Like Obama, Biden Hits Out at Holtz-Eakin Health Care Comments

Update America:
Investors Flee From ‘Change’ Obama Hypes
By JACK KEMP AND PETER FERRARA | Posted Monday, October 27, 2008 4:30 PM PT
Are Barack Obama’s proposed tax increases adversely affecting our financial markets? We say yes, unambiguously. The senator has done a masterful job distracting attention from his tax increases with his $500-per-worker tax credit supposedly for 95% of Americans.
Obama has also set forth more than half a dozen additional refundable income tax credits targeted to low- and moderate-income workers for child care, education, housing, welfare, retirement, health care and other social purposes.
These tax credits are devised to phase-out based on income, which will ultimately increase marginal income tax rates for middle-class workers. In other words, as you earn more, you suffer a penalty in the phase-out of these credits, which has the exact effect of a marginal tax rate increase. That harms, rather than improves, the economy.
With the bottom 40% of income earners not paying any federal income taxes, such tax credits would not reduce any tax liability for these workers. Instead, since they’re refundable, they would involve new checks from the federal government.
These are not tax cuts as Obama is promising. They are new government spending programs buried in the tax code and estimated to cost $1.3 trillion over 10 years.
Obama argues that while these workers do not pay income taxes, they do pay payroll taxes. True, but his planned credits do not involve cuts in payroll taxes. They are refundable income tax credits designed to redistribute income and “spread the wealth.”
Meantime, Obama has proposed effective tax increases of 20% or more in the two top income-tax rates, phasing out the personal exemptions and all itemized deductions for top earners, as well as raising their tax rates.
He wants a 33% increase in the tax rates on capital gains and dividends, an increase of 16% to 32% in the top payroll tax rate, reinstatement of the death tax with a 45% top rate, and a new payroll tax on employers estimated at 7% to help finance his health insurance plan. He’s also contending for higher tariffs under his protectionist policies.
Finally, he would increase corporate taxes by 25%, though American businesses already face the second-highest marginal tax rates in the industrialized world, thus directly harming manufacturing and job creation while weakening demand for the dollar.
Obama argues disingenuously that his tax increases would only affect higher-income workers and “corporate fat cats.” But it is precisely these top marginal tax rates that control incentives for savings, investment, entrepreneurship, business expansion, jobs and economic growth. While he wants to tax the rich, the burden will fall on the poor and the middle class.
In their new book, “The End of Prosperity,” Art Laffer, Steve Moore and Peter Tanous argue that the threat of this tax tsunami is already destabilizing our financial markets and causing capital flight from America.
They write, “Hot capital is escaping over the borders out of the United States and flowing into China, India, Europe, and even Japan. . . Starting in late 2007, foreigners started pulling their money out of the United States, and Americans started investing more abroad. Global investors are losing confidence in the U.S.”
The American economy was in shambles when Reagan entered office in 1981. Inflation had soared by 25% over the prior two years, unemployment was heading toward 10%, the prime interest rate hit 21%, poverty was on a 33% upswing and real family income had decreased by almost 10% due to the stagflation of the late 1970s.
Reagan cut the top income-tax rate from 70% to 50%, adopted an additional 25% across-the-board rate cut and sliced capital gains taxes in half. The 1986 tax reform left us with just two tax rates of 15% and 28%. Reagan slashed spending growth, lowered tariffs, reduced regulatory burdens and promoted anti-inflation monetary policies.
The result, the authors explain, was actually a 25-year, noninflationary economic boom, with only two brief, mild recessions in 1990 and 2001. “We call this period, 1982-2007, the 25-year boom — the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet,” they write. “Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the 25-year boom than in the previous 200 years.”
By 1989, the economy had grown by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany to our U.S. economy. In 1984 alone, real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created in the 1980s, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
Spectacularly, inflation was slashed to 3.2% by 1983. The prime rate fell to 6.25% by 1992, even though opponents had argued that Reagan’s tax cuts would increase interest rates. Family income reversed its decline, poverty reversed its rise and tax revenues actually doubled.
This is the “Change We Need” today.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=309998514066924
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
IBD Tells It Like It Is. Obama is NOT the answer.

Yaaah, what’s the fuss? As McCain said under his plan every family gets 5K creidt. if you don’t have coverage you purchase coverage…if you have it at work, you keep it and use the 5K credit for add’l bills. What am I’m missing? The question to the McCain aide was ‘would people be better off taking the 5K instead of their employer sponsored health coverage?’ And, he said the obvious answer – no. Please explain how is this worse than government sponsored health care where you don’t choose your own doctor, or can’t not even find a specialist, since they won’t exist anymore and pay between 10K-100K more in taxes to cover Obama’s health care? First it’s “wealth” of $250, then this weekend it was $200, now Biden says 150. People need to realize the rich won’t bat an eyelash under Obama – it’s the upper middle class to affluent who are sunk under his plan.

