employers would have to either lay workers off _and unload the additional workload on the remaining employees_, or otherwise keep themselves from hiring new employees and expanding. Research and development, as well as the introduction of new technologies and production systems, would be forced to slow down; and the increased burden higher taxes would add to businesses, already suffering from higher financing and credit costs, would drive some of them into bankruptcy. For most businesses, production costs would rise _especially if, on top of all that, energy prices go up again as a result of an oil market bounce and Obama’s taxing of fossil fuel consumption_, and be passed down to consumers as higher prices for gasoline, food, and everything else these small companies produce. In the end, living costs would rise, reducing real wages to those very same low and middle income families the proposal would be trying to help; thus rendering the tax credits useless.

    Besides, as Joe _by now the most famous plumber in America_ would say when interviewed in ABC the morning after the last presidential debate, how can we be sure that, once elected and backed by a Democratic controlled Congress, a President Obama might not say “you know what, $250 K of income makes a person pretty rich, but so does $150 K, so let’s raise their tax rate as well…”? In fact, there is a similar historical precedent. Back in 1992, Bill Clinton was campaigning against a president who had failed to keep his promise not to raise taxes. To emphasize the difference, Clinton promised that he would not raise income taxes to those earning less than $40 K a year. However, once elected he found out that all the social programs he wanted to implement could not be funded without raising income taxes throughout all income brackets; and so he did within months of occupying the White House, supported by a Congress that was equally controlled by a Democratic majority.

    That is very likely to happen were Sen. Obama to be elected President.

    For one thing, all of his proposals for government provided healthcare coverage, injecting funds into several education programs _increasing federal government intervention, and bankrolling, of many less than efficient school boards_, granting a $4,000 tax credit for college tuition, 10% mortgage interest rate tax credit, and the many other handouts being promised _including massive increases in foreign aid, even bigger than the record-breaking ones of the Bush administration_, would put an enormous strain in a federal budget that is already running into a record deficit; a situation that has now been worsened by the $700 billion rescue plan, and a possible second stimulus plan that is looming over our heads. When all costs are added up, the Math does not quite match, especially if we take into account that, despite all promises, the Iraq war will take at least one to two years before it is completely over, regardless of who is elected president, thus still tying budget funds to its successful consecution _that is, unless a Pres. Obama managed to pull out a foreign policy disaster of his own and withdraw irresponsibly early: a quite believable scenario, given the lack of judgment he displayed by opposing the surge and counterinsurgency strategy at the Senate, back in 2007_. Among other things, Social Security funds could be also put at risk by increased spending.

    The fact many of the tax credits being proposed are not precisely tax cuts, but actually “credits”, means that this is not money that the taxpayer would be keeping in his pocket. He would still have to pay increased taxes to the government, and then wait for a check that would be written by the latter, and sent to citizens, including some 60 million Americans of low or no income, who would have no income tax liability themselves, but still receive a rebate check, paid for with the taxes of income tax payers. It sounds complicated, but it is nothing more than a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to non-taxpayers, which can be further reduced to a single word: welfare.

    Do not get me wrong here. I have absolutely no objection to having society at large, and the government in particular, be responsible for those who cannot be it by themselves: the infirm, the lone ailing senior citizen without resources, the addict who has a wrecked life and nowhere to turn to, the mentally ill, or the temporarily unemployed worker who has a family to care for, and keeps avidly seeking for a new opportunity to make a living with dignity. However, I strongly object to having able bodied people discouraged from succeeding, or in many cases, even from just getting a job; and that is precisely what happens when government steps in with its hands full of giveaways.

    The “Making work pay” tax credit, for example, is aimed at low-wage workers, but it would be phased out at higher income levels. The resulting jump in tax rates in the “phase out zone” would actually give workers an incentive to work less and cap their income (or otherwise tempt them to forge their income declaration). Pair an incentive to stay at low wages or totally dependent from welfare, with heavier taxes on succeeding businesses, and obstructions to free trade, and we would all get a perfect recipe for loss of productivity _nationwide_, higher costs of living, a prolonged recession, and increasing social hostility between the haves and have-nots.

    Amazingly, Sen. Obama would package his tax increases as a tax cut! Here is how:

    As the situation stands now, Bush’s tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are scheduled to expire in 2010, and all projections show that, unless we do something about it, we are in for a big tax increase when they do. However, that increase will remain only on the books, until Congress actually passes its budget for that fiscal year.

    In addition to it, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which was originally enacted in 1969 to ensure that the wealthiest people pay at least some taxes _as an offset to all the deductions and tax shelters they could make use of to hide their income_, has never seen its threshold (minimum income amount necessary for this tax to kick in) raised ever since. As a consequence, all the economic cycles we have gone through, and inflation, have pushed nominal incomes higher each year, and the threshold that was originally only within reach of the very rich, now is posed to affect millions of middle class Americans _close to 23 million taxpayers_. However, this tax is not affecting us yet, for Pres. Bush kept pushing back its implementation, but since each fix or delay is effective for only a year, the tax keeps showing up for budget discussions every fiscal year, pending like a sword over taxpayers’ heads.

    Now here is what many of us _like former Bill Clinton political consultant and NYT best-seller author Dick Morris_ believe Sen. Obama would do to disguise his tax increases: He would sell his tax package as a “cut” by reducing these two theoretical taxes _theoretical in the sense they are not currently existing_. First, he would renew or improve some of the Bush’s tax cuts on the middle class _though as tax credits, as we have seen. Therefore you would have to actually pay more, and then wait until you get a check back for whatever amount the government believes you need or deserve: the better off you are, the less you would be given back_; second, he would raise the threshold for the AMT or eliminate it entirely. Inside this generous gift of tax cuts _on taxes that have never been imposed_, he would hide the very real largest tax increases in America’s history.

    This way, Sen. Obama could pose as a fiscally responsible politician, and display his sensibility for middle class concerns.

    It is very interesting that, when he had a chance to repeal the AMT, Sen. Obama voted no. On March 23, 2008, Sen. Obama voted against an amendment sponsored by Sen. Charles Grassley (R) to repeal it. The only reason behind this is that Sen. Obama needs this problem to stick around until he comes into office. He wants to be the one to single-handedly repeal it, so he can announce it _together with his new income taxes_ as a middle class tax cut to mask his huge tax increases.

    In any case, it is very hard to trust someone who promises to cut taxes, when his personal history is one of voting consistently to raise them, while being a state senator in Illinois.

    Not everything is bad with Sen. Obama’s proposals. For one thing, his plan to address predatory credit card practices is very commendable.

    Sen. Obama also has a valid point when it comes to the urgent need to achieve energy independence; and another one when he stresses the importance of diversifying our sources of energy. He is right when he states that “we cannot drill our way out of this problem”, and when he advocates for tapping the enormous potential of solar, geothermal, wind power, clean coal and other alternative sources of energy as a way not just to power our way of life, and reduce the influence of rogue regimes that do not like us much, but also to create plenty of new jobs in green industries. He is wrong when he supports corn-based ethanol, since ethanol subsidies have distorted the market for corn, raising the price of that staple by more than 200% _thus increasing food prices worldwide; a trend that affects the poorest people the most_. Instead, he should favor lifting trade barriers to Brazilian ethanol, which is produced out of sugar cane byproducts _which have no adverse impact on food prices_, even if he were to upset the powerful corn farming interest group. He is also wrong in his reticence to employ nuclear energy. Without off-shore drilling _which he reluctantly embraced recently, as opposition to it grew increasingly untenable due to popular demand_ and nuclear power, no credible goal of attaining energy independence is realistic any time soon. More efficient fuel engines and alternative sources are vital parts of any comprehensive strategy, but they do not suffice by themselves. More rational land uses through better planning and zoning is another important element, which so far has not been included by neither candidate in his energy policy tool kit.

    In any case, my main concern with the economical impact of Sen. Obama’s energy proposals is that he puts the government in charge of shaping the nation’s energy profile. He is calling for fossil fuel consumption taxes, clean energy tax credits and subsidies, goals for fuel efficiency standards, windfall profit taxes on oil companies, and a “crack down on excessive energy speculation”.

    Government never lends or gives anything to business that it has not already taken away from business. All government funds come from taxes. Even credits and bailouts rest on the assumption that their loans will ultimately be repaid out of the proceeds of taxes. When the government makes loans to, or subsidizes businesses, what it does is to tax successful private companies and individuals, in order to support those selected companies that will be at the receiving end of its largesse. These are the ones chosen by government bureaucrats, who lend monies which are not theirs _and therefore do not care much whether the investment will ultimately see a return or not_, and in many cases benefit unsuccessful private companies that otherwise would have not survived in a free market, were it not for the nanny state support. Such policies are a fertile ground for all kinds of evils. They lead to favoritism; to the making of loans to friends, or in return for bribes; and to the creation of interest groups that lobby and arm twist, to get an ever increasing share of public money diverted in their direction, regardless of whether it benefits or harms the whole nation’s well being. The continuous scandals brought about by revelations of those shoddy deals, and tax payer money lost in poor investments, then call for increased government oversight and participation of profits in those companies where public funds are invested. As a result, such companies become more and more inefficient, and extensive micromanagement is imposed through a maze of exasperating nanny state rules and regulations, further asphyxiating growth. Another certain result is that other companies rush to the specific industry where subsidies and handouts are given, wishing to join the party. In the end, consumers wind up stuck with oversupply. A case in point is exposed by the unraveled growth of the construction industry during the boom, which was made possible through a similar government intromission _as explained before_; thus deviating capital and resources from other more productive industries, where a free, non-distorted market would have allocated them.

    Once again, and as Milton Friedman would say, “there is not such a thing as a free lunch…”

    Now let’s see John McCain’s proposals…

    First of all, there is his tax plan: John McCain is proposing to pretty much maintain Pres. Bush’s Income tax cuts as they currently are. Back in 2001 and 2003, McCain had opposed those tax reductions because they were not accompanied by corresponding spending cuts, which would keep deficits in check. That he was right needs no explanation. However, that was then, and this is now. In our dire economic conditions, the prospect of allowing those tax cuts to expire is the equivalent of a new tax raise when we can afford it the least. Keeping these cuts gives American families and business owners the necessary respite they need, while still allowing the government to bankroll the most important services it is supposed to provide.

    This way, Sen. McCain’s Income Tax cuts would cover all income brackets, regardless of class. He would also raise the personal exemption for each dependent from $3,500 to $ 7,000 to help families, particularly those with more children or single parents. Under his presidency, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) would be repealed once and for all.

    Unlike Sen. Obama, Sen. McCain would maintain the existing 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends, and cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%.

    By this time I think I have emphasized enough the importance of low taxes on businesses. Entrepreneurs are at the core of American innovation, and their efforts have served us well for over two centuries of history. They create the ultimate job security for everyone: the availability of a better opportunity if your current job is no longer there, or does not suit you anymore. Small businesses are the main job creators of our economy, and raising taxes on them affects not just owners, but also their employees, financiers, suppliers, clients, and consumers at large, who are forced to pay higher prices for the same products or services. America had once a low tax environment that made it irresistibly attractive to every entrepreneurial spirit in the world, and played a fundamental role in the growth of our prosperity. However, with time many other countries followed our lead, and lowered their own taxes even more, to compete in a fierce globalized modern world. In so doing, America was left behind with the corporate tax rates of old, which need to be lowered as well. As Henry Hazlitt would clearly put it, higher taxes unavoidably determine the actions and incentives of those from whom they are taken. When a corporation loses a hundred cents of every dollar it loses, but is allowed to keep only fifty-two cents of every dollar it gains, and when it cannot adequately offset years of losses against its years of gains, its internal policies are affected. It does not expand its operations, or it expands only those attended with a minimum of risk. Prospective employers who recognize this state of affairs are deterred from starting new businesses. Technology innovation is also sacrificed or slowed down. The result in the long run is not just increasing unemployment, but that consumers are prevented from getting better and cheaper products, to the extent that they otherwise would, and that real wages are held down, compared to what they might have been, had taxes not been increased; Period.

    Sen. McCain has proposed reducing the Estate Tax rate to 15%, and a generous $10 million exemption; allowing families to keep businesses and properties as their loved ones pass away.

    Sen. McCain also seems to understand the need for state-of-the-art technologies to be available to private businesses competing in a globalized economy. With that in mind, he is proposing a first year deduction, or “expensing”, of equipment and technology investments; as well as a permanent tax credit equal to 10% of wages spent on R&D.

    Another important element of his plan _and probably one of the toughest_ is bringing a new culture to Washington. Idealistic as it may sound, it is the only hope we have of setting the bases for a brighter future. Doing away with pork barrel spending and petty earmarking and appropriations is not just a moral imperative, but also the soundest way to do business; and if there is a man who has consistently crusaded against them is Sen. McCain. When confronted with this reality, Sen. Obama might claim that the amount of federal spending wasted in earmarks is the equivalent of a drop in the sea; but I put in doubt his alleged reduction of it to a mere $18 billion a year: the many perks that were added as “sweeteners” to the second version of the government rescue plan, for it to pass Congress, amounted alone to more than that; and we are talking about a single measure alone. The truth is _and anyone who has ever saved a penny knows this well_ that cutting frivolous spending resulting from lobbying and political peddling, as well as poorly performing government programs, is not just a matter of ethics, but of common sense. These earmarks and failed programs are benefiting a few, at the expense of the rest; and keeping limited resources from being allocated to better pursuits, like education or healthcare. No amount of money is insignificant enough when it comes to funding our future.

    John McCain has also had the courage and the vision to part ways with many within his own party in energy related issues. Once shown the evidence, he understood Global Warming as the problem it is, and how it interconnects with the issues of energy independence and national security. As a result, he and his advisors implemented a comprehensive energy plan, which includes building 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 _ thus following the successful examples of France, Russia and China, which strongly rely on nuclear power to satisfy their energy needs_, advancing clean coal technology, and encouraging the market for alternative sources like wind, solar and hydroelectric power.

    The intended goal of fostering alternative sources of energy, as part of an overall energy independence strategy, is pretty similar to that of Sen. Obama. However, the approach to achieve it is totally different. Sen. McCain proposes an even- handed system of tax credits, which would remain in place until renewable energy has progressed to the point that it is competitive with conventional energy sources. From that moment on, it would be up to the market, and the ingenuity and technical innovation of leading companies, to make accessible the energy thus created to consumers, at affordable prices. To me, that sounds pretty much like the way to go…

    Under McCain’s plans, exploration of domestic oil and natural gas would tap into the existing reserves in hard to reach areas and off-shore. While it is true that ours represent only a single digit percentage of the known world oil reserves, that is enough to positively affect present day prices _regardless of what Sen. Obama and his supporters would say_. By sending a strong signal to markets that future oil supplies will be increased _and demand kept at bay through improved fuel consumption efficiency_, the futures traded at the stock market lower in price, thus bringing gas prices down with them. The market for natural gas is less internationally integrated than that of oil. Therefore domestic natural gas supply increases can lower prices even more.

    Sen. McCain’s proposals are also aimed to incentivize free trade. Globalization is full of challenges and opportunities. The truth is there are jobs _and industries_ which are long gone, and will never get back. That is not necessarily wrong, as long as displaced workers can be re-trained and find new jobs in the industries of the future. Enhanced options, through voucher schools and more efficient public school boards, would also allow parents to choose the right education for their children, as they prepare for an increasingly competitive world.

    Free trade is necessary to place our products in global markets, while allowing consumers access to high quality, low price products from overseas. It rewards the most efficient businesses, as only they can survive worldwide competition. Raising tariffs to foreign imports is a sure way to raise prices to the consumer, and to replace those very same products with others of equal or similar price, but of less quality _produced by less efficient domestic companies, which are thus indirectly supported by government intervention_. At the same time, discouraging imports reduces the purchasing power with which foreign consumers will buy our exports. Furthermore, by making it harder for our companies to reach foreign markets, we are actually helping their competitors occupy their place. For every American company that withdraws, there is a Chinese or European one ready to take its share of the market.

    More easily forgotten is the positive impact free trade has in developing countries’ economies. Both NAFTA and CAFTA have improved the lives of thousands in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. By allowing peasants, laborers and small business owners to prosper, they exert a much needed stabilizing force in those fragile democracies; and by making a decent living at home, these very same people are given hope, and discouraged from coming to the U.S. as illegal immigrants.

    There are many more economic proposals being offered by either candidate; but the most relevant ones are those exposed above.

    Some people look back and think that, just because former Pres. Bill Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama happen to belong to the same party, electing the latter will automatically bring prosperity back; of the kind that was enjoyed during a long stretch of the Clinton administrations. Let’s not fool ourselves: Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton _and John McCain is no George Bush, for that matter_. President Clinton, who built upon the economic foundation President Reagan had left behind, signed into law welfare reform _so that people would have to actively look for a job before being eligible for welfare_. He did away with the “retirement test” for Social Security benefits _thus providing a huge tax cut for elderly workers_, successfully pushed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) _one of his biggest achievements_ through Congress, against the intense opposition of unions and many Democratic legislators and activists, signed into law an extensive capital gains tax cut, and reduced government spending to the point where he could balance the budget. None of those policies are included in Sen. Obama’s proposals.

    Big government intervention and control of the economy, class warfare and arbitrary redistribution of wealth are not the change we need. In spite of today’s climate of fear and doubt, freer and more flexible markets, with the required minimum of prudent oversight, will still do more for any economy than the heavy hand of government.

    I admire Sen. McCain, the man; with his virtues and shortcomings. His many years of plain heroism _while fighting in Viet Nam, and during the difficult time spent as a POW, tortured by his communist captors_, are a vivid example of patriotism. I recognize him for his integrity, for his commitment to fight corruption _the fact he felt worse for allowing his good name to be tarnished by his association with Keating, early in his congressional career, than during any of his torture sessions in VN, speaks a lot about his moral fiber_. His military service and his long legislative career _in which he often faced members of his own party in those issues he felt they were wrong, and took stands for doing the right thing for campaign finance reform, the surge in Iraq, torture, immigration, global warming, the oncoming financial debacle, and a long list that wouldn’t fit here_, deserve a lot of respect and gratitude.

    Nevertheless, being a good soldier and a good legislator, per se, would not be enough qualifications to be a good President. It also takes a few things Sen. John McCain equally commands. It takes strong Christian values and respect for Human rights and our Freedoms, foreign policy experience and good judgment, the right economic policies _which he certainly has_ and an unselfish, unassuming disposition to do what it takes in the service of the country he loves so much: America. His pro-growth, no-nonsense economic policies are our best hope to avert this recession, and get our economy back on track. That’s because in the end, as Tony Blair would say: “there are no left or right economic policies, only good and bad ones…” For all I know, Sen. McCain’s definitely belong to the former.

    Make no mistake; at this difficult time, Sen. McCain is the man of the hour. He deserves to be trusted again, this time with the highest office in the land.

    John McCain is going to be a great President of the United States of America.

    That is why I support him…and why I respectfully ask you to do the same, for your own sake…

    Now go out and vote.

    Eduardo A. Pardo Fernández
    Miami, October 29th, 2008.

16. Sarah on October 31st, 2008 6:07 pm

    Should taxes go to education? That’s a great question. Should my money be stolen from my paycheck and spent on elemtary and high schools when I don’t have a child?

    Should my money be stolen from my paycheck for social security when I know I won’t see a dime when I want to retire?

    And what in the world is my town doing with my property taxes when the streets have so many potholes?

    Healthcare. Do you really think that you are not already paying for people who don’t have insurance? I get really annoyed when people who are already stealing my money for earned income credit and section 8 housing and highly excessive food stamps (who needs EIGHT gallons of milk per month???) then go get pregnant and walk into the hospital and get care when I know people who have insurance who pay thousands of dollars to have a baby.

    You are already paying the price in expensive medical bills and higher premiums.

    AND…Why should my tax dollars be used to bail out homeowners who signed a mortgage they didn’t understand and they couldn’t afford. THAT IS SOCIALISM and every politican ..all sides..seems to be supporting that!!

    Let them lose their houses. Take away the food stamps and let them starve. Anything else is socialism.

17. Elan Morin on October 31st, 2008 6:15 pm

    What about that unalienable right of life?

18. JMM on October 31st, 2008 6:17 pm

    Last time I checked, J.C., the Big Guy, had plenty to say in the New Testament about rich vs. poor. And look what happened to him.

    Better check up on whose a Socialist and then get back to me.

    Gimme a break already and GO VOTE AND QUIT WHINING how you’re being “oppressed” by the poor and the unemployed!

19. Cheryl on October 31st, 2008 6:28 pm

    wow…I’d love to know which part of the country you live in – where you don’t need government to do anything for you. Public education? The military? Police, fire fighters, ambulances? Medicare or social security? How about setting up those polling places and all of the systems that we’re about to use to vote on Tuesday? Ever travel from an airport and wonder who is paying all of those security screeners? Did you ever have a government guaranteed loan for college? Roads? Bridges? So, is it “socialist” to want (and expect) our government to give us all of these things? Or to expect to actually have to pay for them through our taxes?
    So, where do you draw the line…only when the government is trying to ensure that people have the basic things they need to live? Or when there’s a program that helps someone that might not have been as lucky in life as you were? (Generous American that you are…I’m sure that couldn’t be the case.)Anyone in your community ever been down on their luck? Mentally ill? Homeless? By the way, did you know that recent data showed that people who made less that 20,000 a year gave 4.6% of their income to charity, while those who made over 100,00 only gave 3.1%? And those of us who fell in between were even less generous. I really don’t think we can count on our natural generosity to take care of all of the problems that people face in our country. Doesn’t make sense.

20. hello on October 31st, 2008 6:34 pm

    Its a total red herring to lump the right to decent health care and education in with a “right” to be wealthy (whatever that might mean).

    In every developed nation on Earth save the US, education and health have been acknowledged as basic human rights throughout living memory.

    The next President and his party are sweeping the elections because they want to bring the united States up to the standards of the civilized world, and prevent the US from falling further behind and winding up as a third world country – a fate the Bush administration has gone a *long* way to bringing down on us. Huge debts, a weak currency, economic meltdowns brought on by corruption and unbridled greed, huge inequities between rich and poor, increased teen pregnancy and drop-out rates, incompetent responses to natural disasters, squandering a once-mighty international reputation, using lies to launch a baseless and incompetently planned war which distracts the people from monumental government corruption and the routine violation of their constitutional rights to privacy… these are all classic hallmarks of a second-rate, third-world country.

    If we don’t change course *immediately*, that slide will become irreversible. If the British and Soviets lost their empires, we can too. Educating our children, and raising the standard of living while reducing recidivism at the workplace (both effects of adequate healthcare) will begin the process of America regaining its place in the civilized world (and its economic power, while we’re at it).

    If it makes you happy to label that “socialist” then knock yourself out. I’d rather live in a “socialist” country – like Britain or Germany or Sweden or Japan or South Korea or Canada – than a cut-throat “third world” country – like Iran or Pakistan or Bangladesh or Russia or Congo or Nigeria or Columbia or Mexico.

    (please note: the countries on both lists have elected presidents/prime ministers. the difference is that one group has a civilized system that works, the other has a dysfunctional mess. the choice is stark. which category do you want us to be in? your children and grandchildren will live with your choice).

21. Bemused on October 31st, 2008 6:34 pm

    Brain death is alive and well in America…as always.

22. Mike L on October 31st, 2008 6:44 pm

    Its times like these I wish this country had a viable third party. I will vote for one anyway, since I don’t relish the thought of voting for either socialists OR fascists, which this blog seems to advocate.

23. bill on October 31st, 2008 6:48 pm

    You peeps are just inventing things!!

    what he is saying is to tax those that makes tons of money while playing golf!!

24. Emily on October 31st, 2008 6:55 pm

    Very few liberals actually want to punish people for working harder. (Some assume that if you got rich, you MUST be a scumbag somehow or other. They’re nutcases. Everybody’s got a few nutcases on their side, right or left.)

    Many liberals are angry at the rich they see who AREN’T working harder… who started out rich and kept getting richer while doing a lot LESS hard work than the people at the bottom of the ladder. We can all think of examples of privileged kids born with the silver spoon, who fail at everything they try but get handed passes through their education and cushy jobs solely because their parents have money and connections.

    When the mobs scream “BURN THE RICH!” – if you’re a hard-working small-businesswoman, they’re really not thinking of you at all. And they’d quite happily draft the tax laws to lump you in with the middle class.

