This is Melanie Phillips in the Spectator:
You have to pinch yourself – a Marxisant radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it’s considered impolite to say so.
Now that’s good writing, just blistering concision. It’s 76 words, and I’ll bet she could recite it with passion in less than 30 seconds. It would be sweet if a 529 group were to televise this message nationwide.
John McCain is cold oatmeal, and I can’t imagine that anyone except his wife wants him to be president of the United States. But everything in Obama’s background comprises a sound reason to fear what he will do as president, particularly in the company of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. At a minimum, we’re about to fail to learn yet again what made the Great Depression so lengthy and so painful. But the thug tactics Obama and his minions deploy give us good reason to fear a Hugo Chavez, Norte-Americano-style.
I’m not picking a fight. Both of these goons are national socialists, lacking all conviction but full of passionate intensity. McCain is nothing to be preferred. But Obama strikes me as a cipher very much to be shunned. The worst of it is, we won’t know the worst about Obama until after it’s too late. The blood-dimmed tide is loosed. May god spare us the oceans of blood that swept over us the last time we elected a socialist in a recession.
Thomas Johnson says:
Well said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
October 15, 2008 — 8:43 am
Eric Bramlett says:
That diatribe is regurgitated directly from the McCain camp, and is as accurate as the Obama camp position that McCain would be four more years of Bush. I think the voting populace is simply showing that they’re sick of what’s gone on, and want some kind (any kind) of change.
October 15, 2008 — 9:54 am
Todd says:
Yes, these past eight years have been such a resounding success! /sarcasm
“…Obama strikes me as a cipher very much to be shunned. The worst of it is, we won’t know the worst about Obama until after it’s too late.”
Please list the exact “unknowns” that are causing so much fear and uncertainty in you Mr. Swann, I will be glad to provide you with the facts.
October 15, 2008 — 11:01 am
Miami Real Estate Attorney says:
I will be happy to see Obama win–at least he will try to do a good job and is not just a spoiled child of wealthy influential parents. Check out that Rolling Stone bio and McCain–scary!
October 15, 2008 — 11:56 am
Eric Bramlett says:
IMHO, this is the soul of wit regarding the Bush administration (NSFW.)
October 15, 2008 — 12:05 pm
Tony Sena says:
Pretty brazen to put up a political post on a real estate blog! After reading your post, I would assume you are Republican 🙂
Being from the State of Nevada, I am a huge supporter of Senator Harry Reid 🙂
October 15, 2008 — 12:17 pm
Missy Caulk says:
Bravo Greg ! Melanie echo’s my sentiments, I fear that people will wake up too late. Not in love with McCain, but the alternative is going to change our country for a long time. I even wish Hillary was running against McCain she is so far to the center of Obama.
I get it, people want change but this change is NOT good for small business owners, Israel and our economy.
Distributing the wealth….will cripple us as a nation. I don’t usually comment on political posts but I could feel Melanie’s passion in her remarks.
October 15, 2008 — 12:37 pm
Dan Connolly says:
I agree with Tony, I just don’t comment on politics or religion on blogs. With this post you stand a good chance of alienating around 58% of the general population/potential customers or clients. I hope it’s worth it!
October 15, 2008 — 1:07 pm
Edge - The Credit Crunch says:
This is why I’ll be supporting a third party candidate.
I’m sick and tired of this game of “I only have to be a little bit better than the other guy”. One of them wins, but all of us lose.
Instead I like that, for now at least, while they’re in the minority, the third party candidates get to say politically unpopular things that resonate with us because we like folks who can say things without worrying about satisfying their peers in the house/senate/administration.
Additionally, it always bothers me that when someone says something against Obama, others pop up and say something to the effect of, “Oh sure! Let’s have more Bush!”.
If repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results is the definition of insanity, I’d call continuing to vote for either side of a two party system that’s set a standard of failure and scandal, pretty insane.
But then again, arguing politics is like arguing flatulence. Everyone loves the smell of their own crap 🙂
October 15, 2008 — 1:18 pm
Alexandria real estate says:
tony with your proclamation of being a Reid I would use an ashamed/embarrassed face instead of a smiley face. If you’re going to have a liberal dem senator can’t you find anybody who at least demands some respect….He’s such a loser. He is truly a shallow cesspool devoid of integrity.
And I’m pretty sure swann is no card carrying republican–not in the least.
Eric, what part of the statements above by Ms. Phillips do you want to repute? Seems dead on. The alliances of Obama show him to be devoid of characater/integrity. I like how Krauthammer puts it:
“Obama’s political career was launched with Ayers giving him a fundraiser in his living room. If a Republican candidate had launched his political career at the home of an abortion-clinic bomber — even a repentant one — he would not have been able to run for dogcatcher in Podunk. And Ayers shows no remorse. His only regret is that he “didn’t do enough.”
Why are these associations important? Do I think Obama is as corrupt as Rezko? Or shares Wright’s angry racism or Ayers’ unreconstructed 1960s radicalism?
No. But that does not make these associations irrelevant. They tell us two important things about Obama. First, his cynicism and ruthlessness. He found these men useful, and use them he did. Would you attend a church whose pastor was spreading racial animosity from the pulpit? Would you even shake hands with — let alone serve on two boards with — an unrepentant terrorist, whether he bombed U.S. military installations or abortion clinics?
