6
   

OBAMA VERSUS MCCAIN: ARGUMENTS FOR WHO IS BETTER FOR MOST AMERICANS

 
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Fri 17 Oct, 2008 11:19 am
@parados,
The Clinton small decrease in income taxes in 1997 was too small to overcome the negative effect of Clinton's larger increase in income taxes in 1993.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Fri 17 Oct, 2008 11:29 am
THIS IS WORTH VOTING FOR

Quote:
The Constitution of the United States of America
...
Article I. Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
...
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

So vote for the guy who will more likely, more closely obey it--John McCain.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Fri 17 Oct, 2008 12:03 pm
Quote:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/13/obama-plumber-plan-spread-wealth/comments/
Obama to Plumber: My Plan Will 'Spread the Wealth Around'
Barack Obama tells a plumber in Ohio he wants to "spread the wealth around," eliciting criticism that his economic recovery plan is socialist in nature.

FOXNews.com

Monday, October 13, 2008


Barack Obama told a tax-burdened plumber over the weekend that his economic philosophy is to "spread the wealth around" -- a comment that may only draw fire from riled-up John McCain supporters who have taken to calling Obama a "socialist" at the Republican's rallies.

Obama made the remark, caught on camera, after fielding some tough questions from the plumber Sunday in Ohio, where the Democratic candidate canvassed neighborhoods and encouraged residents to vote early.

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Obama's remarks drew fresh criticism on the blogosphere that the Illinois senator favors a breed of wealth redistribution -- as well as a rebuke from the McCain campaign.

"If Barack Obama's goal as President is to 'spread the wealth around,' perhaps his unconditional meetings with Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and Kim Jong-Il aren't so crazy -- if nothing else they can advise an Obama administration on economic policy," McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb said in a written statement to FOXNews.com. "In contrast, John McCain's goal as president will be to let the American people prosper unburdened by government and ever higher taxes."

Obama frequently rails against what he calls a Republican concept that tax breaks for the wealthy will somehow "trickle down" to middle-class Americans.

Obama says he will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

However, McCain's aides and supporters argue that Obama wrongly wants to raise taxes on businesses in a time of economic distress.

Both candidates spent Monday discussing how they would resurrect the ailing economy. McCain again pointed to his plan to buy up cumbersome mortgages from homeowners and renegotiate them. Obama unveiled what he called an economic rescue plan for the middle class, which included a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures.

Which is legal and which is illegal?

ILLEGAL: Without an amendment to the Constitution, authorize the federal government to "spread the wealth around."

LEGAL: Authorize 100% tax deductible, voluntary donations by individuals to private charities to "spread the wealth around."


0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Sat 18 Oct, 2008 09:08 am
Those who quoted Barack Obama, wrote:
It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

If it's your wealth you are spreading around, that's OK. But when you are spreading other people's wealth around without their permission, that's illegal, that's criminal, that's theft, that's gangsterism.

Moses quoting God in Exodus 20:13 - 20:14, wrote:

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house; thou shall not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his man servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbour’s.



0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Sun 19 Oct, 2008 11:44 am
McCain and Palin are better for most Americans because they intend to make America much less socialist than do Obama and Biden.

McCain and Palin are better for most Americans because they intend to make America energy independent of foreign sources in much less time than do Obama and Biden.

McCain and Palin are better for most Americans because they do intend to obey the USA's Constitution much more than do Obama and Biden.

McCain and Palin are better for most Americans because they tell the truth much more than do Obama and Biden.

0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Mon 20 Oct, 2008 02:22 pm
@ican711nm,
SINCE 2005 AS THE DENSITY OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE HAS INCREASED, THE AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE HAS DECREASED

Of the four candidates--Obama, Biden, McCain, Paylin--only Paylin understands that CO2 density in the atmosphere has little if any effect on global warming.

