BluntPolitics.com

Yes. He hopes that by taxing the rich, and corporations that the job loss will trickle down to the rest of the country putting thousands out of work. Then he can put those people to work building bridges and roads thus keeping them enslaved to the government. Sound sarcastic? It is not meant to be because fear of Obama’s taxes and capitol gains increases is driving away investors to the market. These fears are only making a bad economy worse.

Read the article by Investors Business Daily today:

VIEWPOINT

Stocks Pay Price Of Coming Tax Increases

GROVER G. NORQUIST

   Some Americans are concerned that if Sen. Barack Obama is elected president, his plans for higher taxes on personal income, capital gains, dividends and corporations will damage the economy.
   It is a little late to be worrying about this. We are already in the midst of the Obama recession. But to be fair, we should give House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at least equal billing.
   Why has the stock market collapsed? Why wouldn’t it?
   In 2003, the Dow stood at about 8000. The then-Republican Congress and President Bush reduced the capital gains tax to 15% from 20% and the tax on dividends to 15% from 35%. In the next three years, the Dow rose 50% to 12,000, and household net worth rose to $56 trillion from $40 trillion.
   This is the “wealth effect” of taxation. If you own stock in a company and the tax on earnings by that company is reduced, the value of the stock increases. If taxation on the company is increased, you would pay less for the same stock.
   Microsoft stock is worth less if you attach the boat anchor of higher capital gains taxes, higher corporate income taxes and higher dividend taxes. But this is not what will happen if Obama is elected. It’s what already happened on Nov. 7, 2006, when Democrats won the majorities in the House and Senate.
   The tax cuts of 2003 that sparked the increase in national wealth are scheduled to end on Jan. 1, 2011. It does not require a President Obama to make those taxes increase. All it requires is for the Democrats to control either the House or the Senate with enough votes to stop legislation to extend the tax cuts.
   And the top individual tax rate, now at 35% but also paid by many small businesses, will snap back up to Bill Clinton’s 39.6% on Jan. 1, 2011.
   Pelosi and Reid both voted against the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. We know where they stand. Every Democrat in the House and Senate has voted repeatedly for higher taxes since that party became the majority in January 2007, and House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel has unveiled his “mother of all tax hikes” to increase taxes by $38 billion over 10 years.
   Presidents don’t cut taxes or raise taxes. They sign the bills sent to them by Congress.
   Obama originally campaigned for raising the dividend tax to 39.6% from 15%. Then, when his contributors from Wall Street pointed out how devastating that would be to the stock market, he changed his rhetoric to calling for an increase to “only” 20%. But if Congress does nothing, the dividend tax increases to 39.6% on Jan. 1, 2011.
   Americans for Tax Reform worked with John Rutledge to calculate how Obama’s and McCain’s tax policies would affect the stock market. The calculator appears at ATR’s Web site, www.atr.org.
   You can enter the size of your 401(k), and it will calculate its value under four different scenarios: if Obama’s tax increases pass; if McCain’s tax cuts are enacted; if Congress’ plans are enacted; and if Americans for Tax Reform’s fantasy tax cuts, including abolishing the capital gains tax, were made law.
   The Obama tax plan will reduce the value of the stock market and your 401(k) by 6%. The House Democrat plan will drop the market by 16%. Remember, Obama cannot impose his tax plan — he has to sign what Congress sends him, so Congress’ tax plans are more important than Obama’s campaign speeches.
   If Republicans won the House and Senate and McCain’s tax plans were enacted, the market and your 401(k) would increase by 46%. And if you pass the McCain plan and add ATR’s abolition of the capital gains and dividends tax, the market and your 401(k) would increase by 58%.
   But the market can read the newspapers and is aware that the Democrats control the House and Senate now and likely will for the next two years. This means the market gains since 2003 due to lower capital gains and dividend taxes will disappear.
   The market has already begun to drop in anticipation of the coming tax increases. The Pelosi-Reid-Obama recession has already started.
   Of course, if Obama and the Democrat leaders in Congress have tax hikes and regulatory burdens planned that they haven’t shared publicly, the market will drop even further. It can get worse.
   
Norquist

is president of Americans for Tax Reform and author of “Leave Us Alone: Getting the Government’s Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives.”

I remember when conservatives were deemed by the left… neo-cons. I had to research what this meant.

What do neoconservatives believe?

“Neo-cons” believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action. Source Christian Science Monitor downloaded today at 10:03pm http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html

I have come up with the left wing Democrats version of neo con. Neo Comms aka Neo Communists.