25. VerityG on October 31st, 2008 7:01 pm

    Our country has led the world in so many areas-military might, technology, scientific innovation, health care- You name it, we have received the gold every time. Many people from other countries, including Canada, fly to the United states for health care, and what country on earth does not know about computers? How did all of this happen? Hard work, plain and simple. Obamaniacs make the fundamental mistake made by many well-meaning individuals: they assume that people who do not work, and many who do not even pay taxes, have any rights at all beyond those guaranteed by the Constitution: Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. That is all. I believe one of our famous ancestors (John Smith?) once said: “If they do not work, they do not eat.” Hard work in school and industry is never guaranteed by more money. It is only guaranteed by character and the desire to make a difference. Tell Obama no amount of money will change that, and he can use the Chicago Public School system as proof of this statement. Always seeking more money without attacking the fundamental issues. Enough said.

26. dan on October 31st, 2008 7:06 pm

    Drug test everyone getting a free check from the gov, and you folks will be surprised what is really going on. I know people with low income that drink beer, go out to eat, do drugs, buy tons of lottery tickets, yet have no desire to work hard because the gov will take care of them. I work hard and am stuck with giant medical bills(and I have insurance)yet others who don’t work get 100% coverage… there is always the exception for real handicapped folks, but people need to wake up and realize what is going on

27. irene on October 31st, 2008 7:09 pm

    Selfish!! I guess we are selfish for not wanting to pay for the government officials unused plane tickets! I guess we are selfish for not wanting to spend all our money on their LX Suits or their limos for that matter.
    I really question who is working for who? Here we go with out insurance and proper medical care while they get the best seats in town and their kids are going to the best schools eating the best foods and getting annual raises with money that comes from the sweat off of our backs… and they still want more… and have the nerve to call us selfish.. truth be Obama has been in office for some time and yet has never done anything for his people.. truth be told more people appear to be voting for him because he is black.. I wander why all the older new voters are finally registered .. Why finally now it matters to let their voice be herd?? I really wish people would stop living on hope and start living on reality.

28. Sensible on October 31st, 2008 7:13 pm

    The point everyone overlooks, is what is this money going to be used for? Our federal budget is sooo big, that it contains billions of dollars of waste and unecessary spending. If Obama promised to cut back on waste, he would have more money than he needs for all his pet projects. He could actually cut everyone’s taxes if he cut back on waste. 5% savings on a trillion dollar budget…you do the math. If you cannot do the math, you have no right to talk about taxes. Reduce waste! That should be the mantra…

29. lisa15 on October 31st, 2008 7:13 pm

    Two questions for the conservatives here:

    If voting Democratic is a drag on “hard work” and “free enterprise,” then why are the states with the highest rates of income, new patent registrations (doesn’t innovation drive capitalism?), and highest employment almost always blue states?

    You can look that up in any statistical state-by-state comparison, although statemaster.com is a good nonpolitical site. Why is it that states that voted for Bush in ‘04 contribute less to our GDP, have higher bankruptcy rates, lower personal savings rates and far fewer registered patents, not just in general but per capita, than the states that voted for Kerry?

    If you want to talk about socialism, why is it that those of us in blue states pay a lot more in taxes than we get back from the federal government, while those of you in states that voted for Bush continue to pig out at the federal trough at our expense?

    ‘Splain all that to me,conservatives…it seems like we liberals are doing a better job at being capitalists than you are.

    And a bonus question I’d love any conservative here to answer: if Obama is a socialist because he wants to raise the top-bracket rate from the current 35% to 39%, what does that make Eisenhower? The top tax rate under his administration, with a Republican Congress no less, was 91%.

    But that contradicts the whole Obama-is-a-socialist myth you’ve created for yourselves, so I’m guessing you’ll ignore that last little fact.

30. j on October 31st, 2008 7:18 pm

    As true Christians, aren’t we supposed to share what we have with the needy when we have more than enough for ourselves as the Bible says? Didn’t Jesus share his bread with the hungry?
    I know we live in the “I, I, I” and “me, me, me” society — that’s why are so divided. I just wish we could be more caring and sharing with our fellow men as a nation of good Christians.

31. Karen on October 31st, 2008 7:23 pm

    I am not rich….I work very hard…I am the workinh lower middle class..yet due to this financial meltdown…my 401k is gone…what am I going to do, I am now middle aged and not as energetic as I was to start all over..I have always worked hard but it looks like that is no longer enough..I am not mad a t rich people…I just want to be counted as important to this society too….I would like to know when I am no longer able to work…and have no job mandate insurance..I can still get medical care and not have to die in the streets of the country I worked so hard to maintain their middle class…while they sent my job over seas…if that makes me a socialist…then long live socialism…and God bless America land of the free and home of whoever must do what they must to survive…and guess what God bless President Obama & lead him and guide him in his decisions he must make to restore America to its former glory.

32. Scared on October 31st, 2008 7:25 pm

    This really makes me frightened for the future of this country when so many feel that heath care is not natural human right. I wonder how many of you would change your thoughts if you were working full time at minimum wage and unable to pay for your cost of living plus pick up some healthcare insurance for you family as well. With some people it’s not a matter of simply finding a better employer. Unfortunately, some of you think higher education is not a right as well, so you are perfectly happy leaving some of our low incoming families in the perpetual poverty cyle that they can’t escape while pointing the finger and asking them to work harder.

    Wow- some of you definitely need to find some humility. If caring for the well being of another individual is “socialism” then please, point me in that direction.

33. Josh on October 31st, 2008 7:37 pm

    Wow, you people are nuts.

    It’s amazing how no one here knows what socialism is: when the government owns the means of production. Like, for instance, your leader George W. Bush nationalizing the banks. Frankly, I don’t know what you’re all afraid of, besides for Obama. Are you all closet (or not so closet) racists? I don’t know, and probably you lead normal lives, and have plenty of interactions with your Republican yes-men friends.

    But Obama does not advocate socialism. Instead, he’s stating the truth about the system that Teddy Roosevelt, John McCain’s hero, instituted: our progressive tax system. If you have had the great honor–and certainly, compared to the rest of the world, it is an honor–of living and working here, and making a comparatively large amount of money, then you pay more. It’s simple, really; we don’t have a flat tax (I have a feeling a lot of you supported Huckabee).

    And if you don’t like the idea of Obama being our president…well, have fun in Canada!

34. Danyelle on October 31st, 2008 7:40 pm

    Obama only wants to raise taxes on the top income earners by 3%, that’s the rates under the Clinton Adminstration. I didn’t see rich people crying and leaving the country then. Bush lowered the tax rate by 3% and look what happened; they promise more jobs, stronger economy. Where are all the jobs? Why isn’t the economy strong? Why is our dollar so week?

    The “trickle down effect” the Right keeps screaming about is a crock of crap. Look at all the companies that have went under these past few weeks, they all went under and took there profits with them, owe and the workers lost the pensions. What did the Republicans do about that?

    Those CEO’s and COO’s are all Bush supporters. If those are the type of people that are associated with the Republican party I want no parts of it.

    What ever happen to love of country and lover of our countrymen?

    It’s so sad to know that the majority of the people that will vote for John Mc Cain will be worst off if he gets elected. They don’t even realize his not representing them. He’s not campaning to them. “Obama’s trying to talk your wealth” What wealth? The average person in the counrty has no wealth, then average family in this country only earns $35k per year.

35. LiberalAndProud on October 31st, 2008 7:41 pm

    If you want to spend money on a costly war, then you have to pay taxes. Repubicans don’t realize that. They’re the ones who want to stay in Iraq indefinitely, they are also the people who don’t want to pay their fair share of taxes!

36. The Machine on October 31st, 2008 7:42 pm

    As per their usual, the left comeback always involves the ad hominem attack.

    But the elephant in this particular room is the fact that socialist medical “care” results in mediocre medicine and eventually in the evil of the Eugenic plan — if they are deemed to be useless, they are killed by the gummint “medics”.

    No. Thank. You.

    !

37. linda on October 31st, 2008 7:45 pm

    if the rich/semi rich are afraid of socialism. then why shouldn’t the poor and low income workers be afraid of capitalism..some rich are lazy and selfish and earn wealth thru dubious means…if there was a real concern then make sure everyone has work to do, for a fair wage.. everything done in the country would be on the up and up.. then that really would be a different society, one in which most people are not ready for;….

38. Thomas on October 31st, 2008 7:48 pm

    WOW, sounds like some people comenting here don’t really want to have a government. Your taxes (federal and local) fund schools, fund roads, fund social security, medicare, service the debt, pay our armed forces, and after that… there’s a tiny amount left over for “social programs”. Most of “your money” is not going to “wellfare queens”. Also with respect to healthcare, emergency healthcare has been recognized as a right in this country at least. But preventive care has not. So instead of paying 300$ a year to make sure people which chronic medical problems get checkups and are managed well, they get sick, crash and burn and end up goiing to the ER, sometimes if really sick spending time in the ICU and costing you the taxpayer (ultimately) thousands of dollars. Just some food for thought. BTW, obama the socialist is trying to raise taxes on the wealthy to levels that that other well known socialist Ronald Reagan had in place. Think about it. Just my two cents, I don’t think Mr. Obama is the best thing since sliced bread, jsut clearly the better choice. Discuss amonst yourselves…

39. Phillip Hyun on October 31st, 2008 7:48 pm

    I don’t give a rat’s a$$ about anyone else. I work hard for my money. I don’t even see why I should pay ANY taxes at all. The Federal Government does absolutely nothing for me. Protect my freedom? From who? I don’t see any terrorists or Chinese coming around my house! If they do I’ll blast ‘em!
    I’ve made my money and I can buy the best health care for any problems I might have. All the whining losers out there just don’t have what it takes to be free.

40. Jay on October 31st, 2008 7:51 pm

    Yes, we should be Christians and share with the poor and fellow man as the Bible says. We should do this voluntarily from our hearts, and the government should have NOTHING to do with it. They shouldn’t decide how much, to whom, or when MY money is shared.

41. Jay on October 31st, 2008 7:52 pm

    WOW, sounds like some people comenting here don’t really want to have a government.

    Wrong. We want a small federal government like the framers intended, and let the states make decisions on their people. The Federal government should butt out as much as possible.

42. rose platt on October 31st, 2008 7:53 pm

    If you people don’t do anything else vote for a Republican House and Senate so the government will have it’s check and balances. This is very important to our freedom.

43. Mike on October 31st, 2008 8:01 pm

    Can someone show me where in the Constitution there is a right to health care? Or the right to not starve to death? Or the right to not freeze to death? Or the right to go to college?

    Yeah… not there.

    I have no problem if you want to give your money away and pay for other people’s health care. Good for you. But you have no right to go to another person and demand, with the threat of imprisonment, that they give away the fruits of their labor.

44. jt on October 31st, 2008 8:04 pm

    I truly admire your ability to draw the conclusion that Obama thinks that those who don’t favor higher taxes for those making $250,000 a year or more are inherently selfish from these remarks, which were clearly targeted at his two opponents.

    You should store up your creative energies for conspiracy theories on how McCain really won the election after the shellacking he will take on Tuesday. Even with your obvious reality-warping talents, you’re going to have a hard time convincing yourself.

45. Stephen on October 31st, 2008 8:09 pm

    The principle is that you work hard for YOUR money. If you earn your money fairly without breaking any laws, its yours to do with as you wish, regardless of how much you made. The selfish people here are the ones who demand to get extra money that they did not earn through legalized theft. They are greedy and bitter and cling to the whole ‘class warfare’ pseudo-theory in order to justify their greed. Contentment has gone out the window. It’s no wonder that studies have shown that twice as many conservatives have a good outlook on life than liberals, its all due to greed and demanding more when you didn’t earn it.

    Its that very mid-set of believing that your entitled to more money than you earn that is causing so many problems. Aside from creating bitter people, you have the political nutcases who act on that bitterness such as the Freadie Mack and Fanny May executives who killed the financial sector because they believed that ‘everyone has the right to own a house.’ They plunged the market into the ground and now everyone is suffering, yet these same people are the ones who say they are better able to manage the economy and the bitter crowds applaud them.

    As for genuine kindness, its no surprise really that the left wing attacks Christianity and through that charity. Both are problems to their authority. People kindly giving to the poor, and incentives to get more people to act compassionate go in conflict with government-controlled wealth redistribution. One is a form of kindness and a virtue, the other is dominated by the lust for power, from bitterness and is a regressive form of action. The left would destroy charity if it got the chance in order to ‘personally’ re-distribute wealth by means of legalized theft.

    As for taxes, I’m a firm believer in a single flat rate income tax (no taxing wages, capitol gains, inheritance, gasoline, ect), because it is fair to all, everyone being the same before the government, no special treatment with reguard to ‘tax breaks’ or welfare. It would also get the message across for all that big government is the problem not the solution.

    For the record of all who would use the Robin Hood analogy, he stole from the GOVERNMENT, from TAX COLLECTORS and gave the money back to the people. It would be like someone raiding the IRS and giving the money back to those who were taxed.

46. Sensible on October 31st, 2008 8:10 pm

    Anyone that uses the phrase “fair share” regarding taxes, has no clue what they are talking about. Go to the website of the OMB and study our federal budget and who pays for it. Look at what share is paid by income group and you will find that a disproportionate share is already paid by the top 10% of wage earners. They pay 71% of the individual income taxes today! Now explain to me how someone that is getting a free ride by not paying any taxes, is actually paying their “fair share”. Zero means zero share!

    I am in-between both extremes, but I do not condone class warfare. The U.S. provides the best opportunity in the world to improve your economic situation. For those that do not agree, explain why you are not emigrating to those “better” countries? If the U.S. is so bad to non-millionaires, why are there so many potential immigrants clamoring to get in? And let me tell you, there are probaly few millionaires in those immigration lines.

    Do not try to fix what is not broken. The top 10% of income earners paid over 70% of the individual income taxes. I laugh when I hear people claim that these taxpayers should pay their “fair share”. If that was true, they should be paying less not more.

    Source:

    http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

47. steveupstate on October 31st, 2008 8:13 pm

    Um, Mike, yeah, it is there. Maybe you missed it, but it’s right in the flippin’ mission statement:

    We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, INSURE domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, PROMOTE the general welfare, and SECURE the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Sounds like a pretty activist government to me.

48. oly graham on October 31st, 2008 8:14 pm

    The point is – go vote – and vote against Obama. His ideals, his education – all based on socialist and marxist beliefs. It has never worked in history and since I WORK 60-70 hours a week…..every week….to grow my business – and I pay 50% of all 11 of my employee’s health care – including their families – I think that I would like to decide where I put my profit. I hire new employees – and i hope to get to the point of paying 100% of my employee’s healthcare insurance costs. I cannot hire – and I cannot improve their beneifts if I have to put my profit into incompetent government hands – so they can disperse it to people who simply want a hand out. Taxing me more – and I live frugally so I can build my business – disallows me the right to pursue happiness. That constitution thing – that may be going away soon – IF YOU DON’T VOTE TO STOP IT!

49. oly graham on October 31st, 2008 8:16 pm

    Peter Moon:

    You are an idiot

50. rob on October 31st, 2008 8:19 pm

    or the right not to kill yourself, or the right not to smoke pot, or the right not to……

    where does it end with you hypocrites.

    you’re probably the first one bitching when your street isnt plowed.

51. L. C. on October 31st, 2008 8:19 pm

    Its interesting how people are interpreting news the way they would like to see them. Is Obama a great guy? possibly. i never met him. The question is if he will be good for this country. I doubt it. with his plan to increase capital gain taxes will drive big corporation overseas=loss of jobs for us americans. I do have selfish reasons not to like his proposals. Me and my wife make more than 250k. By no means we considered to be reach. we still shop on sales and use coupons. After 12years of schooling and 250k in student loans i finally became a physician. Call me wealthy and that would be a joke. 45% of my salary is going for taxes. Why should i pay more than i already do? i used to work 80-100h/week while in residency. Now its only 50-60 but still more than some average Joe. so if someone proposes for me to pay more taxes, does it mean i should simply work less to avoid this taxation, and therefore to limit my patients access to medical care i can provide?

52. Emily on October 31st, 2008 8:22 pm

    Isn’t Obama wanting to put the tax rate on the rich back where it was during the Clinton days?

    Didn’t Clinton actually give us a GREAT economy that was working really well, unlike where we are after 8 years of Bush cutting it?

53. Mike on October 31st, 2008 8:26 pm

    Steveupstate:

    Maybe you can explain to me how INSURING domestic tranquility — via state police power, PROMOTING the general welfare — not passing overly oppressive laws on a particular class of citizens, and SECURING the blessings of liberty — the freedom from an overbearing government, somehow translates into a right to health care?

    You realize there wasn’t even a federal income tax until the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913?

    I’m sure this is what the founding fathers had in mind. Citzens paying over 1/3 of their income as income tax (not even taking into account the litany of other taxes citizens pay).

    Sounds like they need to send you upstate.

54. Nieka on October 31st, 2008 8:30 pm

    I find it amazing how McCain supporters by into the hype that he is selling. Since McCain started losing many of the “RED STATES or KEY STATES ” as they say has anyone noticed how he himself talks about “not being selfish to help those who have not” hmmmm. Maybe it is because you do not want to see it? I wonder why he is so big on people being able to keep their money or be “selfish” as it is called while at the same time talking about tax cuts for the middle class. Do you really believe the economy can be sustained if everyone and every business receives tax cuts? If so go ahead and buy into McCain’s philosophy of higher debt more money borrowed from foreign sources or better yet more American jobs going to foreign countries because that in spite of McCain’s tax cuts still pay $2,000 to $4,000 annually to their employees. So which is he for selfish or selfless? Better yet does he know what he stands for?

55. Stephen on October 31st, 2008 8:30 pm

    With regard to labeling people who make over $250,000.00 per year rich, who gave him that right, who gave him that power? What right does anyone have to draw a line as to who is rich and who is poor? They are relative terms as what was considered middle class in the 1950s is considered poor now. At the same time, the poor in the US are considered middle class in Western Europe. Nobody has the right to take your money, it was never listed in the Constitution. Taking money from those who succeed when they have committed no fraud nor cheated anyone else on their way up is legalized theft nothing more.

    The Constitution said nothing about Social Security, Medicare or Unemployment Insurance, they are all examples of how greed, envy and bitterness have lead to the government growing in power at the expense of the people. And yes I am saying I’d vote against those, as they are private matters that are for individuals and individuals alone to attend to.

    As for declines in charity, it was as I said before, the onslaught against Christianity and Christian values which began more or less in the 1950s. Christians are portrayed as being backwards and ignorant by the left which believes that it is smarter than you and thus able to handle your problems because you cannot. As more and more people get the concept that greed is alright and that they don’t need to donate to charities, they wont. It’s a troubling trend set in motion by, as of 2006, only around 1/7 of the US population. The restoration of Christian Virtues as they were prior to the 1950s would do a world of wonder for the US and world as a whole, yet it is beyond the capacity of the atheist left to comprehend genuine kindness. This just makes me all the more sad that Huckabee isn’t the nominee.

    As for the budget deficit, the solution is simple, cut government spending. Eliminate government programs. Put an amendment to the Constitution that would limit government spending. So many people think that higher taxes is the solution when in reality it is to cut the government down to size, something which Bush failed miserably at, though at least his goals, unlike those of Obama, weren’t to raise government spending.

56. Jan on October 31st, 2008 8:31 pm

    If you want more money, go get yourself educated (and that is free…I know because I got a mostly-free education to become a nurse) and get a job!!!!! The sense of entitlement that a lot of Americans have is mind-boggling. The government does NOT owe us money, education, health-care, or anything but a secure place to live. GET A JOB.

57. johnjohnr on October 31st, 2008 8:33 pm

    Gee, seems to me that by your definition, BILL CLINTON is a socialist. And god forbid should some of you nimrods get sick should someone look out for you and insure that getting well doesnt devastate you financially. Or worse yet, your children. I cant believe some of you mindless, brainwashed political zealots!!!

58. Jacque Mge on October 31st, 2008 8:34 pm

    Obama should have run on a Socialist ticket.

59. steveupstate on October 31st, 2008 8:35 pm

    Mike, maybe you’re the one who needs to explain how such a broadly worded mission statement translates into your very, very narrow ideas of what YOU want, versus what the people might want. As long as it doesn’t infringe on your rights as outlined in the rest of the constitution (and where in it do you read your right to low taxes, or no taxes at all?), the government has the OBLIGATION to do the best by ALL of its citizens.

    It’s not all about you, you know.

60. Mike Barnes on October 31st, 2008 8:35 pm

    I agree, mostly, with the post above. Having the government pay 100% tuition without any compensation on your part is bullcrap. Get a job, or join the military. Now with healthcare, I went my whole life without health coverage until I joined the military. (That was the best decision I ever made) My Mom (single parent) never let me participate in any sports or likewise active things, because one injury could make her go bankrupt. I tried to get health coverage after I was 18 and trying to juggle college and a part-time job, but it was just too expensive. I support Obama in providing more health coverage for everyone, but the tuition thing is crap. Just picking the lesser of two evils.

61. Stephen on October 31st, 2008 8:49 pm

    Its amazing how hypocritical the greedy, bitter left is. They want good paying jobs, yet they want to tax employers. You levy heavy taxes on a company and it cuts their profits, so in order to stay competitive, the employer needs to fire employees or lower wages, leading to unemployment. Its a self-defeating pseudo-theory.

    The same goes for the whole WalMart thing. The bitter left complains about it being an ‘evil rich’ corporation, however who does it help? the poor! Due to buying in mass quantities, the prices are low thus allowing poor people to pay less for food, clothes and other essential goods. Who does WalMart employ? the poor! It gives people jobs and cheap products yet the bitter, greed-driven left hates it, using it as a poster child for ‘evil business’.

    Tax the Oil companies, good thought, they will have to raise the price of the finished product (gasoline and jet fuel) which ends up hurting the consumer. And not just any consumer, but the poor most given that they have the least fuel-efficient automobiles. Also, oil company CEOs are not idiots, if the taxes get too high, they will move to other countries and thus cut jobs and raise gasoline prices farther in the process.

    The last time people were this greedy and ignorant was during the Carter era when he completely destroyed the US economy, and the scary thing is he had/has many of the same views as Obama. By the time Reagen got elected, there was double didget inflation, interest rates and unemployment. It was Reagen who re-started the US economy after the failure of Carter, and his predecessor Johnson.

    As for Clinton, he rode the wave of Reagen’s successes, yet laid the groundwork for failure in 1999 by starting the sub-prime loan problems by forcing all banks to make those loans. People ignorant of the situation blame Bush, even though he twice sought to stop that sort of loaning during his presidency, yet it was people like Obama who prevented that, thus causing the crisis to explode.

    This hypocrisy is astounding, as is the ignorance of economics on the side of the bitter left. Apparently finding a scapegoat for your problems is more efficient than trying to solve the problems at hand with that kind of mentality. McCain isn’t the solution to the problems of the US, indeed his political views are in many ways akin to those of JFK, however he is by far better than someone more left than Carter.

    Vote to dodge the bullet of socialism or God help us all.

62. Bernhard on October 31st, 2008 8:51 pm

    Well Cassy, let me tell you something: I live in Austria, I earn a lot of money, and I pay 50% of it in taxes and social security. And you know what? I think that money is well spent!
    “What an idiot”, you probably think right now. Doesn’t fit your ideology, but guess what, over here everyone CAN go to college, free of charge. Overe hear everyone HAS the right to free healthcare. And yes, that little emergency surgency that would eat all of YOUR savings (now that you have no health insurance, because you are not working hard enugh) would get you bankrupt, and don’t you complain about it, because you think that it should be everyone’s right to go bankrupt over a health issue, right?
    Our public transportation, water supply, waste recyling and energy etc… infrastructures are of a quality that you can’t even dream about. But hey, who says you have a right to get clean, good water from your tap, ride a subway to work instead of having to own a car, or have one’s waste not disposed of into the next landfill or river? Must be those liberals, maybe?