Second, and even more disturbing than the cynicism, is the window these associations give on Obama’s core beliefs. He doesn’t share Rev. Wright’s poisonous views of race nor Ayers’ views, past and present, about the evil that is American society. But Obama clearly did not consider these views beyond the pale. For many years he swam easily and without protest in that fetid pond.
Until now. Today, on the threshold of the presidency, Obama concedes the odiousness of these associations, which is why he has severed them. But for the years in which he sat in Wright’s pews and shared common purpose on boards with Ayers, Obama considered them a legitimate, indeed unremarkable, part of social discourse.
Do you? Obama is a man of first-class intellect and first-class temperament. But his character remains highly suspect. There is a difference between temperament and character. Equanimity is a virtue. Tolerance of the obscene is not. ”
http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/10/10/an_unprecedented_candidacy?page=2
October 15, 2008 — 1:46 pm
Greg Swann says:
> That diatribe is regurgitated directly from the McCain camp
Would that it were. Phillips is working from data unearthed by Dr. Stanley Kurtz.
October 15, 2008 — 2:31 pm
Greg Swann says:
> Pretty brazen to put up a political post on a real estate blog!
This is a real estate industry weblog. We talk about issues that matter to real estate professionals.
> After reading your post, I would assume you are Republican
Wildly incorrect.
October 15, 2008 — 2:34 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
I think you’re confusing my comment with Todd’s. I said that these accusations have as much merit as the Obama camp position that McCain would be four more years of Bush. Which is to say, that I believe that the associations are relevant, but they don’t mean much.
Basically, McCain’s camp knows that they lose unless they paint Obama as an “unkown terrorist.” They (like most GOP strategists) are playing (well) on their base’s fears, and attempting to spread these fears to the swing voters. This is fear-mongering at its worst.
October 15, 2008 — 2:34 pm
Greg Swann says:
> With this post you stand a good chance of alienating around 58% of the general population/potential customers or clients. I hope it’s worth it!
I’m pretty sure our clients hire us because we get the job done. I certainly wouldn’t want it any other way.
October 15, 2008 — 2:37 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
Dr. Stanley Kurtz is working off data released to the media from the McCain campaign quite some time ago. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5957466&page=1
Here’s a decent video by MSNBC that applies the same standards to McCain.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27092691#27092691
October 15, 2008 — 2:49 pm
Thomas Hall says:
I find the commentary on Obama interesting. When you hear McCain supporters shout “kill him” and “accuse” him of being an Arab, I take her 76 words with a grain of salt.
I live in Chicago and sell in the neighborhoods where Obama was a community organizer – I suggest that anyone who chooses to discount the work this man has done should spend a few hours on the south side of Chicago. In my opinion, this man has an understanding of what trickle down economics has neglected. Regardless of your political views, a new perspective is what we need.
Neither is a perfect choice, however, to somehow believe that Obama should be feared is pitiful.
Wake up people – if you believe that either party is going to be good for small business, your rude awakening is coming.
$10 trillion in debt – who in their right mind believes that our taxes won’t go up?
October 15, 2008 — 3:39 pm
Joe Strummer says:
After 8 years of war, budget-busting spending, nationalization of banks, expansion of entitlement programs, and devastation of the financial markets – whether because of acts of commission or omission in not reining in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – I’m not sure how Obama could be any worse.
The Republican Party is to be feared, a party that craves war, spending, corruption, and socialization. The Democratic Party isn’t any better, but I have trouble getting worked up about Obama. At the very least, Obama’s election would make “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” less likely than otherwise.
October 15, 2008 — 5:28 pm
Kelly says:
Congress makes the energy plan and the budget. Clinton was sucessful because he had a Republican Congress. Bush had a divided Congress and a Democrat Congress that drove up spending.
Now we will have the scariest President we have ever had. He will be the most Socialist President we have had in a time that is closest to the Great Depression as we have every been. Taxes will double. Economy will half! Real Estate will be hurt the worst! And you thought it could not get any worse… well…
Welcome to the Obama Nation that causes desolation!
October 15, 2008 — 7:35 pm
Joe Hayden says:
“Both of these goons are national socialists…”
Too funny, Greg…
Sadly, most will miss the significance of that statement and continue to argue why one is superior to the other. I hope I live to see America wake up from this increasingly devastating descent into the very quagmire that we were forced to rebel through deadly force against in the first place. Not looking too good for the next 4-8 years…
October 15, 2008 — 7:48 pm
Mike Muench says:
I couldn’t agree more. There’s plenty to fear if Obama is elected, not the least of which is the economy.
It’s just a damn shame that Republicans nominated the one man in America who couldn’t beat a socialist in an election in the United States. The fact that the inept McCain is within 5 points of Obama makes me shake my head. A real Republican candidate would be leading by 10 points nationally.
October 15, 2008 — 7:49 pm
Greg Swann says:
More from Stanley Kurtz tonight:
October 15, 2008 — 9:01 pm
James Hsu says:
Obama is the unknown. The BIG question. We really don’t know what the outcome will be of an Obama administration. It could be terribly bad, but it could be good….we just don’t know.
McCain is an experienced individual. We should know exactly how the country will turn out with him at the helm. In my opinion, it will be 90% of what we have today with Bush. If you think what we have today is pretty crappy, then with McCain we know what we’ll get..and it’s gonna be crappy.
So how to vote comes down to this. Vote for the unknown that has (in my opinion) an equal chance of being great or terrible, or vote for the guy we know will result in more of the same crappiness we have had.
