More specifically, Rohaly and Lim reckon that in 2009, households in the $30,000-$40,000 income class would pay an average EMTR of 16.8 percent under the McCain plan and 19 percent under the Obama plan. Households in the $50,000-$75,000 income class would pay an average EMTR of 18.6 percent under the McCain plan and 19.9 percent under the Obama plan. Households in the $100,000-$200,000 income class would pay an average EMTR of 25.1 percent under the McCain plan and 26 percent under the Obama plan.
So much for only rasing taxes on those making $250,000.
Remember, a vote for Obama is a vote for fewer jobs, less growth, lower stock prices, and higher taxes.
Probably not his best move, since we know how much flack Sarah Palin took for implying that "community organizer" might not be considered a resume enhancer for the Presidency, and I'm betting that there are a lot more plumbers than community organizers.
Joe "mama" Biden joined in,saying he doesn't think there are many plumbers living in his neighborhood that make $250,000. I doubt that there are many blue collar workers at all living in Biden's neighborhood, and if they do live there, it doesn't surprise me that Joe doesn't know them.
As for plumber's not being able to make $250,000, well, that's where the O'Biden team once again shows their collective ignorance.
When they think of plumbers, they think of the guy they call when their sink gets clogged with lobster shells and caviar tins. They don't think about the guys who do more than that.
My Dad's father was a plumber. He started out like every plumber does, as a union apprentice. He learned his trade,and advanced from apprentice to journeyman to master, and then he started his own company, along with a partner. He moved from plumbing repair to doing new construction, and from single unit construction to multiple family dwellings, ie apartments and hotels, to theme parks.
His company, which started as a plumbing repair shop, won the contract to do a large part of the plumbing for the Opryland Theme Park. When he died, his company had an annual income of around $2 million.
Yeah, a plumber pulling in $2 million.
It's called the American Dream,and when my grandfather was living it, the American government knew enough to stay out of the way.
Our politicians aren't quite as smart today as they were then.
When Obama and his crowd laughed at plumber's yesterday, they laughed at my grandfather,my uncle, and my cousins.
Not a bright move. There are a lot of plumbers out there.
The title of this post is ambiguous. I could be talking about the debate which is about to conclude, that is, the final debate, or I could be talking about the penultimate debate, the one that happened about a week ago.
It all depends on how you read the word last.
That's why English is the perfect language for politics. Even perfectly simple sentences can have decidedly different meanings, depending on how you say them.
I remember Jerry Lewis telling a story about an older lady from Brooklyn who took her grandchildren swimming on a Jersey beach right next to a sign that read "No Swimming Allowed." A lifeguard came up and asked her why she let her kids swim there when the area was clearly marked with a sign prohibiting swimming. She insisted that the sign said the exact opposite, and proved it by reading it to him. "No. Swimming allowed." (Read it out loud.)
So Obama can say he's going to cut taxes for 95% of the people and be telling the truth, a rare occurrence for the Obama campaign lately, even though 30-40% of Americans pay no income taxes at all.
Sure it's fundamentally dishonest, but we don't get upset about it because that's what we expect from our politicians. We expect them to lie to us and we reward the ones who do it best by giving them access to our wallets. The really good liars, we elect as President.
Think about that for a minute. When I call Obama a liar for his campaign promises, his supporters will defend him by admitting they knew he was lying! I just find that remarkable.
He lies; they know he lies, and they vote for him because if he didn't lie, they wouldn't trust him.
We truly do get the government we deserve.
Wouldn't it be nice if a politician ran on a campaign of nothing but the truth? No spin, no evasions, no politically correct pandering to oversensitive focus groups? Just the unvarnished truth, straight up with no chaser.
Of course, we do have politicians like that. Guys that talk straight and tell us exactly what they stand for and why, and what they'll do when they get to office. Yeah, we've got them, and we have a name for them too.
Babies in Broom Closets: The Barack Obama Priorities List
I know, I know. I said that people don't care about the issues, and campaigning on them will not win the election for McCain. But this is important, and it can't be mentioned too much, so I'm going to go through it again.
I'm not usually a single issue voter. If I can agree with a candidate on most issues, I'll let other issues slide. But there are some things that canot be allowed to slide, and this is one of them.
