My new government job under Obama

I can't wait to get my new government job when I'm laid off because of the effect of his new taxes on small business ! Oh, and I'll have free health care as well. There needs to be a government job for line-monitor:

Government Health-Care Line Monitor -- Stands with an AK-47 to monitor the huge waiting lines for government health care, to make sure that no violence or insubordination takes place. Anyone complaining about the line will be whacked aside the head with the rifle but. Anyone with terminal conditions will be sent home, it's not worth it.

Sounds like a good job!

Pick Your New Government Job! :: Posted by ObamaMarx2008

As we know, soon there will be no more jobs because Obama's high taxes
will further destroy the economy. The only solution to this is the creation of
massive government jobs under the watchful eye of Obama....I'm throwing some
possibilies out there, which one will you choose? (Haha, did I say choose? I
mean, it will be chosen for you)
~
1) Fairness Monitors: Monitor blogs,
radios, TV, and other forms of publications for "unfairness" under the
established Fairness Doctrine. Report any unbalance (aka conservative views) to
the government.

2) Truth Squads (already established): Fight the smears!
As an employee of the Truth Squads you will report fellow citizens for
"unfairness," or simply questioning or criticizing the policies of our Dear
Leader (like Joe the Plumber)

3) Voting Assistants: Your job will be
helping voters to make the right choice on election day! (hint: if they refuse
to vote for our Beloved Leader then bash them in side of the head with your
AK-47, just like in Cuba!) They'll understand who to vote for then.

4)
Obama's Civilian Army ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igDoHZ0hVUY ): Our Dear
Leader's new Civilian Security Force will also enjoy weapons training. Then when
you're well-trained enough our Dear Leader will have new work for you including
guarding the re-education camps and seeking out thought criminals.

5)
Wealth Redistributor: As everyone knows, earning excessive wealth (more than
$100,000) is immoral and greedy. Your duty will be to make sure that private
wealth is redistributed evenly to the people. Report refusals to spread the
wealth to Obama's new Civilian Security Force and they'll handle the rest.

6) IRS Tax Creator: Your job will be thinking of thousands of new taxes
to apply to citizens and find ways to keep the wealth redistributed. Primary
responsibilies include new ways to tax people, for example: fast food
consumption taxes (to cut costs for government healthcare) or the windfall car
tax for any family owning more than one car will be taxed on yearly mileage.
This will help cut down on our oil consumption and it won't affect the middle
class. After all, any family with more than one car is obviously rich!

The future does look bright with all of these new job opportunties. Can
anyone else think of any more new government jobs that Barack Hussein Obama will
create?

Slippery tax slope again

Does Obama really think the American people are so stupid, to let him gradually push his $250K tax increase figure gradually lower WHILE he is still campaigning, and not expect a certain percentage of the population to change their vote? First it went from $250K to $200K, and now it seems to be $150K. I'll bet by the time congress gets in there its all the way down to $75K.

Obama isn't as smart as the media claims. If he were smart, he would target people making over $1 million. That is the definition of a millionaire, so why not use that figure. Even I might agree with that figure, but $200K is ridiculous, it hits small business. His gaffes on 'spread the wealth' may well cost him this election.

The Communist Manifesto's second plank is, "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." Fact: That's not a myth, that's what we live with today.

Check these facts for yourself:

* (1) Go to the US Statistical Abstract
at www.census.gov/compendia/statab/.
* (2) Select "Federal Gov't Finances & Employment".
* (3) Select
"Federal Individual Income Tax Returns".
* (4) Click on Table 474,
"Individual Income Tax Returns." You have a choice of Excel or PDF format.


It's also possible to go right to the data in one fell swoop. Go to www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/08s0474.xls
or www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/08s0474.pdf.

If you look at the data in just that one IRS table, you can debunk
virtually every myth that Democrats have been propagating about taxes for at
least the last eight years. (For reference, AGI is adjusted gross income; it is
how much you make before deductions.)

Myth 1: Rich people don't pay
taxes.