John McCain is fond of repeating the patently false assertion that Barack Obama would “raise taxes on the middle class.” FactCheck.org has had to re-iterate that Obama’s tax plan would absolutely not “raise taxes on the middle class,” unless people in the “middle class” make over $250,000 a year. Even though the ads have been thoroughly debunked, McCain continues to repeat this claim, which is not just an opinion, and not just “spin,” but an outright lie. In no way will an Obama tax plan raise taxes on the “middle class.” McCain knows this, and yet he continues to say that Obama’s tax plan will raise taxes on the middle class.
Ironically, McCain is himself preparing a tax on the middle class — in the form of his health care proposal. McCain, of course, wants to work within the broken confines of the broken health care system. This is his plan for “reform,” but to borrow a phrase from Barack Obama, McCain’s health care plan is still a pig wearing lipstick. There is no real reform: no attempt to bring costs — which have doubled (doubled!) since 2000 — down; no attempt to utilize the government’s bargaining power to get deals for patients; no attempt to get health insurance for people who are denied due to “pre-existing conditions.” McCain’s plan is this: throw a $2500 tax exemption ($5000 for families) at consumers and tell them to go get their own health care.
That’s it. Here’s some money, let The Market work things out.
The problem — as I’ve often said in the past — is that health care does not operate according to the Invisible Hand, since the respective interests of the health care provider and the health care customer are mutually exclusive. The insurer (provider) wants to provide the least amount of health care for the most amount of money. The customer wants to obtain the most amount of health care for the least amount of money. People who get health insurance through their companies get a break, since they get group rates. Because there are so many people in the insurance pool, the average cost of health care per person can stay low, and the pool can absorb the hit if any member of the group needs to cash in on that health care.
McCain isn’t even proposing that. Literally, he wants you to get your cash, go down to the UnitedHealthCare office, and sign up for a plan all on your own. No group discounts. No nothing. Regular retail price. Health care premiums in Ohio start at $300 per month. Even The Wall Street Journal agreed that John McCain’s health care plan was outrageous.
At the same time, McCain wants to tax the money that employers contribute to their employees’ health insurance:
The value of the typical plan provided by an employer to a family is $12,106, of which the employer pays $8,824, and the worker pays the remaining $3,282. The median household income is $44,389, which places most American families in the 15 percent income tax bracket.
McCain wants to add the employer’s cost — an additional $8,824 — to that middle class family’s income, then tax it. The hit to the average family is 15 percent of the McCain-added income — $1,323 more in income taxes.
This new tax would affect the 158 million Americans who are insured through their employer.
Now there’s a tax on the middle class! The Hill Blog goes into a little bit of conspiracy theory, though:
So if you choose to remain with your employer-based insurance, there’s no guarantee that you’ll ever see any benefit from that $5,000 payment. In addition, giving young healthy workers $2,500 to buy insurance on their own, where it won’t be taxed, will encourage them to leave employer-based plans, quickly raising the costs for everyone remaining and thus eliminating benefits of the tax credits.
Republicans love to complain about how ineffective a particular agency or program is, intentionally staff that agency with idiots, and then, when the idiot-staffed agency messes up, point to that agency and exclaim (loudly enough for the cameras to hear), “See?! I told you that the government doesn’t work! Now, the private sector, that would have done things better!” Then, they outsource the previously government-provided benefit or service to a private company, most likely run by the personal friend of someone high up in the government.
The end result of the situation described in the blockquote above is that private health insurance companies would find their coffers pregnant with the cash generated by individuals buying insurance at the retail price rather than the discounted group rate. Why settle for getting income from group discounts when you could goad your consumers into paying full price?! That’s what I call reform.

you said”IBD Tells It Like It Is. Obama is NOT the answer.” But what is worse is Mccain in not but a long shot REAGAN.. The same sky is falling forcasters that are trashing Obama’s plans were saying that the sky is falling when Reagan was working on changing the economy. Will Obama’s plans work.. unknown until they are put in place and given an oportunity to work.

for all of you, please call 3 or 4 different health care plans, what you will average is for a single plan averaging 450-650 monthly, If you are going to get something without a 1500-2000 deductible you will pay around 600 monthly multiply that by 12 you still will owe around 2200 yearly, now for a family averaging 1100 a month, without the high deductible the low 750 with a high deductible, do the math, $5000.00 isn’t a whole lot to go toward insurance. The more folk in a plan the better the rates are, and what appeals to me most, based on this is my line of work, OBAMA said, we could get the same plan that Congress has, so copays are low and no deductibles, I will advise you to call.

