BluntPolitics.com

By Ric Joyner

As I watched the debate it became clear to me that the election  is over. As Charles Krauthammer said tonight on Fox News, Obama was presidential, cool, calm and collected.

McCain went on the attack, but Obama deflected well. Obama tends to say a lot of words without much content which was boring.

Regardless, the game is over. Obama-3 wins, McCain 0. The headwinds are blowing against McCain. The wind is called “fed up” and fearful Americans.

Republicans/Bush lost their leadership in several areas.

They had control of the House and Senate and went to the trough to feed and accomplished little.

Started the war in Iraq that is prolonged and barely manageable.

Couldn’t handle a disaster correctly aka Katrina

Looked in the eyes of an X KGB and saw his soul. (Not good foreign policy)

Oversaw a growing economy and then allowed it to go bust through the housing crisis.

Proposed to bailout Wall Street (which is a misnomer)

Didn’t complete energy independence and allowed the average American to pay higher gas prices.

Created massive deficits fighting a war and other spending

Virtually nothing was done to help the 15% who are uninsured.

Did I mention a war?

As Charles Krauthammer said, “not even the great Ron Reagan could stand up against the economy collapsing…” And I will add the incredibly poor job the Republicans did when they had control.

Charles also said this was the year of the Democrats even though they played a major role in the housing crisis, prefer not to drill for energy independence and want higher taxes on the very people that create jobs.

Our country is headed for a form of socialism under Obama especially in light of a Democratically controlled Congress. Perhaps this is the leadership America is looking for…the Left sure thinks so.

But, the Republicans deserve the thrashing they have gotten and Americans are rightly seeking a change. Obama wants to deliver the change and I can’t fault him for that. His world view is not mine and vice versa.

I can’t vote for Obama because of my conservative roots.  And will still vote McCain.

I don’t respect President Bush any longer. The turmoil that has accompanied his administration is incredible.

I hope my fellow Republicans and Conservatives don’t blame the press, or that Obama cheated, but take a hard look in the mirror, and sees the problem for what it is. Lack of vision, lack of leadership and lack of integrity. The other helpful focus would be to stop the critique of the other party and keep our “side of the street clean”.

Only then can the party rebuild. But the vision has to be the American People, lower taxes, access to health care, lower spending and smaller government.

By Ric Joyner

We had an excellent time at the confirmation celebration of my niece. Lot’s of family, lots of singing, and lot’s of politics. My brother-in-law has been a farmer all of his life, and knows farming inside and out. He is also a democrat from WAY back. What I found interesting is the forceful conviction of his ideas. I also appreciated his angst toward how Bush has run the government. But in the same instance I am also concerned with the shallowness of his arguments. They point to one person at fault whereas both democrats and republicans are at fault in many cases. His conclusion was plain…if you don’t beleive his point of view…you lack common sense. I already stated the harmful myopic “small town” view of blaming one individual…the president…for all of America’s ill. That thought process in my opinion, lacks common sense.

Here is how I will sum his comments from my point of view. My comments are based in what I perceive he was saying.

1. What good happened during the Bush Administration? This question came out of the blue, and he eventually answered it himself. He cited how terrible things were in general such as the war, the economy (which wasn’t an issue until one month ago except the housing crisis. The housing crisis was started by pressure on banks to give credit to those that had poor credit and could not afford the house). His “Bush terrible list” list are the current democratic talking points. But what was good? Here is a small list I created.

The US was not attacked after 911.

The economy was good considering the 911 terrorist attacks until it was RECENTLY discovered mortgage bailout. The Democrats such as Barney Frank were protecting the sub prime loans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were making. The economy did slow down during the last half of 06 in certain areas such as housing but not commercial. But for the most part the economy added 10,000,000 jobs under Bush. Also there is a ton of money that went to Barack Obama’s campaign from both lenders, and to key democrats.