Fact: Yes they do. And be glad they do. Those making over
$200,000 in 2004, though being only 2.3% of all tax filers, paid 47% of all
individual income taxes.

Myth 2: But that's only because the rich make
so much more money.

Fact: That same group of tax filers accounted for
only 26% of individual income (AGI). Repeat: they made 26% of the money but paid
47% of the taxes.

Myth 3: But the rich don't pay as high a percentage as
the rest of us.

Fact: Look at the column labeled "Income Tax as a
Percent of AGI" and simply look at the numbers. The higher the income, the
higher percent paid in taxes. In fact, the disparity is significant. Those
making over $200,000 paid an average of at least 21% in income taxes on average,
while those making $30,000 or less (over half of all filers) paid 5% or less.
Repeat: the "rich" paid tax rates that were at least four times greater (300%
more) than the median tax filer.

The only exception to this trend is in
the very upper reaches of income. Those making between half a million and one
million dollars in 2004 paid 24% in taxes, while those making over $1 million
paid 23%. I'll let that one half of one percent of all tax filers fight over
that 1% difference among themselves.


Myth 4: Bush's tax cuts only
benefitted the super-rich.

Fact: Go to that same column labeled "Income
Tax as Percent of AGI." That column shows average tax rates in 2000 (before
Bush's tax cuts) and 2004 (after the cuts). Note that the tax went down for
every single income group. In fact, the lower the income, the greater the
average percentage cut in taxes owed.

The lower half of all tax filers
(among those even having to file) paid at least 50% less in 2004 than in 2000
for the same income level. That's a 50% tax cut at least. Those making $200,000
or more paid had their taxes cut just 16%, at most.

If anyone should be
complaining about those tax cuts, it should be those making between $200,000 and
$500,000. Their cut was only 13%, but those making over $1 million got a 16%
cut. (Paging David Cay Johnston, hero to the half-millionaires.) But let's be
clear: every income group below $200,000 received an average cut of at least
21%.

Myth 5: We should cut taxes for 95% of the people.

Fact:
What we "should" do is subjective, but what we "can" do is not. If 95% of people
do not even pay income taxes, how can you cut their income tax? Not every one
even has to file a tax return. Of those that did, the lowest 18% paid zero
income taxes. Zero. By the time you chop off the "rich" (those making over
$200,000 in 2004), you have less than 80% to play with.

Of course, if
you make up negative numbers for tax cuts, you can do anything. If you call
giving money to someone a "tax cut" (as opposed to letting him keep more of what
he earned) then you can indeed "cut taxes" for those who don't pay them. I think
you have to go to Harvard Law to understand that logic.

By the way, when
George W. Bush cut taxes, he cut them for 100% of the people who paid them.
(Check the IRS table.)

Myth 6: The really rich know how to get out of
paying taxes; they don't show up in these tables.

Fact: This is the Dark
Matter theory of rich people -- they exist, but no one can detect them, not even
the IRS. Even if true, those who made over $100,000 (that they couldn't hide)
paid 68% of all income taxes while comprising less than 10% of all tax filers.
And if true, then we're even richer than we think we are: the rich are hiding
out among the poorer tax filers or non-filers. People we now think are poor, are
really rich? That would be good news, wouldn't it?

Myth 7: But cutting
taxes reduces revenues and therefore increases deficits and our debt load.

Fact: Here we'll need a different table from the US Statistical
Abstract. Go to Table 455, Federal Budget - Receipts. In 2006, after Bush's tax
cuts were in full effect, the federal government took in 18.4% of Gross Domestic
Product. Now look at averages prior to 2000. If you start taking the average in
1950, 60, 70 or 80, it doesn't matter; the average is less than 18.4% of GDP,
just where it stood in 1989 after Reagan's tax cuts. When President Clinton cut
capital gains taxes in 1997, federal revenue went up.

As the top
marginal rate on individual income varied between 28% and 92% over the last 60
years, the amount of federal revenue has consistently hovered around 18% of GDP
that whole time. In fact, revenues were generally less when the top rate was
peaking at 91% and 92% (1951-1963).