October 15, 2008 — 10:41 pm
Robert Kerr says:
To those here scared about the idea of an Obama presidency, it might help to remember the last Democratic President.
Surely we all remember.
That President entered office during a degenrating Bush economy and gave us the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, the largest tax hike ever, the tax hike that was allegedly going to drive the final stake into the economy.
I think we all know how that turned out. Steady job growth. Sustainable wage growth. A healthy economy. A budget surplus.
The Republicans of the 104th through 106th Congresses deserve some credit for 1993-2001, but remember that not one Republican in either chamber voted for the 1993 budget and future budgets from the White House were passed almost as-is by Newt and Co.
I have no fear of an Obama presidency.
October 16, 2008 — 1:56 am
Eric Bramlett says:
Factcheck.org has already released their analysis of the debate.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_3.html
Greg – did you watch the msnbc video I posted up that held McCain to the same standard applied to Obama? I think any person of power will have associations with people that we don’t all agree with.
October 16, 2008 — 6:55 am
Eric Bramlett says:
[Continuity alert: The comment Eric is responding to here — himself with perfect civility — was deleted for flaming. –GSS]
Really?
But you have no problem w/ the Keating scandals, which also cost the government billions. (I’m not conceding that Obama’s involvement with ACORN in any way contributed to our current crisis, btw.)
From a non-partisan source. This was, BY FAR, a bi-partisan screw up.
That’s all I care about. Please, the next time anyone replies with REALLY bold claims, back it up with some credible sources.
October 16, 2008 — 7:54 am
Greg Swann says:
Joe the Plumber’s a sharp guy. I’d love to talk to him. I’m betting he’s a living example of the growth in intellectual capital made possible by the internet.
October 16, 2008 — 7:54 am
Eric Bramlett says:
McCain & ACORN
October 16, 2008 — 8:02 am
Michael Cook says:
For the record, the church argument really holds no weight. As an African-American raised in an African-American church, its much more about community and family than it is the pastors beliefs. No one sitting in the pastor’s church subscribes to all his views, but you go because your family has gone and you connect with the members and its an intergral part of the community.
His church is also not anti-American for the record either. If you all may recall the civil rights movement started in the church with “radical” views. Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, Jesse Jackson, etc. were all pastors of large churches with “radical” / “Anti-American” views. I would call challenging the status quo very pro-America because that is what we are suppose to do as a nation. Pastors do their best to create positive change in their community. Growing up on the south side of Chicago you see a lot of things and the church is suppose to be a safe space to debate views and organize your community for the better. It is very unfortunate that we have taken a very cursory look at his church and his pastor and passed such harsh judgement.
October 16, 2008 — 8:03 am
Michael Cook says:
“…supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters…”
Also for the record, black power is not anti-white. That statement is so outrageous I am not sure where to begin. The statement itself implies that if one party gains power, they must do it at the costs of the party currently in power.
The whole statement is far from fact and in itself racist. Obviously this is not the forum for this discussion, but at a minimum the author of this statement is blatantly ignornant of facts and at a maximum an uninformed racist. And for the record, I am not even a fan of Obama politics, but it is very hard for me to stand by when this kind of stuff get said and mass reproduced as factual intelligent commentary, when it is so clearly neither.
October 16, 2008 — 10:41 am
Alexandria real estate says:
Most all of the comments Eric is addressing above in my deleted post were not directed to Eric’s comments, but rather to Strummer’s comments. so it’s hard to comment directly back now. Of course ALL the comments by myself were deleted so I can’t continue the conversation as the points were removed; I’m completely handcuffed and now leave you all to have a healthy debate.
Perhaps in the future just delete the uncivil text whatever you deemed it to be instead of the whole post, otherwise why should I risk passionately responding on any post if all of it might end up being deleted even if only a small portion was inappropriate. Waste of my time and doesn’t seem to be the spirit of bloodhound.
October 16, 2008 — 10:50 am
Greg Swann says:
> I’m completely handcuffed
No, you’re not. All anyone here has to do is argue issues and not people. I’m sorry I had to delete the comment, but I would consider it a far greater intrusion to edit your words. I deliberately copied your whole comment back to you in email so that you could edit it yourself. You’ve been a good friend of BloodhoundBlog, and I understand that passions can run away with people. If it helps, our comments policy protects you, too.
October 16, 2008 — 10:59 am
Greg Swann says:
> The whole statement is far from fact and in itself racist.
Come now, Michael. Reverend Wright is very clearly a racist. The rhetoric Phillips uses might not suit you, but this statement:
is factually correct in every detail. If anything, it understates the truth by leaving out Obama’s relationships with Islamists and with the leader of an ethnic-cleansing movement going on in Kenya right now. I have nothing good to say about Republicans — and I have nothing but a disgusted admiration for Communists like Ayers for their ability to play ten moves head of everyone — but if any Republican had even one friend like Obama’s coterie of evil, the outcry would be deafening. Sarah Palin wore a Buchanan button for one day and was pilloried for it. Obama maintained friendships with PLO apologist Edward Said, with PLO adviser Rashid Khalidi, with Khalid al-Mansour (who is not only an Islamist but a “black power anti-white racist, Jew-hater” all under one roof). This doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of Obama’s highly questionable alliances. It is not racist to question Obama over these relationships. To the contrary, our failure to have done so seems to me to be a manifestation of a death wish. We can only pray that Obama is not as bad as the company he keeps.