To no obama,
I work full time for a small company and I work hard, but under McCain’s plan I will probably lose my group plan since as a small company without tax incentives it makes no sense for my employer to continue to offer coverage. The coverage I will get with 5K will be significantly less than I get with my group plan which already has high deductibles that keep me from going to the doctor when I should. This would probably keep me from getting preventive and wellness care altogether putting me at higher risk for catastrophic illness. That would be me and 20 million other people just like me. That is going to drive up medical costs, not drive them down, and good luck getting the government to keep up with the growing costs with these tax credits.
Also, Obama’s plan is not and has never been “government sponsored”. You keep your company sponsored insurance if you have it and you keep your doctor. Otherwise you get a group plan, just like your employee sponsored plan, which is price negotiated by the government instead of your employer (no difference) and subsidized only in the case of under-insured children. In that plan you also keep your preferred doctor.
We all need to know the facts. Just Google McCain Healthcare Plan and Obama Healthcare Plan and you’ll find articles both for and against both of them that will explain it with more honesty and less spin than either candidate’s campaign propaganda ever will.

So I repeat the question. When exactly did Republicans become business dumb? You guys used to know business. What happened?

Molly, I’m glad you feel you can trust McCain and Palin. But to me, McCain has been too erratic and untruthful to earn my trust. Actually he used to have my trust, but he’s managed to lose it.
And Palin? Even McCain’s own senior staffers are calling her a “wack job” now.

jhw539 – yeah, but Reagan was a socialist. He supported progressive tax rates.
He’s not a real American like John McCain and Sarah Palin.

DON’T BE A PAWN! Obama’s policies have been TRIED and FAILED. Creating a welfare nation is not going to work. And Universal Healthcare is sssssp – inhale now – a pipe dream. CONSIDER THIS: Incredibly, we have no definitive explanation of why a global financial crisis suddenly materialized just six weeks before U.S. elections. IF SUBPRIME loans hadn’t happened in the FIRST place there wouldn’t have been PRODUCT to bundle, sell and mutilate. DEMOCRATS headed the FINANCE committees that fought reform. The CRA was “revised” during Clinton’s reign leading to SubPrime abuses—which ultimately ABUSED low-income people. (That’s right, they keep you weak and dependent!)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/24/whitewashing-fannie-freddie/
Then left-leaning hedge fund operators who profited off Mortgage-Backed-Securities (i.e., THIEVES with offshore accounts to avoid taxes) poured their profits into Obama & the Democrats—who want more government because THEY need jobs! MORE TAXES – MORE GOV’T – MORE JOBS (for them!)
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/soros-bets-on-us-economic-collapse/
Beyond the Dems, Who Is the Economic Meltdown REALLY benefiting?
HAMAS PRAISES OBAMA AGAIN — and Biden, Too. Ahmed Yousef says that the terrorist group would send Obama a congratulation letter “the moment he will win the election.”
AL-JAZEERA FOR OBAMA http://www.aim.org/aim-column/al-jazeera-for-obama/
From The Audacity of Hope: “I will stand with the MUSLIMS should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
Before you VOTE please visit: http://www.actforamerica.org/ & see VOTER GUIDE. Act for America is dedicated to educating the West about the spread of radical Islam.

McCain’s healthcare plan helps those whose employer doesn’t provide health insurance, and they have to pay 100% of it out of their own pocket. McCain’s healthcare plan is tremendous for people
like myself, who pay over $600/mo. for healthcare insurance. I’ll take it. No
complaints here. Obama’s plan, on the othe other hand, only offers the same insurance Congress has, however,we don’t know what it will cost or if its affordable.

Vote for McShield and be safe on all fronts.

