Obama Apple Stays Near The Tree
Sep 8, 2008 Political
If Barack Obama is elected president he, with the assistance of a Democratic Congress, will impose huge tax increases upon us. His defenders claim he will roll taxes to what they were under Bill Clinton. Those were bad enough but with all the spending he has proposed, he will have to increase taxes much more in order to push through his agenda. However, Obama hedged on taxes a bit:
Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush’s tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.
Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date, as Republican John McCain advocates. Instead, Obama wants to push for his promised tax cuts for the middle class, he said in a broadcast interview aired Sunday.
“Even if we’re still in a recession, I’m going to go through with my tax cuts,” Obama said. “That’s my priority.”
What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?
“I think we’ve got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now,” Obama said on “This Week” on ABC. “The news with Freddie Mac (FRE) and Fannie Mae (FNM), I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we’re fragile.” My Way News
Obama will delay rescinding the Bush tax cuts because the economy is in a recession (it is not). Therefore, he is admitting that taxes hurt the economy. If taxes helped then it would not matter when he rescinded them. The reality is, even under the best of times, taxes hurt the economy and when it is not in great shape the pain is even worse.
He also admits that he would have to take a look at his tax increases on the wealthy because of the fragile economy. In other words, we have more people out of jobs and high prices so if he raises taxes those who create jobs will stop creating as many and more people will be unemployed. The increased taxes will cause prices to go higher (tax increases are passed on to consumers) and people will pay even more.
The way to solve the problems is to cut federal spending. Eliminate unnecessary and duplicate programs and cut budgets. This will decrease the need for our money and we can keep the taxes low or lower them even more. People who earn the money should keep it and decide how it is spent.
Taking money from those who have more of it and redistributing it to those who have less of it is Socialism. That is what Barry Obama is all about because it is in his blood:
“What is more important is to find means by which we can redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all. This is the government’s obligation.”
~snip~
“Certainly there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay. It is a fallacy to say that there is this limit, and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings.” Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.
The apple certainly does not fall far from the tree. Daddy Hussein was a Harvard educated economist. Amazing what a goat herder can do when he puts his mind to it.
The link to the story about his father is very enlightening. Particularly interesting is this gem:
Obama Sr. described his own economic plan, his counterproposal, as it were, as “scientific socialism — inter alia — communism.” Yes, Obama’s father was a communist who wanted to put socialist theory into action — by “force.” [emphasis mine]
Tags: communism, economy, high taxes, Obama, socialism
Democrats Brazenly Move Toward Socialism
Jun 19, 2008 Political
It is no secret among thinking people that the Democratic Party is a socialist group. Most of them mask their Socialistic or Communistic tendencies but they are moving closer and closer to everything being run by the government and redistribution of all wealth except for the wealth of the ruling class. They will remain rich and try to control our lives. Barack Hussein Obama is a Socialist. He believes in class warfare and he believes it is up to government to take money from the wealthy and give it to the poor. He is a regular liberal Robin Hood.
The Democrats have moved in this direction for quite some time and they are often aided by Republicans who have some strange desire to pander to the left rather than espousing good conservative principles. They give tax “rebates” to people who paid no taxes. They take money in the form of taxes and spread it out across the country in the form of earmarks. They push for universal health care which means the taxpayers will pay for everyone’s health care (and their own since they will not qualify for gubmint health care). They have Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security a program whose name tells you it is socialist. They do all these a little at a time and they will eventually take over our lives and we will still be wondering what hit us.
Stop the ACLU has a video up and it show how brazen the left in America is getting. The clip features Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee, stating that if there are more refineries built in this country then the government should own them. Think about that for a minute. How can the government own anything? The people of this country pay the taxes that the government spends so if they start building refineries the taxpayers will own them.
That is the first point but more importantly, what business does the government have owning a refinery or anything else? With private companies owning them there are stock holders and an expectation of making money, which by the way is not obscene or record. They are at 10% and that is reasonable for any business. If oil companies have problems then they must spend company money to correct them. Whose money will the government spend if their refineries have problems? You guessed it, yours. And since they are Congress they can keep taking as much of your money as they want. You can bet that they will not be selling stock and if they did it would all go to members of Congress.
The idea of the government taking over private industry is Socialist and it would put us more in line with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. In the same clip at STACLU there is a woman on Fox discussing how she thinks this is a great idea. She is an obvious idiot and should have one of those protective helmets on when she is out and about. The problem is, there are many more just like her out there and a whole lot of them are called Congressional Democrats. This is not some slip up either. Remember when they had the oil execs in for their regular grilling. One of the less than intelligent members said that she wanted to nationalize oil. In other worlds, she wanted the government to take it over.