October 16, 2008 — 11:31 am
John Sabia says:
Great debate going on here… Greg, my views are in line with yours.
I’m still trying to figure out how Obama’s plan will cut taxes on 95% of the folks when anywhere from 40-50% do not pay taxes. Seems to me what we really have is a Welfare plan funded by income redistribution.
October 16, 2008 — 11:39 am
Michael Cook says:
Greg,
Perhaps we are in disagreement here based on our past experiences. I associated with many of the same characters in my college days and have no regrets or apologies for it. To think that because I am friends with someone, we therefore think alike seems much too simple to me. If your friend goes out and commits a crime, does that mean you are a criminal as well? Furthermore, should you disassociate yourself from that person because of that act. Relationships are more complex than that.
On top of that, in any movement there is a continuum of thought. To be associated with a movement of black power for example will certainly mean that some members are anti-white, we can agree there. Similiarly to be associated with a socialist movement will probably mean there are some communist thinkers. That does not mean that the group represents that or that you represent that line of thought.
To say that Obama funds black power anti-white, etc. is simply an egregious misstatement of fact. If an organization feeds, clothes, and generally makes a community a better place and your support of that aspect is turned into support of “Anti-Americans”, it does not sit well with me.
Finally, with all of the national security and intelligence the US has, if there was anything remotely questionable about Obama, dont you think they wouldnt allow him to run for office. The background check to get into the miltary is daunting, so I can only imagine that to be president there has to be a pretty high hurdle. Call me stupid, but if he had any credible threatening ties, wouldnt they have prevented him from running for office?
October 16, 2008 — 1:27 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
No, it wouldn’t have prevented him from running for office. However, it would definitely prevent him from getting this far in the election. Because of the long primary, Obama has gone through a more thorough vetting process than perhaps any candidate in US history. The fact that this is the best that Hillary & the GOP could do actually helps me realize that he is legitimate, and someone not to fear.
Greg stated above:
I heartily disagree. Sarah Palin’s church has very questionable beliefs (including many anti-Semitic undertones,) and McCain has supported anti-abortion terrorists publicly. Compare McCain’s association w/ Keating to Obama & Rezko – which relationship is deeper, and which caused more harm?
This is straight from the GOP playbook. You can’t beat them on the issues, so you attack their character (ask McCain about the 2000 primary and his “illegitimate black child.”) Now that this isn’t working, watch them shift back to name calling – you’re going to hear a lot of “tax & spend Democrat” over the next two weeks.
October 16, 2008 — 2:14 pm
Greg Swann says:
> To think that because I am friends with someone, we therefore think alike seems much too simple to me.
If you play poker once a month with an otherwise decent guy who sometimes makes stupid anti-semitic jokes, that’s one thing. If you have close, long-standing relationships with the leaders of prominent hate groups, that’s another. If we were talking about any Republican at all, no one would have any problem seeing this.
For what it’s worth, my ideal choice for the Republican presidential candidate was Condoleezza Rice, a choice I made more than four years ago. I don’t fear Obama’s skin color but, rather, his Communist, racist and Islamist affiliations. Either he is play-acting now as a reasonable centrist, or, in order to curry favor from truly “despicable” people, he has been playing-acting for more than twenty years as a radical leftist. We will have no way of discovering which is true — particularly since so much of the man’s life has been kept secret — until after we are unable to escape from him, whatever he turns out to be.
October 16, 2008 — 2:18 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
And for the record, I identify as a practical libertarian – I am socially liberal, and fiscally conservative as long as there is strong oversight. I support Obama in 2008 because I see little to no difference in their fiscal positions (if anyone was paying attention, both their proposed budgets run a $200bb deficit,) but I prefer to have liberal judges on the bench, and I don’t want to see what McCain’s office would do to our rights (God forbid Palin ever get control.)
And to clear the air on the tax issue:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html
McCain plans on giving 3X tax break to someone making $3mm/year vs. the middle class. Obama plans to roll back the income tax to pre-Bush rates for the wealthy. While I don’t necessarily agree in tax disparity, the fact is that the wealthy will spend close to, or less than the middle class due to built in tax loopholes. If there is anything we need, it’s tax reform – shrink the code from thousands of pages to one page.
October 16, 2008 — 2:21 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
And if the company you keep disqualifies you from office, then we need to get rid of most of the House Republicans from 2001-2006.
October 16, 2008 — 2:27 pm
Ryan Ward says:
To the tax issue here. Sometimes we make this into something it is not. I got an email today that I thought broke the issue down fairly well. The example used is somewhat sophomoric, but, we would all be well served by understanding the underlying message:
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 wa nted 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 pay $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.
October 16, 2008 — 7:38 pm
Missy Caulk says:
Ryan, you made me laugh, so easy we could have learned this in kindergarten.
October 16, 2008 — 7:50 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
Ryan –
Good analogy. Unfortunately, it doesn’t apply to our current situation. Because our tax laws our so convoluted, those who appear to pay the greatest percentage are actually able to pay the least. Rather than call for tax reform like either of our candidates propose, why not call for a simplification of the process. Let’s shrink tens of thousands of pages of tax code to one page.
October 17, 2008 — 1:30 am
Ryan Ward says:
Eric,
That’s sort of the point at the end. Tax them too much, the cash dries up. While there is no question that the current tax system would be best served in the recycle bin, it is what it is right now. Many politicians running for office secretly like the Fair Tax, but, are afraid to run on a platform because it would be easy to demagogue the issue to the uneducated and uninformaed in our society.