    Great twitch to reality, Cassy.
    “it was understood that you had to work hard in order to get those things” – that implies that everyone who works hard actualy DOES have these things, right. Really? You from America on Planet Pluto, or USA, Plant Earth? It also implies that the liberals (yuk! Disgusting! LIBERALS!) “expect” those things without wotking hard for it. Says who? Nobody else but you, dear Cassy, but I guess your kin doesn’t read it that way.
    “Gone will be the America of enterprising hard workers. Why bother, when the government will do everything for you?” According to your theory, Cassy, Germany, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, etc. should all be countries with no hard workers, no entrepreneurs, where the government does everything for the people. They just print the money, right? It just surfaces, and covers everything, right? And people in these counries would all like to overthrow their governments because they all can go to college, have health and unemployment insurance, an infrastructure far better than yours and many other things you have never heard about.
    My suggestion, Cassy? Stop blogging, get on a plane and extend your horizon beyond your GOP party meetings and Stop-the-Liberals reunions. But guess now that you have no insurance coverage overseas travelling is too dangerous and risky, right?
    Greetings from Austria (no, AUSTRIA, not Australia. You learn that in college. Over here.)

63. Jeff Simon on October 31st, 2008 8:52 pm

    I sure am tired of all the rich people moaning that they have to pay taxes like the rest of us. When you are rich you can afford accountants and lawyers to get out of most of it, but when you are the middle class you are stuck. Tired of wealthy calling ‘foul’ when someone dares to have them match the same percentage as us people in the middle.

64. Mark on October 31st, 2008 8:54 pm

    Many people claiming to be Christians are citing the fact that Jesus “shared” with the less fortunate of the world which is true, but the last time I checked Jesus never killed any unborn children. That is an issues with the democrat Christians should look at. Plus the fact that giving to people that don’t have should be a choice, not something mandated by the government. I recently lost my job because it was bought by a Chinese company, but I still understand that giving to those who have no desire to work does nothing but breed further generations of people that don’t want to work.

65. brandon on October 31st, 2008 8:55 pm

    Welcome to the SOCIALISTIC People’s Republic of Alaska, where every resident this year will get a $3,200 payout ( even if they don’t work and are on welfare ).., thanks in no small measure to the efforts of Sarah Palin, the state’s Republican governor. That’s $22,400 for a family of seven, like Palin’s No wonder she is popular with voters in a state whose residents pay no income or sales taxes but are blessed with state coffers rolling in cash at a time when all other states are suffering.

    Indeed, when the oil companies pay more taxes to the state of Alaska, they get to write that off against their federal tax obligation, leaving the rest of us to make up the shortfall. Not that I blame Palin for wrangling for her state a bigger cut of oil company windfall profits; it’s just not an option that will work wonders for states without oil.

    Of course we can remedy that by having a federal windfall profits tax of the sort that Barack Obama dared propose ( damn uppity negro at it again )

    Why is it a good thing for the folks up in Alaska to get a cut of exorbitant oil company profits, but not the rest of us, if we are all part of one nation?

    Didn’t taxpayers from the lower 48 states buy the place from the Russians? Isn’t it our federally collected tax dollars that have been subsidizing Alaska more lavishly than any other state, both before and after the bonanza of oil?

    And subsidizing Alaska still, despite the state’s enormous oil revenue. And despite McCain’s claims that Palin has distinguished herself by breaking with Alaska’s discredited Republican establishment in February, the governor sent Stevens a request for $200 million to support various state projects.

    With representatives like that, it’s no wonder that Alaska, despite its oil boom, is still at the top of states subsidized by federal dollars, receiving $1.84 back from Washington for every $1 that Alaskans pay in federal taxes. Unfortunately, looking to Palin for advice on helping the rest of us during the oil crunch, as McCain has promised, is a bit like asking a Saudi oil minister or Russia’s Vladimir Putin to provide a model for our nation’s economic woes…..

66. Nate on October 31st, 2008 8:56 pm

    Hope you’re not collecting unemployment Mark. That would be leaching off the government and not working.

67. jerry aubuchon on October 31st, 2008 8:59 pm

    damn straight i’m selfish, i served in the army in desert storm and worked hard my whole life for what little i’ve got, and i think if you want it you should work for it, period

68. Dan on October 31st, 2008 9:02 pm

    It doesn’t matter if Obama wins because in two years the disgusted Americans will vote a Republican majority senate and congress and BO will be nothing more than just a figure with no power. That is if the enemy doesn’t wipe us out first.

69. George on October 31st, 2008 9:02 pm

    What we have here is a failure to communicate.Nothing in life is free. Anything is going to cost someone something. There is too much intrusion into our lives by the government starting with the “free” FEMA give-aways.It is not the governments resposibility to rebuild or replace any privately owned losses. This action gained such wide spread acceptance by the majority of the people receiving it. This is socialism any way you want to look at it.This helped to cement the mind-set of some of the population. Then came the bail-out of the privately owned lending institutions which is any way you slice it more socialism. The list will go on and on until we insist that big brother cease his screwed up guidance.

70. brandon on October 31st, 2008 9:05 pm

    2 jerry aubuchon

    glad you were were there, so was i, and you know what i risked my life OVER THERE for others just like you did, so i have NO problem, paying a little more taxes to help someone HERE, And you prove a point of Obama’s, You like me served your country, so why is not YOUR country serving YOU???

71. John Galt on October 31st, 2008 9:08 pm

    Barack Obama is precisely what is wrong with America.

    America has changed from a populace of hard-working, law-abiding citizens to a populace of welfare-dependent, drug-taking, money-demanding liberal fools. With a dash of illegals thrown into the mix.

    If everyone would vote Republican, we could get out of this mess.

72. IC FDRY and MACH on October 31st, 2008 9:11 pm

    I want to say if you think about it everyone has a right to alot of thing, you cant work hard in a country where jobs have been lost to our stupid system. I know people who have built the parts to build this country, GM, Ford, Dodge, FMC corp, they watch what they worked so hard in the shops for go to hell. We are a Logistic country with no one who has the money to spend on the items that are being imported. To the idiot who whote this artical I give you 5 fingers down, Everyone who has sense will do the same,
    Whos to blame for this mess? REPUBLICANS

    This is what happened to this country, we give too much to other countrys like china. In return we lose jobs, when people lose jobs they lose money to lower paying non union jobs such as War Mart, they cant spend $200 bucks a week buying non essental things. Republicans are the blame for just about every major screw up we have had, most of our wars were started by republicans. Right to work? What a joke, we will hire people for half if that of union wage, the company steals the wealth endangers public health just to make more money. Greed is what caused the stock market to go down in 1929, History repeats itself to ones who forget mistakes. Everything goes back to, REPUBLICANS

73. Danyelle on October 31st, 2008 9:14 pm

    I don’t think Health Care is a RIGHT. But I do think it’s our govenrments RESPONSIBILITY to make sure that the basic are avaliable.

    If you want your children going to school and catching otherwise preventable virus/diseases be my guess. But do it in another country.

74. Billy on October 31st, 2008 9:19 pm

    Its not about republicans being selfish for wanting to not pay higher taxes-its about republican right-wing nutjobs refusing to allow women, homosexuals, and others make their OWN CHOICES IN LIFE! Thats were you right-wing republican jerks are selfish

75. Danyelle on October 31st, 2008 9:20 pm

    Maybe the top 5% wouldn’t have to pay SO MANY TAXES if more people earned more money. If what the RIGHT keeps saying is true, 40% of americans don’t pay any taxes because they don’t earn enough. That’s really sad. The richest most powerful country in the world and we have so many of our citizens poor.

76. leigh R on October 31st, 2008 9:21 pm

    I hate to break this to most of you, but Obama is not going to be able to provide health care for anyone! Think it over.

77. David L. on October 31st, 2008 9:22 pm

    Socialism makes me sick. Why even out the playing field. I work my ass off and take responsibility at my job. There are other workers who dont give a crap. I do deserve a better lifestyle. If anyone is having kids they cant afford…how do you justify taking from someone who has earned it and dictate who gets it and who does not. THE POOR STAY POOR BECAUSE THEY KEEP DOING THE SAME THINGS THAT MAKE THEM POOR…AND THE RICH GET RICH BECAUSE THEY KEEP DOING THE THINGS THAT MAKE THEM RICH!!! If you cannot afford your lifestyle…cut back…If you cannot afford kids…YOU made a bad decision and it is not my mess to clean up …and frankly not my damn worry. I love freedom and it is very sad to think that millions have died from our country fighting for it. You people dont know what you have until it is gone!!! Please people …dont make this mistake.

78. Lisa on October 31st, 2008 9:22 pm

    This is all very interesting but to be honest, every one in this country already benefits from government regulated services. People have expounded on those for a while so I won’t repeat them. The truth is in terms of what happens to tax money I think that part of the problem is that people simply vote for someone based on how it will affect their taxation but never follow up to determine the best route for their tax money. The truth is I’d rather pay taxes and have an excellent public school system from K-12 than not pay taxes and have to shell out $22,500 a year (increasing by a certain percent every year)for 12 years. for my daughter to attend a private school because the public schools are underfunded and have few resources. That would be approximately $300,000 just for elementary school. And mind you – $22,500 is the average with the option of public schools – can you imagine what it would rise to if there were no public schools? If I give about $8000 per year of my income to the government and in return I get the roads paved, the snow plowed, a decent public school, the police service when I need it, the fire service when I need it etc. etc. and the list goes on and on then I have no problem paying taxes. I don’t see anyone complaining about their tax dollars going to waste when they are benefitting from the services provided – only when they have to pay the taxes. However the truth is, if we had to pay for every single service we got in this country it would be a far greater burden than our taxes. Just look at the complaints about health insurance now. I have patients ask me all the time ‘well why won’t my health insurance clear this’ or ‘how come they didn’t give me more days of inpatient hospitalization than that’ The truth is – because they can. They don’t care about your health, their bottom line is turning a profit for themselves and people shell out millions of dollars in health insurance (those who can afford it), then at the end if there is a severe medical problem, still mount incredible medical debt. So honestly which is worse – shelling out your hard earned money to a private company who fights the doctor (as I have had personal experience with) all the time so as not to have to pay for your medical care? or shelling it out to the government in exchange at least for a certain level of free medical care. That’s nice that people come here from Canada for health care, but 1. it certainly isn’t the majority of people just the impatient ones and 2. The overall health of the populations in Canada and Britian, Switzerland and all the other developed countries that have universal health care is not significantly lower than that of people in the US so something about their healthcare systems must be working – and their doctors don’t have to fight any one in order to provide it! We had this discussion when I was in medical school and we continue to have it every time I get yelled at by some random sell-out doctor on the other end of an insurance company phone who has never even seen my patient but can declare most highhandedly that he does not think my care should be approved. Oh and get this – the insurance companies ultimately leave you in the lurch good citizens because at the end they claim that they do not make health care decisions – we the doctors do. So they may not be tax dollars – but hey, this is where your dollars are going right now. Is this really what America prefers? And is that just for the sake of the “Capitalist Ideal”? Somehow that just isn’t good enough for me.

79. Chris Friede on October 31st, 2008 9:23 pm

    To all those strict constructionists out there:
    How do you manage to overlook the 9th Amendment, which specifically spells out that our rights are not limited to only what is in the Constitution?

    Any economist can tell you that we rely on the flow of money in the economy in order to actually generate wealth. When too much wealth ends up in the hands of too few people, the flow of money in the economic gets distorted and actual wealth production slows down.

    Adam Smith’s ideal market works on the assumptions that a. all costs are accounted for, and b. there is equal power between buyers and sellers, and c. there is equal information.

    We can see in the current financial crisis how the ideal market was gleefully violated. The lenders had more information than the borrowers.

    We can see in today’s world how pollution “externalities” are not accounted for in the free market.

    So…how is this how libertarian free market supposed to work in the real world?

80. John P. on October 31st, 2008 9:23 pm

    Two points- First of all, a desire to take care of your family before having to take care of the freeloaders in our country is not being selfish – it is being an American. Generations upon generations have lived the American Dream of providing a better life for their children than the one they had. The Government, under Obama, would soon take over that role. From the craddle to the grave, the Government would tend to your needs. My question is simply, what does Obama expect in return. Second point – While I will not go so far as to call Obama and Biden socialists, I will point out that a simple comparison between the text book definition of socialism and the Democratic National Platform of 2008 will reveal a spooky truth. While they may not be socialists, their approach to governing and economics is much closer to socialism than it is to free market democracy. Over the past 20 years, the Democratic approach has been to enlarge Government and enlarge the number of people depending upon the Government. Then, each four years, they can triumph in fear that if Americans vote for the other guy, they might lose their federal handout. Unfortunately, when businesses begin to fail (much like the banking industry, health care and housing) the Government will step in, buy out those businesses and we will be yet another step closer to a socialist state. If Americans continue to provide for themselves, they will no longer be given the opportunity. Its all fine and dandy, right now, when the people like the handouts, but when Uncle Sam starts tying those handouts to the house you live in, or the car you drive or the school you attend or the number of male children you can bring into this world, or the job you go to each day, we will wake up and realize that, as predicted in 1961, we have been destroyed from within.

81. kano on October 31st, 2008 9:25 pm

    Instead of taking my money away at gunpoint via taxes. Give your money away to charity, to the people in the bastard factories who don’t work; you pinko commies.

82. leigh R on October 31st, 2008 9:25 pm

    ALSO taxing the so called rich (under 150,000) is not going to help anyone. THEY ARE the job creators. If you don’t pay income tax you will get a tiny little one time check if Obama is elected. And say bye bye to the American Industry. WAKE UP PEOPLE!

83. brandon on October 31st, 2008 9:26 pm

    Danyelle

    Good point!!! And let’s not forget i have not heard Obama talking about giving money to people who don’t work ( being we already do: welfare ) What he has said is he will give a tax break to middle-class WORKING families.So folks how is a tax break….welfare and Socialism, and i thik healthcare is a right!! If the pro-life crowd say there is a right to life, then after one has been born, there should be a right to healthcare

84. Sarah on October 31st, 2008 9:31 pm

    “I have no problem if you want to give your money away and pay for other people’s health care. Good for you. But you have no right to go to another person and demand, with the threat of imprisonment, that they give away the fruits of their labor.” Mike

    Hmm…then you absolutely don’t have a right to tell me what to do with my body, when it in no way shape or form interferes with your life. Republican hypocrisy is amazing, let’s not regulate money which affects all of us……but i want regulate what you do in the bedroom and with your body, which doesn’t affect anyone else at all……..government isn’t here to govern morality, it’s here to protect the citizens and provide for them……hmmmmmm. Repubs decry about freedom but yet they don’t want to give any one choices.

    Education and Healthcare should be provided by the government, then we won’t have half the social ills that we have today, that would solve a few other problems right there. And low income people do work hard, as the person making millions, problem is the low income person doesn’t make enough for the basic cost of living. We do need to make wages more equitable then we wouldn’t be in this mess and more people would be enjoying the Repubs idea of the “American Dream”, cause it all about what you have to lose to them. Guess what you can’t take it with you………

85. rnl ab on October 31st, 2008 9:32 pm

    And how does Rep solve the problem of the claimed 40%. Don’t tell they don’t work hard. Most of them work 2-3 jobs to barely survive. It is unfortunate that there are so many claimed poor people, but the exact system has allowed that to happen. That is what needs to be changed. Look, the CEO’s made more not because the x% who got laid off did not work hard. They got more because they just took the bigger share of the pie and not sharing the rewards with that x%. Similarly, It is not that the people were not able to afford their mortgages (even though they struggled with more than 2 jobs), it is because when they took the mortgage, they did not know that the rich are going to play even on their loans (their debt).

    The question is if more of the same system is going to get the job done, then we have more of the proof to suggest that it does not. We need some major changes and discipline and changes do shake people up, because they are not prepared for that

86. kano on October 31st, 2008 9:38 pm

    it has a semi socialistic government that has mostly a capitalistic base. oh ya socialism worked real well for russia, cuba some south american countries, cambodia, venezuela whos wealthy and educated leave daily by the droves….not! move to those if you like it so much. our founding fathers didn’t shed their blood for what you are looking for. and stop trying to mask communism with socialism; they might be different on paper but they one and the same in person.

87. paulludwikowski on October 31st, 2008 9:38 pm

    Boy for this great public speaker he sure seemed to stumble over his words a lot. Did anyone else notice his example of sharing his toys and pbj were his choice and he was not threatened by imprisonment if he didn’t?

88. George on October 31st, 2008 9:41 pm

    We manufacture hardly any durable goods here anymore due to the greed of big business sending their manufacturing jobs to China and other foreign countries. How is any money being made. Where is Obama going to get the money he’s promising to give away.I know he’s going to borrow it from China…No that won’t work because China will go down the tubes doing this, they make everything that we buy here and if we borrow money from them to buy their goods they would come out better just giving their products to us.Did I say that? I’ve been watching too much bamavision.

89. Lisa on October 31st, 2008 9:42 pm

    I don’t know where this idea came from that somehow people who want to work will somehow stop working if they are given some help. There will always be people who work hard and have visions for their lives and there will always be people who are slackers no matter what systemthey are born into. The hard workers are in every single social class form the very poor to the very rich. Those who are poor take advantage of every piece of assistance they get to do better, while those who don’t want to do better probably wouldn’t do better anyway. The same goes for the rich – Bill Gates comes from a rich family but he wanted to do better and he did. Paris Hilton comes from a filthy rich family but who knows what da heck she’s doing. So I find it extremely unfair to say that putting certain programs in place would stop people from having the incentive to work harder. For most of the poor people I know, those incentives provide some kind of light at the end of a long tunnel of struggle. There are kids in high school working their a$$es off to get good grades, to become valedictorian to do whatever it takes to get scholarships for college because their parents have no money and guess what, courtesy of our current government many high school scholarships based on academic achievement have been cut -guess who has been suffering because of this – I can tell you its not the slackers who don’t want to work. And the truth is, the society would benefit in the long run if they were allowed to go to college. They represent a mass of human resources that I don’t think the US can afford to overlook.

    And to the person who says that poor people are just poor becuse they can’t get it together – you obviously have never been poor or you would never have made that statement!

90. paulludwikowski on October 31st, 2008 9:43 pm

    What a misinformed moron paul is. We have things that pay for food, college, and medical care for the poor already. Obama wants to force it on everyone.

91. kano on October 31st, 2008 9:44 pm

    I LOVE JOHN MCCAIN.
    I LOVE THE USA
    AND IM PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN..

92. Greg Quindel on October 31st, 2008 9:46 pm

    Nice that you think you’re responsible for your health care but if you are in an accident, you will be taken to an emergency room and…opps…you’re not responsible anymore. It is so strange than many like you reject what virtually every other country in the world provides. Our way is foolish, expensive and fraught with indignities and anguish.

93. kano on October 31st, 2008 9:48 pm

    OBAMA IS AN AMERICAN HATING MUSLIM-NON US CITIZEN-MANCHURIAN CANIDATE

94. paulludwikowski on October 31st, 2008 9:48 pm

    Hey Lisa the idea that people won’t work if they don’t have to from history. Try reading a book.

95. anon on October 31st, 2008 9:49 pm

    I’m just curious how after 8 years of clinton in the white house followed by 8 years of bush, and looking at the state of the nation in terms of all the core economic indicators, how can you believe that the republicans approach is better suited to get us out of the recession that we’ve been plunged into? i’m not trying to be inflammatory. i really am curious. i’m an independent and after looking back on the last 16 years i can’t help but think the republicans are hurting us all.

96. paulludwikowski on October 31st, 2008 9:51 pm

    We had bad economic times under Clinton as well.

97. paulludwikowski on October 31st, 2008 9:55 pm

    If you look back through the history of the media’s coverage of the “recession” you will notice they were saying we were in one when the economy was growing at 4%. This was fear inspired and that’s why the stock market is going back up even though they keep reporting bad news. The fear is just starting to wear off.

98. kano on October 31st, 2008 9:56 pm

    THE REPUBLICANS RAN THE LEGISLATIVE DURING THE CLINTON YEARS AND THE DEMS HAVE RUN IT FOR THE LAST TWO IN WHICH EVERYTHING WENT DOWN HILL DURING THAT PERIOD. WE HAD A 4.1 UNEMPLOYMENT. RECORD STOCK MARKET HEIGHTS. AND WE FINALLY WENT AND FOUGHT THE ENEMY ON THEIR TURF. GRANTED YA WE HAD A RECORD DEFICIT. THE EQUAL HOUSING ACT OF 1993 INACTED BY DEMS HAS CAUSED THIS LONG TERM DOMINO EFFECT ON THE ECONOMY NOT THE LACK OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.

99. paulludwikowski on October 31st, 2008 9:57 pm

    Brandon never explained why you have a right to healthcare for being born.

100. Lisa on October 31st, 2008 9:57 pm

     I’ve read a great many books – thats why I’m a doctor – what are you? I also lived a great part of my life in different countries with different governmental systems. Please – share your first hand experience of how hard people work in other countries that have things like universal health care – I can! I can tell you they work damnned hard! I’ve also been poor and had to take advantage of every program I could to get where I am today. I didn’t stop working hard because they were there. These programs were part of my way out. Almost all the people I know have had to take advantage of assistance in some way. They are all educated now up to the graduate level. They all work extremely hard. Now I mentor kids who are trying to do the same and are having their programs taken away from them. You’re welcome to share yoru first hand knowledge of this population. Until you can do so, don’t give me any theoretical BS about history books. You should find more balanced authors to read.

101. H. Lindsay on October 31st, 2008 10:02 pm

     So if you dont WANT to pay higher taxes, you’re selfish – here he is saying this to a selfish bunch who doesn’t want to pay higher taxes.

     Want a bunch of selfish hypocrites. Don’t tax me – do it to the other guy

     Everyone would take Obama’s free lunch, but that’s not how our country was established. It’s the Puritan work ethic that founded this country, the way our ancestors worked to make their way and raise their families – no welfare. Proud people who’s choices were Work, produce or starve – a strong incentive to be sucessful

102. AK on October 31st, 2008 10:04 pm

     NO ONE has the right to anything except what is guaranteed in the Constitution and subsequent amendments. Obama’s plan will refund taxes in the form of credit that will be claimed on taxes then issued as a check/rebate after income taxes to those who have not paid ANY taxes, and therefore, not worked. Why is this wrong? Because you can’t refund something that was never paid in the first place!

     I’d like to see where it says in the Constitution that everyone has the RIGHT to healthcare and the RIGHT to a fully paid education. That is delusion and not what the founding fathers set forth. If you want that kind of socialism then move to Europe – but I have news for you: They won’t have your sorry [edited]!

103. paulludwikowski on October 31st, 2008 10:06 pm

     WOW you worked and you made it how did that happen without Mighty Obama holding your hand. I never said nobody in other countries work because of socialized healthcare but there are a lot of people who won’t. Since you are a doctor you have more than me so send me money now. It’s my right to help myself to your income.

104. nelson on October 31st, 2008 10:09 pm

     it’s shocking to me that obama talks about george bush’s failed policies & tying mc cain to bush.while he wants to cut taxes on the middle class( sure yeah right)& spend more now thats what i call a bushism even worse because in the current condition the economy is in it makes no sense to cut,raise taxes period.i know a better take hatchet to spending & maybe we’ll get the economy back on track.spreading wealth is selfishness on the part of obama hood.

105. m@ on October 31st, 2008 10:10 pm

     Obama says we’re selfish if we don’t share with those less fortunate. Yet the hypocrite doesn’t want to share his own wealth (which is much more substantial than what most of us have) even with his OWN FAMILY, his destitute aunt and handicapped uncle who live near Harvard. Yet he used their story to sell his book.

     Ah, I see. Obama doesn’t believe in helping others; he, himself, won’t do it. What he believes is that government should control us by controlling our means of survival. By shaming us and generating envy in us, he will succeed. Is his power hunger to blame? Sure. But also to blame is the weak minded populace who looks for the easy route in life, and is willing to believe any lie as long as it’s spoken with conviction and in dulcet tones.

     He is the least qualified candidate to run for president in our lifetimes, but he looks good and sounds good! And Scarlett Johansson likes him!

106. paulludwikowski on October 31st, 2008 10:11 pm

     jnl rot you are exactly right rich people pay almost half their income in taxes already so why hit them harder. At least get rid of the eic program.

107. kano on October 31st, 2008 10:13 pm

     hey jnl rot i dont know when black liberation theology became a sanctioned christian religion since it says all white people should die and yes obama is 1/3 arabic with a muslim name. yes i am sorry i did get a fact wrong it was a date the equal housing act of 1992 when the dems did control the house and senate. the very act that is the root cause of our economic pains today.