INCREASES IN DENSITY OF CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) IN THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE SINCE 2005.
Quote:

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
YEAR ..... MONTH ........ ATMOSPHERIC CO2 PPM
2003 ........... 9 ............. 376.44
2004 ........... 9 ............. 377.35
2005 ........... 9 ............. 379.97
2006 ........... 9 ............. 382.07
2007 ........... 9 ............. 384.00
2008 ........... 9 ............. 386.36

Net INcrease in CO2 2005 to 2008 = 386.36 - 379.97 = 6.39 ppm

DECREASES IN AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES SINCE 2005
Quote:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
year, jan, feb, mar, apr, may, jun, jul, aug, sep, oct, nov, dec, average
2003 0.527 0.438 0.422 0.414 0.435 0.439 0.453 0.523 0.518 0.565 0.428 0.519 0.473

2004 0.505 0.571 0.510 0.495 0.324 0.347 0.371 0.419 0.446 0.477 0.526 0.376 0.447

2005 0.463 0.376 0.493 0.536 0.480 0.512 0.532 0.503 0.507 0.513 0.494 0.371 0.482

2006 0.296 0.443 0.385 0.357 0.338 0.443 0.434 0.488 0.417 0.481 0.441 0.536 0.422

2007 0.632 0.520 0.441 0.472 0.374 0.375 0.406 0.370 0.412 0.368 0.268 0.213 0.404

2008 0.050 0.189 0.446 0.267 0.278 0.312 0.412 0.387 0.376 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.301*
*average of global temperature anomalies jan thru sep

Net DEcrease in Average Global Temperature Anomalies 2005 to 2008 = 0.482 - 0.301 = 0.181 Celsius
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Mon 20 Oct, 2008 04:39 pm
@ican711nm,
I fail to understand why you address rich people as "job creators", but don't extend the same courtesy to blue-collar workers. What difference does it make to job creation whether a million workers spend a dollar each or a thousand CEOs spend a thousand dollars each? None, of course: Spending a million dollars always creates the same amount of jobs, no matter how many people spend them.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Tue 21 Oct, 2008 12:03 pm
@Thomas,
I address rich people as job creators because a larger number of them are job creators than are blue collar people, yet the rich people are the ones Obama has selected for tax increases that will reduce the ability of rich people to create jobs for blue collar people.

Large numbers of currently rich people were blue collar workers that subsequently established their own businesses that succeeded--because they were not over taxed--and made the blue collar worker rich enough to hire more blue collar people.

Those who own businesses are the ones who take the business risk of hiring people in America's private economy. They do that if they have enough surplus capital or or if they can borrow the extra capital they need.

Then of course there are these more than three-thousand year old moral imperatives to consider:
(8) Thou shall not steal
(9) Thou shall not bear false witness
(10) Thou shall not covet anything thy neighbor has[/quote]
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 21 Oct, 2008 12:12 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
I address rich people as job creators because a larger number of them are job creators than are blue collar people, yet the rich people are the ones Obama has selected for tax increases that will reduce the ability of rich people to create jobs for blue collar people.


No, it won't. There's no historical evidence that this is true. During the last period in which we enjoyed levels of taxation, we created more jobs than under the last several Republican presidents, combined...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Tue 21 Oct, 2008 01:17 pm
THE RULE OF LAW OUGHT TO GOVERN WHAT OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN AND DOES LAWFULLY DO

USA Constitution
Article I.Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=imposts&x=28&y=10
Main Entry: 1im·post
1 : something imposed or levied : TAX, TRIBUTE, DUTY

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=uniform&x=29&y=8
Main Entry: 1uni·form
1 : marked by lack of variation, diversity, change in form, manner, worth, or degree : showing a single form, degree, or character in all occurrences or manifestations

Amendment X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Thomas
 
  1  
Tue 21 Oct, 2008 01:27 pm
@ican711nm,
Isn't there some tax-relevant amendment you're forgetting?
ican711nm
 
  0  
Tue 21 Oct, 2008 02:39 pm
@Thomas,
I didn't for get it. I thought it was understood by you to be the context for all I posted.