L.A. Times refuses to release Obama video
McCain campaign slams newspaper, demands evidence be made public
——————————————————————————–
Posted: October 28, 2008
7:15 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Rashid Khalidi
JERUSALEM – The Los Angeles Times says it will not release a video it obtained of Sen. Barack Obama attending an anti-Israel event in which he delivered a glowing testimonial for an anti-Israel professor who excuses terrorism.
“When we reported on the tape six months ago, that was our full report,” Times spokeswoman Nancy Sullivan told the Politico website, refusing to elaborate on the reason behind keeping the tape under wrap.
Sen. John McCain’s campaign, in response, accused the Times of intentionally suppressing the video.
“A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi,” said McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb.
“The election is one week away, and it’s unfortunate that the press so obviously favors Barack Obama that this campaign must publicly request that the Los Angeles Times do its job – make information public,” he said.
Goldfarb was referring to videotape the Times said it obtained of Obama delivering in-person testimonial in 2003 at the farewell party of anti-Israel professor Rashid Khalidi, who at the time was departing the University of Chicago for a new teaching position at Columbia University.
(Story continues below)
In a piece last April, L.A. Times writer Peter Wallsten reported that while praising Khalidi, Obama reminisced about conversations over meals prepared by the professor’s wife Mona Khalidi.
Unreported by Wallsten was that the event was sponsored by Mona Khalidi’s anti-Israel Arab American Action Network, which, as WND first reported, received large sums of money from the Woods Fund, an ultra-liberal Chicago nonprofit for which Obama served as a board member alongside Weather Underground radical William Ayers.
According to a Times account of the farewell dinner, Obama said his talks with the Khalidis served as “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. … It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation – a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table,” but around “this entire world.”
Khalidi’s farewell dinner was replete with anti-Israel speakers.
One, a young Palestinian American, recited a poem in Obama’s presence that accused the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticized U.S. support of Israel, the Times reported.
Another speaker, who reportedly talked while Obama was present, compared “Zionist settlers on the West Bank” to Osama bin Laden.
In the kicker, Wallsten wrote, “The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.”
But that detail went largely unnoticed until this past weekend, when the Gateway Pundit blog made an issue of the tape.
Wallsten did not immediately return a WND e-mail and phone call seeking comment.
Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel. He has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.
During documented speeches and public events, Khalidi has called Israel an “apartheid system in creation” and a destructive “racist” state. He has multiple times expressed support for Palestinian terror, calling suicide bombings a response to “Israeli aggression.”
He dedicated his 1986 book, “Under Siege,” to “those who gave their lives … in defense of the cause of Palestine and independence of Lebanon.” Critics assailed the book as excusing Palestinian terrorism.
Obama, Khalidi closely tied
According to a professor at the University of Chicago who said he has known Obama for 12 years, the Democratic presidential hopeful first befriended Khalidi when the two worked together at the university. The professor spoke on condition of anonymity. Khalidi lectured at the University of Chicago until 2003, while Obama taught law there from 1993 until his election to the Senate in 2004.
Khalidi in 2000 held what was described as a successful fundraiser for Obama’s failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, a fact not denied by Khalidi.
Speaking in a joint interview with WND and the John Batchelor radio show, Khalidi was asked about his 2000 fundraiser for Obama.
“I was just doing my duties as a Chicago resident to help my local politician,” Khalidi stated.
Khalidi said he supports Obama for president “because he is the only candidate who has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause.”
Khalidi also lauded Obama for “saying he supports talks with Iran. If the U.S. can talk with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, there is no reason it can’t talk with the Iranians.”
In 2001, the Woods Fund, which describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to Mona Khalidi’s Arab American Action Network, or AAAN. The fund provided a second grant to the AAAN for $35,000 in 2002.
Speakers at AAAN dinners and events routinely have taken an anti-Israel line. The group co-sponsored a Palestinian art exhibit, titled, “The Subject of Palestine,” that featured works related to what some Palestinians call the “Nakba” or “catastrophe” of Israel’s founding in 1948.
Obama hijacked phrase from Khalidi?
In May, WND noted Obama termed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a “constant sore” in an interview just five days after Khalidi wrote an opinion piece in the Nation magazine in which he called the “Palestinian question” a “running sore.”
In his piece, “Palestine: Liberation Deferred,” Khalidi suggests Israel carried out “ethnic cleansing” of Palestinians; writes Western powers backed Israel’s establishment due to guilt of the Holocaust; laments the Palestinian Authority’s stated acceptance of a Palestinian state “only” in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and eastern sections of Jerusalem; and argues Israel should be dissolved and instead a bi-national, cantonal system should be set up in which Jews and Arabs reside.
——————————————————————————–

Whats with the polls.. If they say it for what it is then why the drama… or the media money just has to be spent till d day

Some of you obviously don’t do much taxpaying.
A tax CREDIT of $5000 a year is a heck of a deal. The truth is that most company-provided health care plans do not cost much more than that for the employer and employee pieces together and many cost much less. I mean good ones, such I have been fortunate enough to have for many years, and the combined employer-employee premium for full family care was never more than $600/mo for top-of-the-line programs. Even as a small business owner I was able to get prices like that for decent programs.
Again this is a tax CREDIT, not a tax deduction. If you currently make about $100K your real tax bill is probably under $15K; with the McCain plan you get $5000 in medical premium money. Yes, as Osama says, this would generate another $1000 in tax liability – which you are trading for $5000 off the tax bill, and generating it through money you would have spent anyway.
What does the Obama plan get you? Who knows – empty words. One thing for sure, you’ll never see that Senate heath care plan. You really think they are going to let the nation’s pool of drug addicts, homeless people and all that into their plan and see their rates go through the roof?
Unfortunately, since over half the people are leeches who do not have to pay taxes, but do get to vote on how the other 40% should be taxed, this problem may not go away until the workers refuse to support the non-workers any more. Atlas Shrugged; no longer a work of fiction.

gottabesomeone better,
That credit is the maximum. Most Americans who earn less than $100,000 WILL NOT GET the full credit, only a portion in proportion with their earnings.
It is basically another crdit and break for the wealthy…gee what a surprise

