Oh, taxes. Under Barack Obama, we are looking at one of the most tax-heavy administrations in the history of the country. After all, we can’t pay for all these new socialist programs without taxes the tar out of the populace. Yes, yes, I know, 95% of the people in the country are supposed to get a tax cut. But he’s going to hammer businesses, the backbone of the economy. We already have the 2nd highest business tax rate in the country, and Obama will just push that higher, as well as allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire.
And if you don’t want to fork over all your wages to help the government hand it out, you are being selfish.
What The Obamessiah and his sidekick don’t get is that taxes HINDER economic growth…they don’t stimulate it. So, we are in a period of mild economic decline (the GDP dropped by 0.3% last quarter…but since it rose the quarter before, we ARE NOT IN A RECESSION!), and Obama and crew want to raise taxes and drive businesses to cut jobs and stop expanding.
No folks, it’s not 2004 again. I’m talking about Barry the Savior this time around, not Frankenkerry.
Obama has shown that he can’t hold down a position and will conveniently flip it if it becomes politically “necessary.”
The major ones?
How about campaign finance reform, for starters. First, he agrees with John McCain to use public funding, and then once he had his network in place, he steps back and goes, whoops, just kidding, I’m going to use my fundraising…just lying a little bit that first time, no biggie.
And finally, we have this past week’s gem: the middle class numbers game.
First, it was $250,000. Then, it becomes $200,000. Joe The Gaffe Machine Biden then makes it $150,000, and finally ill-fated-presidential-candidate-turned-attack-dog Bill Richardson calls it $120,000. Which is it? Where are we all going to fall? God only knows.
All of this builds the profile of the typical liberal politician: whenever it becomes politically necessary to change positions, whenever the winds of change (ha!) start blowing in a new direction, Obama and his kin are the first to jump ship to whichever side of the scale seems to be tilting favorably.
Obama isn’t new. He isn’t an agent of change. He’s more of the same: a lying, wishy-washy politician who can’t be trusted to maintain his word or his convictions in any situation.
Obama’s socialist healthcare plan is one of the cornerstones of his communist candidacy. Unfortunately for us, his maniacal plan to destroy the health industry and put everyone working for insurance companies out of a job is also going to cost the country billions of dollars. Some estimates have put it as high as $700 billion in each year. Of course, to pay for this disastrous package of socialism, we are going to have to raise billions of dollars through taxes.
Universal healthcare will also destroy our healthcare system as we know it. With universal healthcare, there is no drive for a doctor to ever invent new technologies or even provide good service.
After all, if the doctors and nurses are going to be paid the exact same for good service as bad service, why bother? Patient care will suffer, treatments will suffer and we will have people going to the emergency room every time they get a stitch in their side or a sniffle in their nose (after all, if it’s ‘free,’ why not take advantage of it?).
Another facet most people don’t consider is that if the government is providing healthcare, it is then in their vested interest to ensure that the populace is as healthy as possible in order to save themselves money. This means that they can start restricting things like fatty foods, cigarettes, alcohol, red meat, caffeine, chocolate and anything else they deem is “unhealthy.”
This goes against everything America stands for (you know, freedom?). Besides…the government makes a mess of everything they touch. Do we really want them handling something as important as healthcare?
Also, beyond anything else, healthcare, despite what the Obamessiah wants to say, is NOT A RIGHT. I certainly don’t see an amendment in the Bill of Rights stating it is, do you?
A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations that aren’t buildings as their addresses.
U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots can’t be invalidated because of poll worker errors.
Monday’s ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.
The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio’s voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return, Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional ballots across all Ohio counties.
I didn’t even know we HAD a coalition for the homeless. The absurdity of allowing the homeless to list a park bench as their address is beyond ridiculous. This election is hemorrhaging credibility.
Barack Obama bills himself as a “reformer” and a “new type of politician.” In April 2008, he told the Chicago Tribune the following:
I think I have done a good job in rising politically in this environment without being entangled in some of the traditional problems of Chicago politics.
