Obama, Taxes, and Lies

On October 8th, Obama told Charlie Gibson:

Although here's what I'll say. I mean, first of all, we've been talking about student loans probably every day during course of this campaign. I mean, I've got a very specific plan to make sure that students are able to afford to go to college in exchange for community service or military service.

So we are going to make sure that every young person in America can go to college. They have a right to be worried about social security and Medicare because those entitlement program are going to be running out of money unless we make some fundamental changes. And those are going to be tough choices. You know, I have offered what I think is the best approach on Social Security, for example, which is raising the cap on the payroll tax, keeping the tax rate the same, but saying, you know, somebody like myself or Warren Buffet can afford to pay a little more in payroll tax to make sure the system is solvent.

Currently, the cap on Social Security taxes is $102,0000. The rate is 12.4%. For employees, half of this is payment is made by the employer. Self-employed business owners pay the entire amount.

A plan like this, without a cap, means that a self-employed person, making $149,000 (under the $150,000 that Biden mentioned) will see a "payroll" tax increase of $5,828. This means, that Obama is misleading people. There may not be an increase in Federal income tax for those making under $150,000, but there is a huge increase in "payroll" taxes. Add to that Medicare taxes on everything and a self-employeed person making $149,000 will pay an additional $7,191 in taxes.

The man is lying about no tax increase for those making under $150,000, $200,000, $250,000.

Who Is Saul Alinsky?

Saul Alinsky was a community organizer. He was an atheist and a Marxist.

In 1971, he wrote the book Rules for Radicals. That book was the subject of Hillary Clinton's senior thesis. Obama spent 4 years teaching workshops on the "Alinsky Method".

In Rules for Radicals Alinsky writes:

In the beginning the organizer's first job is to create issues or problems...through action, persuasion, and communication, the organizer makes it clear that organization will give them a power, the ability, the strength, a force to be able to do something about these particular problems. It is then that a bad scene begins to break out into specific issues, because now the people can do something about it.

Here is his dedication page:

Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins-or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that at least he won his own kingdom--Lucifer.

Here is the first paragraph of that book:

What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.

Community Organizing isn't about being more efficient with your time or getting more things done in your community. It's about getting people discontent with their lot in life and presenting yourself as the one who can help. The buzz word is change. The purpose is to exercise power over the masses.

One closing Alinsky quote:

Power goes to two poles: to those who've got money and those who've got people.

Obama has money AND he has devoted followers.

The mantra of the community organizer is, "CHANGE".

WAKE UP PEOPLE!

GIRD YOUR LOINS!

The First Dude

We went to Bemidji a couple weeks ago for our annual "Read Some Books-Play Some Games-Drink Some Hot Beverages" weekend. We happened to arrive two hours before "The First Dude" and he happened to be 3 minutes down the road. So, Mr. D took me to see him. We got to shake hands with him. Here he is.

Obama and Abortion IV

Obama and Abortion III

Obama be they Name

Happy Birthday, Tim!

Where's Al's Lockbox?

When Obama talked with Joe the plumber about sharing the wealth, I thought he misspoke and was referring to income instead of wealth. However, this little article on Weekly Standard online makes me wonder. Do you want the government to confiscate your 401K and manage it for you? I don't think so. We need the lock box and we need it now.

Remember, if you like babies, freedom, and would not like the government to take over your retirement accounts, vote McCain. I'm MamaD and I approve this message.

House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker. The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3 percent return. Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, said that since "the savings rate isn't going up for the investment of $80 billion [in 401(k) tax breaks], we have to start to think about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not generating what we now say it should."

Vote Life.

Bar Stool Economics

I found this on Doug Wilson's blog.

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20', declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right', exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.

Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

On the Lighter Side

In mid-August, I was at the Bloomington Aquatic Center lounging by the pool and reading an Ikea catalog. I noticed a "text" contest and decided that I needed to learn how to "text". So, I entered the contest. It ended up being a "scavenger hunt" through the catalog where you would answer questions about a couch, or a desk, or a comforter. However, it turned into a never ending deal where they just kept asking me questions and I kept on answering at 20 cents for each item sent or received since we hadn't signed up for unlimited texting yet.
Anyhoo, I gave up at about $2 worth of texting and never thought about it again until last Thursday when I received a message from Ikea that they had to pull some more winners from their entries.
Lo and behold, I won the $1000 makeover. NOT! However, I did win a lovely $20 gift card which arrived on UPS express this afternoon and Mr. D and I will apply to the purchase of the bookshelf lamps that we hadn't gotten around to purchasing yet for our Billy bookshelves.

Wednesday, Mr. D and I got a quick bite to eat at Pei Wei. Here are our fortune cookies. He is about to enter a new and permanent relationship and I am about to have a change of luck. Hmmmmmmmm.

Obama and Abortion II

Obama and Abortion I

Spreading the Wealth Around

I've been thinking about Joe the Plumber and the "spread the wealth around" comment that Obama made and I realized something. I, too, am in favor of spreading the wealth around. In fact, I could argue that it is Biblical to spread the wealth around.

The issue isn't spreading the wealth around. The moral question is, "Whose wealth are you spreading around?"

The Bible tells us we are to spread the wealth around. Widows, orphans, needy people.

However, the Bible also tells us it is wrong to steal. If I take my money and give it to needy people, I have done a good thing. If I take your money and give it to needy people, I have stolen from you. Not so good. You get to decide what you do with your money.