Yes, I'm talking abut the Born Alive Infant Protection Act again. I'm coming back to it again because it's hard for me to fathom how anybody who knows about this issue could still vote for Obama. It simply makes no sense at all if you have even one shred of human decency in you at all.
Here's the background.
Now think about that for a minute. Babies that are born alive, some of them in the third trimester, are left to die from suffocation for the crime of not dying when the abortionist fouls up. You might wonder why the abortionist allows them to suffer instead of finishing the job. The answer is quite simple.
If the "doctor" takes any action to terminate the life of the baby, he is guilty of murder. The argument is bizarre, but then again, so is the whole abortion movement. Apparently, if you let the baby die on its own, then it never was really alive in the first place because it wasn't "viable." But if you take action to end its life, then you are admitting that it is alive, and now you're a murderer.
So, in order to preserve the fiction that a baby born alive isn't really alive, the "doctor" allows it to die, often alone, sometimes after hours of suffering.
Anyone who can support this kind of barbarism is a sub-human monster. Period.
Jill Stanek, the nurse who first exposed these "live birth abortions" worked at a hospital in Chicago. Her activism resulted in both Federal and State bills to require that babies born alive be treated as persons and given medical care. The federal bill passed a couple of years later and contained language that specified that the bill had no impact on abortion rights or the rights of the unborn fetus and only applied to babies who were born alive. The state bill lacked that language, and Obama voted against it.
Now think about that for a minute. Obama is so deeply pro-abortion that he would allow babies to continue to die in storerooms rather than potentially infringe, however slightly, on abortion rights.
It gets worse.
The bill was introduced into the Illinois Senate a 3rd time, this time with language equivalent to the federal bill, that isolated the bill's impact on abortion rights. We know that Obama knew about the change in language because he voted to approve the amendment that appended the language.
Right before he voted against bring the bill to the Senate.
He killed it with as much compassion as the doctors and nurses who allowed the babies to die, gasping for air in dirty laundry rooms.
Of course, he lied about it later. First he claimed that Illinois law already required babies born alive to be given medical care. The truth was that the delivering "doctor" had to determine that the baby was viable before care was required. Then he claimed that the bill unduly burdened the mother by requiring an independent doctor to decide the viability of the baby. Then he claimed that if the bill had contained the same language as the federal bill;, isolating the BAIPA from abortion, he would have signed it. Of course, we know that was a lie because the final version of the Illinois BAIPA had language identical to the federal version, and Obama killed it.
Remember when I said that anybody who could support or condone the live birth abortion procedure was a sub-human monster? Guess who was the only Illinois Senator to speak out against the Illinios BAIPA?
Yep. Good old Barack Obama. When you're in that voting booth and pushing the button for President, remember those babies, gasping for air, cold, alone, and in pain, and remember that Barack voted to keep them that way. That's what you'll be voting for.
Obama's answer to fixing our economic crisis was bizarre to say the least.
Pursuing the CEO's of some companies to retrieve their bonuses will have nothing to do with fixing the economy. Giving the middle class a tax cut is always a good idea, but then he wants to spend money to build roads, which seems a bit strange. McCain, on the other hand, had a concise answer ready, including the key, stop the spending spree in Washington DC. I'm not real comfortable with his plan to refi all the bad mortgages at the new value of the homes. That will lock in the loss of billions of dollars of value.
Neither man could identify anything specific in the Bailout plan that would benefit the people directly.
When asked if things were going to get worse, Obama said no, he's confident with our economy. So apparently he now feels that the fundamentals are sound. Once again, McCain leads, Obama follows.
Obama claims that we had budget surpluses when Bush came into office. Only a lawyer or an accountant would call what we had a surplus when the National Debt went up every year Bill Clinton was in office. Obama also claims he is cutting more than he is spending, which to most folks mean his first budget proposal should be smaller than Bush's final budget. I'm not holding my breath on that one.
McCain pointed out that he has a reputation of working across the aisle with Lieberman, Feingold, and Kennedy, while Obama has never broken with his party leadership.
When asked to prioritize spending, McCain says we can tackle all three issues at the same time, while Obama says we must go one at a time. Wasn't it last week whe he bragged he could multitask?