Terrorism around the world is being hunted down. I agree that the war in IRAQ was not necessary, but the war in Afghanistan was prudent. However  hindsight is easy. The issue with IRAQ is how Sadaam went to great lengths to deceive the world that he did have weapons of mass destruction. Would it be an unjust war if we found the weapons? What if they were moved to Syria or Russia? Easy for everyone to arm chair quarterback…including Obama.

Unemployment is around 6%. This is one of the lowest levels in the history of this country. The unemployment rate increased right after 9-11 but then dropped with the tax cuts.

Lower taxes. Under W, we have the lowest tax rates (almost half of what it was under Clinton) which keeps the money in the hands of families and gets the economy moving. Carter years were 17% unemployment with high tax rates. Reagan slashed taxes and  the economy started moving again. Bill Clinton inherited the economy from Reagan and Bush 1. Toward the end of the Clinton term he instituted nearly twice the taxes that Reagan and Bush 1 had, and that sent the stock market tanking! Remember the DOT COM bust? It also slowed the economy from 98-2002. Bush 2 had to deal with a rough economy, and he got it rolling again with tax cuts. The stock market and the economy improved dramatically from late 2002-2008. (There were certain sectors that experienced slow down, and that was primarily the housing market)

W got medicare part D for the aged because prescription drugs were a real cause of poverty for the seniors.

Education on the “no child left behind act” which is an attempt to bring up the education in our schools.

Stimulous payments. While I disagree with stimulous payments this was a benefit under Bush. I didn’t ask my brother-in-law if he cashed  his check. Perhaps if Bush/Reagan is to blame for everyone’s problems, that he should send back the money? Isn’t it hypocritcal to take someone’s money you hate?

2. He feels that the $700 Billion is a Wall Street bailout even though nothing has been spent yet, so it is too early to say whether it is a bailout of Wall Street or a rescue plan. The Dems and Republicans both voted against it two weeks ago because they heard from the public to stop supporting a bailout of Wall Street. However, I heard this dem talking point from another democrat supporting Obama this same weekend… that it was a Wall Street bailout. I finally got him to admit that since nothing was paid out we can’t be sure which it is yet. What you will see happen and is happening now is the slow movement of the money. When the government does anything it is slow and nearly always too late. Remember Katrina?

3. Give every household the money instead of Wall Street. The issue here is that giving roughly $740,000 to each household WOULD grind the economy to a halt because no one would need to work any longer. The $700 Billion is designed to be used by the government to help instill confidence back into the banking system not Wall Street. Here is an overview of the bill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008 Feel free to read and let me know where the focus is bailing out Wall Street? Didn’t find it? Didn’t think so.

4. The republicans stole the election in 2000 and 2004. First, Al Gore is the one that decided to contest the hanging chads in Florida, not George Bush  (he had already won the state). Yet this is considered stealing the election? What if it went Al Gore’s way? Would he believe that the election was stolen? Probably not. And this is the problem with all of politics. The farther left or right it gets, the less middle ground we can find. Second, no one stole the election in either year. Either George or Al could have won. I brought this up because of the voter registration fraud with a group that is tied to Obama. My brother-in-law shot back that McCain gave money to ACORN, and yet I find no solid information to back up his comment, so I will dismiss this comment as not factual.  Either way, Obama supported, trained, gave money to ACORN and ACORN is falsifying voter registration. Is my brother-in-law saying it is ok to be dishonest with voter registration records when the democrats feel shafted at the election of 2000? The progressives believe that “by any means necessary” (Saul Alinsky the father of radicalism) to win the election because their “cause” is the correct one. My brother-in-law may not have said it, but excusing Barack for his association with this group is stamping their tactics with “ok” to cheat.