The government is an entity that works for the people and it is designed to represent the people. We are supposed to be left alone to pursue what we want in life. That is what freedom is all about. If government starts taking over private industry, we have lost our freedom and we will be a Socialist nation. The government’s quest is not limited to oil. They want to take over health care. Remember all the fuss about Walter Reed and Army medical care? You know all the news reports about troops not getting the care they need? Their care is run by the government. The same Democrats who went on TV describing the horrors at Walter Reed want to give you that very same government run system.
What will happen next? Will they decide pills cost too much and take over the pharmaceutical industry? Will they then spend billions in taxpayer dollars to make drugs to give away? Remember, if government screws up it taxes you more to get the money it needs. If private industry screws up it must answer to stock holders and consumers.
This whole debate started because Republicans are pushing to resume drilling for oil on our own property. Democrats oppose that. They have opposed it for decades and that is why we are in this predicament. They always use the same excuse; we need to get off our dependence on oil and it will take 10 years to get any oil from the new drilling. They said that over 10 years ago and Bill Clinton vetoed drilling in ANWR. Guess what, it has been a little more than 10 years so we would be getting oil right now when we need it. As for alternative energy, sure that would be great but there are no new technologies that will be ready any sooner than the oil in ANWR. Alternate choices are decades away. Why don’t we use our oil while they start building new technologies?
It is a certainty that we need to drill our own oil. The Democrats are absolutely wrong when they say it will make no difference. It will have a huge impact and have little impact on the environment. What we absolutely do not need is the government taking over oil companies or building refineries. The government is inefficient and does not run anything well. This would be setting up a system that would be rife with corruption and it would make all the members of Congress richer than they are.
The government could not organize a birthday party. It could not lead a group of people out of a burning building and the government would lose money and have corruption, fraud and waste if they were selling air, a product guaranteed to have customers.
We need to demand that they allow drilling on our property (what happened to state’s rights?) and we need to make sure they are never allowed to take over any business.
The next revolution may well be on the way. I would prefer we overthrow the government by voting them all out and replacing them. However, it might be wise to stock up on ammo (as if any good conservative needed to be told that).
Additional source:
Fox
Tags: communism, government, Marxists, oil takeover, private industry, refineries, socialism
Why Insult McCarthy by Comparing to Clinton?
Mar 22, 2008 Political
Recently, Bill Clinton made a statement that has garnered the attention of the Obama campaign (I know that is hard to believe) and a retired Air Force general is likening the statement to something Joe McCarthy would have said. Clinton said this about a match up between Hillary and John McCain:
“I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country,” said Clinton, who was speaking to a group of veterans Friday in Charlotte, N.C. “And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.”
I think one could actually argue as to whether Hillary (or Bill for that matter) actually love this country. They love the opportunities they have been afforded but they are always trying to move it toward Socialism and they put their political aspirations above country, party, or anything else. However, why does this general feel the need to insult Senator McCarthy? McCarthy was absolutely correct when he said that Communists had infiltrated our government. He might have seen more people as Communists than actually were but he was correct. There were Communists in Hollywood and there were Communists working for our government. They used the same tactics that Muslims use, deny, counter, and accuse in order to turn the anger toward the original accuser. They managed to get to McCarthy and he died young but he was absolutely right.
The Obama campaign is slinging some dirt in order to deflect the uproar created by Senator Obama’s participation in the whitey bash fest known as Trinity Church headlined by Pastor Jeremiah was a racist Wright. General Merrill McPeak stated that he grew up when McCarthy was accusing good Americans of being Communists. I wonder if the General realizes that there were Communists and while there might have been some false accusations, there were a lot of true ones. In any event General, why insult McCarthy for Clinton’s pattern of speech? McPeak tells us that Bill Clinton’s phraseology is designed to make people think Obama is not a patriot or does not love his country.
I have no doubt that the General is correct in this but this is a Bill Clinton trademark. The General worked for Clinton and should recognize it as such. Instead, he equates it to Senator McCarthy in effort to make it appear as if Obama has been a victim of a McCarthy like attack. Come on General, this is Bill Clinton, the same guy who argued what the meaning of “is” is. This is the Bill Clinton who did not have sexual relations with that woman when he really had sexual relations with that woman except as defined by him and his lawyers. This is the same Bill Clinton whose administration had the most investigations and scandals in the history of the presidency. Why not say that his phraseology was Clintonesque? Why insult Joe McCarthy by associating him with Bill Clinton?