Obama claims he wants to go through the budget line by line and eliminate programs that don't work. Didn't Al Gore already do that?
Obama wants to bleed us with a scalpal, not a hatchet. That way we won't feel the cut until it's too late.
McCain made a good point about nuclear power and safety. 19 year old kids run the Navy's reactors day in and day out. It is already safe. As for waste, Japan and France have already developed reprocessing technologies for spent fuels.
Obama says that computers were invented by the government, a statement almost as inaccurate as Al Gore's internet claim. Yes, the .gov gave us UNIVAC, but it took private enterprise to give us an iMac. Obama also says we should create a new energy industry for prosperity similar to the computer and software industries. I hope he's not including the dot com crash as part of his plan.
Obama repeats his 3% 25% baloney. Drilling is not the solution, it's a bridge to keep our economy going while we implement a solution.
Obama declares that health care is a right because we are a wealthy country. That's the first time I've heard a liberal say that money buys you rights.
Obama states definitively that if necessary, he will violate Pakistan's sovereignty in order to get Bin Laden. Of course, moments later, he denies he said anything of the sort. Isn't it funny how he will pursue some folks who blew up buildings for years, and others for campaign advice...
In one America, it's OK to associate with people who murdered, bombed, and destroyed because even though they aren't sorry, it was a long time ago.
In the other, you are responsible for the choices you make, including who you associate with.
In one America, the right to unrestricted abortion is so valuable that it is better to allow living babies to die on storeroom shelves than to vote for legislation to protect them.
In the other, once a baby is born, it is a baby.
In one America, it's ok to vote "Present" when considering tough issues like the application of human rights, how to respond to military aggression, and how to handle the biggest financial crisis to hit the nation is 80 years.
In the other, you have to make hard choices and swift decisions, then evaluate those decisions.
In one America, spending $100 million dollars and having nothing to show for it is reason for being fired.
In the other, it qualifies you to run for the Senate.
In one America, if you make a mistake, you lie about it, cover it up, and threaten anyone who tries to tell the truth.
In the other, you apologize, sincerely. You make restitution. And you work to regain the trust you lost.
In one America, inexperience is seen as a benefit. It makes you a blank slate and an agent of "change."
In the other, inexperience means you go for an entry level position first, and then learn the ropes.
In one America, you are allowed to succeed on your own merits, using hard work, common sense, and a bit of luck to get ahead.
In the other, you can't get ahead, and if you did, you exploited others to do so, and now owe them everything you've made.
In one America, none of this matters. Image and emotion conquer all. Issues are irrelevant. Hope is more important than knowledge.
In the other, sober judgment backed by years of experience are preferred to a flashy smile and a catchy slogan.
Come November, we'll find out which America is bigger.
Bob Mackey over at HuffPo fires the first rejoinder to the McCain Palin camp's renewed interest in chasing down the Obama Ayers connection.
Reading through his rant, I find several obvious errors.
Someone who will place national well-being above some perverted concept of secessionism, who will not associate with people who are worse, far worse, than a liberal college professor who was immensely foolish -- and wrong -- in the 1960s.
Bobby missed the memo; Bill Ayers doesn't think he or the WU did anything wrong in the 60s. Except maybe for not setting off enough bombs. While he has equivocated since then, in 2001 he stated straight out that he didn't regret anything they did.
There is a big, big difference between a limited association with someone who had committed a crime 40 years before, and being married to a man who supports the destruction of the United States.
Two lies for the price of one! Baracks association with Ayers is only limited if you accept the Obama campaign's verison. History tells a different story. Barack's first campaign was launched in Bill Ayers living room. Baracks first major job, Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, was given to him by Bill Ayers. Obama worked hand in hand with Bill Ayers for three years determining the direction that the CAC would take. Bill Ayers then got Barack Obama a position with the Woods Foundation.
Outside of marrying the man, I can't see how Obama could be any more tied to Ayers.
On the other hand, saying the Todd Palin, by virtue of his one time membership in the AIP wants to destroy America is downright laughable. Not only did Bobby again miss the memo where Todd quit the AIP, he completely mistates the goals of the AIP.
