Obama supporters. I have one question

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2484575
An examination of Illinois records shows at least 36 times when Mr. Obama was either the only state senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way.
In more than 50 votes, he seemed to be acting in concert with other Democrats as part of a strategy. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us...s/20obama.html
Sorry Rylan, that doesn't add up to 75%. I think you have to look into it more.
My bad... 64%

 

[1journeyman]

Keep digging Rylan.
The issue you're going to run into, of course, is that very few of us actually like McCain. We're just willing to say he's the lesser of two evils.
Does McCain have a temper? Yup
Did McCain make a dumb judement call in dealing with Keating? Yup
Is he divorced? Yup
Did Cindy McCain become addicted to prescription drugs? Yup (But hey, at least it wasn't cocaine like Obama...)

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2484515
This is not a smear... I can list some other interesting things about McCain... These are investigations by federal authorities and not personal attacks.
lol, I did not know that the NY times was a "federal authority"
lol, we all know about McCain, what I want to know is why you don't love him he has been reaching across the divide for the last 8 years.

Courting "Moderate" voters like yourself.
Oh a side note, I do find it quite interesting that you, considering McCain was under federal investigation with whatever went on with that cute old lady, are willing to cite that as a flaw without allowing the whole truth to evolve out of the story.
It would be an interesting study to see how many people see the headline, so and so investigated, and take that as what happened then assume if he is absolved of the accusation assume that he got away with one. (Not saying that you are doing that) But it would be interesting. You know with OJ, Clinton (as media saturation) then other stuff that you just see a headline and don't see much of any followup reported.

 

[saltn00b]

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherl...&is_large=true

 

[oscardeuce]

Rylan,
You ready to call Clinton or Obama socialists yet?
Would you come down on William Clinton for his forays with certain interns like you seem to do McCain?
There was cetainly more "evidence" in the Clinton case on that dress.

 

[fats71]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2484474
the word "tight" is not ebonics... tight... cool... awesome are the same thing... are these also ebonics.... Since you want to make an arguement of it..first lets define what ebonics is and isn't.
Flossy is ebonics is it not ? as he says its "flossy" in his interview Next ?
As for my one post being deleted the profanity and violence indicated is most certainly considered gangsta rap at its finest. anyway check out the american gangsta cd and tell me its not gangster rap..

 

[reefraff]

You can learn a lot about a candidate by looking at who they associate with and where their support comes from
Campaign workers for Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama are under fire for displaying a flag featuring communist hero Che Guevara. But Obama has his own controversial socialist connections. He is, in fact, an associate of a Chicago-based Marxist group with access to millions of labor union dollars and connections to expert political consultants, including a convicted swindler.
Obama's socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the "champions" of "Chicago's democratic left" and a long-time socialist activist. Obama's stint as a "community organizer" in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored.
Blogger Steve Bartin, who has been following Obama's career and involvement with the Chicago socialists, has uncovered a fascinating video showing Obama campaigning for openly socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Interestingly, Sanders, who won his seat in 2006, called Obama "one of the great leaders of the United States Senate," even though Obama had only been in the body for about two years. In 2007, the National Journal said that Obama had established himself as "the most liberal Senator." More liberal than Sanders? That is quite a feat. Does this make Obama a socialist, too?
DSA describes itself as the largest socialist organization in the United States and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. The Socialist International (SI) has what is called "consultative status" with the United Nations. In other words, it works hand-in-glove with the world body.
The international connection is important and significant because an Obama bill, "The Global Poverty Act," has just been rushed through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with the assistance of Democratic Senator Joe Biden, the chairman, and Republican Senator Richard Lugar. The legislation (S.2433) commits the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars more in foreign aid on the rest of the world, in order to comply with the "Millennium Goals" established by the United Nations. Conservative members of the committee were largely caught off-guard by the move to pass the Obama bill but are putting a "hold" on it, in order to try to prevent the legislation, which also quickly passed the House, from being quickly brought up for a full Senate vote. But observers think that Senate Democrats may try to pass it quickly anyway, in order to give Obama a precious legislative "victory" that he could run on.
Another group associated with the SI is the Party of European Socialists (PES), which heard from Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, back in 2006. Dean's speech is posted on the official Democratic Party website, although the European socialist parties are referred to as "progressive." Democrats, Dean said, want to be "good citizens of the world community." He spoke at a session on "Global Challenges for Progressive Politics."
continued