Why would anyone think raising the
top marginal rate would raise revenue? Nothing in the last 60 years indicates
any such thing would happen. However, raising top marginal rates has been the
Democratic Party's policy for the last 40 years. That's something they don't
want to change, apparently.

Myth 8: The "rich" are somebody else.

Fact: Not if the person saying that is a Congressperson. A rank-and-file
Congressperson makes $169,300 per year in 2008 in salary alone. Nancy Pelosi, as
Speaker, makes $217,400. Even if they and their spouses make no other income,
they are still in the top 5% and are all above Joe Biden's threshold of
$150,000. In fact, of 435 Congressmen, 123 of them made $1 million or more in
2003 (that is income, not net worth).

Myth 9: The Communist Manifesto's
second plank is, "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."

Fact:
That's not a myth.

Randall Hoven

On issues

I was against the bailout on principle. Too bad both presidential candidates voted for it. Too bad Bush has swerved way left of his original libertarian leanings (perhaps they never existed and I was merely fooled into that belief).

But there is still one way to differentiate. One candidate has consistently voted against increases in government spending, voting only 79% of the time with his party. The other candidate voted 97% of the time with his own party, and voted for every spending increase in his short tenure. That candidate admits he wants to 'spread the wealth around' because he feels that is 'good for everyone': I disagree.

Admittedly, most of our federal government bureaucracy is big, boated, and difficult to dismantle, but at least one candidate running for president expressed the desire to try to dismantle its size and shrink it's tyrannical reach to local mainstream America.

Don't be hypnotized by smooth talk.

A taxpayer voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders

what is the significance of the three witches in the opening act to the whole play (MacBeth).

Frank Marshall Davis, William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, set the tone for the entire presidential campaign as dark and supernatural. This somewhat removes the culpability from Obama's hands. And what about the main woman in the campaign, Mrs. Obama? For the first time in her adult life, she is proud to be an American, because without Obama's hope and change, with government replacing capitalism, she was not proud; a sort of supernatural way of looking at traditional America.

They advance the story by informing Obama that one day he will be President of the United States.

However, the electorate was not happy with the arrival of this news from 'some' of the media, so the main stream media tried desperately to cover the identities and stories of these characters and their associations with Senator Obama, claiming they were only casual at best, or by blatantly ignoring the stories.

It is noteworthy that some MSM news outlets actually remove all references to these three altogether, preferring to leave the Obama hope and change vision as the one and only driving force in his campaign. Change from what to what, is left unsaid, rather it is the hope for a government provided future that they push forth. They try to remove the unrepentant blemished character of these three at the door step of the campaign, because they feel this conflicts with the rest of Obama's more hope/change driven themes.

what is the significance of the three witches in the opening act to the whole play (MacBeth).

how do they advance the plot?
----
The witches set the tone for the entire play as dark and supernatural. This also somewhat removes the culpability from Macbeth's hands, while tying the supernatural evil to the other main woman in the play, Lady Macbeth.

They advance the play by informing Macbeth that he is destined to be King. If he had not been told this, he could not have told his wife, and she could not have taken it as a sign to kill Duncan.

However, the witches acted without permission from Hecate, the witch queen, and as punishment must act again later in the play to sabotage the king they have made.

It is noteworthy that many modern Macbeth productions actually remove the three witches altogether, preferring to leave at least some of the responsibility at Macbeth's feet, as well as remove the supernatural aspect which they feel conflicts with the rest of the play's more visceral themes.

www.enotes.com/macbeth/q-and-a/what-significance-three-witches-opening-act-whole-43269

545 Dummies

Mr Punky has been sent a chain mail that's been making its way around.
However, Mr Punky Kitten can only agree with the last line:

3. Lastly, you can sit back and do nothing, or re-elect the current bunch.

That's what's gonna happen.
Why?
Because in reality, a MAJORITY of Americans agree with the Democrats. The majority wants this stupid bunch in congress to screw us all. The majority is downright stupid, and they NEED representatives because the representatives are smarter than this 51% of the people. Hey, the majority of the dummies in this country probably don't even know that it is the Democrats in control of both houses of congress.