5. Failing businesses. He brought this up because his view is that businesses are failing i.e. “look at downtown Ladysmith”. At first, I thought he was kidding because small businesses come, and go for an endless list of reasons. Most don’t last 2 years  because of the start up costs and mismanagement of the business (mismanagement is not meant to suggest criminal activity, but is designed to say that making mistakes, and miscalculations of risk is mismanagement which leads to the business closing). There are several coffee shops that have gone out of business around Madison, and this should be no surprise by the high level success or failure of any business. But his view was that the failures were because of George Bush. I found this comment incredible… defying any logic because where is personal responsibility? Didn’t he know that a tornado ravaged Ladysmith? That slowed commerce. The oil prices this year slowed tourism which is another risk business must navigate. But if you are looking for a boogie man to blame… George will do! But I have no evidence that I can cite that shows businesses are failing faster or worse under W. So this argument lacks factual statistics. That does nothing to help the people that lost their businesses under social engineering democrats. Another example of democrats savaging business, is the push by progressives to stop smoking in bars, and restaurants statewide. They are attempting this at the local level, and have pushed businesses to close with little regard for the welfare of the people affected. Is this progressive thinking? Is this caring for the people that had the business? Many went bankrupt. No, it is government interfering with people’s choices. I don’t smoke thus I don’t go the restaurants that allow it.

6. He espoused isolationism. Meaning that he wanted us to close off our country to trading with other countries etc. He said George Bush sent jobs overseas. I asked him why President Clinton signed NAFTA and the unions warned him that jobs would go overseas and they did. So why is this Bush’s fault and not President Clinton? The type of isolationism that he would like us to see under “Woodrow Wilson” (it was Hoover but Ia am assuming he made a mistake) actually helped prolong the great depression. Our country started trade and tariff wars with the rest of the world which stopped trade and caused our goods to stop flowing out of the country and with the isolationism came lost jobs and suffering especially in the ag market. Our global trade has been a bright spot for our economy during the financial crisis. Again, when people pull into isolationism, it is due to fear, ignorance of basic economics, and a negative outlook.

What I discovered in my talk with him was how little outrage he had over the democrats protecting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lending practices after an audit was done in 04 that alerted the auditors to serious issues with them. Even Alan Greenspan appeared before Congress after the democrats took over in 04, and attempted to show them how a coming crisis could seriously affect the economy if they didn’t act. What did Senator Chris Dodd and Barney Frank do who are both democrats? Take money from the lenders!!!! Where was his outrage that these democrats directly attributed to the crisis we now are experiencing…by doing nothing and stopping any changes to their lending practices? And where was his outrage that Obama took millions from the lenders, and his top advisors stole $100,000,000 from them while they worked at Freddie and Fannie? He didn’t say a word. He is not even outraged that the democrats loaded the first bailout or rescue bill with money to ACORN!!! That is democratic graft by any other name. Hypocrisy is rampant!

The final ironic conversation today, was while he said that I shouldn’t talk politics in the family, that was the majority of his discussion throughout the day!

Our last conversation (again my interpretation of what was said) was that I was on the wrong track, and that I should embrace more regulation and Obama. I oppose regulation, higher taxes, and a candidate who is very left leaning (socialistic in thinking). I also don’t want to put my trust, as he does in a candidate that wants to rob my wallet to give to Barack to distribute wealth, and who has  fake centrist ideas to get elected. I think I will stick to McCain who is what you see is what you get. No thanks on Obama. I will still take my chances with my conservative roots.

The last issue for me with him was  noteworthy. He works for the school district thus has no problem if our company has to pay more taxes, even though it stops us from hiring people who support their families and pay taxes. Yet my goal is to put people to work and paying more taxes will slow us down. Many of my fellow business people are not hiring now for two reasons. First to wait and see what new taxes we will have to pay and how long the slow down will last. We are also holding off on a retirement plan contribution for employees, which was our goal this year because we aren’t  sure if we will pay taxes under Obama’s plan. As a side note, I also experience the risk and burden of owning a company, and he just shows up at a job. Thus it is easy for him to spend other people’s money just like Barack.