Obama’s policy is a quasi welfare tax plan which offers a hand out rather than a hand up. Many of the people in his “95%” don’t pay income tax (this number is tossed around between 35% and 50%) so they don’t have income tax to return. I would rather that money go to people like you and me who could actually use it to contribute to society rather than live off of it.
I still need someone to explain to me how giving a poor person someone else’s money will create a single job and I also want to know how taking money from people and small businesses making over 250K will increase jobs or jumpstart the economy.
Taxes are fundamentally the peoples money which as been taken and redistibuting it to others is hardly “fair”. It’s my money and it’s your money and the last group of people on earth (or, at least this country) that know best how to use it reside in Washington D.C.
It’s like the whole education thing. We already give more per student than anyone else, which by itself should prove that reform is needed, not money.
Every solution from Obama had to do with the government providing an answer and that means money – which the government does not have. It’s not that his ideas are so terrible (I think some are), but, more that his methods of creating solutions to the problems are fundamentally flawed.
My grandmother told me when I was little something very important and I think undeniable. “Tell me who your friends are and I’ll tell you who you are.” I think that is why these associations are revealing. I would never be caught dead associating myself with people like Obama because it is fundamentally against everything that I believe. Forget about whether or not a republican would or wouldn’t get away with it. I wouldn’t get away with it.
The top 10% of income earners already pay about 70% of income tax in this country. I think that is more than enough.
October 17, 2008 — 4:13 am
John Sabia says:
Taking money from the rich and “giving” it to the poor does nothing to elevate the poor from being poor, it only encourages complacency. Money is not always the answer and increased government is certainly not the answer.
Both plans will add to the deficit, however, one plan calls for a spending freeze while reforming programs, etc, and reign in government spending. The other does not.
One plan calls for increasing taxes on some people, (the very same people who create jobs) with free handouts under the guise of a “tax-cut” to those who do not pay any taxes (40-50%). The other calls for NO tax increases on anyone.
one plan calls for the government to step in to determine when an individual has earned too much money and redistribute it where they see fit to those who have not “earned” it. The other does not.
I fear unless McCain completes a “Hail Mary”, we are about to see what an Obama presidency will look like and our rights will erode while the path towards socialism expands.
Associations do tell a lot about a person’s character and judgement. Obama’s response that he was 8 years old when Bill Ayers was engaged in terrorist activities is disingenuous. He was in his 30’s when he launched his political career in Ayers’ and Benadine Dorn’s living room. Let’s remember, he originally played this off as “a guy who lives in his neighborhood” until the truth emerged.
Sarah Palin’s church is far less controversial than Jeremia Wright, Louis Farrakhen and Father Flager.
I fear liberal judges on the bench who are more interested in changing the Constitution than interpreting it.
October 17, 2008 — 6:25 am
Eric Bramlett says:
This is a straw man attack on Obama. Nowhere in his policy does it advocate redistribution of wealth. One quote, taken out context, is repeated over and over by the GOP strategists, “spread the wealth around.” What this quote refers to is the fact that his tax plan offers up to 3X the tax relief to the middle class, while rolling back the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy. It also refers to the fact that McCain is offering 3X the tax relief to the wealthy. I don’t advocate disparate tax rates, but ours is a consumer driven economy, trickle down economics has been thoroughly disproven, and I see Obama’s plan as ultimately better for the conomy (read: me,) than McCain’s.
Really? I’m far more offended by this church’s anti-Semitism, desire to force their views/values on others, and complete rejection of modern science.
Kinda the idea for someone running for office. Where are the aspects of “laissez faire” in McCain’s platform?
Here’s a great article on Warren Buffett’s view. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
Great! So are you guys both writing in protest votes this November?
John, the liberal judges are more interested in protecting your rights than changing anything.
I grew up in a Republican household and voted for Bush in 2000. In theory, the Republican ideology (minus the hateful religious right stuff) is very desirable. However, when you look at actual Republican political execution (since Reagan,) historically its brought nothing but a poor economy, bigger spending, and a bigger deficit. I’ll take “tax and spend” over “borrow and spend” any day.
I love you guys both – man, politics is fun.
October 17, 2008 — 10:17 am
Eric Bramlett says:
Damn…I just replied to you guys and so systematically destroyed your arguments that it would have been impossible for you to reply, and you both would have voted for Obama. I hit post, and it disappeared. If I have time later today, I’ll see if I can put it back together.
October 17, 2008 — 10:44 am
Ryan Ward says:
Either way Eric, I don’t think either of these candidates were the best from their respective fields. In the end, it’s about voting for the one who we believe is closer to our beliefs in how to run the country.
I will say this though:
While I don’t feel passionately for McCain, I do feel fairly passionate against Obama. There is nothing in the world that would make me vote for Obama – even if you could destroy every argument for McCain. I feel, based on the words from his mouth, not of surrogates, that the view that the government plays in the lives of citizens is contrary to every belief in my core. Where he wants more, I want less. Where he wants regulation, I want reform. Where he wants taxes, I want less. What he wants to do with healthcare, I don’t want…
McCain wants more too. Just less “more” than Obama.