108. AK on October 31st, 2008 10:14 pm

     AMEN paulludwikowski and M@!!!

109. paulludwikowski on October 31st, 2008 10:23 pm

     Hey Lisa where is my money?

110. obama hood on October 31st, 2008 10:26 pm

     spreading the wealth is a sign that that the middle class making more than 100,000 is wealthy according to joe biden.way to goe jobama next week it will be people making more then 80k.what a way to put more strain on the middle class its bad enough that its already burdened with high taxes, health care now more higher taxes because they are considered wealthy if they make more than 101k a year & will be forced to give up more of their hard earned money to those who don’t want to work for theirs.steal more from middle give to undesevering obama hood to the rescue.

111. paulludwikowski on October 31st, 2008 10:27 pm

     We really need Obama’s plans to take from the rich and socialized healthcare to continue to help stabilize drug dealer’s profits.

112. jnl rot on October 31st, 2008 10:27 pm

     kano, all i know is Kano is a city in Nigeria which accepted Islam. Go, google.

     don’t change the topic. all u can do is divide and divide more with ur rhetoric on black theology and for ur information i am not black, but don’t see any problem being one either. The same way I am not a muslim and there is no harm being a muslim in this country. U can dream and claim it is ur country, but it is everyone’s and all of us are immigrants to this great nation which can be greater. I think I’ll call myself rich too.

     BTW, even with hindsight, equal housing was a very good thing to do. The problem was may be in execution, but more so in the corp greed where everyone thought that the poor people’s debt is to be played upon. I’d say learn and do the equal housing scheme better which is what will get done, hopefully.

     Have fun

113. Parker Nicholson on October 31st, 2008 10:28 pm

     Hi there…..

     I am a recent college grad with degrees in economics and finance. I was taught the benefits of a free market system and deregulation…..(Actually by Milton Friedman’s son.)

     Some one in a post above stated…..get a job!!! As the solution to everyone’s problems.

     I am educated…..3.8 grad point average….and a smart critical thinker.

     I am trying to find a job….been putting in 40 plus hour weeks looking for one…..and haven’t found anything for a recent college grad.

     I am sick of all of these silver spoon licking, blue blooded elite exposing the mantra of work harder….longer….ect….when they were able to walk right in to cushy jobs with family connections….or make investments using their families wealth.

     I feel as if the American dream has been stolen from me. I have worked hard for 4 years and earned 2 degrees….yet I cannot find a job where I can learn basic skills and better my life. Nor due I have rich family and friends to lend me capital to start my own enterprise.

     Down with Bush…..Give me anything else.

114. Sweg on October 31st, 2008 10:32 pm

     there is a differnce between one works very hard for every dollar who payes their taxes and supports the nation with those tax dollars, and those who work very hard and even harder to keep as much money in their pocket. The ‘Right’ act like there are the true americans but they don’t want to support
     the country. They want to send our tax dollars Not their’s because .. uh they don’t pay them. It’s our tax money and the right love to spend other peolpes money.
     They don’t want use to redetribute the wealth when it’s there money, but they LOVE to redistribute when it’s ours.

     GO OBAMA

115. AK on October 31st, 2008 10:33 pm

     Yeah where’s my money? Where’s my free healthcare? Hey – now that I think about it – I want reparations for all the education that I had to pay for! I don’t think I should have to pay for my healthcare or my mortgage either! Where do I sign up for food stamps? I am guaranteed these things according to Obama supporters! Sure – I’ll support Obama – bring on the free sh*t! Gimme a carton of cigarettes for signing up and promising to vote for him! Oh – you mean you are going to up my income taxes? Thats okay because I quit! Now get busy supportin’ my [edited]!

     See below:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=381gFG4Crr8

116. ColdWarFighter on October 31st, 2008 10:34 pm

     Sarah of 6:07 PM – I love you. Would you marry me? Sarah of 9:31 PM – What brand of crack are you smoking?

     - Question your news source’s motivations
     - Think for yourself
     - Vote your conscience

     If the America I fought for over 25 years is so easily misled and so ignorant that we vote our own freedoms away, we should not be unhappy when we wake up in a place strongly resembling Iran or North Korea.

     God bless and help us all.

117. our america on October 31st, 2008 10:35 pm

     Paul……

     The rich people: they know how to use delaware, caribbean islands, peurto rico and other places to get their share of the tax breaks. Unfortunately, the people working equally hard cannot.

118. RenoAndy on October 31st, 2008 10:37 pm

     Read my lips! Shut up you whining idiots and pay your taxes, nothings free! You actually believe your own hype! I think most people who are responding earn less than $200K, your going to pay less taxes under Obama, whats your problem?

119. paulludwikowski on October 31st, 2008 10:38 pm

     Parker Nicholson is right I am jealous too GIMMIE GIMMIE GIMMIE I want it all. Maybe you picked a bad profession to be in or maybe you do a bad job in interviews but I guess that would mean you were responsible, but that can’t be let’s blame Bush. All you have are associates degrees they are a step above a high school diploma why would they want you when they can take someone with a masters that is already working. Try thinking about it you are unemployed and have no experience. Maybe you need to take a job anywhere and save some money to move somewhere else.

120. paulludwikowski on October 31st, 2008 10:40 pm

     Sweg the poor pay little to no taxes the majority of the money is rich people’s.

121. H. Lindsay on October 31st, 2008 10:43 pm

     Parker, you expect someone to give you a job. No one owes you a job unless you earn it. Education doesn’t guarantee anyone anything. It’s attitude and initiative. Your potential employers see a problem. Quit blaming anyone else. Stop the jealousy. Someone as smart as you say should have no problem obtaining a great job unless there’s a problem with your attitude and initiative. You need to look inward. The answer is there.

     By the way, i worked my way up in a public held company from entry level to officer over 24 years and now own my own company. Attitude and initiative are the keys.

122. paulludwikowski on October 31st, 2008 10:44 pm

     Alright I am making a personal plea to Obama Lisa is a doctor she has more than me could you please put her in prison because she refuses to respond and won’t send me her money.

123. brenda on October 31st, 2008 10:49 pm

     Wait!!!! OMG!!! Did this blog just say that healthcare for all is not a RIGHT?!! And education?!! WOW, and I thought this was America… I mean, really? What do you pay taxes for? Perhaps these taxes go to public schools, and colleges, and firefighters, your know, government services for the people, paid by the taxes. That being said, let’s add healthcare into that too, and it’s not selfish for a rich who makes more than 250 thousand dollars a year, to give another 3 to 6 percent in taxes. They WON’T even notice it. But a PLUMBER would notice that sort of increase! Or a nurse or teacher. So they should get a tax cut and be able to have opportunities too. Do you disagree? Then congratulations, you are selfish, and also no nothing at all on economy!!! Middle class move the economy, do you wanna fix it, you have to invest in the middle class. Rich people don’t help the economy, because they spend less money, middle class spend most of their money, they are more important for the economy, and any rich person would agree. Do you think the head of Walt Disney World is happy being so rich while watching all the thousands of families that would come visit the park, not visiting it because of lack of funds? People on the top of the economic issues, understands what Obama is talking about. While you just try to make it all so personal, but it’s about the good of the WHOLE nation! And it will be good for all the selfish people too. Bunch of idiots! No wonder you guys like Sarah Palin…

     ***I don’t know what they are charging you for tuition at CCAD, but you should demand a refund***

124. irish german welsh american on October 31st, 2008 10:51 pm

     to everbody bitching about the rich please quit your job and go to work for the poorest
     person you can find

125. AK on October 31st, 2008 10:54 pm

     Brenda I hope you don’t have children – you will be diluting the gene pool even more if you think that government paid healthcare and college education is your right. There is nowhere that this is guaranteed or promised. Where would you get such an idea? Oh wait I know – VOTE OBAMA 08!!!! He will give you this for FREE!

126. paulludwikowski on October 31st, 2008 10:56 pm

     Hey Brenda how about the millions of dollars that are taken from rich people and given to people who pay no taxes. Do the poor not have all the same rights and freedoms as the rich? Why not have everyone pay 10%?

127. paulludwikowski on October 31st, 2008 10:58 pm

     If it is true that the rich spend less maybe it’s because half their income is taken from them. If they got to keep more they might buy more.

128. Concerned Citizen on October 31st, 2008 11:01 pm

     To Senator Obama:

     The New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4, 2008, that proved you had a significantly closer relationship with Bill Ayers than what you previously admitted. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.

     The Chicago Sun reported on May 8, 2008, that FBI records showed that you had a significantly closer relationship with Tony Rezko than what you previously admitted. In the interview, you said that you only saw Mr. Rezko a couple of times a year. The FBI files showed that you saw him weekly. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.

     Your speech in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008, about “race” contradicted your statement to Anderson Cooper on March 14 when you said that you never heard Reverend Wright make his negative statements about white America. While your attendance at Trinity Church for 20 years is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on March 14.

     In your 1st debate with John McCain, you said that you never said that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea without “preparations” at lower levels … Joe Biden repeated your words in his debate with Sarah Palin … while the video tape from your debate last February clearly shows that you answered “I would” to the question of meeting with those leaders within 12 months without “any” preconditions.

     While your judgment about meeting with enemies of the USA without pre-conditions is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America in the debate with McCain.

     On July 14, 2008, you said that you always knew that the surge would work while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you stated that the surge would not work. While your judgment about military strategy as a potential commander-in-chief is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on July 14.

     You now claim that your reason for voting against funding for the troops was because the bill did not include a time line for withdrawal, while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you voted against additional funding because you wanted our troops to be removed immediately … not in 16 months after the 2008 election as you now claim. While your judgment about removing our troops unilaterally in 2007 is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about your previous position.

     You claim to have a record of working with Republicans while the record shows that the only bill that you sponsored with a Republican was with Chuck Lugar … and it failed. The record shows that you vote 97% in concert with the Democrat party and that you have the most liberal voting record in the Senate. You joined Republicans only 13% of the time in your votes and those 13% were only after agreement from the Democrat party.

     While it is of concern that you fail to include conservatives in your actions and that you are such a liberal, the greater concern is that you distorted the truth.

     In the primary debates of last February, 2008, you claimed to have talked with a “Captain” of a platoon in Afghanistan “the other day” when in fact you had a discussion in 2003 with a Lieutenant who had just been deployed to Afghanistan. You lied in that debate.

     In your debates last spring, you claimed to have been a professor of Constitutional law” when in fact you have never been a professor of Constitutional law. In this last debate, you were careful to say that you “taught a law class” and never mentioned being a “professor of “Constitutional law.” You lied last spring.

     You and Joe Biden both claimed that John McCain voted against additional funding for our troops when the actual records show the opposite. You distorted the truth.

     You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted against funding for alternate energy sources 20 times when the record shows that John McCain specifically voted against funding for bio fuels, especially corn … and he was right … corn is too expensive at producing ethanol, and using corn to make ethanol increased the price of corn from $2 a bushel to $6 a bushel for food. You distorted the truth.

     You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted like both of you for a tax increase on those making as little as $42,000 per year while the voting record clearly shows that John McCain did not vote as you and Joe Biden. You lied to America.

     You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time when you know that Democrats also vote 90% of the time with the President (including Joe Biden) because the vast majority of the votes are procedural. You are one of the few who has not voted 90% of the time with the president because you have been missing from the Senate since the day you got elected. While your absence from your job in the Senate is of concern, the greater concern is that you spin the facts.

     You did not take an active role in the rescue plan. You claimed that the Senate did not need you while the real reason that you abstained was because of your close relationships with the executives of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, and Acorn … who all helped cause the financial problems of today … and they all made major contributions to your campaign. While your relationship with these executives and your protection of them for your brief three years in the Senate (along with Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd) is of concern, the greater concern is that you are being deceitful.

     You forgot to mention that you personally represented Tony Rezko and Acorn. Tony Rezko, an Arab and close friend to you, was convicted of fraud in Chicago real estate transactions that bilked millions of tax dollars from the Illinois government for renovation projects that you sponsored as a state senator … and Acorn has been convicted of voter fraud, real estate sub prime loan intimidation, and illegal campaign contributions.

     Tony Rezko has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to your political campaigns. You personally used your political positions to steer money to both Tony Rezko and Acorn and you used Acorn to register thousands of phony voters for Democrats and you. While your relationships with Rezko and Acorn are of concern, the greater concern is that you omitted important facts about your relationships with them to America.

     During your campaign, you said: “typical white person.” “They cling to their guns and religion.” “They will say hat I am black.” You played the race card. You tried to label any criticism about you as racist. You divide America.

     You claim that you will reduce taxes for 95% of America, but you forgot to tell America that those reductions are after you remove the Bush tax reductions.

     You have requested close to $1 billion in earmarks and several million for Acorn. Your social programs will cost America $1 trillion per year and you claim that a reduction in military spending ($100 billion for Iraq) can pay for it. While your economic plan of adding 30% to the size of our federal government is of concern, the greater concern is that you are deceiving America.

     The drain to America’s economy by foreign supplied oil is $700 billion per year (5% of GDP) while the war in Iraq is $100 billion (less than 1% of GDP). You voted against any increases to oil exploration for the last three years and any expansion of nuclear facilities. Yet today, you say that you have always been for more oil and more nuclear. You are lying to America.

     Mr. Obama, you claimed that you “changed” your mind about public financing for your campaign because of the money spent by Republican PACs in 2004. The truth is that the Democrat PACs in 2004, 2006, and 2008 spent twice as much as the Republican PACs (especially George Soros and MoveOn.org). You are lying to America.

     Mr. Obama, you have done nothing to stop the actions of the teachers union and college professors in the USA. They eliminated religion from our history. They teach pro gay agendas and discuss sex with students as young as first grade. They bring their personal politics into the classrooms. They disparage conservatives. They brainwash our children. They are in it for themselves … not America. Are you reluctant to condemn their actions because teachers/professors and the NEA contribute 25% of all money donated to Democrats and none to Republicans? You are deceiving America.

     Oh, Mr. Obama, Teddy Roosevelt said about a hundred years ago that we Americans should first look at the character of our leaders before anything else. Your character looks horrible. While you make good speeches, motivating speeches, your character does not match your rhetoric. You talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.

     1. You lied to America. You lied many times. You distorted facts. You parsed your answers like a lawyer.

     2. You distorted the record of John McCain in your words and in your advertisements.

     3. You had associations with some very bad people for your personal political gains and then lied about those associations.

     4. You divide America about race and about class.

     Now let me compare your record of lies, distortions, race baiting, and associations to John McCain: War hero … Annapolis graduate that always places “Country first.” Has operational leadership experience like all forty three previously elected presidents of the USA. Navy officer for 22 years … 26 years in the Senate … Straight talk … Maverick. 54% of the time participated on bills with Democrats. Never asked for an earmark. The only blemish on his record is his part in the Keating 5 debacle about 25 years ago.

     Mr. Obama, at Harvard Law School, you learned that the end does not justify the means. You learned that perjury, false witness, dishonesty, distortion of truth are never tolerated in a court of law. Yet, your dishonesty is overwhelming. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty that caused the impeachment and disbarment of Bill Clinton. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty of Scooter Libby. You should be ashamed.

     Mr. Obama, it is time for us Americans to put aside our differences on political issues and vote against you because of your dishonest character. It is time for all of us Americans to put aside our political issues and vote for America first. It is time for America to vote for honesty.

     Any people who vote for you, after understanding that you are dishonest, should be ashamed of themselves for making their personal political issues more important than character. Would these same people vote for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ promised them riches?

     Would they make a golden calf while Moses was up the mountain? Would they hire someone for a job if that someone lied in an interview? Of course not. So why do some of these people justify their votes for you even though they know you are dishonest? Why do they excuse your dishonesty? Because some of these people are frightened about the future, the economy, and their financial security … and you are preying on their fears with empty promises … and because some (especially our young people) are consumed by your wonderful style and promises for “change” like the Germans who voted for Adolph Hitler in 1932. The greed/envy by Germans in 1932 kept them from recognizing Hitler for who he was. They loved his style. Greed and envy are keeping many Americans from recognizing you … your style has camouflaged your dishonesty … but many of us see you for who you really are … and we will not stop exposing who you are every day, forever if it is necessary.

     Senator Obama, you are dishonest. Anyone who votes for you is enabling dishonesty.

     Senator Obama, America cannot trust that you will put America first in your decisions about the future.

     Senator Obama, you are not the “change” that America deserves. We cannot trust you.

     Senator Obama, You are not ready and not fit to be commander-in-chief.

     Senator Obama, John McCain does not have as much money as your campaign to refute all of your false statements.

     And for whatever reasons, the mainstream media will not give adequate coverage or research about your lies, distortions, word parsing, bad associations, race baiting, lack of operational leadership experience, and generally dishonest character. The media is diverting our attention from your relationships and ignoring the fact that you lied about those relationships. The fact that you lied is much more important than the relationships themselves … just like with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon … Monica Lewinski and Watergate were not nearly as bad as the fact that those men lied about the events … false witness … perjury … your relationships and bad judgments are bad on their own …. but your lies are even worse.

     Therefore, by copy of this letter, all who read it are asked to send a copy to everyone else in America before it is too late. We need to do the job that the media will not do. We need to expose your dishonesty so that every person in America can see and understand who you really are before Election Day.

     Mr. Obama, in a democracy, we get what we deserve. And God help America if we deserve you.

129. paulludwikowski on October 31st, 2008 11:02 pm

     I am an idiot even though I don’t think we should repeat the same process of sticking it to the rich that caused the Great Depression. Why doesn’t a nurse, teacher, or plumber have oppurtunities now.

130. Bruce on October 31st, 2008 11:04 pm

     i have to admit, the mccain supporters make a few decent points, but the facts remain: democrats have a superior track record, and the republican canditate is 84 years old, 4 time cancer survivor, whose 2nd in command is a stupid, right wing nutjob. if the woman can’t answer the simple questions, why do you want to be president?… what newspapers do you read?…. and whose only claim to fame is selling a jet owned by alaska (at a loss, mind you) she is definately not suited to be our commander in chief.

     as for everyone who whines about jobs being sent overseas… take away the profit in it. start to pass tariffs on imports. even out the playing field. how about forcing china to stop undervalueing its currency to give themselves an advantage? oh wait… that was obama’s idea…

     on one last note… who is this “enemy” i’ve read about? last time i checked we dont have anyone perched to invade us… and just because we vote someone with less experience, (please remember lincoln, washington, JFK, and a host of others who were relatively untried before taking office) doesn’t mean anyone is crazy enough to pick a fight with us.

131. Alex form Brooklyn on October 31st, 2008 11:05 pm

     For those who say that United States is doing so bad lately, how we need change, how other coutries are so much better…Just GET THE HELL OUT OF THIS COUNTRY!!!!! With your whining about equality, and your need for change, and your cammunist ideals, ENOUGH ALREADY! I am just another guy, truing to achieve the American dream. I came to this country with my family with 5 freaking bags (that’s 1 per person) and $800 to my family name. And yet, both my parents worked day and night to get yet another college degree in this country, and make a life for themselves.
     Now, being a doctor myself, being $220,000 in debt for my education, I ask – why the hell should I want everyone to have health insurance, and even still, have medical service rates be lower, when the education that I chose to complete is so expensive? I don’t care that you WANT insurance. I don’t care that you need more money – go and make it, like my father did, like my mother did. We are what America is – a land of opportunity. Not a land of blood-suckers, who feel that just sitting on their [edited], as long as they have a bunch of kids, money will fall from the trees (Wellfare). I DON’T WANT TO FINANCE YOUR LIFE!!! And G-d forbid if that [edited] actually wins the election. My friends, I come from a Communist country, its not all peaches and cream, equal this, and equal that- its North Korea, its Cuba…Go ahead and vote for the Commies. In the end I’ll be fine either way, and be rich, and have a house and that Porsche that I always wanted. But I don’t want to see this beautiful country of ours collapse, all because some sweet-talker blinded all the good people, and swayed them to make the worst choice of their lives.

     Be afraid…Be very AFRAID!!!!!!

132. H. Lindsay on October 31st, 2008 11:05 pm

     Brenda – part of the entitlement generation. You owe it to me group. From my previous post:

     Don’t tax me – do it to the other guy (rich pay over 15% to 35% more than you)

     Everyone would take Obama’s free lunch, but that’s not how our country was established. It’s the Puritan work ethic that founded this country, the way our ancestors worked to make their way and raise their families – no welfare. Proud people who’s choices were Work, produce or starve – a strong incentive to be sucessful

133. paulludwikowski on October 31st, 2008 11:13 pm

     Hey Stacy I make money from my work and sacrifice. I am a truck driver and my wife works in a factory. I just am happy with what I have and don’t feel it’s right to take from someone who has a better life. You are a negative hate filled person that just wouldn’t understand.

134. JC on October 31st, 2008 11:14 pm

     It seems that many on the right make an astonishing error in their thinking. This idea that ALL the money they make is theirs and therefore it’s not selfish to want to keep it all. This notion is preposterous.

     It’s pretty simple really. Just think of income tax as a user tax for access to this amazing free enterprise economy of ours. The more you use it (the more money you make) the more OBLIGATED you are to pay for it. Can you provide for your own defense? Can you defend your own assets against thieves? Can you build sewers, roads and parks…? NO! But you use them as if you are entitled to them… don’t you? That is because it is paid for by the user tax on those who choose to participate in free enterprise. You have options… you can move to a remote area and live off the land and pay no income tax (who needs modern conveniences like electricity anyway)… or, you always have the option of shopping for a country that does it better then the USA. Remember, you are free to leave (unlike some countries).

     It’s not unlike any other user tax. Think of a toll road. Some roads can not be built without a bond issuance to be paid back over time with tolls. Those who use the toll road more often pay more to use it. It’s fair… right?

     Bottom line is this: If you want to reap the benefits of this wonderful system we have here in the USA then you should pay for it fairly. You make more use of it you pay more for using it. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY! It’s a user fee for having access, wanting something for nothing is what I call selfish and anyone who thinks they are entitled to ALL the money they make and not have to pay for the system that allowed them to make it are SELFISH… PERIOD!

     The progressive tax system (enacted by Republican Teddy Roosevelt) is the ONLY way to run a capitalist country. If everyone paid the same rate we could never pay for the entire infrastructure required to have a capitalist country… and I think we all agree that capitalism is the only way to go… right?

     The top marginal tax rate under Eisenhower was 91%… did you know that? Did you also know that President Kennedy cut that by half? Now I hear people complaining that 39% is too high (it’ only 39% on the very highest part of your income). That’s only 3% higher that it is now and the same that it was under Clinton. Bush cut taxes and added 5 trillion to the debt… is this supposed to make sense? If we all want a permanent tax cut we need to pay off the debt and stop paying interest to China!

     Can’t you people see the forest for the trees?

135. Lindsey on October 31st, 2008 11:17 pm

     I just find it funny that since I don’t support Obama I must be racist. That cracks me up. By the way, “Dr. Lisa”, where did you get your medical degree…a crackerjack box? WOW! Proper English could have been your way out. You should have given it a try. The word of the day is “the” say it with me…”the” not da.

136. paulludwikowski on October 31st, 2008 11:18 pm

     I like how Stacy said the greedy business men won’t pay people enough with THEIR tax breaks. Who is actually greedy?

137. paulludwikowski on October 31st, 2008 11:24 pm

     Hey JC the poor have all of the same protections and if Americans should pay for the use of the free market system why shouldn’t everyone pay?

138. bill watts on October 31st, 2008 11:27 pm

     A vast majority of students and faculty at elite universities are Democrats, and probably 85-90% of the rest of the world would vote for Obama. If you go abroad, many are baffled why some Americans would vote for Reagan, Bush, and McCain. What’s more likely, you know something they don’t, or they know something you don’t? If you make over 200K a year and the most important thing to you is your short-term disposable income, if preventing any woman from having an abortion is more important than you than anything else, then go ahead and vote Republican. If you’re voting for most other reasons, you’re probably screwing yourself and I consider you deluded.

139. Mark on October 31st, 2008 11:28 pm

     Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Thomas Jefferson said it, and, yes, we all do have the right to health care. Yes, we do. If we have the right to life, we have the right to healthcare that is affordable. Oh, and by the way, we do have the obligation to take care of each other. And if you haven’t learned that, then what planet are you on? It has gotten to the point that the only way a decent person can make enough to even live on is to spend all their time trying to acquire wealth, not helping provide services to each other,which is what civilization is based on.