By Ric Joyner

Folks I was just surfing the hateful blog, Daily Kos and this is a scary comment by the Founder Kos;

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/9/11055/1670/758/624699

Break their back, crush their spirits

by kos

Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 11:14:58 AM PDT

See, here’s the deal — we’re going to win the White House, we’re going to win big in the Senate, and we’re going to rack up big gains in the House. Republicans know this and are preparing for the worst. Now think of 2004 — we really thought Kerry was going to pull it off. Remember that? And remember how utterly devastated we were when Bush pulled it off? The pain was so much worse because we expected to win.

So with conservatives bracing for the worse, they won’t experience the kind of pain we did. Not unless we deliver a defeat even worse than their worst nightmares. And I’ll be honest with you — I want them to hurt as much as we did. I want their spirits crushed, their backs broken.

Read on for more of what they are thinking. WHEW.

In private conversations on troop presence, candidate pitched delay

Barbara Slavin
Friday, October 10, 2008 Washington Times

EXCLUSIVE:

At the same time the Bush administration was negotiating a still elusive agreement to keep the U.S. military in Iraq, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama tried to convince Iraqi leaders in private conversations that the president shouldn’t be allowed to enact the deal without congressional approval.

Mr. Obama’s conversations with the Iraqi leaders, confirmed to The Washington Times by his campaign aides, began just two weeks after he clinched the Democratic presidential nomination in June and stirred controversy over the appropriateness of a White House candidate’s contacts with foreign governments while the sitting president is conducting a war.

Some of the specifics of the conversations remain the subject of dispute. Iraqi leaders purported to The Times that Mr. Obama urged Baghdad to delay an agreement with Mr. Bush until next year when a new president will be in office - a charge the Democratic campaign denies.

Mr. Obama spoke June 16 to Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari when he was in Washington, according to both the Iraqi Embassy in Washington and the Obama campaign. Both said the conversation was at Mr. Zebari’s request and took place on the phone because Mr. Obama was traveling.

However, the two sides differ over what Mr. Obama said.

“In the conversation, the senator urged Iraq to delay the [memorandum of understanding] between Iraq and the United States until the new administration was in place,” said Samir Sumaidaie, Iraq’s ambassador to the United States.

He said Mr. Zebari replied that any such agreement would not bind a new administration. “The new administration will have a free hand to opt out,” he said the foreign minister told Mr. Obama.

Mr. Sumaidaie did not participate in the call, he said, but stood next to Mr. Zebari during the conversation and was briefed by him immediately afterward.

The call was not recorded by either side, and Mr. Zebari did not respond to repeated telephone and e-mail messages requesting direct comment.

Mr. Obama has called for a phased U.S. withdrawal of all but a residual force from Iraq over 16 months, a position the Iraqi government appears to have embraced.

U.S. and Iraqi officials have been struggling for months to finalize a deal that will allow U.S. troops to remain after Dec. 31, when a U.N. mandate sanctioning the military presence expires. Iraqi officials have said that the main impediment is agreement over a timeline for U.S. redeployment and immunity from Iraqi prosecution for U.S. troops and civilians.

Obama campaign spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Mr. Obama does not object to a short-term status of forces agreement, or SOFA.

Mr. Obama told Mr. Zebari in June that a SOFA “should be completed before January and it must include immunity for U.S. troops,” Miss Morigi wrote in an e-mail.

However, the Democratic nominee said a broader strategic framework agreement governing a longer-term U.S. presence in Iraq “should be vetted by Congress,” she wrote.

She said Mr. Obama said the same thing when he met in July with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Mr. Zebari in Baghdad.

A recent article in the New York Post quoted Mr. Zebari as saying that Mr. Obama asked Iraqi leaders in July to delay any agreement on a reduction of U.S. troops in Iraq until the next U.S. president takes office.

Miss Morigi denied this. She said the request for Senate vetting was bipartisan and noted that the first Obama-Zebari conversation took place 12 days after four other members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - including Republican Sens. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska - wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates urging consultation over any agreements committing U.S. troops and civilian contractors to Iraq “for an extended period of time.”

