BluntPolitics.com

By Ric Joyner

I can’t shake the feeling or sense that Obama is a creation. Let’s use the metaphor of robot manufacturing. A robot is created to perform a certain job. Obama was manufactured from the radical left (moveon.org, DailyKos.com and their ilk) to perform a job…get elected, and change the country toward socialism. It is unnerving to see a “creation” running for President of the United States! And the media is fawning over Obama which has been documented.

But, why do the democrats feel the need to field a creation versus a genuine, but tough candidate like Hillary?  Is it because she isn’t radical enough? Did she tell the truth about Obama during the campaign? Gotta wonder….

McCain, as a comparison, is genuine, authentic and deep (deep meaning he has a history of keeping his word). On the flip side Obama has generic words such as; Cross the isle, Change, Yes we can, free healthcare, free college, free gas, and a host of other empty words that lack specifics. Not only are there lack of details, but there is no record he practiced what he preached! The democrats are very worried about the dropping poll numbers of Obama. In fact, some polls show McCain ahead.

The question is do you vote for vaporware created by the liberal left? Or do you vote for the genuine, authentic, and “can do” candidate?

I won’t vote for vaporware!

Higher marginal rates across income levels hurts growth, some say

BY DAVID HOGBERG INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

With the U.S. suffering from low GDP growth, job losses, a credit crunch and weak housing activity, Barack Obama’s tax plan would help or hurt, depending on which economist you ask.
   Obama would boost the tax burden over current policy, shift the tax burden to higher earners, and result in higher marginal rates for the top earners and for some in the middle class.
   His plan would raise taxes by $627 billion over 10 years, based on likely assumptions, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the liberal Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. Alan Viard, resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, claims the Obama plan would jar growth.
   “The higher marginal rates at the top would, all else equal, tend to reduce economic growth by impeding work and capital accumulation,” he said.
   Michael Ettlinger, vice president of economic policy at the liberal Center for American Progress, disagrees.
   “I think it’s a good plan. It balances needed investments in energy and education with the need to be fiscally responsible,” he said.
   The Obama plan would raise the top two marginal rates of 33% and 35% to 36% and 39% and hike the capital gains rate from 15% to 20%.
   The effective top marginal rate of 38% for top earners could rise to 48% to 50%, including a new Social Security payroll tax on wage income above $250,000.
   While Viard notes that Obama’s tax increases wouldn’t be as large as previously thought, they would still do “harm to long-run growth from reduced incentives,” he said.
   Bob Williams, an economist with the Urban Institute, sees a milder effect.
   “Increasing the top rates may change how the people at the top realize income,” he said. “But it is unlikely to affect how much income they earn.”
   On the lower end of the income scale, Obama’s plan would expand the earned income tax credit and the payroll tax, plus help out with child care and retirement savings.
   It also would scrap income taxes on the elderly making less than $50,000 annually.
   “That puts money in the hands of those most likely to spend it,” said Williams.
   “The tax cuts are well targeted to boost demand,” Ettlinger concurred. “The credit reducing the payroll tax for lower income workers is exactly what our economy needs.”
   The Obama plan would cut taxes for many middle class earners. The ones left out would find tax credits phase out as income increases. “Many middle-income households will face somewhat higher effective marginal tax rates due to the phase-outs,” said Viard.
   Under the Obama plan, a family of four with an income of $31,000 to $45,000 could end up with a marginal tax rate 34% to 39%, 13 percentage points higher than under the current tax code.
   Even with lower overall tax takes, higher marginal rates could reduce the incentive to work or improve skills to seek higher-paying jobs.
   Much of the impact of the Obama plan may hinge on how it treats the federal budget deficit, which this year is projected to swell to more than $400 billion.
   “It depends on how Obama pays for his tax cut,” said Robert McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice. “If there is no long-term borrowing, it will not have a long-term drag on the economy.”
   The Tax Policy Center analysis shows that the Obama plan would reduce the deficit by $800 billion over 10 years — assuming Obama would not cut or increase spending. But Obama has promised to boost spending by at least $126 billion annually, with increases in education, medical insurance, the environment and foreign aid.
   He has also promised to cut spending by an undetermined amount by ending the Iraq War, reducing subsidies to Medicare HMOs and farmers, and improving health insurance efficiency.
   Ettlinger worries that reducing the deficit could hamper government spending in energy infrastructure and education.
   “If the Obama plan were to solely focus on deficit reduction, it would harm the economy,” he said
   Economists also are divided over the short-term pros and cons of Obama’s plan, given the economy’s current weakness.
   “It is just what the economy needs since our current troubles are likely to move into next year,” Ettlinger said.
   Regarding the increases in the top rates, Williams said: “Raising rates in times of an economic downturn is a bad idea. Timing is important with this plan.”