I use to support Barack Obama, but why does Sen. Obama consistently refer to his terrorist friends, i.e. Rashid Khalidi and William Ayers, as “respected scholars”? they’re scum! Are we supposed to respect them because they are Ivy League faculty? Are we supposed to vote for Obama just because he went to Hawvod and Columbia, whereas Sen. McCain only went to the Naval Academy? Are our small-town values of Second Amendment, which Sen. Obama disrespectfully calls a “flawed document,” and Faith completely attributable to bitterness and anger like some people’s bigotry? He looks down on me, he disdains me, he thinks I’m messing up the country that he thinks belongs to him and his academic elite friends. I don’t think this kind of guy can possibly have my best interest at heart. I’m betting on the poker player that plays poker and against the poker player that has only read a good poker book; I’m voting for the naval aviator with the street smarts and against the Ivy Leaguer with the book smarts.

I’m voting for the guy who doesn’t crash every plane he gets in, including his campaign. Seems like McCain bets it all, then goes out because he bluffs with a pair of two’s.
Obama is pro-gun ownership, with basic, common-sense restrictions like background checks. Look it up.
Obama swears on a Christian Bible and has a general theme that falls in line with Jesus’s teachings (except for that go get Osama in Pakistan stuff). Turn the other cheek isn’t our way?
In the last 7 days, everything will be thrown at Obama, but save your feigning of elitism vs. solid small-town values. Real small town people are smart enough, strong enough, and faithful enough to know that given the evidence to judge character and temperament, Obama has bested McCain every time. Also, most of them are sleeping up so that they can continue on their creator’s plan. Go say BOO on Halloween.

NOTES FOR TRANSITION TEAM MEETING
John McCain foreign policy — maintain right wing historical fantasy at all cost, engage in name calling contests with foreign leaders, refuse to invite heads of enemy states to White House to see toy soldier collection.
John McCain plan for health insurance — doesn’t need one, already covered. Oh, you mean for everyone else… Have some gibberish written up by staff, send it to Congress and blame them for not passing it, or, if they do, veto it due to “earmarks”. If earmarks cannot be found, use “teethmarks”. If teethmarks cannot be found, start saying, “Karl Marx, Karl Marx, Karl Marx!”
John McCain Provision for America’s Security in case he croaks in office — Sarah Palin, hockey mom, complete with wardrobe, or without wardrobe (who knows, she’s a maverick, she took off in Air Force One with some church friends and nobody knows where they went).
John McCain Educational Program — increase current levels of idiocy, suppress teaching of history, mathematics, science or other topics that impead “trickle down” control of largely unskilled population. Replace reliance on engineering and medicine with greater reliance on faith healing and snake handling.
John McCain Policy in General — “We will fight, we will fight, we will fight… by ‘we” I mean your kids mostly.”
John McCain on energy and future technology — “I’ve always supported advanced technology. Not enough to use it or understand it, that’s not what 20th century politicians do. But I know how to find the right side of the issue to be on and then I stick to it until situations require a different position. Listen, my friend, we didn’t have advanced technology when I spent 5 1/2 years in the Hanoi Hilton. We didn’t have advance technology, my friend, and I’ll tell you another thing — we did spread the wealth around either. Socialism. Joe the Plumber. Ayers. Gooks! Socialism. Got to win the war in Vietnam. Plumber, plumbers, White House plumbers, G Gordon Liddy, slavery at the McCain plantation in Mississippi, Joe the Plumber, hockey moms, Joe Six Pack… YAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh!!!!”
I know, this is dumb. Back to work now.

Obamacrat for McCain:
First…for someone with an ivy league background he doesn’t look down on anyone nor is he against the Second Amendment to the US Constitution; both ideas are patently false. In regards to Ayers…the statement was that Ayers was a “respected advisor” to Chicago Mayor Daley…not that he or his campaign respected him. Daley respected him…not Obama.
As far as guns, bitterness and anger…you really need to rethink that statement and what Obama meant. If you live in a small town and see your jobs disappearing, your infrastructure crumbling (roads, bridges, etc) are you NOT mad? Do you not realize WHERE these opportunities are going? When more companies consolidate and layoff workers do you think the executives of those companies suffer? Hmm? They do this in order to continue raise the values of their stocks and bonuses; they don’t give a damn about you.
What about banks and Wall Street? What has happened to all the money provided there? A few got rich…many lost a good portion of their retirement. Why? Because of deregulation and the need for greed. Mortgage backed derivatives and all sorts of credit swaps; financial instruments to keep the big companies making money and then caused our economy to stumble.
When looking at the last two paragraphs…in all honesty do you believe that John McCain and THIS Republican ticket are here to help? John the deregulator and Sarah the queen of pork?