I certainly believe that Bill Clinton meant to imply that Obama does not love this country. I happen to believe that Obama does not love this country because it has too many white people in it and he would love it more if we whites would move on out and give it up to the brothers in accordance with the Gospel according to Wright. However, I don’t believe the Clintons have a great love for the country other than what they can get from it. Bill protested us from a foreign land and Hillary hates the military. So they are all equally guilty of hating this country, as far as I am concerned.
Regardless, how about these campaigns stick to fighting with each other and quit sullying the good names of long dead Senators?
Source:
Breitbart
Tags: Clinton, communism, innuendo, lies, mccarthy, Obama, socialism
No Surprise Here; Castro Succeeds Brother
Feb 24, 2008 General
Raul Castro has been selected to lead Cuba a week after his brother Fidel resigned. This comes as no surprise as Raul has been running the country during Fidel’s illness.
It is possible that Fidel Castro has been dead for some time and the resignation letter was not written by him. This would keep Cuba from suffering riots and civil upheaval. I think that if he is dead it will not be long (now that Raul is in) before they announce he is dead, stuff his body and put him on display.
Fidel Castro led the Cuba for nearly 50 years and is the longest ruling Communist dictator. Ironically, his socialized health care system, the one touted by Michael Moore, is what killed him. The surgeons botched his surgery and they had to call in doctors from other countries to clean up the mess. It appears as if the mess was too much for old Fidel to handle.
This is what Hillary and Obama want to give us.
I don’t know if Fidel is dead but I certainly hope he is and if not, that he dies soon. The world will be a better place when he is gone and Cuba will be a better country if they can get rid of his brother Raul.
Hillary’s Socialist Ways “I will Take Your Money”
Feb 3, 2008 Political
At the risk of sounding sad but entertaining to those who drink Hillary Clinton’s dirty bath water, I will continue to attack her socialist views and show how she believes she knows better what to do with your money than you do. I know there are those who, despite mounds of evidence, will say that I attack her (or her husband) based on unsubstantiated items with little evidence. There is plenty of evidence to show Hillary believes in socialism. There is plenty of evidence to show Hillary believes that you should give a huge sum of your money to the government so that the government can run people’s lives. The latest is her new assertion that she thinks the government should garnish wages of those who refuse to buy health care coverage. This came out of her mouth but there are those who will say there is no evidence she said it.
All the Democrats have talked about universal health care and every plan involves taking the choice away from people and putting it in the government’s hands. The government will extort more money from everyone who pays taxes (that is their definition of rich) and they will spend it on an expensive health care plan that will cost more money than we have to pay. The plans will take away choice and will force people to buy something they might not want.
One only needs to ask the question; “Is it right for the government to tell you what you have to buy?” I know many liberals think that is fine but it is not. It violates the Constitution and it denies people the freedom of choice. What next? Will the government tell families that they may only have 2 children and must abort further pregnancies or pay a huge fine?
Hillary Clinton said that she would go after the profits of oil companies (definitely un-American), and that she will provide everything for people. Now she is saying that if a person refuses to get health care coverage the government will garnish wages to make it happen. This is not only Socialist, it is Communist as well. I can envision a future where we are told who to vote for and watched as we vote in a fair and secret election designed to give people like Hillary lifetime jobs.
I don’t care how one looks at this it is wrong. Any person who thinks it is OK for the government to do this is not a true American and does not deserve to live in this country. Anyone who believes that the government should be allowed to garnish wages to force compliance with health care or anything else is a Communist and should be beaten to death. If you want to do something, make people pay their bills. If you go to the hospital and have no money then you pay it off over time or you lose your property to collection. People buy cars on time so they can pay for their health over time, especially of they just choose not to get it. It is called personal responsibility, something most liberals lack.
I have health insurance so this will not affect me except that my taxes will be going to pay for the health care of others. If Hillary can take your money for this what is to stop her from taking your money by force to coerce you to do what she thinks is best? Screw her. I don’t need her to tell me how to live and what to spend my money on and neither does any other real American.
I would hope this country would have another armed revolution before it let that happen.
Some apologist will make excuses or say it is a good idea. That just adds one more person to the list of those who should be beaten to death.
Source:
Yahoo News
Tags: Clinton, communism, death to communists, forced compliance, garnish wages, Hillary, socialism