     See, its not hard work anymore that gives a person the wherewithal to survive, but playing the money game where you have to own stock (something that earns you money that you do NOT work for). This is a sad state of affairs – but working hard and sincerely will not guarantee enough to survive today. This is what Obama wants to balance – hardly the “doomsday” cry of socialism that so many are afraid of!

     I mean, get real!!!!

140. Bob on October 31st, 2008 11:31 pm

     Mark:
     There are many aspects of abortion, and I just want to try and open your mind to some of them. Even if abortion became illegal in the US, many people would still get pregnant. These pregnancies may have been born from rapes (what do you have to say about that? Rapes probably aren’t gonna stop, and you can’t completely deny it), accidents (the stupid condom didn’t work), and other such happenings. These babies will either be:

     1. Given birth to, then killed
     2. Given birth to, then abandoned in some dumpster (it happens often)
     3. Given birth to, then lives miserable life (mistreated or even loved but destitute because of not enough support (e.g. mother of child was disowned by parents b/c of unwanted pregnancy))
     4. Not given birth to (by use of alcohol, drugs, or other substances, possibly on purpose)
     5. Other such happenings

     These are facts of life, and unless you’re saying that Repulican Christians can magically get rid of such situations, they’re going to keep on happening. I’m definitely not saying that I approve of abortion and all of its problems, but saying that we are killers is a bit extreme. Try putting yourself in the shoes of a rape victim. That’s what drove me to be pro-choice. Do you at least know where I’m coming from?

     What should really happen is that the next pres will make sure to prevent such happenings, but that’s a small issue compared to the current crisises (economy, the war, taxes, etc.) that are “more important” to the country.

     The thing is, you can’tbe satisfied with everything someone offers, especially concerning political matters. People can often be very narrow-minded, which pisses me off a lot, but I understand that some people just can’t help it.

     To all:
     To sum up where I stand in this election (even though I can’t vote anyways… -_-”) I feel that no one running is up for the challenge of being pres, but I do think that if I had to choose, Obama would be the slightly better choice.

     I’ll explain why (if you want to read my stance on abortion, look up ^ and read my reply to Mark). Of course I won’t list all of my reasonings, but here are some that I’d like to get out to you people. I’ll start with experience.

     Experience:
     For one thing, no one actually has “experience” for being pres. How can they unless they’ve already been pres before? This election doesn’t have any second-term seeking presidents up for vote, so none of the candidates have any “experience.” Sure, McCain is old and has been in politics for who knows how long, but that doesn’t mean he’ll be a good pres. Obama is new and all, but who knows? What if he turns out to be a genius at being a pres (dunno if it’s possible to be a genius at being a pres, but work with me here)? I’m not saying that experience-wise, Obama is better (heck no), but that experience isn’t the issue here. Age shouldn’t be an problem. I’m a 14-year-old ninth grader talking to a bunch of people who freaking have jobs and kids! Does that make me less qualified to have an opinion? Does it make me more qualified? Heck no! If either of those questions could be answered “yes,” I’m moving to Austria. At least they’d take care of me and provide education/health care/etc.

     Race(/bias):
     This is one of he bigger issues. Race is a very sensitive topic, what with the US being how it is. Lots of people are voting based on the candidates’ races, and that’s just how it’s gonna be, not that I agree with such logic. There are the Republicans who are racist and don’t like Obama b/c of his skin color. That’s just stupid. Black people are voting for Obama b/c he’s black. That’s just as stupid. this messed up country that we live in is desperate need of someone who truly be able to lead us, but that isn’t very likely to happen what with the bias of this day. Speaking of bias, you can’t say that new registrars are only going with Obama b/c he’s “cool.” If you ask me, he’s far from it (wel, I guess compared to McCain, he is pretty cool…). Maybe there are just a bunch of reasonable young people who happen to be more Democratic and want to vote in this election. Age doesn’t give you wisdom. It certainly gives you experience (different experience from above topic’s experience. I’m referring to memories-type experience), but there’s a fine line between wisdom and experience.

     Well, gotta go to bed for now, but I’ll continue later. Getting yelled at right now…

141. Michael on October 31st, 2008 11:33 pm

     You all are narrow minded idiots who superimpose your own stereotypes in place of what Obama has said and what he wants to do. He wants every child, no matter if that child is born to parents in poverty or born to Daddy Warbucks to have equal opportunities to attend college. Is that so wrong? Obama is not a socialist and I think Mr. Socialist must not have gone to high school, much less Harvard because Mr. Socialist twists what Obama has said to fit his own false stereotypes about progressivism and the Democratic Party. John McCain has no plan for the economic future of this country, just like he has had no plan or sponsored any major piece of legislation during his tenure as a U.S. Senator. All of you who bash Obama are probably the same people who voted for W. the last two elections and let’s see where that has gotten us ? Wake up and get a clue!

142. paulludwikowski on October 31st, 2008 11:35 pm

     Mark you moron that is exactly the sentiment of socialism. It’s good intentions that are misguided.

143. JC on October 31st, 2008 11:36 pm

     Paul

     NO, not everyone should pay. We all are subject to the same exact tax code are we not? No one is singled out. Even if you make billions of dollars you still pay the same on the first portion of your income (no matter what formula you use that’s how it works out). In your world with a 10% flat tax a person making 10,000 a year should pay 1,000 in taxes. Come on! Let people get to an income where they can afford to pay taxes then tax them. If they don’t get the chance to get ahead we loose tax dollars in the long run because we keep those people down. Can’t you see this?

     It would be easier to see if everyone started from the same point. It would be easy to see how taxes should be zero on the first portion of your income and relatively low up to a point where a reasonable life could be sustained and of course higher on the portion of income you reach that exceeds basic needs.

     Of course, we don’t all start in the same place do we? Most wealthy people work hard and I also suspect that most of them don’t feel cheated that the marginal rate on the highest portion of their income is taxed at t higher rate… after all, if they started from the same place as everyone else (zero) then they had the chance to get ahead without paying higher taxes on the first part of their income. But, many had a leg up. They were either born with money or opportunity. The world is not fair and we don’t all have the same chances in life but at least the tax code should be fair.

144. Roger on October 31st, 2008 11:40 pm

     Liberalism is a brain disorder. Pick up some actual knowledge some time; not what you are spoon-fed by the BO loving media. First of all, the wealthiest Americans are paying almost all of the taxes now. How can you cut taxes for people that don’t pay them? BO is a Marxist using Marxist, class warfare tactics. BO’s mentor, Saul Alinsky, advised in his book “Rules for Radicals’ to use the language of the middle class to destroy it. If you listen to BO and his lovely wife you will hear them sneak in quotes from Mr. Alinsky’s book in there public speaking. All of BO’s history, education and relationships confirm his radical, Marxist views.

     But none of this will matter to the OB lovers; not his lies; not his anti-semitic views; not even his downright ghoulish positions on abortion. All you idiotic liberals believe is to hate Bush and hate America is ‘patriotic’ because your weak brains and entitlement mindsets have allowed you to be corrupted by the ‘mainstream’ media. Bottom line, if you want to live in Europe you should move to Europe. Poor, misguided fools. When you get exactly what you ask for will you continue to blame George Bush 2 years from now? Yes, because Bill Mahr and ‘The View’ will tell you to do so. You can’t fix stupid.

145. medicevan on October 31st, 2008 11:42 pm

     j on– You are right on that the bible says to serve others and give to others. It says to give from your heart and to give as you have prospered. It DOES NOT say that we are to give to the government and let them decide to whom to give the money. Charity belongs in the hands of private individuals, not government.

146. paulludwikowski on October 31st, 2008 11:51 pm

     Michael you can call socialism anything you want it’s still socialism. I missed where poor people can’t go to college. The federal grants will pay thousands of dollars a semester for middle income families which if you attend a cheaper school will pay for tuition. I am sure the poor get even more.

147. JC on October 31st, 2008 11:53 pm

     Roger

     Who is the hater? It’s one thing to have a strong opinion about a point of view. It is anothet thing to attack those who hold those opinions. You are the hater my friend. just re-read your comment.

148. PB on October 31st, 2008 11:53 pm

     TAKE NOTE!
     Bar Stool Economics
     By: David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
     Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

     Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
     The first four men (the poorest)
     would pay nothing.
     The fifth would pay $1.
     The sixth would pay $3.
     The seventh would pay $7.
     The eighth would pay $12.
     The ninth would pay $18.
     The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
     So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
     The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
     And so:
     The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
     The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
     The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
     The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
     The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
     The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
     Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
     ‘I only got a dollar out of the $20′, declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’
     ‘Yeah, that’s right’, exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too.
     It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’
     ‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two?
     The wealthy get all the breaks!’
     ‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison.
     ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’
     The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
     The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
     And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
     David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
     Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
     For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
     For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.http://www.liberalloons.com/stories.html

149. paulludwikowski on October 31st, 2008 11:55 pm

     JC what kind of loser is making 10,000 a year trying to support themselves. They should get a better job or how about this another job. I guess that would take away their right to watch TV though.

150. paulludwikowski on November 1st, 2008 12:00 am

     Xaeb how much do you spend on movies or going out to eat a month? How much money do you waste? If you can’t afford the healthcare plan with what you make now earn more or get a better job. There I solved your problem why not elect me president.

151. Manuel on November 1st, 2008 12:04 am

     I guess whoever wrote this article doesn’t know a pinch of economics. With simple economics and even the more coplex models, its known that higher taxed sow the economy. Less spending (less consumption which is 70% of GDP), less investment higher imports because tax is transferred to cost of goods and services. Analyzing the current situation, its obious that consumption has gone down (its on the official statistics), investment as gone down abruptly and since the dollar is rising exports have gone down (which were what was keeping u the economy). When there is an increase in taxes consumption will go down further because people will have less to spend, investment will go further down and new firms will find it harder to get in the market. Less growth will equal to less jobs, and since some firms wont be able to keep on going then this will bring even hgher job losses. Higher taxed will decrease production even further because people will bve willing to buy even less at higher prices. This will lead to a full recession or to be more precise, it will ead to another (even worse probably) great depression. Having in mind more government spending, to stimulate the economy will bring prices even higher and it will cause crowding out therefore investment wll go down even further. Another important issue is the amount of government deficit: it will grow with higher spending and if you charge too many taxes, black markets will emerge and tax evasion will go even higher therefore less tax revenue. The way to proceed woul be t lower costs sothat production will increse and prices will fall, therefoe consumption and exports will increase and when this happens investmet will become more atractive so investment will increase. All this takes time, but its something durable not just something that will be good in the short run which will incurrto great devastation in the lon run. Increasing government size and allowing it to nationalize the private sector will lead towards COMUNISM. NO TO COMUNISM!!! Lets lower taxes to stimulate the economy and low government intervention, and it will lead o FREEDOM and the best economic situation!

152. paulludwikowski on November 1st, 2008 12:06 am

     Freelyb maybe saying hard work is the way is just that. Work hard and you maybe better off than the day before.

153. paulludwikowski on November 1st, 2008 12:10 am

     willneverlearn don’t worry we can’t repeat the last 8 years because Bush can’t run for president anymore. Wow another problem solved.

154. JC on November 1st, 2008 12:11 am

     Paul

     I grow tired of talking to a brick wall so this will be my last response. I suppose in your mind every poor person is lazy and can just get a better job. I take it that you have neevr had to struggle a day in your life.

     I happen to be a white male making very good money -not 250,000- but I live very very well. I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth but I had two hard working parents that were both school teachers and they gave me a great upbringing and an real opportunity in life. I took that opportunity and worked hard and made a very good living for myself.

     I take way more out of this world then I give to it. The last thing on my mind is how I can take more away from those who struggle each day so I can get a bigger boat.

     What you practice is called selfishness… there is no better word to describe it.

     However… be selfish all you want and consider this: If you keep taxes at zero (or very low) on just the first protion of peoples income then they will have the opportinity to pay more taxes when they get ahead… taxes you wont have to pay. If everyone makes more then the rate could come down for all. This is not every man for themselves… we are in this together and if we put the right resources in the right places we will all do better. You must be a very lonely man.

155. Stephen on November 1st, 2008 12:12 am

     I have read so much of this greed, envy, hate, scapegoat and bitter-driven leftist propoganda that it makes me wonder how the US survived as long as it has. People who pay no taxes are accusing those who pay twice what a flat rate tax would be as being greedy for opposing paying that, yet they pay nothing at all. It’s the ultimate hypocrisy.

     Currently, virtually all of the infrastructure of this country has been paid for by the ‘evil rich,’ the roads, sewers, water pipelines, natural gas pipelines, power lines, telephone lines, cables (cable TV), I could keep going on. Yet who pays nothing or next to nothing for those yet is able to reap all the rewards? The poor 1/3 of the country who pays no income taxes. And the poor accuse the rich of being greedy when they actually have to pay for things? It’s absurd. As a college student majoring in history and minoring in economics I’ve come across my fair share of nutcases, but never realized that they were so widespread.

     As of 2007, if a flat rate income tax was to be imposed on the US population, everybody would have to pay 23% of their income to the government (all other forms of taxation such as payroll and capitol gains taxes being eliminated). However currently, few people do pay that. Most pay far less than that, a few pay amounts roughly equal to that and virtually none pay more than that. It’s absurd. Anyone paying less than 23% of their income in taxes is to be considered greedy because they are not putting their fair share into the national ‘pot.’ Nobody should be paying a higher percentage and nobody a lower one, its simple. If a flat rate tax were imposed, everyone would be paying their fair share, nobody would have any special treatment, everyone would be equal before the law.

     In all honesty, people who don’t pay any income tax should not be able to vote. They put nothing in the national ‘pot,’ they fall far short of the 23% required and thus have no say in how its spent. What right do they have to tell other people how to spend their money when they contribute nothing? The American Revolution was all about “No taxation without representation.” These people pay no taxes and thus should get no representation, while those who pay a disproportionately high taxes should get double representation, say they pay 46% of their income in taxes, they should get two votes. The current system causes people to become addicted to the government thus providing a power base for anyone who seeks to give free handouts. That’s the mess that Western Europe is in where the governments control over half the GDP.

     In short, if you don’t pay income taxes, there is no reason for you to be able to vote, your living off the work of others and it is them, whose achievements made your life easier that have earned the privilege to vote.

156. brenda on November 1st, 2008 12:15 am

     strange… in countries in Europe, Healthcare and education are considered rights of every ccitzen, I guess in America the great Mccain doesn’t want you to ever believe that it is possible and righteous for the government to provide that. And if you do want that, they make you look evil. You can’t wish any good for yourself, unless you are rich. Go get educated people, you are soon to be labeled a third world country! Congratulations!! And you are welcome for my vote to Obama, when he wins and fix this mess, you will still be finding things to complain of. And no, rich people do not move the economy, go back to school and learn the basics of economics (if you can afford it, since it’s not your right!)

157. paulludwikowski on November 1st, 2008 12:23 am

     JC you must have typed that wrong I think you meant you are tired of talking as a brick wall. I understand your ideas on taxes Obama does not want to leave them the way they are though. The idea that people can’t get a better job is BS become a truck driver no education required affordable healthcare and a decent check. Just because people are not willing to do it does not mean they can’t. As for being selfish the politics you defend of I envy what you have now I will take it from you now it’s mine. Mine all mine. I guess you forgot that selfishness can be a two way street.

158. Stephen on November 1st, 2008 12:24 am

     There are ways to ’spread the wealth around’ however they all have to do with Christian values, personal compassion and kindness. Charities, fundraisers ‘being the keeper of one’s brother,’ looking out for those less fortunate, they are all virtues that we should all act on.

     However they are all choices. A person can choose to be selfish and not help or be generous and help by giving to those less fortunate. The problem is that since the 1950s, the Christian values have come under attack repeatedly while socialist programs have taken off, especially Johnson’s failed ‘war on poverty’ which we are still paying for.

     The thing is that Obama is not such a person. He will not give away his own wealth, not to get his aunt out of the slums, nor to get his half-brother out of a hut in Kenya. He hoards it to himself but loves the idea of taking other people’s money and personally re-distributing it. If one looks at Obama’s and Biden’s charitable contributions, they amount to next to nothing compared to what they earned. They could care less for the poor if they weren’t able to wield power in doing so.

     As a footnote on religion, Obama is as much a Christian as a Muslim, i.e. none at all. His ‘church’ more resembles a Nazi rally than any house of God. If one is asking me if I am comparing Obama to Nazis the answer is yes, given he is far closer to them than to God.

159. paulludwikowski on November 1st, 2008 12:25 am

     Hey Brenda the goverment already pays for college.

160. BC on November 1st, 2008 12:30 am

     McCain says getting out of Iraq would be waving a white flag and losing a war. No, in a war waving a white flag is one exercising 1 of 2 options. (1)-Lay down your weapon and surrender to be captured or (2)-die figting against overwhelming odds. Option 3 (getting out) brings on a draw. Regardless of how one may view it, that is logically correct! McCain says he will give tax breaks to big businesses to avoid them from moving to other countries. Wrong again.. Greed has this happening. A need to pocket more by paying less in wages. Now to a tax increase for hose making over $250,000 a year. They did indeed work for it so why shouldn’t they be able to choose how and where it goes. That is not the question. Do you actually think that an increase would send them to poor avenue. No, it wouldn’t. Their argument is both selfish and greedy. Selfish because this country has to dig out of this crises. Money has o come from somewhere and it would make very little sense to increase the taxes of those who are barely staying afloat. If the government puts up the money, taxes will rise to pay it back anyway. That’s what is happening with the deficit owed to other countries. An indian chief once said “it isn’t good for a man to want more than he needs”. Everyone does and look where it’s gotten us. This is the time for the country to come together. If one can help and still live comfortably driving a luxury vehicle and sleep under a $250,000 roof with a fa bank account, why wouldn’t they want to pay a little more in taxes. As Obama says, we need to change how things are done in this country. Doing it the same way, we ight luck up and get things back on track for awhile. And it would only be for awhile as it did fro the great depression to now. One thing is clear, american voters need to open their minds to the true logic in each candidates plan.

161. paulludwikowski on November 1st, 2008 12:30 am

     I guess Brenda just has not educated herself. Who says you can’t wish good for yourself. Are you such a worthless person you can’t use the programs in place now for a free education. I think you just need excuses for your failures and lack of accomplishment in life other than blaming yourself.

162. ronnie orourke on November 1st, 2008 12:32 am

     Paline taxes the oil companies in alaska and gives it to people who pay no state taxes.
     in fact everyone got 3500 dollsrs last year for doing nothing. The oil and gass belongs to the oil companies. So according to your reasoning the oil comapnies should have kept that money. But when obama wants to give everyone the same break that alaska gets paline screams socalist. I would say giving the bankers billions and the ceo,s are still geting million dollar bonuses for doing a bad job. I would call that socalist for the rich. What I dont understand is how working people think the rich will spend money to help them when their greed is what got us into this mess. Why did not they give the 700 billion to the working class they would have bought products which would create jobs and even help the rich get richer.

163. George on November 1st, 2008 12:35 am

     What I hear between the lines of all these comments is the sound of fear. I hear of fear of losing jobs, fear of not being able to pay for health bills, fear of not being able to afford education, fear of too much taxation. People look to the government to alleviate their fear. It is that simple. The problem however is that the elected officials fear the loss of their position. As such it matters not whether a politician is of one party or another, they are all in bed together to create wasteful projects designed to get them re-elected. Since solutions to our problems is going to require sacrifices that the general public will not want to make, no politician will ever be willing to sacrifice his career passing sound policies. What is needed are term limits to remove the impediment to sound governing.

     After all the democrats are right in stating that Bush was a terrible leader. He had opportunity with a majority in congress to pass legislation that are important to the republicans such as reducing government waste, balancing the budget, and simplifying the tax code. Yet he did none of these.

     On the other hand, the current crisis has its roots in policy set several administrations ago. Clearly both parties had opportunities to correct and prevent it, but neither did. Although the private sector took advantage of the market opportunity created by the mortgage boom, the entire problem was created by poor government legislation in the first place.

     The bottom line is that both parties are at fault. We need to stop pointing fingers and work to a solution. It is well established that raising taxes hurts the economy so if that is even considered, it should be done with extreme care. After all it has been pointed out that the majority of the taxes are paid by a very small percentage of people. The rest of the populace are riding on the backs of the high tax payers. Simple math. Now the question is this: If you are riding on the back of a horse, do you want to take care of it so it will take care of you? Or do you want to demand so much from it you kill it? If I wanted the wealthy to pay the majority of the taxes, I would want them to make as much as possible. Remember wealth is not a zero sum game. Just because one person makes a lot of money, that does not mean that it reduces the opportunity for another to make just as much. So by allowing the wealthy to keep most of their money, they will reinvest it in to the economy making more money, helping more people, and paying more taxes.

     The government is never satisfied with the amount of money they have. We are broke with a budget of hundreds of trillions of dollars. What do you think is going to happen when the deficit gets so large that the interest payment on the deficit is more than the GNP? Talk about Brazil type inflation. We currently pay 30% of our tax dollar to finance that debt. That money could more than pay for all the education and health care you could ever want. But we have sold our future for the present. We need to suck it up now. We can’t afford universal health care or any other programs right now. The government has negative $9 trillion dollars. That is a lot worse than being broke.

     Here is another thought. The founding fathers wrote in to the constitution that there was to be NO INCOME TAXES. These are the people who defined what it means to be an American. Why do you suppose they did this? They did this because their idea was to create a country where people were responsible for them selves. They wanted freedom and they knew that with freedom comes responsibility. They wanted a country where the government left them alone and yes it was all about taxes. What a great idea! After all there are plenty of other countries that have government created social safety nets. How about just one, where people could look out for themselves. Then we had to go and mess it up by amending the constitution to allow income tax.

     Lets face the facts, there is a huge difference between voluntarily giving to charity, homeless shelters and the like, and being threatened with imprisonment if you don’t “donate.” there are plenty of social service programs available, the problem is that the recipients do not want to feel like they are accepting charity or getting a handout. It used to be shameful to be on welfare. Now, thanks to liberal policies you don’t even have to be embarrassed that you have failed at being a contributing member of society. Social security etc is your “right”

     If you have children, you need to be responsible for the cost of raising them. It is that simple. You shouldn’t be having them if you can’t afford to pay for the delivery, their food, their education, their health care. That policy alone would eliminate the cycle of povery. Too bad all you whiners out there -in life you have to pay for your mistakes. Don’t make me pay for them.

164. paulludwikowski on November 1st, 2008 12:36 am

     Xaeb I agree you should get a healthcare plan based on your income if you want. Since you pay less though I’m sure you would expect a lesser quality of service. You know like first year med students so everything will be even that way.

165. John Drummond on November 1st, 2008 12:38 am

     Obama knows what selfish really means. Just ask his half brother in Africa.

166. Stephen on November 1st, 2008 12:39 am

     If one compares the US to Western Europe the differences are staggering. Firstly unemployment is twice as high in Western Europe given the welfare state and the sublieutenant welfare leaches. Secondly, the economic growth of Western Europe has been considerably lower than that of the US. Thirdly, the GDP per capita is only 3/4 as high as the US. Fourthly, the ‘poor’ in the US are considered middle class in Europe. Fifthly, the people are far from free in Western Europe where the government controls half the national wealth, compared with less than 1/4 in the US. Fifthly, Western Europe’s economy is almost wholly driven by a non-stop flow of immigrants, given that the ‘national’ workforce is highly unionized and overpaid, this combined with an extremely low birthrate. Recent immigrants, the majority of whom were invited by the socialists make up over 10% of the population in Western Europe, a far cry from the 4% illegals in the US whom the majority of the population wishes to send back south of the border. Not to mention people in Western Europe are still immigrating to the US, in search of a better life.

     As for all of the ‘free’ programs in Western Europe, they are driving it towards bankruptcy. The welfare state cannot afford to give the benefits it has promised to the population given the ever increasing life expectancy, the overall aging of the population and a smaller and smaller workforce given the negative population growth rate. Their temporary solution is to import hundreds of thousands of hard-working immigrants and to raise taxes however that’s only delaying the inevitable.