Platform and Goal
Alaskan Independence Party
We affirm that all political power is inherent in the people; that all government originates with the people, is founded on their will only, is instituted to protect the rights of the individual; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry; that all persons are equal and entitled to equal protection under the law. We stand on a firm constitutional foundation.
We pledge to exert our best efforts to accomplish the following:
1. To effect full compliance with the constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Alaska.
2. To support and defend States' Rights, Individual Rights, Property Rights, and the Equal Footing Doctrine as guaranteed by the constitutions of the United States of America and the state of Alaska.
3. To advocate the convening of a State Constitutional Convention at the constitutionally designated 10 year interval.
4. To reinforce the unalienable rights endowed by our Creator to Alaska law, by eliminating the use of the word "privilege" in the Alaska statutes.
5. To amend the Constitution of the State of Alaska so as to re-establish the rights of all Alaskan residents to entry upon all public lands within the state, and to acquire private property interest there in, under fair and reasonable conditions. Such property interest shall include surface and sub-surface patent.
6. To foster a constitutional amendment abolishing and prohibiting all property taxes.
7. To seek the complete repatriation of the public lands, held by the federal government, to the state and people of Alaska in conformance with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, of the federal constitution.
8. To prohibit all bureaucratic regulations and judicial rulings purporting to have the effect of law, except that which shall be approved by the elected legislature.
9. To preserve and protect the Alaska Permanent Fund, Permanent fund earnings, earnings reserve fund and individual Permanent Fund Dividends.
10. To provide for the direct popular election of the attorney general, all judges, and magistrates.
11. To provide for the development of unrestricted, statewide, surface transportation and utility corridors as needed by the public or any individual.
12. To affirm and assert every possible right-of-way established under R.S. 2477 of July 26, 1866, before its repeal by the Federal Land Management Policy Act of October 21, 1976.
13. To support the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.
14. To support the complete abolition of the concept of sovereign or governmental immunity, so as to restore accountability for public servants.
15. To support the rights of parents to privately or home school their children.
16. To support the privatization of government services.
17. To oppose the borrowing of money by government for any purposes other than for capital improvements.
18. To strengthen the traditional family and support individual accountability without government interference or regulation.
19. To support the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, according to their conscience.
20. To support "Jobs for Alaskans...First!"
Confirmed by Statewide Convention
Fairbanks, Alaska 2008
All other copies are void
I missed the section on the destruction of the United States. Maybe Bobby could point that out for me.
Now, for comparison, the words of Bill Ayers.
"Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at."
"Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon.
The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them."
It warms the heart, doesn't it?
And remember kids, he doesn't regret it, not one bit.
So, what are we left with? Well, not much. Sarah Palin recorded a video message played at the opening of a State political party that her husband once belonged to, a party that puts state issues first, in front of Federal ones. While this may seem terrifying to subjects like Bobby, it strikes a chord with citizens like me, who still believe that America is a land where the best government is the one that governs least.
On the other hand, we have Obama's long and very intimate association with a radical like Bill Ayers, who happily bombed the Pentagon, participated and potentially orchestrated parts of the Days of Rage, and who is unrepentant to this day.
This does not mean Obama is a terrorist, or that he even agreed with the methodology chosen by Ayers.
But the ideology, that's another matter all together, and that's what the liberals are afraid of. Ayers is an unabashed communist, and he's not embarrassed about it one bit. However, that makes him a tremendous liability to Obama, and that is why he's working to distance himself from Ayers.
What does it say about a man when he's more worried about being associated with Bill Ayers' political beliefs, beliefs that Obama apparently shares, than with his horrendous actions?
Joe won his debate, totally eviscerating President Bush. Unfortunately, Bush wasn't actually at the debate, so it was kind of an empty victory, but Joe takes 'em where he can get 'em.
Joe was also very adamant that he and Obama will end the war in Iraq. If only I could be sure that they were just as adamant about winning it.
The O'Biden plan for ending the war appears to be to cut off funding and move the troops to Afghanistan. And Darfur. And Pakistan. Ending a war by starting two more...it's almost as if Obama was a neocon or something.
Gov. Palin flabbergasted Joe when she corrected his mistakes on Afghanistan policy, when he claimed that the commander of the forces on the ground there said the Iraqi surge strategy wouldn't work. It turns out she knew more about what the general said than Joe did, and he was reduced to repeating irrelevant numbers.