 

[reefraff]

Following up, in April 2007, PES President Poul Nyrup Rasmussen reported that European socialists held a meeting "in the Democrats HQ in Washington," met with officials of the party and Democratic members of Congress, and agreed that "PES activist groups" in various U.S. cities would start working together. The photos of the trip show Rasmussen meeting with such figures as Senator Ben Cardin, Senator Bernie Sanders, officials of the Brookings Institution, Howard Dean, and AFL-CIO President John W. Sweeney, a member of the DSA. The Brookings Institution is headed by former Clinton State Department official Strobe Talbott, a proponent of world government who was recently identified in the book Comrade J as having been a pawn of the Russian intelligence service.
The socialist connections of Obama and the Democratic Party have certainly not been featured in the Washington Post columns of Harold Meyerson, who happens not only to be a member but a vice-chair of the DSA. Meyerson, the subject of our 2005 column, "A Socialist at the Washington Post," has praised convicted inside-trader George Soros for manipulating campaign finance laws to benefit the far-left elements of the Democratic Party. Obama's success in the Democratic presidential primaries and caucuses is further evidence of Soros's success. Indeed, Soros has financially contributed to the Obama campaign.
It is not surprising that the Chicago Democrat, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, has endorsed Obama. Schakowsky, who endorsed Howard Dean for president in 2004, was honored in 2000 at a dinner sponsored by the Chicago chapter of the DSA. Her husband, Robert Creamer, emerged from federal prison in November 2006 after serving five months for financial crimes. He pleaded guilty to ripping off financial institutions while running a non-profit group. Before he was convicted but under indictment, Creamer was hired by the Soros-funded Open Society Policy Center to sabotage John Bolton's nomination as Ambassador to the U.N.
After his release from prison, Creamer released a book, Listen to Your Mother: Stand up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, described by one blogger as the book that was "penned in the pen." A blurb for the book declares, "Some people think that in order to win, Democrats need to move to the political center by adopting conservative values and splitting the difference between progressive and conservative positions. History shows they are wrong. To win the next election and to win in the long term, we need to redefine the political center."
In addition to writing the book, Creamer is back in business, running his firm, Strategic Consulting Group, and advertising himself as "a consultant to the campaigns to end the war in Iraq, pass universal health care, change America's budget priorities and enact comprehensive immigration reform." His clients have included the AFL-CIO and MoveOn.org. In fact, his client list is a virtual who's who of the Democratic Party, organized labor, and Democratic Party constituency groups.
Creamer's list of testimonials comes from such figures as Democratic Senators ---- Durbin (Ill.) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Harold Meyerson, MoveOn.org founder Wes Boyd, and David Axelrod, a "Democratic political consultant."
Axelrod, of course, is much more than just a "Democratic political consultant." He helped State Senator Barack Obama win his U.S. Senate seat in 2004 and currently serves as strategist and media advisor to Obama's presidential campaign.

[hr]
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at cliff.kincaid@aim.org

 

[fats71]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2484584
Keep digging Rylan.
The issue you're going to run into, of course, is that very few of us actually like McCain. We're just willing to say he's the lesser of two evils.
Does McCain have a temper? Yup
Did McCain make a dumb judement call in dealing with Keating? Yup
Is he divorced? Yup
Did Cindy McCain become addicted to prescription drugs? Yup (But hey, at least it wasn't cocaine like Obama...)

Agreed....

 

[reefraff]