What do Neo Comms believe:

“We want our country to be liked by Europe, and thus we want to model our society after the government-run societies of Europe which are built on fairness. Since Americans don’t really understand socialism we can create government programs that will “take care of people”, and make them beholden to us thus Americans will elect our philosophies, and thus move American toward communism instead of consumerism”.  Our tag line is: “You deserve more taxes because we say so.”

Scary…

I went to the Obama web site and used the tax refund calculator. This showed with my income that I would receive about $1340 tax cut. First, this is not a tax cut. Second, this is a refund check. I will promptly return this to the government from whence it came because I didn’t earn it, and it came out of someone else’s pocket who did earn it.

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read “Vote Obama, I need the money.” I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on an “Obama 08″ tie, again I laughed
as he had given away his political preference–just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that
I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there
in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to
someone who I deemed more in need–the homeless guy outside. The server
angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server
inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was
grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized
the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter
was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the
actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept
than in practical application.

(author unknown)

Starting To Pay Price For Our Protectionism (investors business daily)

Trade: As Obama makes political hay off protectionism and promises a new Smoot-Hawley era, it’s no surprise our trading partners are beginning to look to other markets — such as Europe. It’s a warning.

   Our No. 1 trading partner, Canada, isn’t stupid. When Obama threatened last February to rewrite the North American Free Trade Agreement on his own terms, our northern ally started looking abroad to other markets.
   They found a big one in Europe, which seems to have few hangups about increasing exports and signing free-trade treaties. Last Friday, Canada and the European Union held the first talks toward an eventual free trade agreement between the two.
   When this goes through, $27 billion in new trade is expected by 2014, according to a joint EU-Canada study. Canada will add an extra 0.8% to its GDP and see income gains of $11.1 billion from the new jobs and higher salaries coming in from Europe.
   After all, if free trade with the U.S. bolstered Canada’s economy and standard of living by a factor of four since 1994, it makes sense to do more of what brought in that wealth.
Europe’s $14 trillion market is an attractive alternative to the U.S. for the Canadians, if it comes to that, and the Europeans are happy to add Canadian investment to the $500 billion investment its three largest economies drew in 2007.
Canada isn’t the only one responding to these chill trade winds blowing in from the Washington elites in election season.
Colombia is also preparing to sign a free-trade deal with Europe, as its own free-trade accord with the U.S. languishes after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked it in Congress last April.
U.S. allies are wise to seek other partners no matter what the U.S. climate — the U.S. downturn no doubt plays a role too. But it started with noises out of the U.S. about pulling up the drawbridge.
With a global downturn, free trade makes more sense than ever. That ought to be an election issue for the U.S., which needs to stay globally competitive. Sadly, it’s not.
Canada and Colombia are effectively defending themselves from the anti-trade vortex in the U.S. by turning to other markets. The Europeans have no intention of imitating the mistake made by the U.S. “It’s never a good sign when the U.S. becomes protectionist,” Philippe Favre, special ambassador for international investment and chairman of Invest in France Agency, the country’s foreign investment arm, said in recent comments to IBD.
   Like many European officials, Favre thinks the sentiment has been brewing for a while. “If you look at the last two or three years, there was the U.S. preventing foreigners from buying ports,” he said. “The Chinese wanted to buy an oil company and they were stopped. Then you have the contract for (air refueling) tankers refused to a European company (EADS).”
   Another failure was the World Trade Organization talks. “We have seen since 9/11 a U.S. trend to be more wary of the rest of the world,” Favre said. “We probably underestimated the impact (of the attack) on the people and the country in the EU.”
   Agree or disagree, there’s no doubt that protectionism will make America poorer and less influential, protecting nothing. Outsourcing is particularly full of misperceptions.
   “Look at the auto industry — Japan started by exporting to Canada and the U.S., and now produces cars in the U.S. They did it because the market itself is in the U.S. We see exactly the same thing in Europe. More car plants are going up in Germany and France than Bulgaria and Romania, even though the labor costs are lower there.”
   Michael Pfeiffer, managing director of Invest in Germany, told IBD that exports are no threat: “We (Germans) are the largest exporters in the world — it’s something we do. We have to do it.”
   Why? Germany doesn’t have the diversified economy America does. “One-quarter of German people are employed for export industries,” said Pfeiffer.
   With the possibility of a protectionist Democratic president (Barack Obama) working with a protectionist Democratic Congress, the U.S. may be the odd man out when it comes to free trade.
   Pity. Because free trade, as any economist will tell you, inevitably boosts the economies of those who engage in it. So others, like Canada, Colombia and Europe, will continue down the free-trade path — toward greater wealth for their citizens — while the U.S. sits on the sidelines.
   The world will decide it isn’t going to wait for Nancy Pelosi to come around on free trade — it’s going to leave the U.S. in the dust.

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.

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%.