     It’s unionist workforce has lead to many economic problems. Companies go overseas or to Eastern Europe to avoid the costs of the out-dated unions (all of which save shaft mining, high rise construction and road work being obsolete). Unions leach the wealth from the companies leading to the sluggish economy and their power makes it next to impossible to fire a worker, even if the person has been repeatedly late, disruptive, drunk or otherwise intoxicated or even threatening.

     People with next to no knowledge on what really goes on in Western Europe admire it because it appears to solve all the problems of society, however if one scratches the surface, it only amplifies them.

167. notliborconserv on November 1st, 2008 12:40 am

     Why is is that so many people attack those who disagree with Obama as racist? I don’t agree with some of what he says but may vote for him.
     Does that make me a racist or an American who is exercising his constitutional rights(free speech ect). I think the people who make these accusations are either racist or incapable of having an intelligent discussion. Maybe they are just to lazy to think?

168. Stephen on November 1st, 2008 12:42 am

     At George:

     I couldn’t have said it any better, by using fear, greed and envy, the government has made it so 1/3 of the population pays no taxes. As a result, that 1/3 of the population will always vote for the politicians who seek to continue the scheme.

169. Boo-its-a-democrat on November 1st, 2008 12:42 am

     A short blurb from a very inflamatory document:

     We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

     This is the preamble to OUR constitution. Could education and healthcare be considered general Welfare? Please notice which words the framers of the Constituion decided need capitalization. The word “defence” was not one of them. Somehow, I don’t see the word “me” or the right to accumulate big piles of stuff any place in the preamble.

     Oddly, it was the farmers and the shopkeepers…the little people, the original Joe the Plumbers who originally opposed the adoption of the Constitution. It was through THEIR efforts, that the Bill of Rights was added.

     Maybe the Republican concept of the Blessing of Liberty doesn’t include everybody.

170. beth lee on November 1st, 2008 12:42 am

     McCain said that the riches should pay more taxes.Of course,that was before he was running as McBush

171. Jay on November 1st, 2008 12:46 am

     Congrats on causing discussion Cassy.

172. paulludwikowski on November 1st, 2008 12:48 am

     Well maybe one day the left will stop going after Americans for not liking someone and just letting them think what they want. Then hopefully on that same day the right will stop worrying about what’s on TV or radio and realize that you can change the channel. If that day comes it will be a step in the right direction and we can worry about solving bigger problems.

173. notliborconserv on November 1st, 2008 12:51 am

     Hey Paullud… No kidding you got that statement right!!

174. Xaeb on November 1st, 2008 1:01 am

     Paul. Sure I’ll take that first year med student. It would be far better than not seeing any doctor.
     Maybe that first year med student will be a genius and go on to make real money tending the rich.
     I don’t know anything about you, but I understand how little you care for everyone but yourself.
     If you want to be pissed off at people, be pissed off at the people on welfare who don’t work, don’t pay taxes, get free healthcare and continue to have children who we in turn have to support.
     I’m just a hard working guy who doesn’t make a lot of money, but at least i’m trying.
     You are a pompous [edited] who probably think you’re better than everyone else. Well I have news, you’re a bitter little person and when you’re on your deathbed years from now I hope you get that idiot first year med student and I hope he has as little compassion as you.

175. DC on November 1st, 2008 1:01 am

     FAIR taxes would mean everyone paid the same percentage. I realize that liberals are too stupid to understand that 10% of a million dollars is more than 10% of fifty thousand dollars, but newsflash to the stupid, if everyone had a 10% tax rate, rich people would still pay more. Taking tax money from a worker and handing to someone else, is called income redistribution, and is a major principal of socialism. Yes, government/public owned commodities are also part of socialism, but so is income redistribution. Obama has promised that 95% of Americans will see a tax cut. Another newsflash – only 62% of Americans currently PAY income taxes. So for 95% of Americans to get a “cut”, guess what, that means they are going to get a “cut of someone else’s money”. A HANDOUT. If you do not pay money in but your taxes are going to get cut, you will HAVE to get a handout.
     Everyone American has a RIGHT to better their lives. That’s the only right you have. If you want something, take responsibility for you own life and EARN it. Stop stealing my hard-earned money so you can sit around waiting for the mailman to bring you a cut of my paycheck.

176. paulludwikowski on November 1st, 2008 1:04 am

     Most of the crap you hear that Obama or McCain will fix the economy and Wall Street is just a way to get votes. Neither one can fix the economy because the it is just to complex. We will get good economic news one day and the stocks go down the next day there is bad news and they go up. The reality is they can’t fix the majority of what’s wrong but they could hurt it.

177. paulludwikowski on November 1st, 2008 1:14 am

     My problem isn’t with people that make less money. I worked in factories for years before I found a better option but when I saw it I took advantage of it to better myself. I didn’t feel that someone else should be forced to take care of me though. I was not the mean spirited person you are that feels because someone has a better life they should be forced to share it with me. I am a very generous person with my money and time. I am not this selfish bitter person you think I am. You probably have a better lifestyle than those that make less than you why don’t you support them and give them your money so you can both live the same lifestyle?

178. Xaeb on November 1st, 2008 1:20 am

     I don’t know about the rest of our country but I don’t want a penny of anyone elses money unless I earned it. Keep your precious money. I hope it makes you happy and keeps you warm at night.
     Just remember, without the people who do the dirty work for minimum wage you wouldn’t be wealthy and you’d be cleaning your own toilets and making your own hamburgers and dry cleaning your own suits. Bet you’d love that.

179. Boo-its-a-democrat on November 1st, 2008 1:21 am

     I am a mature student at my local community college. Mature means I’m an divorced woman in my 50’s trying to obtain a degree so I can get a better job. Gosh, I could be a Carol McCain! I can assure you that there is scarcely the whiff of a free ride from the government for most of the people at my school. Most are working 2-3 jobs while taking classes. Others are going to leave school with a degree and a boat load of debt. We’re not talking Harvard or Yale or Stanford. These degrees will be at state schools and local colleges. We will still get excellent educations but perhaps not the same resume power of an Ivy League university. We all hope we can get a decent job when we get out. Realistically, we’re not all going to be able have the right connections to get the perfect job…maybe not even close. However, we will probably not sit on our butts collecting welfare because somebody’s dad isn’t giving us a job.

     A short story: There’s a guy in one of my class, a veteran in his late 20’s who has been struggling to get ahead. He gets a bit of money of the military for tuition and works between classes. He’s so poor, he doesn’t buy textbooks. He just reads them online at school computer lab. He’s a nice guy and a very hard worker. A couple weeks ago, he got really sick but couldn’t afford medical care. He got sicker and sicker. He tried to get treatment at a VA hospital but didn’t qualify. In the military, his job a paramedic who monitored the medical conditions of wounded soldiers while they were being transferred from Iraq to the US. Because he hadn’t actually fought in Iraq, even though he had served in the military, he couldn’t get the treatment he needed.

     ***Carol, you’re a liar!***

     I haven’t seen him for a couple of weeks. The last time I talked to him, he was worried about losing his job and not completing his classes because he was sick. Maybe, according to some of the folk who post here, he should have just gone to a witch doctor or some quack. He doesn’t pay a lot of taxes, so obviously he deserves the bottom tier of healthcare. Maybe some religious person could exorcise the evil spirit out of him. Maybe because he, at this point, is such a minimal contributor to society, he should just be allowed to curl up and die.

     For Christ’s sake, the man is a veteran. He is a human being working very hard to better his situation. Is this the way he should be treated? And you Republicans dare call Liberals “elitists”? Shame, shame, shame on YOU!

180. paulludwikowski on November 1st, 2008 1:22 am

     FYI if you go OTR you will only make mid 30’s the first year but after that you should be around 50k or better. If you want to be home on the weekends which is what I am doing now you will make in the mid 40’s.

181. Xaeb on November 1st, 2008 1:23 am

     Well I’m so happy for you and your wife, I’m sure she misses you too but loves the money you send home to her. I’d check to see if the toilet seat is up when you get home after a long haul though. Glad you don’t have kids, they are the ones who suffer the most from their dad being away all the time. It would have to pay pretty damn good for those kind of sacrifices.

182. Xaeb on November 1st, 2008 1:24 am

     I make more than that now, just don’t have healthcare. I make around 46k a year net with a decent sized 401k. You’re just lucky to have healthcare, but at 40k a year how the hell do you afford it?

183. paulludwikowski on November 1st, 2008 1:30 am

     My personal opinion is that anyone serving in any capacity in the military should be given healthcare through the VA. They have made a sacrifice for the country and we should pay it back. The new GI bill McCain sponsered will increase benefits for vets like tuition and living expenses so that may help. It takes effect in August hopefully it won’t be to little to late for him.

184. JK on November 1st, 2008 1:40 am

     Why would anyone think it is a good idea to entrust more money, regardless of where it comes from, to our government? They have shown themselves to be exceedingly poor stewards of any resource that they control. True socialism is a dead end that instills mediocrity. I cannot see how any of BO’s ideas will help our economy grow. If the economy does not grow then it simply does not matter how much or little you pay in taxes. In the end in a stagnant economy you will have less buying power than you did before.

185. paulludwikowski on November 1st, 2008 1:43 am

     Well Xaeb I guess you speak from experience. Was it your “Uncle” that came over to visit your mom while dad was gone? Or a whole bunch of different “Uncles”? Probably the latter, but anyway yes it’s a sacrifice but it’s worth it because I can take care of my life and not expect to be aken care of. I am earning about 45k and my wife works too and she brings in another 16k. If you join a bigger company you can get a good healthcare plan for about $20 a week for just you or the family plans will go from $37-80 a week depending on where you work.

186. Boo-its-a-democrat on November 1st, 2008 1:45 am

     Paul, Paul, Paul…Don’t you get it? It’s November. My poor friend isn’t geting squat and can’t wait until McCain maybe decided to put through some reforms. There’s are countless people in this situation. Men, women, children, the elderly. Would it be different if my student friend was just a guy whose parents couldn’t keep him on their health insurance? Would you feel that he hadn’t “earned” it in military service? What, if with a little encouragement, cheap tuition and decent housing, this student went on to something better? What, if in the fullness of time, he found a way to cure some nasty disease or raise his kids to be productive, non-destructive members of society? Would the potential of that person deserve our consideration? According to your writings, no. Gosh, caring for people sounds kind of like the things that made our country boom in the 50’s.

187. paulludwikowski on November 1st, 2008 1:47 am

     Jandrews Why would rich people take the GW plan in a tiered plan they could afford the better dr’s.

188. Jandrews on November 1st, 2008 1:47 am

     I agree, all miltary should have VA access. BUT, I also think all military should be able to see ANY doctor they want. The VA hospital is the same hit-or-miss as we would get if these elitists would get their way with the tiered health plan. News flash, most militry are not rich. I didn’t make much of crap, especially standing next to the civilians we baby-sat and protected making an easy 6-figures. Even doing easy jobs. The excuse is that, well they were risking their lives… ummmm, I’m standing in front of him… where does that leave me? So as some poor military schmoe, I should have to use the VA hospital where I will probably either get someone who is trying to impress his higher ups by reducing the cost of this free service and make colonel (thereby dismissing any problems I may have, forcing me to shut up or shell out money to go to a “real” doctor) or someone who joined the military to be a doctor and be put through med school who is still in the process but in the meantime is thhrust into work-study because we need more soldiers and a bigger army NOW to fight Bushy boy’s multiple concurrent quagmire operations.

189. Jandrews on November 1st, 2008 1:52 am

     Not many people can afford healthcare anymore… not without insurance. It can easily cost you in the mid 5 figures per day of ICU/testing.

190. paulludwikowski on November 1st, 2008 1:54 am

     Boo the new GI bill has already passed. Don’t you get it?I feel he has earned it through military service. There are colleges with cheap tuition and housing. All you have to do is look at a college name then just check at the end of it and look for the word Community. The government grants will cover these colleges which they would cover mine if I went back even though my wife and I are middle class.

191. clavellchild on November 1st, 2008 1:56 am

     wow. lots of stuff going back and forth here. thanks for reading my post, i hope it can help enlighten some of the ‘misguided’ here.

     first, if we start by saying that “all people have the right to health care” then the government is, as someone stating before, controlling the distribution of a commodity. that is communism. whether it is needed or not, that is not the issue, because it will, then, be a simple matter to extend government control to other commodities in short order. this is the problem.

     next, we are talking about rights. the Constitution says it is your Right to bare arms. but you don’t see the government buying everyone a gun, now do you?
     even if it is your right to have healthcare, it does not, necessarily, follow that the government must SUPPLY it.

     last and very briefly, i will say this, though i doubt some of you will understand. all things, including economies and societies, must follow a strict set of very basic principles. These principles, or laws, can be found everywhere in our world and include such matters as, when you are strong you conquer and when you are old you die. With a logical extension(not given here due to length, but i think the more intelligent among you can/already surmise it’s basics), it is found that there will always ALWAYS be a set of classes, ie poor and rich. this is a natural rule and we cannot, through any amount of manipulation, make everyone rich. it simply doesn’t work.

     anyways, thanks for reading and i hope this helped. but if you’re still confused, its ok. just vote mccain.

192. Ana on November 1st, 2008 2:01 am

     To all of you who keep saying healthcare is not a right….
     I wonder how many of you call yourselves religious..HA!!!! Tell that to Jesus!!!

193. bt on November 1st, 2008 2:03 am

     “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
     - Winston Churchill

     “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you will not have to listen to his incessant whining about how hungry he is.”

194. paulludwikowski on November 1st, 2008 2:05 am

     Well JohnC I guess you think poor people are losers, worthless, and 2nd class citizens that have not achieved anything. They don’t pay taxes but on top of that they get thousands back! I think we should help them in other ways like cheap colleges so they can achieve but have to work for it.

195. Purple on November 1st, 2008 2:05 am

     I look for sources of both left and right thinking to help me better understand what is really going on. I have just about given up on radio talk shows because they thrive on shallow rhetoric and when all else fails, sensationalism. Besides, how can anyone have a serious conversation in only a few minutes at a time between commercials? I have given up on t.v. too. I don’t have one. Online I have more control over what I hear/see. So, can we all agree on at least one thing? Name calling just doesn’t help. Being called stupid is certainly not going to get a Lib. to listen to a Con. nor vice versa. The Internet, sights like this, are wonderful tools for SHARING IDEAS. Let’s stop stooping so low as to use them for name calling. Reps and Dems, poor and rich, black and white, Christians Reps and Christian Dems, non-Christian Reps and non-Christian Dems, name-callers and non-name-callers(you get the point)- we’re all Americans and we all have the same goal – a great country, a great place to live and raise our children. Anger over different approaches to the same goal only tears us all down. A house divided … well, blah, blah, blah, you know the quote. That being said, here’s my take on taxes. (and some other things.)

     Isn’t the current tax system a redistribution of money? Where do my tax dollars go now? Don’t a lot of them subsidize rich oil companies to encourage exploration? Don’t a lot of them go to building roads in Iraq? Some of them pay for public education and I don’t have any children. It’s all redistribution. The question is, how do we want the redistribution to happen. I’d like it to benefit me. Yes, I’m humanly selfish. I love my public library and parks; I’m so happy to have a road system that lets me get to work, to the doctor, to the grocery store and lets me see most parts of my country; and I really like being able to drink water straight out of my tap. I’ve lived and worked where none of things exist. (Not to mention 2 years of cold showers – that is when the water was running.) I like having a “big” government that does all these things. But is “big” government what our founding fathers had in mind? Of course it is. Well, I believe that’s what the federalists had in mind anyway. But they were only 1/2 of the founding fathers. The other half were terrified of “big” government and insisted on the Bill of Rights. (Thank goodness!) They insisted that Amendment 9 be included that specifically states that Americans are not limited to only the rights stated in the Constitution. My point is, I don’t think it does us any good to claim our “rightness” based on what we think the founding fathers thought. They were certainly as human, and therefore as passionately different in their approaches to government, as we are. Their greatness came, I believe, not in any unified way of thinking, but in their ability to find a way to work together. Not in convincing each other that one side or the other was right, but in finding something everyone could live with.

     So, back to the original topic. Is universal healthcare socialism? Is health care a right? Well, I can’t say yes or no. I’m not that smart. But I do believe the reports I’ve read showing that countries with universal healthcare (that means everyone has healthcare) spend a lot less on healthcare (remember, it covers everyone)than we do in the U.S. How could that be? I think it’s because we have a huge, highly profitable middleman. In my case, my insurance premium (I work 2 part-time jobs, so no job subsidized insurance for me) and my annual deductible ($2,000 – high to keep my monthly premium within my budget) add up to $6,068 a year. So maybe I have an accident-free year and I only dip lighty into my deductable, and with only a few co-payments at the doctor’s office and for prescriptions, and I’m easily at or over $5,000 a year. For one person. One relatively healthy person. If we all paid that in taxes instead of to insurance companies (my net income won’t change at all), it seems we’d all have pretty good access to pretty good healthcare. I have an eye condition since birth, which in most years only requires an annual check up. At my eye doctor’s office, there are two doctors and some techs. But there is an office full of clerical help to deal with the ins and outs of insurance plans. Can’t we get rid of the the insurance middle man? Yes, a lot of people would lose their current jobs. I imagine the insurance companies are the biggest lobbyists against a single payer system. (Anyone in the health insurance industry out there who can talk about that?) But notice that I said they would lose their current jobs. Administration needs would still exist, right?. Enough for everyone? Probably not. Still…

     One more thought that I’ve been mulling over for quite awhile now and that I haven’t found anyone talking about. Credit Unions. I easily got a home equity loan from my credit union while “everyone” I hear about is having trouble getting any kind of loan. I know that credit unions have always been more heavily regulated than banks. Is that what has kept them solvent in our current crisis? Any know anything about this?

     Well, that’s all for now. And please don’t call me names for my thoughts. I’d much rather hear your good ideas and logical reasoning.

196. notliborconserv on November 1st, 2008 2:13 am

     I am a vet and health care has been an issue. I do agree that all vets should be compensated. Most are honorable people who have EARNED that benefit. My question is Why should I have to pay for people who do not contribute to the pool of money called taxes? I understand that not everyone can be rich. I have no problem giving people a hand up in life but I and the rest of society shouldn’t have to support them for their entire lives. NO I don’t include people who physically or mentally cannot take care of themselves. People make their own choices and need to accept responsibility for them. Sometimes those choices are hard and require some sacrifice and willpower. YES I have spent many days/hours away from my family. Now that hard work and tough choices are begining to pay dividends. Do you think maybe everyone needs to step up to fix this? Not just those with anything extra. Cut back on the non-contributers THEN inrease taxes.

197. paulludwikowski on November 1st, 2008 2:15 am

     Jeffery don’t tell that to Sen Hunter, Sen Biden, or Gov Palin it might embarass you. Hunter’s son was in Fallujah during the worst of the fighting. Just because rich kids don’t join the military at the same rate poor and middle class kids do is not socialism. It’s not even close. The military people are paying taxes because America has an income tax and there are plenty of people that don’t want to work. You are better off than those people why shouldn’t you take care of them?

198. Neel Pass on November 1st, 2008 2:15 am

     In England they patriotically sing “GOD SAVE THE KING.” In the USA we must now sing, “GOD SAVE AMERICA FROM OBAMA. I was trained as an analyst in the Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC). In carrying any of Obama’s proposals through to the final analysis, we find a dead end and a “Destruction-step-by-step,” of this God given Nation. Hitler smooth-tongued his way to deceive the German nation into believing he would be great. Obama will lead us down the same path. I shudder to think of it!!

199. Jandrews on November 1st, 2008 2:25 am

     maybe we’ve also forgotten that BO only said that we should al have access to affordable healthcare…not free for all universal healthcare. If you spend all your welfare on crack then you won’t be buying healthcare either….

200. paulludwikowski on November 1st, 2008 2:29 am

     Good news everyone Jandrews just reported that we have beaten radical islam. We no longer have anything to fear from them. McCain may lose for a multitude of reasons including uneducated voters, conservatives don’t like him, the media has been incredibly biased, (it’s a fact politico.com which is kind of liberal reported the same thing based on scientific studies) and many more.

201. Jandrews on November 1st, 2008 2:34 am

     so paul is one of the GW fans that falls for his crap hook line and sinker… If you don’t vote for me, the terrorists win. How does GW know that? Oh yeah, his family used to party with Osama, that’s right. Sorry. War is still on. Has been for thousands of years, but since they came here Republicans are their kryptonite… It has nothing to do with the increased awareness or the military or anything else…. It’s the Republican presidency. You are an idiot.

202. Cin on November 1st, 2008 2:42 am

     What happens to people like me? In these speeeches (both McCain & Obama) they talk about the Middle Class. I am self-employed, pay my own health insurance, and just bought a house 5 months ago. Now like many others STRUGGLING to make ends meet..taking on 2 more jobs just to get by. I am certainly NOT Middle Class according to either candidate. But never once that I can remember in any speech or debate where either candidate have spoken about people like me. I am not Joe the Plummer…I don’t have other employees under me..but I am a business owner. What are these candidates going to do for ME and others like me??? Really I don’t think either candidate gives people like me!!! I have to vote but for who?? A choice I have to make very soon. Am I the only one confused??

203. Sal Talluto on November 1st, 2008 2:47 am

     Okay, first, for all you health care freaks out there, your HEALTH is a basic human right, not your health care. YOU must take CARE of YOUR own HEALTH. Second, if you are all so concerned about health, why don’t all of those aborted fetuses from Illinois matter to you. If Sen. Obama is really about taking care of the poor and unfortunate, what about the almost born or unborn.
     Next, if you are so concerned about your healthcare, then you want corporations and business to pay less taxes and to have tax free health accounts so that they can provide better health care to their employees, while still retaining employees. Higher taxes equals job cuts, even with tax loopholes, (tax loopholes which Pres. Bush tried to close with his tax reforms but was opposed by the then split house and senate). Also, think about this, poorer people are the most obese and unhealthy because they lack the money and opportunities to buy nutritious foods. I’m sorry but anyone can tell you that a government check and even food stamps (which my sister recieves) don’t give you very many nutritious options besides eggs, milk, cheese, and cheerios. I’m am not saying that John McCain is your guy, but I am saying that you are all being manipulated and deluded by your own hopes and fears. NO ONE, I mean, NO ONE is going to look out for you except YOU. So all those promises politicians make are just whispers on the wind, invisible, intangible, and unsubstantiated.

204. Littlemiss on November 1st, 2008 3:00 am

     Everyone will pay taxes. Obama just wants to lower taxes for some and raise taxes on other. He might have not worded it right but taxes have been part of our life for decades. I think if we want a government that builds us roads, schools and military defense; we have to pay for it. I don’t see how McCain is going to take care of what we need, pay off our debts and lower taxes on everyone, especially in his first 4 years as he claims.

     I have just realized how some people think about others. I guess this campaign has been an eye opener for me. No one wants to help anyone. I guess if your neighbor was starving to death, you would go over and watch his last breath go out of his body and say, “he lost his job because the steel plant closed. Good thing we didn’t give him any of our money for his to buy food that would be socialism. I just hope all you folks never need any help with anything, but if you did, you would probably find a compassionate liberal to help.

     I am a vet and know what McCain hasn’t voted on for the vets. He hasn’t voted on any thing. We sent our military to Iraq without proper equipment, the military hospital are in bad shape, and more mental health facilities are needed for the returning soldiers, but McCain has ignore them. I guess he doesn’t want to spend the money. I wonder what else he is going to ignore if he becomes President. But I guess your money is more important than our sons. Then if the conservatives get the abortion banned in the US, look at all those children they can send off to fight the wars, a brand new supply.

205. Jandrews on November 1st, 2008 3:08 am

     as far as one side stopping a bill or another, I don’t go for all that hype because of all the fat they attach to bills now. That bill may have had your abortion abolition bill tacked on it…

     Where are your bleeding heart “morals” when someone undergoes fertility enhancement or artificial fertilization because they can’t have babies? God didn’t intend them to have babies, why should they? Just like you argue God iintended that baby to live so why are we killing it? Actually in the reference you used… Why are we using it to further medical science to come up with new cures after it was already dead anyways. I should say, Where are you when someone selflessly says, I want to be an organ donor! By your standards, god meant that liver for him not you so you’re SOL buddy! I personally don’t believe in abortion, most people that elect to do it (without medical or criminal reasons) regret it later. But I don’t think it is for a government to decide a morality issue. It is more of a church topic, and in the USA, there is (supposed to be) separation of church and state.