October 17, 2008 — 10:59 am
Eric Bramlett says:
I’m passionately against everything Sarah Palin is about, and it scares the hell out of me that she could become president, or that her political career would be furthered. It would have been a decent internal debate if it was a McCain/Lieberman ticket. Palin as a running mate insulted my intelligence, and is everything I dislike about the Republican party (with whom I voted until 2004.) After the “illegitimate black child” of 2000, I honestly thought McCain was going to run a different type of campaign. Now that he’s against the ropes, he’s back to the old GOP fear mongering & empty promising.
So…it is sad that we’re both voting against someone rather than for someone.
October 17, 2008 — 11:05 am
Ryan Ward says:
The only person I would vote for is me. Just kidding, but, the real list would be very short. I think fear mongering and empty promises are what campaigns for both parties are all about. That’s why I will almost always vote for the party less likely to get in to my business or my pocket and pay little attention to the empty promises that run out of both sides of both candidates mouths.
I do know a couple of things though that I think are important to both the national economy and our own personal economies.
1. Businesses cannot pay taxes. No matter how much you tax them. By the very nature of them being a business, taxes are simply an expense which gets passed on to the consumer which leads me to number 2.
2. Taxing businesses hurts my personal economy because it artificially raises the cost of doing business and living life by increasing prices that I pay for things.
or,
2. b. Taxing businesses leads to a business not being able to hire new employess or forces layoffs because of increased costs of doing business.
Either way. Business doesn’t pay tax. Consumers do. In a time that the economy is bad, raising taxes on the very people who are doing well, cannot help, but, does have the potential for much harm and if revenue coming into the government is the issue for raising taxes, it might be well noted that during times of highest tax revenue taken in, has coincided with the lowest taxes.
I try to take politics (at least the voting part of it) as unemotionally as possible and stick to the facts which can be proven or disproven (this allows me to change my mind if I am disproven). When I get heated and emotional, I tend to make decisions that are not as good as when I have a calm mind as a frame of reference.
I’m OK voting against someone because I realize perfect isn’t out there and and a vote against someone is keeps me closer to what I want than the alternative of not voting at all.
October 17, 2008 — 11:24 am
Eric Bramlett says:
That’s exactly my sentiment. Like I said, I’m extremely socially liberal, and fairly fiscally conservative. The Republican ideology stays out of my pocket, but gets in my business. The Democratic ideology stays out of my business, but gets in my pocket.
For years, I supported the Republican party b/c I agree with their fiscal ideology – tax less, spend less. The past 8 years (and if you go back to the Reagan administration,) you see that their fiscal ideology and their performance don’t mesh. They DO stay out of your pocket (somewhat,) but they DON’T pay their bills (at all.) So…I’m voting for the party that will stay out of my business.
October 17, 2008 — 11:29 am
Arlington real estate says:
Let’s lose the ignorance about trickle down economics being some negative mantra by the left.
Before any new business makes any $$$ they pay their staff salaries and health care for years 1st. After awhile–perhaps several years–maybe the owner of the might make a profit–recover his costs. the people on the bottom made their $$$ much sooner than the businessman ever did. And most of the businessmen failed and never got their money even though their employees did.
A more eloquent explanation is in an old column by Thomas Sowell I had saved in my dropbox–cool technology to check out by the way. Read and learn:
https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/145823/TrickleDown-Sowell0247.pdf
J
October 17, 2008 — 11:43 am
John Sabia says:
There is no argument strong enough to change my vote or to even reconsider it. I am passionately against EVERYTHING Obama is about.
The last time I checked Palin is on the ticket as VP. As a former mayor and a sitting governor, at least there are 2 more relevant job experiences to list on her resume than Obama.
To further your argument, your intelligence should have been more insulted when Obama was nominated. He has the least experience.
Therefore, on that fact alone, you should vote for McCain!
October 17, 2008 — 11:45 am
Arlington real estate says:
Eric, how is the R party wanting to get into your business? Unless you’re wanting to do drugs, get married to another dude or have an abortion I think the right is decidedly not interested in any of your business and does not want to know about it. And many on the right–I call us conservatarians–see the drug war as a waste of money and a farce to be done away with.
It’s the left who wants to control how my wife and I birth our children, how we teach our children and run our family. The right politically will keep out of my family and business’s “business”.
j
October 17, 2008 — 11:47 am
Eric Bramlett says:
They waste my money on the war on drugs.
They won’t allow some of my friends to get married (and what’s more harmless than 2 guys getting dressed up and pledging eternal love to each other?)
They want to force my sister to have a baby if it endangers her health, and want to force many women to have children against their will.
They want to force some of my friends children to learn stories of creation that aren’t of their religion.
They want to alienate some of my friends children b/c the majority of their friends pray to a different God (prayer in schools.)
Many in the R party want to choose which television shows are appropriate for me to watch.
IMO, religion has no place in government. Take the religious right out of the Republican party, and I have very little problems with it.
My favorite comedian summed up my feelings about this really well.
We have 12 years of historical data to look at. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/business/12scene.html
Warren Buffett has some interesting things to say about our current tax system.
Before & after 8 years of the Republican party. Gimme 8 more!!!
October 17, 2008 — 2:19 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
They waste my money on the war on drugs.
They won’t allow some of my friends to get married (and what’s more harmless than 2 guys getting dressed up and pledging eternal love to each other?)
They want to force my sister to have a baby if it endangers her health, and want to force many women to have children against their will.
They want to force some of my friends children to learn stories of creation that aren’t of their religion.
They want to alienate some of my friends children b/c the majority of their friends pray to a different God (prayer in schools.)