The other 49% of the people probably agree with this statement, but too bad for them, they are being screwed by the tyranny of the majority. And the worst part is, every year the percentage of this tyranny will increase, because congress is screwing us via public education and the media, both of those institutions actually teach that everything is fine up there on Capital Hill. And they teach that government is the solution to all their problems. Ha. It's not the solution, government is the problem!

Here is an example of dummy logic in action. A few years ago there was a big flap about the representatives in the Pennsylvania House voting themselves a pay raise in an inappropriate manner. The election that year was all about this (even in the media):

Vote out the incumbents.

Guess what happened in reality: Many of the Republican incumbents were voted out, but hardly any Democrat incumbents were voted out, and this even though it was mostly the Democrats that voted for that pay increase (a higher percentage by far than the Republicans). Thats what public education the media have done to the dummies in this country.

545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices--545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted--by present facts--of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ ..

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

What you do with this article now that you have read it is up to you, though you appear to have several choices.

1. You can send this to everyone in your address book, and hope they do something about it.

2. You can agree to vote against everyone that is currently in office, knowing that the process will take several years.

3. Lastly, you can sit back and do nothing, or re-elect the current bunch.

The slippery slope of tax increases from Obama

Obama says he wants to tax the top 5%, those evil rich. Do you believe him? If so, you are a sucker! Bill Clinton pulled that same stunt in '92-'93.

Obama will start at $250K, then send his bill to congress. Congress will change it to the tax bracket which is taxed at 33%: $160,851 - $349,700: 33% of the amount over $160,850

articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Common/Taxes/2007TaxBrackets.aspx
So that brings $250K down to $160K. This is the slippery slope that Joe the Plummer was talking about. Joe the Plummer is a smart guy, he knows a weasel when one shows up at his residence pandering for votes.

Obama will say he has to go along with congress, and they will raise that tax bracket to 39%, a whopping 6% increase.

His plan also hits small business hard, because that's the tax bracket they use. That 6% comes out of their bottom line, and will lay off employees.

Obama will bite his lower lip, quivering, just like Clinton used to do, and say to the American public: I tried, I tried as hard as I might, but the congress and the economic realities force me to go along with their plan. But don't worry, at $160K, that's still give tax relieve to most Americans, and an increase to those evil rich people at $160K. So the slope is sliding. The next year, they will lower it again, and again, and again.

So whereas only 20% of small business are hit at the $250K figure, as told by the Wall Street Journal, more like 40% are hit at $160K.

Also, Obama will change the capital gains tax from 15% to 28%. That hits all the 50% of people in America who have stocks covered by 401K.

He also has indicated he wants to take away 401K deductions in favor of some sort of government program. So that affects me and you. I will get a tax increase, even though I'm squarely in the middle of the middle class. Simply because of the loss of the 401K tax deduction. This is creaping socialism, and I don't like the creap.

Don't make a bad move, space cadet.

Vote McCain instead, he will cut spending, and keep taxes as they are. That's more freedom than under Obama.

Bias on NPR

On a radio station that plays 4 minutes of NPR, this morning I heard them play a clip of McCain talking about Obama's pledge to spreading the wealth around, a good clip, but then they announce some think tank has released a note that 80% of the people benefit under Obama, 20% of rich people would benefit under McCain. Finally, they play a clip of Obama which shows him in a good light.

This is obvious bias, in that they didn't equally play some think tank (and I know there are many) that shows that EVERYONE benefits when taxes are not raised too much. Just google the 'laffer curve'. The think tank they have chosen is some socialist organization which always comes out with studies that are less than pragmatic, and do not take a very in depth dynamic study of economics. Their static model is skin deep, and will not realize what always happens when taxes are raised, the economy suffers.