Obama wants to spread Joe's wealth.
McCain wants Joe to spread his wealth.
There's a fundamental difference in the method.
The goal is the same.

Some things Joe can do with his hard earned money:

• Squander it
• Save it
• Buy a really, really big plasma TV
• Save for his kids college education
• Buy health care for his family
• Buy health care for his employees
• Buy a house, car, whatever
• Take a vacation
• Hire an extra employee or two
• Build a little office building for his business

Let's say Joe has a great year and makes $250,000. Under Obama's plan he would be taxed at 65%! What incentive would he have to make $250,000?

• Let's give Joe $50,000 in deductions so his taxable income is now $200,000.
• 65% (I'm told this is Obama's plan) of $200,000 is $130,000.
• Joe gets to keep $70,000 of his money under Obama's plan.
• Joe will have to buy his own health care. That's a minimum of $10,000 per year if he gets a crappy policy for his family.
• Now he has $60,000.
• Of course, being self-employeed he will have to pay his matching tax on the first $102,000 of income and since Joe makes $200,000 a year he will pay the max. About $7,650 extra.
• Now Joe has $52,350 and he hasn't spent a penny on anything for Joe.

This is not only wrong, this is foolish. Joe will probably have to lay off an employee or two. Joe will not be able to hire more employees. Joe will have trouble buying plungers for his business.

Soon Joe will fold his business and go on welfare. This will be good for Joe. The checks will come in regularly. He will get better health coverage.

So, my advice for Joe is to forget the part about buying the business and head straight for the welfare office.

Save yourself the trouble, Joe.

It's an Apple, Barack, not an ACORN!

Mickey Mouse for Obama?

According to this article, Mickey Mouse tried to register to vote. His application had an ACORN stamp. No! Impossible! Officials in Florida turned down his registration. Whew, cuz you never know about those Florida officials!

Obama and Small Businesses

Obama will not stop at the killing of babies. He is moving on to the destruction of the small business. As the wife of the owner of a small business of 25 years, I suggest to you young people out there that whatever you do, you do not start a business of your own. In fact, if you want great health benefits, lots of vacation time, annual cost of living pay raises, might I suggest a government job cuz you won't get that with a small business. If Obama gets in, you will, by force, share your wealth.

Obama: “It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Wealth
by luvnews

Two Choices: Life or Death

There are only two viable candidates in this election. One thinks it's okay to kill babies after they are born. A vote for anyone other than McCain is a vote for infanticide. Choose life.

Obama is a wicked, wicked man. People need to understand just how wicked he is. Anyone who thinks it's okay to kill a baby after it is born, is unfit to lead anything.

Here is an excerpt from an article about a debate Obama participated in that took place on the floor of the IL State Senate (as excerpted from a post by Jill Stanek). I have highlighted in blood red what I thought were the most telling aspects of this legislative debate.:

In 2001, he (IL state Sen. Patrick O'Malley) introduced three bills. SB1093 said if a doctor performing an abortion believed there was a likelihood the baby would survive, another physician must be present "to assess the child's viability and provide medical care." SB1094 gave the parents, or a state-appointed guardian, the right to sue to protect the child's rights. SB1095 simply said a baby alive after "complete expulsion or extraction from its mother" would be considered a "'person, 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"

The bills dealt exclusively with born children. "This legislation was about preventing conduct that allowed infanticide to take place in the state of IL," O'Malley told me.

The Judiciary Committee approved the bills with Obama in opposition. On March 31, 2001, they came up on the IL senate floor. Only one member spoke against them: Obama.

"Nobody else said anything," O'Malley recalls. The official transcript validates this.

"Sen. O'Malley," Obama said near the beginning of the discussion, "the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was -- is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as -- as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb."

Obama made three crucial concessions here: the legislation was about 1) a human being, who was 2) "alive" and 3) "outside the womb."

He also used an odd redundancy: "temporarily alive." Is there another type of human?

"And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living," Obama continued.

Here he made another crucial concession: The intention of the legislation was to make sure that 1) a human being, 2) alive and 3) outside the womb was 4) "properly cared for."

"Is that correct?" Obama asked O'Malley.

O'Malley tightened the logical knot. "(T)his bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a -- a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States," said O'Malley.

But to these specific temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb-human beings... Obama was not willing to concede any constitutional rights at all.

To explain his position, Obama came up with yet another term to describe the human being who would be protected by O'Malley's bills. The abortion survivor became a "pre-viable fetus."

By definition, however, a born baby cannot be a "fetus." Merriam-Webster Online defines "fetus" as an "unborn or unhatched vertebrate" or "a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth." Obama had already conceded these human beings were "alive outside the womb."

"No. 1," said Obama, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term."

Yes. In other words, a baby born alive at 37 weeks is just as much a human "person" as a baby born alive at 22 weeks.

Obama, however, saw a problem with calling abortion survivors "persons." "I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions," said Obama, "because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute."

For Obama, whether or not a temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb little girl is a "person" entitled to constitutional rights is not determined by her humanity, her age or even her place in space relative to her mother's uterus. It is determined by a whether a doctor has been trying to kill her.

Quote of the Day/Month/Year

Alexander Tyler, (in his 1770 book, Cycle of Democracy):

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a louse fiscal responsibility, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world’s great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage.”

Little Ones by Phil Keaggy