Just how bad are Obama's ideas on the economy? This shows just how clueless Obama and liberals in general are about economcs
Obama: Raise income taxes on wealthiest and their capital gains and dividends taxes.
the "super-rich," the top 1 percent of households, are now paying a record 27.6 percent of federal taxes1 and a record 38.8 percent of income taxes. By contrast, the bottom 80 percent of households—representing 90 million households—pay 31.1 percent of federal taxes and just 13.7 percent of income taxes.2http://www.taxfoundation.org/publica...how/22804.html
Obama: Raise corporate taxes. Five countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) cut their corporate income tax rates in 2006, and eight more, including Germany, will have cut their rates by January 1, 2008.
In the OECD, only Japan's 39.5% rate is higher than thef U.S. rate right now. The U.S. would leapfrog only Italy and Canada under Rangel's proposal.2 Germany is one of several countries that had higher tax rates than the U.S. in 2000 but will have a lower rate than the U.S. in 2008 even if the Rangel cut is enacted. Ireland has the OECD's lowest rate at 12.5 percent.
As OECD countries have lowered their corporate income tax rates, they have reaped more foreign direct investment from the U.S. A recent study by Devereux and Lockwood found that when an EU member state cuts its corporate rate by 10 percent, from 30 to 27 percent for example, it can expect to reap a 60-percent, short-run increase in investment by U.S. multinational corporations.3
As foreign governments have enticed U.S. investors with these lower tax rates, the U.S. has kept the same basic rate structure for 20 years, merely enacting a one-point rate hike from 34% to 35% in 1994. That has left the U.S. as one of only two countries in the OECD not to reduce its corporate tax rate between 1994 and 2006, and one of only six OECD countries without a rate cut between 2000 and 2006. Not one OECD country raised its corporate tax rate between 2000 and 2006, and the average reduction was from 33.7 percent to 28.5 percent. France, Japan, and the United Kingdom may also reduce their rates in the next year.4
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publica...how/22698.html
Obama: $80 billion in tax breaks mainly for poor workers and elderly, including tripling Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credit for larger families. "Since the Bush tax cuts went into effect, a growing number of tax filers have been paying no federal income taxes. Millions who paid into the federal till each year before 2001 now get every dollar back that the federal government withheld from their paychecks during the year, and then some. This trend is well documented but frequently ignored by critics of the tax cuts."
"Two changes in tax law have caused this explosion in the number of “non-payers”—tax returns that have zero or even negative federal income tax liability. They are the expansion of the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000 (complete in 2003) and the creation of the 10 percent taxable income bracket (complete in 2001).
Before 2001, almost every tax return with zero liability had adjusted gross income (AGI) under $50,000. Most were under $40,000. Since 2003, however, many tax returns in the $50,000-$75,000 income group are showing up in the non-payer category. This illustrates the dramatic decrease in the tax burdens of low-to-middle income earners that has occurred as a result of the tax cuts. Utah has seen the largest change in this income group: in 2000, about 2 percent of all returns in that income group were non-payers, while in 2004, 12 percent of those middle-income tax returns paid nothing in income taxes. In California, only 1 percent of tax returns in this bracket owed nothing in 2000, but four years later with the tax cuts fully phased in, 7 percent of the tax returns showing AGI of $50,000-$75,000 paid no income taxes to Uncle Sam".
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publica...show/1916.html
This guy gets elected with Democrats in control of Congress our standard of living is going to be killed. Socialism has worked so well in Cuba and North Korea. Why not try it here.

 

[sigmachris]

ReefRaff by claiming that 1% of the richest in America pays over 25% of the federal income tax only supports the idea that the mega rich own most of the assets. I don't have a problem with the rich getting richer. However they also have the means to short cut the tax system when they pay a lower percentage of their taxable income than the middle or lower class sans the ultra poor, then that is a problem.
Warren Buffet the 3rd richest man in the world has a problem with it and thinks he should be taxed higher.
Quote taken from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062700097.html
"Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent."
So yes if the middle class will fork over one third of their taxable income to the feds, shouldn't the rich?

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by SigmaChris
http:///forum/post/2486016
ReefRaff by claiming that 1% of the richest in America pays over 25% of the federal income tax only supports the idea that the mega rich own most of the assets. I don't have a problem with the rich getting richer. However they also have the means to short cut the tax system when they pay a lower percentage of their taxable income than the middle or lower class sans the ultra poor, then that is a problem.
Warren Buffet the 3rd richest man in the world has a problem with it and thinks he should be taxed higher.
Quote taken from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062700097.html
"Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent."
So yes if the middle class will fork over one third of their taxable income to the feds, shouldn't the rich?
so then he should put his money where his mouth is. As Bush said in the state of the union, the IRS accept checks, credit cards, money orders, and cash. If he feels he should pay more, he can. Once again a liberal that says do as I say, not as I do.
He also failed to mention how much his receptionist makes.