Update America:
Facts that Obama and his supporters keep telling.
Obama has created misdirection by claiming it is rich Americans that cause our financial crisis. In reality, the Democrats are the direct cause of the financial crisis and the economic meltdown. Without the rich Americans, there would have never been a Middle Class, there would only be rich and poor.
Now, Obama makes promises that anyone can look through like a pane of clear glass. Obama does not have the power or funds to complete any of his programs and he knows that. What cause the 10 trillion dollar worldwide financial crisis is well documented.
There is footage of Sen. Schumer and Rep. Frank rambling against regulation on Fannie and Freddie? Truth hurts. You know why the Democrats were for the unabated operation of Fannie and Freddie. It allowed for more funding for banks to issue loans to ‘victims’ that did not have the ability to make their mortgage payments, in the event of an unexpected setback (like rising food prices). The other thing that it allowed was to allow the banks that made those loans to sell them and it allowed Fannie and Freddie to package them with other loans and sell them around and around. It worked fine until people stopped paying the mortgages. The Democrats were the main obstacles to reigning in the GSEs. This is fact not reported by Ms. Couric, and Mr. Gibson or the left wing think tanks.
Democrats fervently opposed reigning in Fannie and Freddie because they believed that they effectively created homeownership for those that would not have had access to the same without their existence.
Obama’s role was to take no action even when it was brought to his attention by the Bush administration. Acorn was protesting in local banks, bullying them, under auspices of the CRA to make home loans to ‘victims’ that could not afford the terms of the loans they wanted the bank to make. The banks were threatened with a LAWSUIT, if the did not make a loan. It is not the shame of the banks; it is the shame of Obama and the Democrats.
Now Democrats are implying that because Bush and McCain received campaign contributions that they are also responsible.
Democrats are completely responsible for the financial crisis that is totaling $10,000,000,000,000 and counting. Moreover, Obama received more campaign contributions from Freddie and Fannie then both Bush and McCain.
The Jimmy Carter and Clinton administrations are the DIRECT CAUSE and NOTHING ELSE that forced the banks under threat of a LAWSUIT to make loans to persons without sufficient funds to repay. That is how the LAW reads.
In addition: The Democrats had control of the congress for two years and it is business as usual. NO CHANGE from Obama or Democrats. That is 8 years – 2 years equals 6 years. The Democrats do not know simple math. There is no way the Democrats can run the United States.