Obama to outlaw soccer?

Maybe not, but under Obama's plan, individuals and their families who participate in sports will have their health care plans doubled, and tax deductions for health care will be reduced.

spread the wealth around

From Doug Ross: a creative approach to redistribution of wealth as offered by a reader of the local newspaper, the Eagle Tribune:

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign the read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed--just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application..

McCain his a homer in Pennsylvania

Now, I’m not dumb enough to get mixed up in a World Series between swing states, but I think I may have detected a little pattern with Senator Obama. It’s pretty simple really. When he’s campaigning in Philadelphia, he roots for the Phillies, and when he’s campaigning in Tampa Bay, he shows love to the Rays. It’s kind of like the way he campaigns on tax cuts, but then votes for tax increases after he’s elected. Or the way he says he backs the middle class and then goes and attacks Joe the Plumber after he’s asked a tough question.

and this on Joe the Plumber:

After months of campaign trail eloquence, we’ve finally learned what Senator Obama’s economic goal is. As he told Joe, he wants to quote “spread the wealth around.” He believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that grow our economy and create jobs and opportunities for all Americans. Senator Obama is more interested in controlling who gets your piece of the pie than he is in growing the pie. This explains some big problems with my opponent’s claim that he will cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans. You might ask: How do you cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans, when more than 40 percent pay no income taxes right now? How do you reduce the number zero?

  Well, that’s the key to Barack Obama’s whole plan: Since you can’t reduce income taxes on those who pay zero, the government will write them all checks called a tax credit. And the Treasury will have to cover those checks by taxing other people, including a lot of folks just like Joe.

and on national security:

This weekend, Senator Biden guaranteed that if Senator Obama is elected, we will have an international crisis to test America’s new President. We don’t want a President who invites testing from the world at a time when our economy is in crisis and Americans are already fighting in two wars.

  What is more troubling is that Senator Biden told their campaign donors that when that crisis hits, they would have to stand with them because it wouldn’t be apparent Senator Obama would have the right response. Forget apparent. We know Senator Obama won’t have the right response.

  We’ve seen the wrong response from him over and over during this campaign. He opposed the surge strategy that is bringing us victory in Iraq and will bring us victory in Afghanistan. He said he would sit down unconditionally with the world’s worst dictators. When Russia invaded Georgia, Sen. Obama said the invaded country should show restraint. He’s been wrong on all of these.

I

from Anthem, by Ayn Rand

I know not if this earth on which I stand is the core of the universe or if it is but a speck of dust lost in eternity. I know not and I care not. For I know what happiness is possible to me on earth. And my happiness needs no higher aim to vindicate it. My happiness is not the means to any end. It is the end. It is its own goal. It is its own purpose.

Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars.

I am a man. This miracle of me is mine to own and keep, and mine to guard, and mine to use, and mine to kneel before!

I do not surrender my treasures, nor do I share them. The fortune of my spirit is not to be blown into coins of brass and flung to the winds as alms for the poor of the spirit. I guard my treasures: my thought, my will, my freedom. And the greatest of these is freedom.

I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask none to live for me, nor do I live for any others. I covet no man's soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.

I am neither foe nor friend to my brothers, but such as each of them shall deserve of me. And to earn my love, my brothers must do more than to have been born. I do not grant my love without reason, nor to any chance passer-by who may wish to claim it. I honor men with my love. But honor is a thing to be earned.

I shall choose friends among men, but neither slaves nor masters. And I shall choose only such as please me, and them I shall love and respect, but neither command nor obey. And we shall join our hands when we wish, or walk alone when we so desire. For in the temple of his spirit, each man is alone. Let each man keep his temple untouched and undefiled. Then let him join hands with others if he wishes, but only beyond his holy threshold.

For the word "We" must never be spoken, save by one's choice and as a second thought. This word must never be placed first within man's soul, else it becomes a monster, the root of all the evils on earth, the root of man's torture by men, and of an unspeakable lie.