Amendment XVI (1913)
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.

Prior to the 16th amendment there was zero tax on dollars of income. Note there is zero in the 16th Amendment authorizing taxing of different dollars of income at different rates (e.g., progressive tax rates). In particular the 16th Amendment did not amend Article I. Section 8. In other words, the 16th amendment did not authorize non-uniform tax rates. In other words, our progressive and/or selective income tax is a violation of our Constitution. Yes, I know that in 1937 the Supreme Court caved in to Roosevelt's threat to "pack the court" and authorized a non-uniform, progressive and selective income tax in violation of our Constitution. But, the Supreme Court is not authorized by our Constitution to amend our Constitution!

Article I.Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Wed 22 Oct, 2008 02:32 pm
The USA Federal Government is required by law to obey the USA Constitution.

Article VI
...
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Thu 23 Oct, 2008 02:00 pm
ILLEGAL: Without an amendment to the Constitution, authorize the federal government to "spread the wealth around."

LEGAL: Authorize 100% tax deductible, voluntary donations by individuals to private charities to "spread the wealth around."

Quote:
USA CONSTITUTION. Amendment V
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Thu 23 Oct, 2008 02:26 pm
If Obama were to actually be legally elected, he would begin to convert the USA economy to a radical socialist economy similar to those of Cuba, Venezuela, or that of the failed USSR, and deny Americans their liberty to own property. After the wealth of those who own property is seized or caused to be depleted by Obama, he or one of his likeminded successors would become a dictator removable only by force.

Quote:
The Declaration of Independence
(Adopted in Congress 4 July 1776)
...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Thu 23 Oct, 2008 06:59 pm
When the USA no longer requires foreign oil to help meet its requirements, the market price of oil will have decreased somewhat more, and the USA economy will be stronger. Obviously, it is better for the USA if our oil requirements are satisfied by domestic companies rather than foreign ones. You see, under those conditions, domestic companies will have hired more Americans, will have paid more domestic taxes, and will have saved more income so that USA banks can lend more to others.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Fri 24 Oct, 2008 02:16 pm
OBAMA IS ADVOCATING SOCIALISM
Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=socialism&x=31&y=8
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
...
1 : any of various theories or social and political movements advocating or aiming at collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and control of the distribution of goods
...
2 a : a system or condition of society or group living in which there is no private property
...

Members of socialist governments initially cooperate to help low income people and harm high income people until these members of socialist governments are corrupted by their own enormous economic powers over others. Inevitably, the members of socialist governments are corrupted by their powers over what others do. The exercising of such powers harms everyone except perhaps the members of the socialist government who win power competitions with their fellows. Those winners aren't harmed until their government is overthrown, and everyone else is helped by their recovered individual freedoms.

Thomas Sowell in his book, Basic Economics, pages 377 and 378, wrote:

Where neither the honesty of the general population nor the integrity of the legal system can be relied upon, economic activitities are inhibited, if not stifled. At the same time, groups whose members can rely on each other, such as the Marwaris, have a great advantage in competition with others, in being able to secure mutual cooperation in economic activitiies which extend over distance and time--activities that would be far more risky for others in such societies and still more for foreigners.

Like the Marwaris in India, Hasidic Jews in New York's diamond district often give consignments of jewels to one another and share the sales proceeds on the basis of verbal agreements among themselves. The extreme social isolation of the Hasidic community from the larger society, and even from other Jews, makes it very costly for anyone who grows up in that community to disgrace his family and lose his own standing, as well as his own economic and social relations, by cheating on an agreement with a fellow Hasidim.