The New York Times trashes Obama’s Health Care Plan…
Health Plan From Obama Spurs Debate
By KEVIN SACK
It is one of the most audacious promises in a campaign that has been thick with them.
In speech after speech, Senator Barack Obama has vowed that he will lower the country’s health care costs enough to “bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family.” Moreover, Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has promised that his health plan will be in place “by the end of my first term as president of the United States.”
Whether Mr. Obama can deliver is a matter of considerable dispute among health analysts and economists. While there is consensus that the American health care system is bloated with waste, eliminating enough to save $2,500 per family would require simultaneous and synergistic solutions to a host of problems that have proved intractable for decades.
Even if the next president and Congress can muster the political will, analysts question whether significant savings would materialize in as little as four years, or even in 10. But as Mr. Obama confronts an electorate that is deeply unsettled by escalating health costs, he is offering a precise “chicken in every pot” guarantee based on numbers that are largely unknowable. Furthermore, it is not completely clear what he is promising.
His words about lowering “premiums” by $2,500 for the average family of four have been fairly consistent. But the health policy advisers who formulated the figure say it actually represents the average family’s share of savings not only in premiums paid by individuals, but also in premiums paid by employers and in tax-supported health programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
“What we’re trying to do,” said one of the advisers, David M. Cutler, in explaining the gap between Mr. Obama’s words and his intent, “is find a way to talk to people in a way they understand.”
The original arithmetic was somewhat basic. In May 2007, three Harvard professors who are unpaid advisers to the Obama campaign — Mr. Cutler, David Blumenthal and Jeffrey Liebman — produced a memorandum offering their “best guess” that a menu of changes would produce savings of at least $200 billion a year (it has since been revised to $214 billion). That would amount to about 8 percent of the $2.5 trillion in health care spending projected for 2009, when the next president takes office.
The memorandum attributed specific savings to several broad initiatives, with the numbers plucked from recent studies. Investments in computerized medical records would save $77 billion a year, the advisers wrote. Reducing administrative costs in the insurance industry would yield up to $46 billion. Improving prevention programs and chronic disease management would be worth $81 billion.
The total savings were then divided by the country’s population, multiplied for a family of four, and rounded down slightly to a number that was easy to grasp: $2,500. The average cost of family coverage bought through an employer was $12,106 in 2007, with workers paying $3,281 of that amount, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health research group.
Mr. Obama aspires to cover the country’s 47 million uninsured by requiring insurers to accept all comers, regardless of their health status, and by providing generous tax credits to low-income workers. The tax credits could be used to buy into a new federal health plan or private plans marketed through a government exchange.
The subsidies are expensive, estimated at well over $100 billion. Other components of the Obama plan also bear up-front costs, like a pledge to spend $50 billion over five years to speed the computerization of health records, $6 billion a year on tax credits to small businesses that provide coverage to workers, and an unspecified amount to buffer businesses from high-cost insurance claims.
The source Mr. Obama has identified to pay for them — the repeal of President Bush’s tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 — would cover only about half. That means additional health care savings would be needed, not only to keep premiums under control but also to help pay for the subsidies.
A consensus has emerged among health economists that at least a third of the country’s spending on health care is unnecessary. Both Mr. Obama, of Illinois, and his Republican rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona, agree that significant sums could be saved through reductions in unneeded procedures and improvements in electronic record-keeping, prevention and chronic disease management.
But the dollar values Mr. Obama has attached to individual components of his plan are beginning to attract scrutiny. In particular, the Congressional Budget Office issued a report in May questioning the amount to be saved from the computerization of health systems.
Mr. Obama took his estimate of $77 billion a year from a 2005 study by the RAND Corporation (which cautioned that reductions of that magnitude would not emerge for 15 years). The Congressional analysts found, however, that for various methodological reasons the RAND study was “not an appropriate guide” to potential savings.
This month, Mr. Obama’s health advisers tried to recast the debate so that the questioning of any one number would not undermine the plan’s broader credibility. They enlisted eight health policy experts to sign a letter that, without endorsing the math behind any single initiative, proclaimed it was “not only possible, but likely” that Mr. Obama could save $200 billion annually. They did not say by when.
Mr. Cutler, who helped collect the signatures, said he and his colleagues had decided “that our attempt to lay out one plausible scenario for the savings had created more problems than it had solved.” He added: “Putting the debate where this message puts it — do you believe we can save 8 percent of health spending through a major series of public and private reforms — asks the question in a way that is much more productive than the issue of ‘Do you believe a single estimate among many, many studies?’ ”
Mr. Obama’s economic policy director, Jason Furman, said the campaign’s estimates were conservative and asserted that much of the savings would come quickly. “We think we could get to $2,500 in savings by the end of the first term, or be very close to it,” Mr. Furman said.
The campaign won additional backing this week from Kenneth E. Thorpe of Emory University, an authority on health care costs who helped formulate Bill Clinton’s failed plan in 1993. In an assessment that he initiated in coordination with the campaign, Mr. Thorpe wrote that if all of Mr. Obama’s proposals were enacted they would reduce health spending by between $203 billion and $273 billion by 2012. He calculated that half of the savings would accrue to the federal government.
The Obama advisers said that while not all of the savings would translate into lower premiums, consumers would gain in other ways. The savings to employers would be passed along as higher wages, they predicted, and the savings to government would eventually mean either lower taxes or added benefits.
But whether employers and governments respond that way cannot be guaranteed, particularly in a difficult economy. And a number of health policy experts have questioned whether the $2,500 projection is either fiscally or politically realistic. Reducing health care costs, they emphasized, means taking money from someone’s pocket and rationing care that Americans have come to expect, a recipe for stiff resistance.
“There is no easy money because, as the saying goes, one person’s fraud and abuse is another person’s income,” said Joseph R. Antos of the American Enterprise Institute. “I wouldn’t think that four years or eight years or probably 10 years will be enough to see numbers of that sort.”
The Commonwealth Fund, a health research group in New York, published a study in December projecting that a robust overhaul consisting of 15 broad initiatives would generate savings of only 6 percent after 10 years. “Doing it by the end of a first term is ambitious and would require tough policies,” said Karen Davis, the group’s president.
Jonathan B. Oberlander, who teaches health policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, called it wishful thinking. “Do they have the potential to generate significant savings in the long run?” Dr. Oberlander asked. “Yes. Do I believe they will produce substantial savings in the short run that can be used to finance Obama’s plan? No.”
THE NEW YORK TIMES
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/us/23health.html?_r=1&ref=policy&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

obama is a Radical FRAUD!
This DEM will be VOTING for McCain -
and Millions of Americans feel the same way!
McCain/Palin – we can TRUST them
Posted by: Molly
————————————
Molly,
Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of France*, TRUSTS them, too!
***********
Vive Sarkozy l’ Americain!…. :>
ABC: Sources Say Sarkozy Finds Obama’s Iran Policy ‘Arrogant,’ ‘Utterly Immature’
October 28, 2008 11:39 AM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/sources-say-sar.html
***********
* The U.S. and France: The Renewal of an Enduring Alliance
http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/2007/94559.htm

everyone here discuss’s tax plans and what they WILL be and WONT be.
no one ones these PLANS are not etched in concrete.
both sides TALK…PLANS but the fact is, is that until it passes the house, the senate and is giving its blessing by congress,which 75% will not pass, consider it BULLSHEET being fed to american voters so you’ll get your sorry fanny’s out of bed on nov 4 and vote