The word "We" is as lime poured over men, which sets and hardens to stone, and crushes all beneath it, and that which is white and that which is black are lost equally in the grey of it. It is the word by which the depraved steal the virtue of the good, by which the weak steal the might of the strong, by which the fools steal the wisdom of the sages.

What is my joy if all hands, even the unclean, can reach into it? What is my wisdom, if even the fools can dictate to me? What is my freedom, if all creatures, even the botched and impotent, are my masters? What is my life, if I am but to bow, to agree and to obey?

But I am done with this creed of corruption.

I am done with the monster of "We," the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame.

And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride.

This god, this one word:

"I."

I AM JOE.

I AM JOE THE PLUMBER

Don't breath, you will be in violation of Obama's laws

When I was a kid, we burned coal and wood in our fire place. We often couldn't afford the oil for our heater. With this new classification from Obama, the price of heating our homes will sky rocket. The unintended consequence will be that very many more people will heat their homes with coal and wood in their fire places and wood burning stoves.

Do you know how many pollutants AND CO2 are released by individuals burning as opposed to coal plants, which scrub the exhausts, before they are released? It's much more efficient for power plants to do so. Apparently liberals don't think, logic escapes them. Economics is way over their head.

Hold your breath, or you may be breaking the law. Any scientist knows that CO2 is not pollution, nor can it be classified as a pollutant. One more reason to vote against Obama

Obama to Declare Carbon Dioxide Dangerous Pollutant (Update1)
By Jim Efstathiou Jr.

Oct. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama will classify carbon dioxide as a dangerous
pollutant that can be regulated should he win the presidential election on Nov.
4, opening the way for new rules on greenhouse gas emissions.
The Democratic senator from Illinois will tell the Environmental Protection Agency
that it may use the 1990 Clean Air Act to set emissions limits on power plants
and manufacturers, his energy adviser, Jason Grumet, said in an interview. President George W. Bush declined to curb CO2 emissions under the law even after the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the government may do so.
If elected, Obama would be the first president to group emissions blamed for global
warming into a category of pollutants that includes lead and carbon monoxide. Obama's rival in the presidential race, Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, has not said how he would treat CO2 under the act.
Obama ``would initiate those rulemakings,'' Grumet said in an Oct. 6 interview in Boston. ``He's not going to insert political judgments to interrupt the commendations of the scientific efforts.''
Placing heat-trapping pollutants in the same category as ozone may lead to caps on
power-plant emissions and force utilities to use the most expensive systems to curb pollution. The move may halt construction plans on as many as half of the 130 proposed new U.S. coal plants.
...

McCain - optimist; Obama - pessimist

This is the first election that I can remember, when there was a candidate who actually 'ADMITS' he wants to raise taxes going into the election. That's saying something. In the past, if any candidate said that they would be toast.

We see this again reiterated in the second debate. Obama admits to a huge tax increase, McCain wants to maintain taxes just as they are, and add in an additional tax cut on business in order to stay competitive with the rest of the industrialized world.

Small business, which has no capital gains tax, but mostly an income tax, will be hit hardest by Obama's new taxes.

Rich people will simply shelter their income and capital gains. This will do the same thing a tax increase (progressive) always does, stunt the economy.

McCain's taxes are just right, no drastic cuts, just a little here and there.

So here is the question I liked best from the debate. Proposed by a citizen, and re-worded by Brokaw.

In here we see that Obama again talks about 'Revenue' (leftist/liberal speak for taxes), and McCain talks about fundamentally fixing the problem by addressing the problem, not raising taxes to cover it, which is an impossibility.

The bottom line: McCain is an optimist, Obama is a pessimist, listen or read and this comes through again and again.

Brokaw: There are lots of issues that we are going to be dealing with here
tonight. And we have a question from Langdon (ph) in Ballston Spa, New York, and
that's about huge unfunded obligations for Social Security, Medicare, and other
entitlement programs that will soon eat up all of the revenue that's in place
and then go into a deficit position.