It is much the same story halfway around the wworld, where the overseas Chinese minority in various Southeast Asian countries make verbal agreements among themselves, without the sanction of the local legal system. Given the unreliability and corruption of some of the post-colonial legal systems, the ability of the Chinese to rely on social and economic arrangements gives them an economic advantage over their inindigenous competitors who lack an equally reliable and inexpensive way of making transactions or pooling their money. The costs of doing business are thus less for the Chinese than for Malay, Indonesian or other businesses in the region, giving the Chinese competitive advantages.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Sat 25 Oct, 2008 10:47 am
IS BARACK OBAMA A LIAR, A FOOL, OR BOTH A LIAR AND A FOOL?
He repeatedly alleges that the Bush Tax Cuts reduced the income taxes for the wealthy and not the middle class. That is false. For example, quoted below are the federal income tax rates for married tax payers filing jointly for the years 2000 (before the Bush tax cuts), and 2008 (after the Bush tax cuts).
Quote:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

2000
Married tax payers filing jointly,
marginal tax rate .. taxable income over ......... but not over 15% ........................... 000,000 ................... 043,050
28% ........................... 043,050 ................... 104,050
31% ........................... 104,050 ................... 158,550
36% ........................... 158,550 ................... 283,150
39.6% ......................... 283,150 .......................

2008
Married tax payers filing jointly,
marginal tax rate .. taxable income over ......... but not over
10% ........................... 000,000 ................... 016,050
15% ........................... 016,050 ................... 065,100
25% ........................... 065,100 ................... 131,450
28% ........................... 131,450 ................... 200,300
33% ........................... 200,300 ................... 357,700
35% ........................... 357,700 .......................

For example please notice:

(1) Those married couples filing jointly who earned $16,050 or less, had their tax rate reduced from 15% to 10%, a difference of 5%, while those who earned more than $357,700 had their tax rate reduced from 39.6% to 35%, a smaller difference of 4.6%.

(2) Those married couples filing jointly who earned between $43,050 and $65,100, had their tax rate reduced from 28% to 15%, a difference of 13%, while those who earned between $200,300 and $283,150 had their tax rate reduced from 36% to 33%, a difference of only 3%.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Sat 25 Oct, 2008 01:37 pm
Presently, if you are a married couple filing jointly with an annual taxable income between $43,050 and $65,100 per year, your annual income tax is between $6,457.75 and $9,765.00.

But if Obama merely lets the Bush tax cuts expire in the year 2010, then your tax rate will be 28% instead of 15%, and your annual income tax will be between $12,054.00 and $18,228.00, or almost doubled (i.e., increased by a factor of 1.87).

BUT what about McCain's and Obama's tax plans?

Here's a brief summary published October 25, 2008 in the WSJ, page A13:
__________________________________________________
Dueling Tax Plans
........................ Current law ............... McCain ............... Obama .....
Highest
Income Tax
Rate .......................... 35% .......................... 35% ................... 41%
Capital Gains ................ 15 ............................. 15 ...................... 20
Dividends ..................... 15 ............................ 15 ....................... 20
Income and
payroll tax
combined ...................... 35 ........................... 35 ....................... 43-45
Estate Tax* ................... 45 ........................... 15 ....................... 45
Corporate Tax ................ 35 ........................... 25 ....................... 35
* under current law the estate tax goes to zero in 2010 and rises to 55% in 2011.
Source: Candidate web sites
____________________________________________________

0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Sun 26 Oct, 2008 09:58 am
George Orwell's NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR constituted a prescient warning to humanity. Today in the excerpt below, “the Party” is Obama’s Party, and “Winston” is we who oppose Obama’s party.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Quote:
http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/
Part III, Chapter II,
'Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn, Winston. It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane.'
_____________________________________________________________________________________
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Criminals For Gun Control - Discussion by cjhsa
Team Oinkbama reading Mein Kampf.... - Discussion by gungasnake
Messiahs: Jesus vs Oinkbama - Discussion by gungasnake
The case for poured pyramids - Discussion by gungasnake
Get thee behind me, Satan - Discussion by Letty
Increase the wages and wage not a war - Discussion by Ramafuchs
Zionism and the Third Reich - Discussion by Zippo
Divorce - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/12/2024 at 02:25:20