206. Greg on November 1st, 2008 3:08 am

     Look. I’m 18 years old, I work 40+ hours a week, and I can’t afford anything that I need to live over the basics. I don’t have insurence. I don’t have savings; my money goes to my mother, brother, and stepdad so that we four can afford to keep a roof over over our heads and food on the table. I graduated high school at 16, and I haven’t even SEEN the inside of a college. How can we, as Americans, be expected to succeed in a society where EVERY job that pays a decent amount of money requires a college degree if we can’t afford it? How do we stay healthy if we can’t afford insurance?

     Do I agree with Obama on everything? Decidedly not. However, America is founded on the principle of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Even if you work hard and long, you don’t get ahead. You CAN’T get ahead. The government has the responsiblity to insure that their people can live and work in a national enviroment which allows the people to.

     Also? No on California Prop 8.

207. gregory zurbay on November 1st, 2008 3:14 am

     Millions of patriotic Americans of both parties saw the need to win WWII. Many died, many were maimed, none that came back alive refused to pay their share of taxes. Those taxes built what in large part serves all of us today. To have selfish people who refuse to help support our country when they make their fortunes thanks to what the patriots sacrificed and paid to build — well it makes me puke. You are not asked to fight, only pay your fair share, and you act like the child who wants to take his ball home. For shame!

208. Jandrews on November 1st, 2008 3:16 am

     Exactly Obama’s point. We the people (the working class) are reduced to working our jobs at steadily declining wages (when adjusted for inflation and the value of the dollar) and worst case to be sold out to some chinese sweat shop that will do it for even less. All in the name of profits for douches like Enron who have no morality and probably ( hell almost definitely) didn’t pay any taxes on the billions they made.

209. Jandrews on November 1st, 2008 3:19 am

     Good night, and good to see there are a few people that still care about America and the people it stands for.

210. Mr. Nguyen on November 1st, 2008 3:26 am

     Look like some people here are missing a big part while blaming the Bush Administration for the Economy downturn. Do you know that in America, the Congress is the power of all and most of them who sit there are the Democrat. Without a PASS from Congress, President Bush could not make the war in Iraq. Every thing has to go through the Congress to get a PASS. So who should be the one to be blamed here?
     In this downturn of the Economy was caused by those who created Subprime Mortgage, which lead to the hot air balloon housing market, and those CEOs who brought jobs and technologieas out of the country for their own greedy profits base on cheaper labor. Those CEOs are selfish.
     Obama wants to bring them back, he can’t. It’s too late because those companies won’t come back. If they come back how can they survive with the high paying salary in America, how can they compete with other like Korea and China. Some people say Create New Tech…WOW it takes decades for that.
     So cut back expenses, fix the housing market to stablize the economy, and drill drill drill are what we need to do for now, other than that we do not have to CHANGE anything.

211. Aaron on November 1st, 2008 3:28 am

     IF YOU MAKE LESS THAN $200,000 A YEAR, OBAMA IS GOING TO LOWER YOUR TAXES. MOST PEOPLE IN AMERICA MAKE WELL BELOW $200,000 A YEAR. SO UNLESS YOU MAKE ABOVE $200K, WHY DO YOU CARE SO MUCH? ARE YOU STUPID?

     IT’S BAFFLING WHEN FOLKS BELOW UPPER CLASS VOTE REPUBLICAN.

     WHY DO YOU WANT TO LOWER TAXES FOR YOUR RICH BOSS, EFFECTIVELY SHIFTING THE TAX BURDEN ON YOU AND YOUR FELLOW COWORKERS?

     YOU WORK SO HARD AND SEE SO LITTLE OF YOUR COMPANY’S PROFITS. YOU DESERVE A TAX BREAK.

     SERIOUSLY, OPEN YOUR EYES. UNLESS YOU ARE PART OF THE SMALL GROUP IN AMERICA THAT MAKES SO MUCH MONEY, WHY WOULD YOU _EVER_ VOTE REPUBLICAN?

212. lois on November 1st, 2008 3:29 am

     i just want to say that if oboma was going to help the poor by taxing the rich why doesnt he take some of these millions of dollars people have sent to him and help them instead all you see every few minuites is his old ugly face telling more lies about what hes going to do for you,when the truth is he only wants to win and will spend every dollar he can to convince you and me to vote for him.I pray that you who havent voted yet that you will think really befor casting a vote for oboma

213. boogerman on November 1st, 2008 3:30 am

     it’s funny in the u.s not everyone has the right to affordable health care like the article said. but almost every other super power has government provided health care. the truth is other countries take care of their people alot more than the u.s. france has free college, government provided health care, more workers rights. theres no limit on sick days people take from work in france plus businesses have to pay them sick days. in france any part time worker has 5 weeks paid vacationa year. guess what businesses still make money there and get rich. wow what a shocker. wow what a travesty they can go to school, see a doctor when they need and take time to enjoy there life instead of dedicating it all to some u.s factory. what is it people in the u.s have against giving the general population a better life. canada has government health care. even cuba and phillipines who are very poor countries provide their citizens with healthcare. but your right in america we dont have to the right to the protection of our lives in having healthcare available to everyone that other countries have. looks to me that america isn’t even close to being the best country to live in. we can give tax dollars to bail out the rich and greedy but not to make sure everyone can see a doctor if they need to. where is your humanity america. wecan spend billions killing innocent iraqis but dont use that money to help out american people that would be a waste. wake up people.

214. ken on November 1st, 2008 3:32 am

     What ever the tax rate is…it should be the same across the board. Just because someone works harder..overtime..weekends..holidays..doesn’t call out sick, they should not have to pay more of a percentage. That’s discrimination!

215. Turdus Merula on November 1st, 2008 3:32 am

     Ah, gees, all these “I wanna get rich” — “I’m gonna get rich” idiots! Your own personal Horatio Alger’s dream WILL NEVER HAPPEN. Forget it! All you dumb asses are doing is protecting the filthy rich — don’t you get it yet? OK, you ignorant Bible readers, let me point it out for you: Jesus himself said: “It will be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” Now, why did he say that, and why did he tell the rich kid to go away and give away his riches. Why? Because the accumulation of such riches is simple stealing from everybody else by means of trickery, bloated prices, and devious profits. But, hey, keep going to church and Sunday, and continue sleeping there. What a bunch of bloody hypocrites you all are! Oh, yeah, by the way, keep on paying those taxes folks — because the rich will never pay them — and somebody has to.

216. lois on November 1st, 2008 3:39 am

     Why should hard working people be taxed even more to keep up the wellfare system and foodstamps for all the illeagel people in our country.Guess we will have to work harder so they can send money back to mexico while were keeping them up.I for sure pray we dont get mr oboma for pres

217. Christy on November 1st, 2008 3:41 am

     To all the Conservatives complaining about taxes, please pay attention:

     Even if McCain wins, you will STILL have to pay a portion of your taxes to those who YOU feel don’t deserve it! He will not end all welfare programs, he will not impose a flat tax on everyone. We will still have a progressive tax structure where the wealthy pay a higher portion. Period. McCain will not magically change any of that.

     Let me repeat: You will STILL pay for welfare programs even if McCain wins! If you don’t like paying for taxes try living in a cave. Now quit your whining!

218. boogerman on November 1st, 2008 3:41 am

     i agree with aaron. less than one percent is in the millionaire bracket in the u.s. a vote for republicans is a vote only for the rich. they privided tax welfare to the richest companies in the u.s. it supposedly works this way. companies that are rich have a tax brake from the government. the government says that way they can use the money to create new jobs. however they don’t. it ends up in ceo’s pockets and being spent on luxuries and bonuses for companies top executives. thats probably one reason why we have the highest gap between rich and poor ever in the u.s. do you citizens see that if you are middle class( same as being poor now) and somehow you feel taxing the rich more is so bad. well, taxing the poor more and giving rich tax welfare isnt just bad. it is a horrible atrocity. it is a disgusting use of power and a slap into the face of every hard working american struggling to support a family. does family matter at all anymore in america. are you people enjoying seeing yourselves and others struggle or what. why do americans seem to have such a serious lack of wisdom.

219. Christy on November 1st, 2008 3:46 am

     “What ever the tax rate is…it should be the same across the board. Just because someone works harder..overtime..weekends..holidays..doesn’t call out sick, they should not have to pay more of a percentage. That’s discrimination!”

     Oh yeah, Ken, thanks for reminding us that people who don’t make a lot of money don’t work hard at all! No overtime, weekends, holidays, or anything like that! NOPE we’re all lazy.

220. lois on November 1st, 2008 3:47 am

     Any and all taxes just gives the goverment more money to waste.And yes obama will be worse than the others have been’He just smiles and lies right threw those pearly white teeth

221. kirsten on November 1st, 2008 4:17 am

     Regarding the Obama college plan: he would give $4,000/year to families with a kid in college, but that’s if they qualify for it. Now, if they do, $4,000 certainly doesn’t cover *all* of your college expenses (unless you’re at community college, where it’s about 1,000ish a year), especially if you attend a university that charges $40,000 a year for tuition. But sometimes it’s that difference that enables a child to attend their dream school, instead of being told, “Maybe in a couple years you can transfer”–the way some children are being told today, due to the bad economy.

     Obama isn’t a socialist; he just wants to help in whatever ways he can while maintaining capitalism.

     If you actually want a socialist in office, then vote for the Socialist Party’s nominee on November 4th, a man called Brian Moore.

222. Anthony on November 1st, 2008 4:25 am

     money money money…?
     You know they say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

223. JohnnyO on November 1st, 2008 4:31 am

     The following reviews the “It’s All Mine!” position of those opposed to Obama giving the middle class a tax cut while allowing the taxes of the ULTRA-RICH to return to the rates of pre-Bush years:

     Don’t like higher taxes? You’re SELFISH!

     So now, opposing higher taxes and a socialist government makes you SELFISH! So says Obama:

     (No what Obama is saying is its time for the ULTRA-RICH to pay their fair share of taxes and is it a virtue to be selfish? Is it making our country better?)

     So wanting to decide what you get to do with your own money makes you “selfish”?

     (Well since you think its all yours. What does that say?)

     Look, I get the point Obama’s making. We need to help out our neighbors. No one disagrees with that. The issue here is how. According to Obama, and most liberals, the government must be the one who does all of the helping — and they do that by taking money from other citizens.

     (No Obama wants us all to join together. Obama believes in churches and in personal responsibility. Obama just wants to provide more hope for the people to have medical care and educational opportunity.)

     The notion that Americans (the most generous people on the planet) could possibly be charitable without coercion is a foreign one to Obama.

     (Was it coercion before Bush for the ULTRA-RICH to pay their fair share of taxes. The problem is that the ULTRA-RICH have so many loopholes to avoid paying taxes that most do not actually pay their fair share)

     The other issue here is that, yet again, Obama is making “wants” into “rights”. Sure, it’d be nice if everyone could go to college. Sure, it’d be nice if everyone had affordable healthcare.

     (If you were sick and dying you might think differently if you had no health insurance. And even those who have health insurance yet get sick and have to declare bankruptcy because of shamefull way that the insurance companies rig their policies know full well what the actual reality is.)

     Sure, it’d be nice if everyone was wealthy. But it’s just not reality, and those things are not rights.

     (To bad you are working extremely hard just to keep from drowning. You have no right to have opportunities for education and a hope for the American Dream.)

     No one has a right to affordable healthcare, or college tuition, or more money. I know liberals are going to be beating their tiny fists against computer screens at that statement, but too bad.

     (Yeah to bad for you. I just don’t care! It’s your problem your not rich and we will continue to overtax the middle class so that we can subsidize Godless Super Corporations and we will continue to collect overbearing income taxes from you to for interest on the National Debt. We the Godless Super Corporations of the New World Order need you as slaves to our interests. How dare you say enough is enough!)

     It used to be that in the United States it was understood that you had to work hard in order to get those things, but now, thanks to liberalism, they’re just expected. Everyone has the “right” to college tuition. Everyone has the “right” to healthcare.

     Well, I have a newsflash for you. NO. YOU. DO. NOT.

     (It’s your responsibility to avoid being poor or middle class. You can just die for all I care.)

     You know what? I don’t have insurance right now. My employer couldn’t afford to provide it anymore (something I’m sure we’ll see more of with an Obama presidency).

     (Thats probably because small businesses who have a net income of less than $250,000 and employ 98% of all the people in the country are having trouble competing with the GODLESS SUPER-CORPORATIONS and their tax loopholes. These GODLESS SUPER-CORPORATIONS care nothing about the people or America. These are the ones who are transferring thousands of American jobs overseas as well as raping our environment.)

     If I were a liberal, I’d probably be moaning and crying to a dozen or so TV stations and whining for someone to give me my “right” to healthcare. But, I completely understand that I have no right to healthcare. It is my responsibility to either pay for my own insurance or to find an employer who can provide it. It is not the government’s responsibility, and it isn’t my employer’s. My healthcare is my responsibility, and no one else’s. I know, I know… that’s a psychotic thing to think, that I’m responsible for myself, but there you have it.

     (There is nothing wrong with personal responsibility. Obama and the great mass of his supporters believe in working hard. The people in need have tried everything they can to get ahead yet have been so discouraged by the ULTRA-RICH and a government who says I don’t care if you can’t make it. Its not my problem. It’s your problem!)

     Opposing big government does not make someone selfish, and for Obama to insinuate that shows a lot about his mentality and what kind of America we can look forward to if he wins.

     (Yes the ULTRA-RICH will now be expected to pay there fair share of taxes. It also shows that we will become a more caring society and practice more of what the Bible preaches.)

     Gone will be the America of enterprising hard workers. Why bother, when the government will do everything for you?

     (Sorry you think like that but we Americans are still going to work hard especially if we have hope for health and education. We the people are also going to become more successful and more self reliant and buy more with Obama’s tax cuts and policies and create a stronger economy that benefits all and not just the Godless Super Corporations!)

224. boogerman on November 1st, 2008 4:47 am

     i dont think anyone beleives they will become rich in response to the angry terdus merula comments. i am a christian and dont wanna be rich. however i see a government that could provide more schooling and healthcare for their people like so many other countries do, if they werent wasting money on war, greed, etc. they are so carelssely spending our money on nonsense. they have robbed ssi and it is a criminal act. they should be punished for this just like any criminal stealing from a bank or person would be. we are being ruled by theives at this time who care nothing for the well being of the 99 percent of americans not in the millionaire bracket. so if we stop wreckless spending, senseless wars, nation building, and stop overtaxing the poor and tax the rich a fair but higher tax it seems more like we could get somehwere. and with alot less careless spending we could have the same humanity as england, canada, france, germany, etc; by providing people with basic things like healthcare and better education. none will get rich from giving the middle class a tax brake but it sure seems fair to do it. maybe someday this nation with dillusions of perfection can get itself up to standards of many other less rich & less powerful nations across the world. as i stated before even poor countries like cuba and phillpines provide government healthcare, but we can’t even do that in the u.s. maybe you should all apply for cuban citizenship at least if you need money to pay for cancer medicine you can get help there. my stepmom died of cancer and before she died her medicines were costing more than $2000 a month. it was more than my father was making, and she worked up until the point were she couldnt work anymore. eventually they were able to get state help in illinois, but no government help at all. so why should any of us pay taxes. heres advice to everyone. work under the table. find ways to make money without giving any to uncle sam cause the 34 percent or whatever you’re paying to government, not even .0001 percent is being used to improve your quality of life. just like ron paul said the irs should be shut down. irs was set up to help fund the country during wartime and it wasnt meant to be a permanent fixture in the u.s. the government was set up originally to be able to sustain itself and have ways to pay for itself, but that was when intelligent people where running it. so they should get rid of the income tax altogether as far as i’m concerned. we’ve all been duped into beleiving we were always supposed to work 3 months or more of the year just to pay a careless, wreckless, inhumane government. now we have alot of morons running this country without half the wisdom our founders had when they started out so many years ago. arent we supposed to be evolving people. so many beleive the theory of evolution but as a whole people are getting dumber. in some big cities in the u.s less than half of kids are graduating high school now. it seems unreal to me. how could we have let things go downhill so far.

225. Loyal Tax Payers on November 1st, 2008 4:50 am

     TAX INVADERS, tax haven, now I know why Americans created tax haven. Americans hate paying tax… JOE the PLUMBER who is a symbol of American Dream refused to pay tax…judging by his back dated tax unpaid…

     No tax..where do your govt get money to pay finance development… invade other coyntries and trid o get their oil…BUSH did try… but it back fired…instead you guys ended up with deficits.

     I wish McCain would be elected NOY because I love Him…I hate Him. But becasue I believe his stupidity and his VP Palin will ruin America and have more problems in the country. Your financial system collapsed…your havard economists were not able to help…. your economic system collapse… get the taste of your own medicine…. CAPITALISM Failed you. Now you have no tax.. JOE the Plumber doesnt pay tax… Joe McCain the Millionaire doesnt pay tax…Joe the CEO doesnt pay tax… where do you guys get revenue.. by robbing and klling countries with oil. Doesnt work….Borrow from China.

     Boy whoever would thought American borrowing from China. The chinese get clever, the American with McCain and Palin and Joe the Plumber will only bring the economy to a halt…I am waiting for the day when American has to beg from other countries for funding, for investments, for trade… WOW with McCain I would be seeing it soon… Cant wait to see American make a fool of themselves.

     Joe the Plumber is a symbol of American Dream… tax invading is a dream????

     Sarah the Abuser is a symbol of reformer… wow that is scary, reform into a power abuser..I wouldnt want her to be president if McCain Die..more innocent children and women would be killed.

     McCain the maverick…. yea cant wait for you to beg from the chinese for funding and investmnt.

     Good Luck America

     Good Luck World… we may need it.

226. Loyal Tax Payers on November 1st, 2008 4:52 am

     INVADING TAX, tax haven, now I know why Americans created tax haven. Americans hate paying tax… JOE the PLUMBER who is a symbol of American Dream refused to pay tax…judging by his back dated tax unpaid…

     No tax..where do your govt get money to pay finance development… invade other coyntries and trid o get their oil…BUSH did try… but it back fired…instead you guys ended up with deficits.

     I wish McCain would be elected NOY because I love Him…I hate Him. But becasue I believe his stupidity and his VP Palin will ruin America and have more problems in the country. Your financial system collapsed…your havard economists were not able to help…. your economic system collapse… get the taste of your own medicine…. CAPITALISM Failed you. Now you have no tax.. JOE the Plumber doesnt pay tax… Joe McCain the Millionaire doesnt pay tax…Joe the CEO doesnt pay tax… where do you guys get revenue.. by robbing and klling countries with oil. Doesnt work….Borrow from China.

     Boy whoever would thought American borrowing from China. The chinese get clever, the American with McCain and Palin and Joe the Plumber will only bring the economy to a halt…I am waiting for the day when American has to beg from other countries for funding, for investments, for trade… WOW with McCain I would be seeing it soon… Cant wait to see American make a fool of themselves.

     Joe the Plumber is a symbol of American Dream… tax invading is a dream????

     Sarah the Abuser is a symbol of reformer… wow that is scary, reform into a power abuser..I wouldnt want her to be president if McCain Die..more innocent children and women would be killed.

     McCain the maverick…. yea cant wait for you to beg from the chinese for funding and investmnt.

     Good Luck America

     Good Luck World… we may need it.

227. Loyal Tax Payers on November 1st, 2008 4:53 am

     INVADING TAX, tax haven, now I know why Americans created tax haven. Americans hate paying tax

     No tax..where do your govt get money to pay finance development… invade other coyntries and trid o get their oil…BUSH did try… but it back fired…instead you guys ended up with deficits.

     I wish McCain would be elected NOY because I love Him…I hate Him. But becasue I believe his stupidity and his VP Palin will ruin America and have more problems in the country. Your financial system collapsed…your havard economists were not able to help…. your economic system collapse… get the taste of your own medicine…. CAPITALISM Failed you. Now you have no tax.. JOE the Plumber doesnt pay tax… Joe McCain the Millionaire doesnt pay tax…Joe the CEO doesnt pay tax… where do you guys get revenue.. by robbing and klling countries with oil. Doesnt work….Borrow from China.

     Boy whoever would thought American borrowing from China. The chinese get clever, the American with McCain and Palin and Joe the Plumber will only bring the economy to a halt…I am waiting for the day when American has to beg from other countries for funding, for investments, for trade… WOW with McCain I would be seeing it soon… Cant wait to see American make a fool of themselves.

     Joe the Plumber is a symbol of American Dream… tax invading is a dream????

     Sarah the Abuser is a symbol of reformer… wow that is scary, reform into a power abuser..I wouldnt want her to be president if McCain Die..more innocent children and women would be killed.

     McCain the maverick…. yea cant wait for you to beg from the chinese for funding and investmnt.

     Good Luck America

     Good Luck World… we may need it.

228. Bill on November 1st, 2008 4:57 am

     Dear Red States:

     We Blue States have decided we’re leaving. We intend to form our own country. In case you aren’t aware, that includes California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all of the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of the Blue States of America.
     To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states.
     We get stem cell research and the best beaches.
     We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Dollywood.
     We get Intel, Apple and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.
     We get Harvard. You get Ole’ Miss.
     We get 85 percent of America’s venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama.
     We get two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the red states pay their fair share.

     Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition’s, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.

     Please be aware that the Blue States of America will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we’re going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight ask your evangelicals. They have kids they’re apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don’t care if you don’t show pictures of their children’s caskets coming home.

     We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we’re not willing to spend our resources in Bush’s Quagmire.

     With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country’s fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation’s fresh fruit, 95 percent of America’s quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools plus Stanford, Cal Tech ,Cal, University of Michigan and MIT.

     With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.
     We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

     Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we’re discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent say that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.
     Peace and love anyway,
     The Blue States

229. crazy two on November 1st, 2008 5:06 am

     Now i know how cults get started. I have never minded paying my fair share plus some in taxes,however its the extreme waste i have a problem with. I assure you when you give people free anything and no expiration date, they will severely abuse the system and spread the word. If you have ever asked someone on the system ,they proudly suggest, its free you should get it. I agree there are some who respect it, but very few. Its no secret that if persons on the system had to pay for it out of there pocket or pay for mine and them not be able to have it at all, then there comments would change no doubt. Im paying enough for 8 people to have excellent healthcare,if they make affordable healthcare for all ,then 7 people are going to get dropped . For the past several decades we have been vocal on foriegn countries becoming independent. Now Obama suggests that should be accepted here in the US. There isnt enough money in the world,to meet the promises Obama has made. If you listen to him real close , he changes his stories like you would underwear . Another issue that sticks out is , i believe Obama is more Muslim than Black, yet uses to his advantage. To many comments suggest that if the blacks just got out and voted for there race ,it could possibly make history etc. What kind of picture does this send . ? Sarah Palin can hang outside a building for months from a noose and thats accepted. If it was Obama or any Black person in her place ,it would be criminal and unacceptable. Reality is it should be neither and if your not bothered by it ,see a shrink and prepare for Hell. There is a myriad of issues not mentioned ,but yet there real. Whats really best for the entire country and not just a few individuals would make the most sense . We will soon see.!!

230. Asidian on November 1st, 2008 5:13 am

     For the author of this misinformed little opinion piece and the countless other ring-wingers who lately seem unable to find a dictionary, I present the definition of socialism.

     Socialism is a “general term for the political and economic theory that advocates a system of collective or government ownership and management of the means of production and distribution of goods.”

     If someone can tell me how precisely raising taxes on people who can afford to pay them allocates the means of production and distribution of goods to either the government or the people, I am willing to consider that this is not just a blatant smear devised by the McCain campaign to blight an opponent. Until someone can manage it… please stop spreading lies. It doesn’t become you.

231. David on November 1st, 2008 5:13 am

     Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

     All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

     Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

     Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn’t think he should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

     Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

     Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

     Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republican’s would still be sitting in the dark)

     He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.
     He turns on a radio talk show, the host’s keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn’t tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, “We don’t need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I’m a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have”.

     Luckily, today Bush lowered water standards for people in Appalachia, lowered environmental standards for everyone and made it so shipping containers coming in from middle eastern ports don’t have to be inspected for things like bombs.