Since the rules are pretty loose
here, I'm going to add my own to this one. Instead of having a discussion, let
me ask you as a coda to that. Would you give Congress a date certain to reform
Social Security and Medicare within two years after you take office? Because in
a bipartisan way, everyone agrees, that's a big ticking time bomb that will eat
us up maybe even more than the mortgage crisis.

Obama: Well, Tom, we're
going to have to take on entitlements and I think we've got to do it quickly.
We're going to have a lot of work to do, so I can't guarantee that we're going
to do it in the next two years, but I'd like to do in the my first term as
president.

But I think it's important to understand, we're not going to
solve Social Security and Medicare unless we understand the rest of our tax
policies. And you know, Sen. McCain, I think the "Straight Talk Express" lost a
wheel on that one.

So let's be clear about my tax plan and Sen.
McCain's, because we're not going to be able to deal with entitlements unless we
understand the revenues coming in. I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of
Americans, 95 percent.

If you make less than a quarter of a million
dollars a year, you will not see a single dime of your taxes go up. If you make
$200,000 a year or less, your taxes will go down.

Now, Sen. McCain talks
about small businesses. Only a few percent of small businesses make more than
$250,000 a year. So the vast majority of small businesses would get a tax cut
under my plan.

And we provide a 50 percent tax credit so that they can
buy health insurance for their workers, because there are an awful lot of small
businesses that I meet across America that want to do right by their workers but
they just can't afford it. Some small business owners, a lot of them, can't even
afford health insurance for themselves.

Now, in contrast, Sen. McCain
wants to give a $300 billion tax cut, $200 billion of it to the largest
corporations and a hundred thousand of it -- a hundred billion of it going to
people like CEOs on Wall Street.

He wants to give average Fortune 500
CEO an additional $700,000 in tax cuts. That is not fair. And it doesn't work.

Now, if we get our tax policies right so that they're good for the
middle class, if we reverse the policies of the last eight years that got us
into this fix in the first place and that Sen. McCain supported, then we are
going to be in a position to deal with Social Security and deal with Medicare,
because we will have a health care plan that actually works for you, reduces
spending and costs over the long term, and Social Security that is stable and
solvent for all Americans and not just some.

Brokaw: Sen. McCain, two
years for a reform of entitlement programs?

McCain: Sure. Hey, I'll
answer the question. Look -- look, it's not that hard to fix Social Security,
Tom. It's just...

Brokaw: And Medicare.

McCain: ... tough
decisions. I want to get to Medicare in a second.

Social Security is not
that tough. We know what the problems are, my friends, and we know what the
fixes are. We've got to sit down together across the table. It's been done
before.

I saw it done with our -- our wonderful Ronald Reagan, a
conservative from California, and the liberal Democrat Tip O'Neill from
Massachusetts. That's what we need more of, and that's what I've done in
Washington.

Sen. Obama has never taken on his party leaders on a single
major issue. I've taken them on. I'm not too popular sometimes with my own
party, much less his.

So Medicare, it's going to be a little tougher.
It's going to be a little tougher because we're talking about very complex and
difficult issues.

My friends, what we have to do with Medicare is have a
commission, have the smartest people in America come together, come up with
recommendations, and then, like the base-closing commission idea we had, then we
should have Congress vote up or down.

Let's not let them fool with it
anymore. There's too much special interests and too many lobbyists working
there. So let's have -- and let's have the American people say, "Fix it for us."

Now, just back on this -- on this tax, you know, again, it's back to our
first question here about rhetoric and record. Sen. Obama has voted 94 times to
either increase your taxes or against tax cuts. That's his record.

When
he ran for the United States Senate from Illinois, he said he would have a
middle-income tax cut. You know he came to the Senate and never once proposed
legislation to do that?

So let's look at our record. I've fought higher
taxes. I have fought excess spending. I have fought to reform government.

Let's look at our records, my friends, and then listen to my vision for
the future of America. And we'll get our economy going again. And our best days
are ahead of us.