Update America:
PRINCETON, NJ — A Gallup update based on more than 21,000 interviews conducted as part of Gallup Poll Daily tracking in October shows that registered voters’ religious intensity continues to be a powerful predictor of their presidential vote choice. John McCain wins overwhelmingly among non-Hispanic whites who attend church weekly, while Barack Obama dominates among whites who seldom or never attend church.
Non Hispanic White that attend church weekly: Obama 28%…..McCain 65%
White Hispanic White that attend church weekly: Obama 43%…McCain 46%
Looks like Mr. Wright using the name of God in vain, Obama and Pastor Joel Hunter praying to (false) GODS lost the race to control religious people that believe in one GOD. AMEN.

Yaaah, what’s the fuss? As McCain said under his plan every family gets 5K creidt. if you don’t have coverage you purchase coverage…if you have it at work, you keep it and use the 5K credit for add’l bills. What am I’m missing? The question to the McCain aide was ‘would people be better off taking the 5K instead of their employer sponsored health coverage?’ And, he said the obvious answer – no. Please explain how is this worse than government sponsored health care where you don’t choose your own doctor, or can’t not even find a specialist, since they won’t exist anymore and pay between 10K-100K more in taxes to cover Obama’s health care? First it’s “wealth” of $250, then this weekend it was $200, now Biden says 150. People need to realize the rich won’t bat an eyelash under Obama – it’s the upper middle class to affluent who are sunk under his plan.
Posted by: no obama | Oct 28, 2008 9:58:46 PM
** You don’t get the money at all you fool! The money goes DIRECTLY to the health insurance provider! So if you think $5,000 will help when the average health coverage costs $12,000 and he’s going to tax your income for it, then you would really lose! Why don’t some of you people research the issues before you come in here spreading lies not knowing what you talk about!!

I see you all have not lost your fight :
GOOD! Because we have a lot to do. You! (the American people) are going to have to take back control of your elected government at every level, and set your government back on the right path of service to you, and the greater good of the World.
Barack Obama and the democrats are your best hope of doing that now. Tell your family, friends, and everyone you know to support them as best they can. Because the Bush McCain vote fraud, vote cheating, vote buying, vote manipulation machine is already hard at work to cheat you again. And we all know what a disaster that has been the past 8 years of Bush McCain.
Barack Obama and the democrats will need all the power you can give them at every level of government (Federal, State, County, and local City elected governments). Obama and the democrats will have an enormous mess to fix for the American people, and the rest of the World. A mess caused by the corrupt Bush McCain administration.
You see, starting back in 2000, and before 911, it was mostly the Republican governors, Republican legislatures, and county elected Republican officials that conspired with the corrupt Bush McCain administration to raise college, and university tuitions by the fastest, and highest rate increases in American history. Some state tuitions went up by as much as a WHOPPING! 30% in one year.
The reason the Bush McCain administration did this was to force struggling working class kids into the military to pay for the sudden jump in tuition. Which was forced on them by the corrupt Bush McCain administration, and their corrupt Republican Governors, and republican controlled state legislatures.
See, Bush McCain had plans to get us into all these immoral, foolish, criminal, and unnecessary wars from the start. So they could use these wars to seize power, and later to get reelected. But, for their evil plan to work they needed more volunteer soldiers struggling to pay for an education whose blood they could spill to help them seize more power. Remember Bush McCain’s “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!” theatrics.
The exploitation, and lost lives of these finest Americans is despicable, disgusting, immoral, corrupt and criminal. And it makes me SICK, and ANGRY!
You will have to vote for Obama, and the democrats in overwhelming numbers to overcome the Bush McCain vote fraud machine. Vote early if you can. Then help your fellow Americans cast their votes now, and on through election day. Vote for Obama, and the democrats like your life, and the lives of your loved ones depends on it. Because it does. You will not survive 4 more years of “Let Them Eat Cake” Bush McCain, and their republican allies.
Just look at the mess we have now.
You can fix this mess with your votes for Obama, and the democrats. And REMEMBER, no matter which of us may stumble or fall, the rest of you must continue to surge forward for Barack Obama, and the democrats, and for your-selves most of all. The children, and the World are counting on us.
It’s in your hands now. And I know you will get it done.
God bless all of you.
JACK SMITH – WORKING CLASS… :-)

“The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.
“That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.
“The two Great Partisan Divides combine to suggest that, if history is a guide, an Obama victory in November would lead to faster economic growth with less inequality, while a McCain victory would lead to slower economic growth with more inequality. Which part of the Obama menu don’t you like? “
Quote from Alan S. Blinder, professor of economics at Princeton and former vice chairman of hte Federal Reserve.