232. willneverlearn on November 1st, 2008 5:14 am

     Paul…you just proved my point.

233. tommy on November 1st, 2008 5:16 am

     There are a lot of selfish people on this board. The taxes helped pave the roads that you drive on. They paid for schools that educated the workers who serve you the food at McDonald’s.

     If you look at the price of the beer that the rich drink, you’ll realize that it really isn’t beer at all, it’s wine, and it really does cost $60 a glass.

234. Adam on November 1st, 2008 5:19 am

     Using the government to “lift” the lower and middle class by taking more from the rich and spreading it to the middle and lower class DOES NOT WORK! IT NEVER HAS! I challenge anybody to give an example of a country where this notion has worked. IT DOES NOT! I can provide countless examples where “a little bit of socialism” went very wrong and brought everybody down. Ours is one of them! Spreading the wealth DOES NOT WORK! Forcing people to be unselfish (which obviously is an oxymoron) DOES NOT WORK! Our economy is in the predicament it’s in because of government intervention. Government intervention DOES NOT WORK! Our country became the wealthiest nation within one hundred years of its founding precisely because we governed ourselves and had a very limited state and federal government. Over the past 100 years we’ve started a little socialism here, a little there. And look where it has got us! We are broke as a nation and heading into the most severe economic crisis since the great depression. Government intervention DOES NOT WORK! Socialism DOES NOT WORK!

235. tommy on November 1st, 2008 5:20 am

     “damn straight i’m selfish, i served in the army in desert storm and worked hard my whole life for what little i’ve got, and i think if you want it you should work for it, period”

     You’re selfish and can’t see the contradiction. You say you should work for whatever you get, but who paid for you to be in the Army? Obviously, it didn’t come from taxes, it came from the US borrowing money. The US should work to pay for it’s own Army, instead of borrowing from the richer countries to support the Army. Damn the foreign supported US Army.

236. Beep on November 1st, 2008 5:40 am

     I can’t find an employer to provide me with health insurance, nor can I pay for a policy of my own. This is because I became uninsurable with a diagnosis of lupus at age 23. I didn’t come from a wealthy family and didn’t hang out with any wealthy friends, so there isn’t anyone I know personally who could pay for my health care. According to your world view I should just lie down and quietly die. But I don’t subscribe to your world view. I don’t think CEOs of pharmaceutical and health insurance companies should be earning such extreme salaries for doing such a poor job of providing health care access to the citizens of this nation. I don’t think health insurance companies should be able to exclude people with pre-existing conditions if their private coverage is to be the only way people can get help with health care bills that are priced way out of reach of the ordinary citizen in an case of severe illness. I think a society and a civilization is judged by how it treats its less fortunate. So yes…you are selfish. You are also cruel. You are not willing to give back to this great country that has granted you a situation where you could earn the money you cling to so tightly. You do not show caring towards your fellow citizens. You act not in the spirit of the barn raising parties for new neighbors, but instead of the robber barons. And may the Lord have mercy on your soul.

237. Chris Chambre on November 1st, 2008 5:54 am

     The majority of people in the US are making less than 100,000 per year. What I find amazing is that the republican party has been able to market the idea that we should socialize the rich and make the middle class foot the bill. Lets face it taxes have to go up in order to finance the bail out and win the war on terror any one that says they are cutting taxes is a liar.

238. Ruckas on November 1st, 2008 5:59 am

     If the top making money makers really wanted the middle and lower class to earn there way, shouldnt it be the same across the board. The rich are not paying taxes at half the rate the middle class. the have breaks and loophole’s and the ear of the republcan party. the “dont take my money, get it from the ones that work for me and need it more than me, so I can live the american dream and not pay for it” …… So what do you selfish, anal people think about a simple 6% tax’s across the board without loopholes, or any favoritism. my health insurance truly sucks but the congressman that votes on my health insurance already has 100% blue cross and blue shield,… I feel its one of the kickbacks they get from insurance and drug companys to not improve the standard of living for us regular people. THINK … who wouldnt give up 6 million in hush money for the rights to prey on somthing like 850 billon. And they say crime doesnt pay

239. atlasshrugging on November 1st, 2008 6:17 am

     Here’s my 2 cents, take it or leave it.

     I make lots of money, I won’t hide it. I’m also atheist, in case anyone cares.

     Now, I view the federal government the same way I view dentists; annoying, but I don’t want to live without them.

     However, I think our federal government has grow to big. Here’s what I (and the founding fathers) think should be the responsibilities of the fed:

     Military. I certainly don’t mind paying taxes to keep myself safe. In effect, I am paying money to bodyguards, in this case the brave men and women of our armed forces. I have no qualms about paying taxes so they are equipped, paid etc.

     State department. I have little interest in personally interacting with the heads of state of different nations, so I’ll pay for this one too.

     Attorney general/ court system. I won’t live in a nation without a way to enforce the laws.

     Congress. I don’t have time to make all the laws.

     Curiously, this could be done with about 500 billion dollars, or about 3% of GDP. So get rid of all taxes, slap a 5% federal sales tax on everything, and there you go.

     Beyond this, what’s the point of the Feds? Everything else they do can (and should) be handled at the state and local level. If Colorado wishes to implement a health care program for it’s citizens, let it! Some will move out because of higher taxes, some will move in, but it’s a voluntary choice.

     Every government has a legal monopoly on the use of force. Remember that. Every law, program, or system rests on the barrel of a gun.

     I noticed we had an Austrian guy here. Tell me, if Europe is so wonderful, whay is it that it has a 10% higher GDP but 60% more people than the United Sates? My arithmetic shows Europe, per person, is poorer than the United States.

     The most astounding economic growth the world ever saw, ever, was between the 1880’s and 1930’s in the US. Second was the late 1700’s in Victorian England. Both were times of massive deregulation and little government interference in the economy.

     For those of you who will say, what about the 1950’s? It wasn’t the new deal that pulled us out of the depression, it was WW2. The massive government spending during that time certainly propelled our economy to new levels of growth, which carried on for years. This is true.

     However, this later caused the economic downturn of the late 1960’s. Some of it still effects us today. Look at Russia for a good example of how this practice is unsustainable.

     By the by, of the $3 trillion federal budget for 2008, only $750B goes to the military, Iraq included. Where does the rest of it go? Well, about $2 trillion isn’t even approved by congress each year, it renews automatically.

     There was a federal income take during the civil war. It was repealed in 1877 I believe, because the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. It took a whole amendment to get it through.

240. Hoopa on November 1st, 2008 6:19 am

     All EU countries provide universal health care, including Canada. America is a rich country, America as army bases in 137 countries in the world, we spent billions of dollars in army bases.

     But, why can not we provide health care for all? America has the worst health care system in the world.

     Aren’t we paying tax now? We always do, that’s how a government run! We tax people who make more money, so less fortunate people can make a future. But, this should not be a bail-out for lazy-bums!

     But, we need a fair & just society, we need to balance our tax code, it’s very out-dated, old-fashioned!

241. Ruckas on November 1st, 2008 6:21 am

     BTW I served until I was uncapable and consider myself a proud disabled Vet, just not so proud right now. and I still earn my own way as a single male parent, tax paying afro-American, who cant afford college or insurance that is worth a dayumn for my sons.

242. boogerman on November 1st, 2008 7:48 am

     adam the government has been using the middle and lower class to uphold the rich dont you see that. we pay a higher percentage in taxes and millionaires and billionaires get tax welfare. so do you think that the current system is ok. you’re complaining that rich shouldnt pay more well you must be rich and just want more luxury. this is about necessity not wants and desires. it is necessary to take some burden off the struggling middle class. families shouldnt be on the street. i’d much rather see some greedy rich person pick up a little more slack and see families not homeless than the opposite. what alot of people in the u.s think is who cares as long as it doesnt affect me. the wisdom only comes about how wrong they were when they become in a struggle. then they realize oh my god this is what it’s really like for 90 percent of americans. it’s a tragedy. another problem with america is we started out a christian nation with morales, respect, and love for the common man. now we’ve become a godless haven of money worshippers. plenty of u.s citizens dont even care about their own families. marriage is a joke noone has any respect for their vows nowadays. family isnt strong like it used to be at all. theres people abandoning kids or just out right killing their families consistently in america. violent crime is steadily growing. there is something wrong not just with our government but our society. if everyone beleived in a higher power they would realize they shouldnt be hurting one another. they would realize the differences between right and wrong. they would realize they have to pay someday for how they’ve treated others. there is a conscequense. and for those of you who believe where evolving tell me why theres still apes. tell me why peopleare getting dumber. tell me where is the missing links. tell me why darwin himself said that his theory was wrong before he died. you need to see that greed is destroying this planet. our great grandkids probably wont have a world to grow up in. at this rate pollutio, war, and food shortage, along with greedy companies charging as much as they possibly can for the necessities we need. these things will kill most of us off. people are starving in many 3rd world countries cause they cant afford food. actually i saw a news segment that said in many places theres no food shortage, but people just cant afford to buy food anymore. should companies have that right to do this when it’s not a necessity to make billions while people starve. it’s a necessity for people to eat understand. and if it’s peoples right to get so rich and greedy that most of society is suffering. well i beleive in socialism than. if the american dream is to crush everyone you can and take, take, take, til noonelse can get by then america is a beacon of evil and not a beacon of hope. why do americans seem to care only about the rich in our country. you’ve fallen into this dillusion that they are gods. the rich are idols and we should all worship their status, we should all want to be like trumph and paris hilton. but the truth is we should be disgusted with these greedy rich people who to me are not a success. i am a christian and these are the evil people they talked about in the bible that will rule the earth. the same ones that would watch people starve instead of lowering there profit margins. well in that case i look forward to the day when the poor are so fed up they just overtake the rich by numbers. take whatever they have and distribute it amongst themsleves. cause someday it could happen. i dont think the 1 percent of rich americans would stand a chance against the 99 percent of poor, starving, desperate people tired of being oppressed. that would be true justice in my eyes.

243. boogerman on November 1st, 2008 8:00 am

     this is to beep. i have much compassion for you and will keep you in my prayers i had a freind in college with lupis and i know it’s a serious struggle. i can only pray that if obama is elected he actually works to do what he said and make insurance companies cover people with pre existing conditions. i dont care about the rich losing a little money. to be rich you have to be greedy. anyone with any wisdom knows that greed is evil. so yes i am saying it. rich people are rich because of evil ambitions of poseesing more than they would ever need. their lives are about excess not necessity. anyone who wants that much excess and thinks they deserve it must think they deserve more than most of the world. which makes them arrogant, dillusional, and imperialistic. rich people are evil. so screw the rich. i love to see the greedy fail. i would have celebrated if our country would’ve let those banks go under. it would have been a great reason to throw a party. those are the people that should be out on the street. it’s a shame that burden was tacked onto the tax payers of america. another reason to scorn the country that seems to be failing almost everyone.

244. boogerman on November 1st, 2008 8:16 am

     i consider all you who posted comments with wisdom and compassion my friends here. it’s hard to make a decent freind anymore of even to meet a decent person. all of you who thought about someone other than yourself i commend you. those who want to see things better not just for yourselves but everyonelse struggling. you are few and far between. you the compassionate, the wise, the good hearted americans are a dying breed. just have faith & try to stay strong during these tough times. stay close to your families and try to help them out if they struggle. if a family member needs a place to stay give it to them. who cares about typical american opinion. many think that if you cant make it on your own your a loser. if you need help you’re a failure, but the wise know that’s ignorance. everyone needs help sooner or later. noone is self made. i respect the close family ties people have in other countries. in alot of 3rd world countries people live together with parents, grandparents, children, they help each other out & love each other. however in the u.s if you do this it’s unpopular people will consider you a failure or a loser for living with your family. i dont care what anyone thinks in such a mixed up society as ours but i will say this they are wrong. instead of sending our grandparents off to nursing homes we as families should take care of each other as long as it’s possible. you good people with compassion and loyalty and love for others, you are my heros and heroins. you are the ones i look upto as an example of how we all should be. i will never idolize an american icon. a man’s riches mean nothing to me. it’s whats inside that counts. stay true in your hearts. greed may rule the earth but someday that will change. have faith in god and he will provide what’s necesaary. he won’t give you any excess cause he knows your better off without that. riches and fame just corrupt people. they are like an addiction. once somoene gets them they want more, more , more and they can’t usually get enough. cravings just grow. all i could ever ask for in the u.s is government health care and better education. that’s not asking for a handout or a miracle many countries do this. but otherwise we are mostly better off being middle class and poor if we just have necessities. the week will inherit the earth someday. so we will prevail.

245. Stevie on November 1st, 2008 10:02 am

     If i could be so bold to say that i believe it is quite the contrary.. Maybe if you want higher taxes your selfish… can you not even trust yourself to give to good or charitable causes out of your own good will? Or do you need it to be mapped out for you down to even where your money will be “redistributed.” I’m sorry but i would much rather take personal responsibility for what i’ve been given and what i’ve worked hard at and give on my own accord. This is the problem with our nation today.. an extreme lack of personal responsibility.

246. paulludwikowski on November 1st, 2008 10:22 am

     Boogerman how the hell do you figure we as middle class and poor pay more of a percentage of taxes? The top 10% pay almost half their incomes.

247. Frank on November 1st, 2008 11:56 am

     One thing jumped out at me. You say you don’t have health insurance right now and you’re acting like this is only your problem. MANY people feel this way. The issue with this is because of you and people like you, my medical bills and state taxes go up. If someone’s injured with insurance, they pay the deductible and the company pays the rest. If you were to be injured and can’t even afford insurance right now, you’d never be able to pay the tens of thousands of dollars for the bill. Do you know who will? That’s right..me, others that go to the hospital, and taxpayers. So by sitting there whining about how YOU shouldn’t be forced to do something good for you, you’re selfishly not considering the effect that this has on the rest of us. Point two is that if you have insurance you can go in for regular checkups and catch a problem in the beginning stages. Without it, you’re not going to catch it until you start showing bigger symptoms and once again that cost (which will be much greater than if you’d caught it in the beginning) will be defrayed by shifting it onto the rest of us. You don’t think that by making that decision and costing the rest of us you’re not being selfish?

248. boogerman on November 1st, 2008 12:13 pm

     paulludwikowski where did you get that info i certainly don’t beleive what you said is true. the top ten percent income bracket are not paying 50% in federal income taxes.

249. boogerman on November 1st, 2008 12:16 pm

     what i’m saying is if we can spend so much on war and nonsense and rob our people ssi we should be able to cut spending and supply government health cares like every other super power in the world has. we are falling behind in education. our healthcare system is one of the worst in the world.

250. George on November 1st, 2008 1:12 pm

     Parker Nicholson on October 31st, 2008 10:28 pm wrote:

     “I am trying to find a job….been putting in 40 plus hour weeks looking for one…..and haven’t found anything for a recent college grad.

     I feel as if the American dream has been stolen from me. I have worked hard for 4 years and earned 2 degrees….yet I cannot find a job where I can learn basic skills and better my life. Nor due I have rich family and friends to lend me capital to start my own enterprise.

     Down with Bush…..Give me anything else.”

     Thank you Parker for exemplifying the liberal point of view. You state that because you went to college and are smart that someone “owes” you a job. When in reality you should take responsibility for the fact that you probably chose a profession that is not very marketable. You may have enjoyed what you studied, but you obviously didn’t consider how it was going to put bread on the table when you chose it. You have completely missed the point of being an American. In America you have the right to fail as well as succeed. Because at this point in your life you are a failure doesn’t mean that the rest of us are and that capitalism doesn’t work.

     I have 3 suggestions for you, but all three require growing up and accepting responsibility.
     1. Find others who have your education and background and find out how they are making money and copy them.(probably teaching)
     2. Go back to school and get a degree in a useful profession.
     3. Become an entrepreneur and promote yourself and start you own company. Write books, give lectures, consult for businesses etc. Most self starters didn’t lean on family to start their companies to quit wining and find a solution to your problem. Or go to your church and ask for handouts. But don’t expect me to give you wellfare.

251. G.May on November 1st, 2008 1:45 pm

     For those who are routinely missing the point about socialism. No, Obama is not proposing socialism, he promoting a move towards it. Many of his opposition incorrectly label him as such just for political gain. But make no mistake – proposing higher taxes on the rich and higher tax credits for the poor to where they actually make money from the tax system is socialistic by very definition. Anyone who agrues against that is simply wrong.

     You can argue either way that the progressive tax system is socialistic, but Obama’s current tax plan is inarguably so. Problem is, McCain’s pretty much is too. Government bailouts/buyouts are as well. Neither are assaulting the true problem – wasteful government spending.

     Yet we see so many here talking about “fair share” and assaulting the rich, when the rich ALREADY PAY THE MAJORITY OF THE TAX BURDEN. The argument that the rich aren’t paying their fair share is absurd in the extreme. Now we’re talking of taxing them more and straight out giving that money to the poor. So the poor can do what with it?

     The claim that Bush’s tax cuts led us to this current nightmare is absurd in the extreme. Government regulation AND deregulation of corporate lending practices, combined with the insatiable greed of the American consumer is what led us to this mess. It had little to do with taxes.

252. Bob on November 1st, 2008 4:18 pm

     I disagree with the right to go to college, but I do think that they do have a right to be able to go to college. (Yes, there’s a difference). People should be able to easily get health care. I don’t care if you don’t care that you don’t have any right now. You won’t be thinking that when that car hits you tomorrow morning. (For those of you who are stubborn nit-pickers, that was a joke). In all, you hve the right to be able to do anything, but you shouldn’t have a right to it if you haven’t “earned” it. Now, I know that there are many factors to having earned something, but be reasonable. If you didn’t go to college or even dropped out of high school, you shouldn’t be able to earn that Ferrari with your minimum wage. It’s understandable that there are situations where you can’t go on with education, (family problems, etc) and I think that’s what Obama is trying to get at. (Ya know what really cracks me up? Barack Obama=BO=body odor. So hilarious!!! ^^ Anyways…) If you read TIME’s article on his mom, you’ll find that he wasn’t always some rich black guy. He probably would be able to understand the middle class’s mentality better than McCain, who was born from a relatively high ranking military family. (In my opinion). If that isn’t what he’s thinking, I dunno what to say.
     Also, the thing about patriotism is really stupid. I know I mostly ramble ’bout the smaller controversies, but the fact that they exist bothers me. Obama may have a similar name to Osama, but that in no way makes him a terrorist. His middle name is Hussein, but that doesn’t mean he’s a (dead) corrupt pres of Iraq. I dunno why, but some people think that. I hope no one here does. (Just look at Ochocinco. Name doesn’t mean anything.) Also, he was named after his father, Barrack Hussein Obama Sr. So if you really want to make fun of someone, blame his family, not the guy himself. Someone’s already started to family taunts anyways.

     “Obama knows what selfish really means. Just ask his half brother in Africa.”
     -John Drummond
     If that isn’t racist, I dunno what is. Jeez, I wouldn’t be surprised if the “mom” jokes start soon.

     Anyways, just because McCain was taken prisoner during times of war doesn’t mean that he’s more patriotic. If Obama had been in the military and had gotten caught, you’d be singing a different tune. Yes, he has been in military service for who know how long, which probably means that he’s very patriotic, but if it’s his patriotism you want to bring out, say that he was in the military, not that he was stuck in a hole for six years.
     Going along similar lines, Obama might have just as much patriotism as McCain. Yes, he did live in various places of the world, but in the end, he came back to the US and became a freaking Senator. Doesn’t that count for something? Isn’t the fact that he was born with a hectic life contribute to his inability to demonstrate his patriotism? He’s not nearly as old as McCain so he just hasn’t had as much time to do stuff. That’s not to say that he’s inexperienced. He couldn’t do anything about it. See where I’m coming from?

253. Fred on November 1st, 2008 5:18 pm

     One of the biggest problem in this country is our government itself. It has become grossly bloated and way too complicated – our ‘elected officials?’ themselves really have no clue as to how to fix the problems we’re facing today (the failed $700 Billion financial institute bail-out is just one example). The stock market is still declining.

     Our government simply does not understand that they spend too much money, and needlessly I might add. If they were to actually cut federal spending instead of increasing it [on most of the social/entitlement BS programs that they've developed over the passed 40 years] we’d get back to a viable economy within several years.

     Legislating financial equality (’sharing the wealth’) is absolutely ridiculous … some of you actually seem to believe that a burger-flipper at a fast-food restaurant should be able to afford the same things in life that a doctor can afford! Get real. One gets what they work hard for.

     Now, since I don’t think my taxes should be increased, I’m being labeled as ’selfish’? I already pay 38% in income taxes alone, I don’t need to be paying more. Add interest and dividend taxes, property tax, state sales tax, vehicle registration tax, etc. into the mix and I’m up close to 50% – so you have the audacity to say I need to pay more?, and the I’m a selfish person for stating my point against paying increased taxes? Think about this and let it sink in … the people who constantly lean on the government and expect handouts, and never pay a dime in taxes are the greedy and selfish people in out society!

     As for the education system in this country, I came from lower-middle class, attended public schools K~12 and a public Jr. college, just like any one else in this country has the opportunity to do. I paid for my own tuition and books by working two jobs.

     I did not receive any grant money. Apparently a lot of you folks seem to think is an entitlement you deserve. Its also ridiculous to say that ‘every child’ in this country will even want to go to college … not everybody has the aptitude, nor the desire to achieve higher learning.

     After reading every comment in this forum to date, I’m amazed at the number of people who have bought into obama’s rhetoric. Apparently, they are only listening to his claim to provide ‘tax breaks to 95% of the middle class’, but they aren’t listening at all to whats planned on the flip side: The marriage ‘penalty will be re-instituted, Inheritance tax and Capital Gains will also return … additional taxes on your retirement savings (money that you many people have been working hard for and saving all their life) will be subject to higher tax rates … so any ‘tax ’savings’ you think you’ll be getting will just be taken away through tax increases somewhere else. You will be no better off at all.

     Do the math and you’ll see exactly what I’m talking about.

254. medicevan on November 2nd, 2008 11:59 am

     Also, as an aside to my post above. The constitution guarantees (sp) us the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You have the right to live, you have the right to be free and to be your own man, but most importantly, you have the right to pursue what makes you happy. If you are tired of making low wages, go get a different job, or make your own. You are not guaranteed (again, spelling) happiness, or healthcare, or social security, you are guaranteed the right to PURSUE what makes you happy!! So go do it and stop bitching about it already!

255. notliborconserv on November 2nd, 2008 12:16 pm

     Fred, I agree. Why is it that the people who scream the loudest for this re-distribution call the people who oppose it selfish when, in general, they stand to benefit the most. OOPS I not supposed to bring that up. Until we get our spending under control I as part of the middle class will still pay more than any other group. 1 other question if this re-distribution goes through will the recipients pay taxes on this? It would only be fair. But then again that’s not the point. It’s greed and selfishness.

256. JohnnyO on November 3rd, 2008 2:24 pm

     Zechariah 7:9-14

     9 “Thus says the LORD of hosts:

     ‘ Execute true justice,
     Show mercy and compassion
     Everyone to his brother.
     10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless,
     The alien or the poor.
     Let none of you plan evil in his heart
     Against his brother.’

     11 “But they refused to heed, shrugged their shoulders, and stopped their ears so that they could not hear. 12 Yes, they made their hearts like flint, refusing to hear the law and the words which the LORD of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets. Thus great wrath came from the LORD of hosts. 13 Therefore it happened, that just as He proclaimed and they would not hear, so they called out and I would not listen,” says the LORD of hosts. 14 “But I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations which they had not known. Thus the land became desolate after them, so that no one passed through or returned; for they made the pleasant land desolate.”

257. JohnnyO on November 3rd, 2008 6:16 pm

     paulludwikowski and boogerman, the actual truth if you examine the 2008 tax tables closely is that the top tax tier is 35% for only that portion of net income that exceeds $357,700. This 35% figure also assumes that the taxpayer is not using any of the hundreds of loopholes that are available to shield this income. It also is based on net income and not gross income. Remember that as much as twenty times your net income can be hidden as expenses on your gross yet still provide fantastic benefits and cashflow to the taxpayer in this highest category.

     Now compare the previous to millions who has an adjusted gross income of at least $65,100 and are currently in the 28% incremental tax bracket with no major tax loopholes save mortgage interest deductions.

     Now does this sound fair to you?

Leave a Reply