Why is Obama allowed to campaign as a reformer, virtually unchallenged by the media, though he’s a product of Chicago politics and has never condemned the wholesale political corruption in his home town the way he condemns those darn Washington lobbyists.
And:
He has endorsed Daley, endorsed Daley’s hapless stooge Todd Stroger for president of the Cook County Board. These are not the acts of a reformer, but of a guy who, as we say in Chicago, won’t make no waves and won’t back no losers.
Obama the reformer is backed by Mayor Richard M. Daley and the Daley boys. He is spoken for by Daley’s own spokesman, David Axelrod. He was launched into his U.S. Senate by machine power broker and state Senate President Emil Jones (D-ComEd).
After the November election, Democrats will push for a second economic stimulus package that includes money for the states’ stalled infrastructure projects, along with help paying for healthcare expenses, food stamps and extended unemployment benefits, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said Thursday.
There are so many things wrong with that paragraph. Let’s start:
Let the states fund their own infrastructure. If they can’t, they don’t need it.
Healthcare is not a charity nor is it a right. It’s a business. Doctors are not state employees; that is their livelihood. Not the government’s place to be paying for it.
Food stamps = welfare. Welfare = bad. Nuff said.
Unemployment benefits only encourage the bums to sit on their, well, bums, and not get jobs. Slash ‘em! As the great Ronald Reagan once said, the best social program is a JOB!
In a meeting with the editorial board of The Standard-Times, Rep. Frank, D-Mass., also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay.
So the barbarians are at the gate, we are fighting two wars plus an overarching ‘war on terror’ and Iran and North Korea are threatening to start WWIII. And you want to CUT THE MILITARY SPENDING? How about instead we remove you from office and use your salary to buy another tank?
Unfortunately for the Dems, the 80/20 rule that works in business does not work for taxes. You can’t just sit on the “upper-income” taxpayers and expect that to fix the economy. The “upper-income” business taxpayers (who already pay one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world) are the backbone of our economy.
You tax the big guys too hard, they stop expanding their businesses and stop hiring, which HURTS the economy. Spending goes down and unemployment goes up. Frank already knows this, of course; that’s why he’s pushing for more unemployment benefits.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal’s 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.
What could make this even more disturbing? Guess who was the number three most extreme liberal?
Rounding out the top five most liberal senators last year were Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., with a composite liberal score of 94.3; Joseph Biden, D-Del., with a 94.2; Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., with a 93.7; and Robert Menendez, D-N.J., with a 92.8.
So we are talking about putting the #1 and #3 most liberal senators in Congress in charge of the country? Yeah, that’ll work out just fine.
Nearly 130 times as a state senator, Barack Obama refused to take a side. Utilizing the option that exists in dirty Illinois politics but not in many other places, Obama voted “present” on politically sensitive bills in order to avoid taking a position.
There are no “present” votes in the Oval Office. You have to make the decision and be able to pull the trigger. As Commander in Chief, you do not have the luxury of hiding behind your compatriots and not voting up or down on an issue in order to play some ridiculous political game. You do not have a safety net; it is your decision to make.
Barack Obama has shown that he is incapable and unwilling to make decisions when called upon to do so. Even later, when asked about the present votes, he still defended them.
We need a President who is not afraid to make a decision.
Rudy Giuliani put it best:
And nearly 130 times, he couldn’t make a decision. He couldn’t figure out whether to vote “yes” or “no.” It was too tough. He voted — He voted “present.” I didn’t know about this vote “present” when I was mayor of New York City. Sarah Palin didn’t have this vote “present” when she was mayor or governor. You don’t get “present.” It doesn’t work in an executive job. For President of the United States, it’s not good enough to be present.
Ok, so the first reason isn’t exactly about the Obamessiah himself…however..this is a package deal. If you send Obama to the White House, this spiteful, race-baiting, unpatriotic America-hater is coming with him.
The Project for Excellence in Journalism’s report shows John McCain’s media coverage has been 57 percent negative, while Barack Obama’s has been 29 percent negative.