When Mr. Obama spoke to Mr. Zebari, he was speaking in his capacity as a senator and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Miss Morigi said. “It’s obvious that others are trying to mischaracterize Obama’s position, [but] on numerous occasions he has made it perfectly clear that the United States only has one president at a time and that the administration speaks with one voice.”

Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who accompanied Mr. Obama in Iraq along with Mr. Hagel, said they made “no suggestion of any type of delay” in any agreements.

A congressional aide who was also present and spoke on the condition of anonymity said the senators asked for a congressional role similar to that required by the Iraqi Constitution for Iraq’s parliament.

Still, the fact that the Illinois Democrat on June 3 clinched enough delegates to be assured the Democratic presidential nomination gives his comments special force - something that also applies to the Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a key proponent of the surge of extra U.S. forces to Iraq last year.

As a U.S. senator, Mr. Obama “has a foot in both camps,” said Ross K. Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University. “It’s within the jurisdiction of his committee and something he’s entitled to speak about. It doesn’t raise a red flag for me.”

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe declined to comment on the matter.

Leslie Phillips, a press officer at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, also declined to comment even though an embassy note-taker was present during the senators’ meeting in Iraq. “The embassy’s role is purely to facilitate the meetings,” she said.

Presidential nominees traditionally have not intervened personally in foreign-policy disputes, although campaign surrogates have done so.

Historian Robert Dallek has documented meetings with South Vietnamese diplomats in 1968 by Republican vice-presidential candidate Spiro Agnew and Anna Chennault, widow of Gen. Claire Chennault, the commander of “Flying Tiger” forces in China during World War II.

Mr. Dallek, author of “Flawed Giant: Lyndon Johnson and His Times 1961-1973,” obtained tapes of the conversations from bugs the Johnson administration had placed in the South Vietnamese Embassy in Washington.

Negotiations to end the Vietnam War were taking place in Paris at the time between the Johnson administration and the North and South Vietnamese.

Mr. Agnew and Mrs. Chennault “signaled the South Vietnamese that they would get a better deal with Richard Nixon as president instead of the Democrat” Hubert Humphrey, Mr. Dallek said.

“Johnson was furious and said that Nixon was guilty of treason,” Mr. Dallek said, but neither he nor Mr. Humphrey disclosed the matter before the election, which Mr. Nixon won.

September 20, 2008
hp-1150

FACT SHEET:
Proposed Treasury Authority to Purchase Troubled Assets

Washington – The Treasury Department has submitted legislation to the Congress requesting authority to purchase troubled assets from financial institutions in order to promote market stability, and help protect American families and the US economy. This program is intended to fundamentally and comprehensively address the root cause of our financial system’s stresses by removing distressed assets from the financial system. When the financial system works as it should, money and capital flow to and from households and businesses to pay for home loans, school loans and investments that create jobs.  As illiquid mortgage assets block the system, the clogging of our financial markets has the potential to significantly damage our financial system and our economy, undermining job creation and income growth.  The following description reflects Treasury’s proposal as of Saturday afternoon.

Scale and Timing of Asset Purchases. Treasury will have authority to issue up to $700 billion of Treasury securities to finance the purchase of troubled assets. The purchases are intended to be residential and commercial mortgage-related assets, which may include mortgage-backed securities and whole loans. The Secretary will have the discretion, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to purchase other assets, as deemed necessary to effectively stabilize financial markets.  Removing troubled assets will begin to restore the strength of our financial system so it can again finance economic growth. The timing and scale of any purchases will be at the discretion of Treasury and its agents, subject to this total cap. The price of assets purchases will be established through market mechanisms where possible, such as reverse auctions. The dollar cap will be measured by the purchase price of the assets. The authority to purchase expires two years from date of enactment.