By Ric Joyner

Obama showed his core beliefs at the Saddleback Church debate which is “redistribute wealth” by taxing the rich and many other socialistic leanings. The problem with taxing the rich thinking, is that being rich is a moving target. For example, I have relatives that are “rich” in farmland that will be sold for their retirement, but have lower  income now. Are they rich? Yes. Wealth, in the land puts them in the wealthy or rich category. But they don’t “feel” rich (their words) because the disposable income is not in their pocket NOW. But it will be in the future. Paying the bill when the land is sold from the tax increases, which  Obama enacts, will be payback for voting for him.

Historically the democrats “tax the rich” and the rich stop spending money. Who gets hurt when people stop spending money? Take a look at housing….slow now because folks aren’t spending… and the result is people are out of work. But the real question is; “who is better with my money…a bureaucrat in DC…or my family?” Those that want to tax the rich, don’t mind if the government taxes someone else, as long as it isn’t them.

McCain was clear on taxes. Let’s not tax anyone.

It was clear that Obama doesn’t do well in a personal debate, which John McCain excels. John McCain doesn’t do well as Obama in a prepared speech.

I was on the DailyKos Blogs, which is a left wing daily blog, earlier in the day on Saturday prior to Saddleback. I found the comments interesting as they focused on how Obama will show the world what a cool candidate he is, and turn John McCain into Elmer Fudd. During the debate, I watched the comments on Kos, and was surprised at the comments being shared that said Barack was doing poorly. Later in the day Kos posts began to coalesce that their “man” went into the lions den of Christians, and Obama was at an unfair advantage! Yikes, both candidates were given the questions ahead of time! Are Obama supporters whiners? The other thread that was on Kos was many Hillary supporters were saying “I told you so”.

The real Obama came out. Big government, redistribute wealth, and good feelings all around!

My opinion is that Obama is in a world of hurt and the polls are showing this fact.

By Ric Joyner

Nancy Pelosi sent the Congress home for a 5 week vacation without allowing a vote on energy! Why? The democrats gained control of Congress in 06, amidst the anti-Bush vote, and promised action on energy. Their “action” is what we have today…higher prices! Oil affects nearly every part of our economy, and once oil starts going up EVERYTHING goes up including daily necessities. Since the Democrats took control of Congress, and the Senate, oil has skyrocketed? But why?

The oil speculators could see the future. With the Dems controlling congress, and taking an ideological stand against using fossil fuels (no drilling, no exploration, no nuclear, just wind and solar or other alternatives which are in their infancy) the speculators could now drive up prices…and make huge profits, without consequence. The speculators know the Dems would block any further expansion of fossil fuels due to ideology. But who does higher energy cost impact the most? The little guy…which are the people the Dems say they represent. Or do they represent an ideology or the environmentalist lobby? I think both. If you don’t believe my comment, read a liberal newspaper article regarding the agenda of the Dems after winning in 06. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/14/AR2006111400801.html

Another interesting aspect of the article is it comes very close to predicting the current outcome!

To be fair the Republicans didn’t do anything when they were in office, but they didn’t need too either. Oil was cheap, but getting more expensive, because worldwide demand was increasing.(The republicans were a bit too cozy with the oil companies as well which is similar to Dems cozy with environmental groups).

China helps their citizens by paying part of the cost of the oil and this drives up utilization.

Notice that when President Bush said he was lifting the executive order against off shore drilling, gas prices started to come down. Now the ball was in Nancy Pelosi’s court to pass a bill allowing fossil fuel exploration, and she dodged the issue by recessing Congress! Nancy Pelosi said; “I am trying to save the planet!”. What about those that voted for you Ms Speaker?

We need energy answers for the long term. Lower prices now by fossil fuel exploration, and alternative fuel research. We need to wean off of fossil fuels and become energy independent. Becoming energy independent won’t happen overnight.

I feel as though the Dems are going against their roots of watching out for the little guy versus ideological paths, and this is why I am not a Dem.

Call Congress today, and demand they end their 5 week vacation, and solve the energy crisis!  http://speaker.gov/contact/

My next blog post will be on the bogus red herrings the dems are using to stop fossil fuel exploration. Some of the red herrings are:

1. The oil companies aren’t drilling on land they have now.

2. If we drill now, the oil will not be available for 10 years.

3. Fossil fuels add to global warming.

4. It’s President Bush’s fault or rich people, or Republicans or oil companies.