 

[darthtang aw]

and there hasn't been a 30% tax bracket on any wage earner since 2002. Also if the individual was taxed 30% at that time, then the individual was making between 175,000 to 300000 dollars a year...damn hook me up with that receptionist job.
However it is possible that her average was 30%. the way our system works the first 7,000 made is taxed at 10%, the next 21,000 at 15% and it continues to climb in increments. after 85,000 dollars you are taxed at 33% I believe it is, so in order for her average to be 30% she has to be making a LOT of money and not deducting anything. I find it hard to believe someone making that much money (well into 6 figures) can't find deductions.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by SigmaChris
http:///forum/post/2486016
ReefRaff by claiming that 1% of the richest in America pays over 25% of the federal income tax only supports the idea that the mega rich own most of the assets. I don't have a problem with the rich getting richer. However they also have the means to short cut the tax system when they pay a lower percentage of their taxable income than the middle or lower class sans the ultra poor, then that is a problem.
Warren Buffet the 3rd richest man in the world has a problem with it and thinks he should be taxed higher.
Quote taken from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062700097.html
"Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent."
So yes if the middle class will fork over one third of their taxable income to the feds, shouldn't the rich?
If Buffet feels guilty about the amount he pays then he should write a check to the treasury, it is allowed. Keep in mind his last years tax bill was more money than than most of us will earn in a lifetime. Even so the reason he can get away with paying a smaller percentage is that a major portion of his salary is from capital gains. So is mine. Of course his has a few more digits in it than mine.

On the surface it would seem fair to increase the capital gains rate however, doing that makes investment in this country less attractive. I can give you a real clear example of that. I have a couple of Canadian REIT's that pay out big dividends in the form of Capital gains. Canada announced it was changing the tax rules on them in 2011 and it crushed the value because of the sell off.
My point is you can make small changes to collect revenue where it's available but you have to do it in a way you don't kill the goose laying the golden eggs. You sure as heck cant tweak it enough to pay for the multi billion dollar vote buying scheme Obama has proposed.

 

[reefraff]

This is a prime example of how the press has done the country and the Democrats a disservice by coddling Obama. The reason he was able to beat Clinton is he has never been challenged by the press. That is about to changed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzFOOcEQtP0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgXPVmlXKQI&NR=1
I find it hard to believe a majority of Americans will support Obama once they see how empty this suit truely is.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by SigmaChris
http:///forum/post/2486016
ReefRaff by claiming that 1% of the richest in America pays over 25% of the federal income tax only supports the idea that the mega rich own most of the assets. I don't have a problem with the rich getting richer. However they also have the means to short cut the tax system when they pay a lower percentage of their taxable income than the middle or lower class sans the ultra poor, then that is a problem.
Warren Buffet the 3rd richest man in the world has a problem with it and thinks he should be taxed higher.
Quote taken from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062700097.html
"Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent."
So yes if the middle class will fork over one third of their taxable income to the feds, shouldn't the rich?
You are plainly wrong. The rich also pay a higher tax percentage on what they earn via wages vs what me and you pay.
Your example of Buffett is a common practice of the left and it mis-representation to the general public as a whole.
What they do is find an exception that fits their narrative of the whatever it is they are claiming such as "rich don't pay taxes." They list this as an example then try to pass it off as commonplace.
They do this in hope of fooling you into believe what they say.
Remember I'm speaking in generalizations, and you can find an exception to this explination. But I think you will find that his is a commonplace.
Now for an explanation of what you and I are really seeing when it comes to Jimmy vs his I'm sure 6 or 7 figure earnings of his assistant.
Mega rich people as a whole don't make much money in the form of wages. You know you go to work preform a service they pay you for that service.
Rich people don't generally do this, besides giving speeches some advisement ect.
Rich people make their money in investments ect. Since this money has been earned via wages (before it was invested) they have already paid taxes on this money. They invest and the money that is capital gains it taxed at 15% (this rate is avaliable to everyone not just the rich) The money that he makes doing services are taxed at a much higher rate. Is it 38%? I'm not sure what the highest tax bracket is anymore.
You and me don't make very much of any money in the stock market so we don't pay that much if any capital gains tax. You and me are taxed via our wages. I payed about 12% of my wages to the IRS this year. My uncle who owns a small business paid about 50% of his income of that business in taxes.
So when Buffett says I only payed 17% of my income in taxes. While my assistant paid 30% he is misleading you by comparing apples to oranges. If his assistant who is quite wealthy I'm sure. Made their money the same way he made his, they would be paying a simular percentage. Likewise if Buffett when to work and designed rockets for some company and they paid him with a wage his taxes would me simular to his assistant.
Do you understand the flaw of Buffett saying he doesn't pay very much taxes now?

 

[darthtang aw]

forgot buffet makes most of his money off capital gains...