Many in the R party want to choose which television shows are appropriate for me to watch.
Religion has no place in government. Take the religious right out of the Republican party, and I have much less problems with it.
My favorite comedian summed up my feelings on this rather well.
J – we have years of historical data to look at.
It was a joke, John.
Warren Buffett has an interesting view on our current tax system.
Here’s what 8 years of the Republican party did for us (6 of which included a Republican Congress.) Gimme 8 more!
October 17, 2008 — 2:32 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
Oh…one more aspect of the right getting in my biz. Stem cell research is providing medical breakthroughs in Europe. In the US? *cricket* *cricket*
October 17, 2008 — 2:37 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
And since this original post was all about character, let’s take a look at McCain. Read it guys…it’s written by just as credible (and biased) a source as those leveraging allegations at Obama. If your issue with Obama is his character, then it’s time to write in a protest vote.
October 17, 2008 — 2:55 pm
Edge - The Credit Crunch says:
Eric, I’m glad you mentioned the War on Drugs.
The other day, KTAR said a $4 million marijuana bust was made near Tucson.
Annually, hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars in busts are made.
Right now, think about all of the projected unemployment, the money being spent on the bailout, and the bottom line for small business owners who are leveraged and facing shutting down as their income crashes forcing them to downsize or completely fold.
Personally, for a substance that has never caused a single death, is cited in the New England Journal of Medicine and other very well respected medical papers to reduce the size of cancerous tumors, etc…
I’m pretty upset that all that money isn’t going into the hands of Americans. Those hundreds of millions of dollars worth of raw material (marijuana) that we burn/destroy, should be helping our nation by providing funds from sellers and buyers who are WILLING to be taxed.
Create jobs for shops that will sell it, reduce illegal immigration resulting from a black market drug trade, reduce the amount of police needed for marijuana-only busts, and cripple the gangs who are distributing the substance while completely avoiding any sort of income tax.
And what do we do instead? We take $4 million worth of perfectly good, in-demand products, we add more of our OWN money on top of it (payroll, intel, surveillance, etc), and burn it all together.
It’s the equivalent of taking a $100 bill, tossing in a $10 out of our own pockets, and burning it all to ash.
The people earning incomes of more than $250k don’t want to be taxed.
The middle class doesn’t want to be taxed.
And yet we completely ignore the millions of americans who would willingly pay HEFTY “sin” taxes like those paid for alcohol and tobacco products.
No, we don’t want their money. We would much prefer they give it to criminals instead rather than let that money circulate responsibly in the economy.
It’s perplexing.
We put M&Ms and Skittles next to cash registers and call it impulse purchases that help increase sales.
But we allow drug dealers to sell marijuana along with meth and coke and call marijuana a gateway drug.
I don’t smoke (anything) and I don’t even drink alcohol but a couple times a year. Heck, I have a new ‘never been opened’ bottle of Grey Goose that’s been sitting in my pantry for a year and a half…
And yet my elected officials would instead to tax me not only for every penny I make, but also for every penny I spend (and possibly also on every penny I invest as well).
But they refuse to take the money from the guy who is basically saying, “Here, I am 100% O.K. with you taking this money – I’m just happy to be able to do this legally now and support America rather than wherever the drug dealer is sending my money to”.
In times like this, I look to both candidates and ask them, how is this fair?
Ron Paul co-sponsored a bill very recently for the decriminalization for responsible amounts of marijuana. In times like this, bills like that resonate with people like me. I don’t want my tax money going to court costs, police spending, and other areas to FIGHT this…
I want my tax money to more responsibly spent because my government is now earning more tax money and helping the economy grow by realizing we’re sitting on a gold mine we refuse to touch because people still thing it makes black jazz musicians rape white women.
Sorry, I’m ranting…
After 8 years as a registered Republican, I finally changed to Libertarian.
Obama used to talk about the dangers of a repressive drug war, but he’s since shut up now. The two party system has failed folks like me who want actual change rather than slight (useless) modifications to what we currently have.
The War on Drugs isn’t financially motivated (we’re bleeding money).
It’s not socially motivated (more states every election are voting AGAINST criminalization).
That leaves me to reason that it’s politically motivated, and anyone who won’t speak out about THAT, disgusts me.
But then again, I guess lobbyist money is better than any other kind of money to greedy politicians.
Personally, I imagine that both candidates are ecstatic about this recent economic crash. It means they don’t have to address the border problem which is largely fueled by the fact that Mexico brings something to Americans that they like VERY much (marijuana).
October 17, 2008 — 3:42 pm
John Sabia says:
I realize that Eric. just not one of your better ones!
It’s not just his character. His ideology, his vision, his judgment, etc.
While I don’t agree with everything McCain, I don’t agree with anything Obama. But that is the beauty of this country. We vote our conscience and who we believe best represents our views.
October 17, 2008 — 3:49 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
Wow…can’t believe I missed that brainbuster. Kelly, after you’re done putting lipstick on your favorite pitbull, why don’t you pick up a copy of “The Post American World” and read it (rather than just link to it.) It’s far from “un-American.”
But seriously, by your rationale, you can credit or blame any boom or bust on whomever you choose. “Current crisis – f-ing dem’s in Congress (man they’re efficient – only 2 years to hatch their evil plan on America.)” “Unprecedented prosperity of the 90’s – Republican congress!!!”
Oh…now I see why you’re for the Palin ticket!