Asset and Institutional Eligibility for the Program. To qualify for the program, assets must have been originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008. Participating financial institutions must have significant operations in the U.S., unless the Secretary makes a determination, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, that broader eligibility is necessary to effectively stabilize financial markets.

Management and Disposition of the Assets. The assets will be managed by private asset managers at the direction of Treasury to meet program objectives. Treasury will have full discretion over the management of the assets as well as the exercise of any rights received in connection with the purchase of the assets. Treasury may sell the assets at its discretion or may hold assets to maturity. Cash received from liquidating the assets, including any additional returns, will be returned to Treasury’s general fund for the benefit of American taxpayers.

Funding. Funding for the program will be provided directly by Treasury from its general fund.  Borrowing in support of this program will be subject to the debt limit, which will be increased by $700 billion accordingly.  As with other Treasury borrowing, information on any borrowing related to this program will be publicly reported at the end of the following day in the Daily Treasury Statement. (http://www.fms.treas.gov/dts/)

Reporting. Within three months of the first asset purchases under the program, and semi-annually thereafter, Treasury will provide the appropriate Congressional committees with regular updates on the program. 

"They" (pick a party) talk about 43,000,000 uninsured. (I don’t care the exact number so don’t argue with me…jeez that felt good saying that). We know that about 15,000,000 are illegal immigrants. BTW in Madison it is very difficult to see a doctor at night in the emergency room because it is filled up with indigent people. I have tried.
43,000,000- 15,000,000= 28,000,000 uninsured

Not good.

Ok there are about 220,000,000 Americans covered by some type of insurance. (I don’t care to break this down [government versus private] and again don’t argue with me because I will reach through this darn email and spank you…and that too felt good to say)

What is the ratio of actual uninsured then? 12.7% are not insured. Translated to glass half full….87.3 (or nearly 90%) are insured. WOW

Ok here is my question. Why do the democrats want to take an entire for-profit system (motive to provide excellence and efficiency) that works reasonably well for 90% of Americans and turn it over to the government as a non profit (no motive for excellence and no motive for efficiency thus the result is rationing (aka "guidelines to pay claims"). This is part of the democratic platform.

"and the government
33 should ensure that health insurance is affordable and provides meaningful coverage. As
34 affordable coverage is made available, individuals
35 should purchase health insurance and take steps to lead
36 healthy lives." DNC Platform Agenda (DNC Platform)

Why the government? Why not private sector? Is the private sector failing? Not when 90% of people are covered. When does the government need to take care of us from cradle to grave?

The republicans are not much better in their plans. But they don’t consider the government as a resource.

Our focus should be on covering the 12.7% people who are uninsured not destroying a system that works very well. And yes there are always exceptions! But lets focus on fixing the 12.7%.

My idea.

Sponsorship of Family or Single person without health care coverage. Why can’t a family register with a carrier and groups of employees purchase health insurance for a person in need? Or if they are between jobs someone can sponsor a short term medical plan.
The government was never intentioned to go this deeply into our lives and we should not let one party over the other turn our health care system over to the government. If anyone has any doubt about this look at Katrina and now look at Houston.

Focus on the issue. Fix the 13%.

Appalled

by Trapper John

Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:34:11 PM PDT

Carly Fiorina is appalled:

“I am appalled by the Obama campaign’s attempts to belittle Governor Sarah Palin’s experience,” said RNC Victory 2008 Chair and senior McCain adviser Carly Fiorina today in a statement. “The facts are that Sarah Palin has made more executive decisions as a Mayor and Governor than Barack Obama has made in his life. Because of Hillary Clinton’s historic run for the Presidency and the treatment she received, American women are more highly tuned than ever to recognize and decry sexism in all its forms. They will not tolerate sexist treatment of Governor Palin.”

Democrats are even more appalled by the racist McCain campaign’s ongoing and clearly racist belittling of Senator Obama’s experience and qualifications. 

Ham-handed identity politics.  As American as campaigns to pass anti-flag burning amendments. And just as lame.

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.