 

[sigmachris]

Alright, Buffett is a bad example I just looked it up and his 2006 salary was only $100,000. So yes most of his taxable income is at the Capital Gains rate of 15%.
Maybe this would be a good new thread...current tax system vs flat rate tax system vs national sales tax.

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2484548
We can talk about Rezko... He actually donated to many democratic organizations and the party itself. There is even a picture with him and Pres Bill and Hillary Clinton... Now I can take understand your view of his pastor being racist, even though I disagree with it... but corrupt? NO... As far as the charge Obama represented him when he was a working with a law firm.... He was an associate lawyer on the case and was not the lead atty... and he says he worked like 4 hours on some documents for him which basically that was his job...
Once again Rylan...you've not done your research on the subject of Rezko...
Rezko is set to go to trial Feb. 25. The revelation that Obama’s name could come up in court is a political headache he doesn’t need as he heads into a round of primaries that are likely to determine his party’s nomination for president.
Obama is not named in the Dec. 21 court document. But a source familiar with the case confirmed that Obama is the unnamed “political candidate” referred to in a section of the document that accuses Rezko of orchestrating a scheme in which a firm hired to handle state teacher pension investments first had to pay $250,000 in “sham” finder’s fees. From that money, $10,000 was donated to Obama’s successful run for the Senate in the name of a Rezko business associate, according to the court filing and the source.
Rezko, who was part of Obama’s senatorial finance committee, also is accused of directing “at least one other individual” to donate money to Obama and then reimbursing that individual — in possible violation of federal election law.
A spokesman for U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald declined to comment…
Obama donated more than $44,000 in Rezko-linked contributions to charity last year, including the $10,000 donation mentioned in the court filing.
That money was donated to Obama by Joseph Aramanda, a Glenview businessman and Rezko associate who, sources have said, is the “Individual D” prosecutors say received the $250,000 in finder’s fees demanded by Rezko. Individual D did nothing to earn those fees, according to prosecutors.
The $10,000 contribution to Obama was given in Aramanda’s name on March 5, 2004, records show. While Obama’s camp has said the senator did not know Aramanda, Obama’s office hired Aramanda’s son as an intern in 2005, at Rezko’s urging…
Rezko is one of Obama’s earliest political patrons. Long known as a prolific fund-raiser, the Syrian-born businessman helped raise money for Obama’s political campaigns beginning in 1995, when Obama was running for the Illinois Senate.
In 13 years in politics, Obama has gotten at least $168,000 in campaign donations from Rezko, his family and business associates. The Sun-Times reported that figure last June. Obama’s “best estimate” seven months earlier had been that Rezko had raised no more than $60,000 for him.
When Obama ran for the U.S. Senate, Rezko held a June 27, 2003, cocktail party in Rezko’s Wilmette mansion, picking up the tab for the lavish event. Obama’s campaign staff has said it has no records to show who attended that party, or how much it cost.
Obama’s relationship with Rezko dates to 1990, when Obama, then a Harvard law student, interviewed for a job with Rezko’s development company, Rezmar Corp. Obama turned down the job, instead going to work for a small Chicago law firm — Davis Miner Barnhill. That firm did work on more than a dozen low-income housing projects Rezmar rehabbed with government funds.
Eleven Rezmar buildings were in the state Senate district Obama represented between 1996 and 2004. Many of the buildings ended up in foreclosure, with tenants living in squalid conditions, the Sun-Times reported last year. In one instance, Rezko’s company left tenants without heat for five weeks. Obama said he was unaware of problems with the buildings and minimized the legal work he’d done.
Obama’s relationship with Rezko grew closer in June 2005, when Obama and Rezko’s wife bought adjoining real estate parcels from a doctor in the South Side Kenwood neighborhood. Obama paid $1.65 million for the doctor’s mansion, while Rezko’s wife paid $625,000 for the vacant lot next door. Obama’s purchase price was $300,000 below the asking price; Rezko’s wife paid full price.
Six months later, Obama paid Rita Rezko $104,500 for one-sixth of the vacant lot, which he bought to expand his yard. In November 2006, he expressed regret about the transaction.
“It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else,” Obama said, “to believe that he had done me a favor.” …

 

[scubadoo]

More corruption from Mr Hope and Mr Change. Looks like Change you can believe in is corrupt as they come......
As a state senator, Obama wrote letters to the city and state backing Rezko's successful bid to get $14 million in tax money to build senior citizen housing that wasn't in Obama's district.