Joe said he agreed with every major policy Obama supported. I wonder if that includes infanticide.
Andrew Sullivan will be upset with Gov. Palin and Joe since both of them stood against same sex marriage.
Joe claimed that global warming is all attributable to human actions, which is a claim even the most whacked out climatologists will not make. I guess he had an extra glass of Kool Aid before the debate.
Joe repeated the lie that oil from new drilling will take at least 10 years to get to the pumps as if it were fact. Then again, with his limited knowledge on the subject, he may believe it is fact.
Joe repeatedly referred to Sen McCain as John, one upping Bill, who consistently referred to his opponent in the debates as Mr. Bush, so now we are all on a first name basis with our duly elected representatives. Which reminds me, I need to give Jimbo a call on the Poker Bill.
Palin held her own against Biden, which, according to the Obama/Olbermann Law of Diminished Media Expectations, means she won a huge victory. Oddly, I don't think I'll see the media spinning it that way for her the way they did for Obama last week.
For all the Obama fans out there who want to argue that Sarah Palin is unqualified to be Vice President, take a look at the following comparison.
It might be eye opening.
It turns out that if you look closely at the two candidates, for every pile of mud thrown at Palin by the left, there is a much stronger accusation that can be leveled at Obama.
For example, critics knock Palin's foreign policy experience, while somehow glossing over Obama's lack of foreign policy experience. After all, can you point to any international negotiations that Obama has carried out? And it is a matter of record that Obama, who headed the Senate Subcommittee on European Relations never called the committee during his brief tenure as a US Senator. And while he did make a speaking tour of Europe after winning the nomination, just talking to a Head of State doesn't mean you can negotiate with one. And if that does count, than Obama has a 2 week lead on Palin in foreign policy. The difference is she's running for Vice President; He's running for President.
Palin attended one service with a minister whose beliefs are somewhat extreme. Obama attended services for 20 years with a minister whose beliefs are somewhat extreme, got married by the minister, had that minister act as godparent to his children, and cribbed from that minister's speeches to write one of his semi-fictional autobiographies. Yet Palin is held accountable for the views of this visiting minister while Obama is given a pass.
Here's another one. Palin gave a welcoming address to a convention for a state party that was held in her hometown while she was mayor. She gave another video taped address to the same party several years later, and in both addresses, she urged the party to work towards the good of all Alaskans. Obama actively sought and gained the endorsement of the New Party, an amalgam of socialist/communist groups active in Iilinois politics and pledged to maintain an active relationship with the Party. Yet Palin is accused of supporting Alaskan secession while you can't breath the words socialism or communism in reference to Obama without incurring the wrath of his thralls.
We could also discuss the nebulous charges against Mayor Palin, accusing her of book banning with the Obama campaign's current attempts to intimidate radio and TV stations that carry ads that are negative towards him. Palin is called a book-burner, while Obama once again gets a pass.
If you want to continue, we can compare the Palin firing scandal and Obama clearing the ballots in his State Senate Race. Or we can compare Gov. Palin's record of success on the Natural Gas Pipeline to Obama's record of failure in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. We can look at how Gov. Palin fought a corrupt political machine in Alaska and compare it to how Obama embraced a corrupt political machine in Chicago.
In short, there hasn't been a single criticism leveled at Sarah Palin that doesn't apply directly and substantially to Barack Obama.
Well, except for the whole Sarah/Bristol/Trig thing.
The only group without the experience to know he's full of it.
Like I'm supposed to believe that these kids all went to their mommies and said "Mommy, I want to sing a song for Obama so he can be elected and change the world. And I want it recorded using professional Hollywood equipment and direction and released on You Tube so everyone can know what a wonderful human being Obama is. Because he is a wonderful human being and I know this not because I've been propagandized to within an inch of my life, but through my own vast experience in filtering the rhetoric of political candidates through the screen of harsh reality. Yes mommy, this is exactly what I want to do. So make it happen. Please?"
22 show moms prostituting their kids for politics. Next up, the beauty pageants.
It is the job of government to protect its members from the actions of others. It is not the job of the government to protect its members from their own actions. That's the difference between being a citizen and a subject.
Bible Verse of the Day
“He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem. Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.”