October 18, 2008 — 8:58 am
Eric Bramlett says:
Edge – a bajillion dittos. Yet another example of the religious right’s incredible influence on the country.
If you get a chance, check out Super High Me. Incredibly entertaining, and incredibly informative.
October 18, 2008 — 10:22 am
Larry Brewer says:
All this talk about the presidential election, and the real reason we have this mess is congress. They are the ones who spend the money, and make the laws. They are the ones who allowed Fannie May to be run into bankruptcy, they are the ones who force banks to give loans to people who normally wouldn’t qualify.(think CRA). The only thing a president can do is veto an entire package, or let it go. If you want change, fire your congressman or senator, especially if they have been in office more that 4 years. Maybe Mccain can’t change the county, but if Obama is elected, Pelosi will, and I don’t think it will be a positive change based on her past record.
October 18, 2008 — 12:21 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
Not true. The president proposes a budget to congress, who then passes that budget or a revision of the proposal. It then goes to back to the executive branch for ratification. It’s a collaborative effort between the executive and legislative branches.
October 18, 2008 — 12:26 pm
John Sabia says:
Yes, the gang of 3 will certainly wreak far left havoc. Watch out talk radio, fox news and anyone else who doesn’t share the far left views.
http://www.adl.org/special_reports/farrakhan_own_words2/farrakhan_own_words.asp
I do think that is far worse than Palin’s church.
October 18, 2008 — 2:07 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Ever notice who the folks are in life who argue character isn’t an issue worthy of discussion? It’s not those with stellar character, as Captain Obvious would say.
Of course, if in the same you can compare Rev. King’s church and teachings to Rev. Wright, without laughing out loud, there’s really no conversation to have.
Start with Carter and follow national elections to today. What defeats liberals, across the board, is showing them for what they are. Obama/Biden are both rated more liberal, based upon their records, than the avowed Socialist senator from Vermont. You earn that.
When voters realize who liberals are, they simply don’t vote for them. There has always been more registered Dems than Reps, and by a wide margin. Yet Reps keep getting elected president. Libs know they can’t campaign as the liberals they are. When the opposition successfully pulls down their pants, the party’s over.
Obama’s campaign is correctly worried about ACORN, and the rest of his associations, because he knows if the public sees him for what he is, he loses.
He also realizes he screwed the pooch when he said out loud the fatal Socialist tenet, ‘spread the wealth’, a rare moment of honesty.
Modern Liberalism is a belief system, for which I have open contempt. After the rhetoric dies down, it still boils down to this: They’re gonna take my fish and give it to somebody else. The rest is misdirection, and rank obfuscation.
For those who think this election’s in the bag, you might be in for a huge surprise. Though I have next to no faith in McCain as a conservative, I believe he’s an honest man with a sense of integrity. Yes, he’ll get my worthless CA vote, but it’ll be while I’m holding my nose. Compared to Obama though, McCain IS Reagan.
October 18, 2008 — 6:21 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
So Jeff, based on this statement, I assume that character is important to you. Did you have a chance to read the article I referenced? http://tinyurl.com/3toabc
Read that article and let me know if you think the same thing. While obviously biased, Rolling Stone does have to watch out for those pesky libel laws.
October 19, 2008 — 8:36 am
Eric Bramlett says:
I’m assuming everyone here considers Colin Powell a good man of moral character.
October 19, 2008 — 8:39 am
John Sabia says:
Based on what?????
payback possibly?
hmmm……While I do have respect for the man, I think he has an ax to grind.
October 19, 2008 — 9:35 am
Jeff Brown says:
Eric — Your man’s a Socialist, pure and simple. Bill or Hilary Clinton is Reagan compared to Obama. All human beings are imperfect. Playing gotcha is like kids at recess, so I’m not goin’ down that road. Both sides can do that.
I’ll take the guy whose character dictated he remain for several years of guaranteed torture, eschewing freedom for principle. That’s character, Eric.
Guys, Colin Powell’s been the poster guy for ass kisser for two generations now. The fact he shares the same rank as General Schwarzkopf should be an embarrassment to the country.
None of us is gonna change the other guy’s mind on this stuff. I respect everyone here, along with their opinion. Let’s remember on January 20th, we’re all gonna be Americans with a new president, regardless of who he is.
Have a good one everybody.
October 19, 2008 — 10:12 am
Eric Bramlett says:
That’s exactly what you’re doing here. The conversation went to his character and I pointed out that McCain is severely lacking in character, so you go to…
Wow…one of the more competent Sec’y of States of recent history endorses your opposition, so you now attack his character? I knew it was coming, but was still surprised to see it.
I respect your opinion, as well.
October 19, 2008 — 10:16 am
Eric Bramlett says:
That’s a great sound bite that’s been repeated over the last couple of weeks, but again, is false.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28645
That article doesn’t paint Obama in a pretty picture, by any means, but it fairly definitively shows that he is not a socialist. If you’re going to call names, try to make the names accurately descriptive.
October 19, 2008 — 10:20 am
Eric Bramlett says:
I thought this was an extremely relevant take (to this thread,) from Powell:
October 19, 2008 — 10:52 am
Missy Caulk says:
Powell has been mad at Bush for years. Plus John McCann has not said those things Powell accused him of. In fact he corrected a person in the crowd that said Obama was a Muslim. Of course we all know Ayers was just a neighbor and he was 8 years old when he was a terrorist.
October 19, 2008 — 3:30 pm