Blog Home |  About this Blog       Welcome to Community Server Sign in | Join
Browse By tag All Tags » Economic Crisis (RSS)

Related Tags

Obama Tax Cut Fallacy

By Ed Furey
Wednesday, Oct 15 2008, 11:37 AM
Barrack Obama is using the “Kitchen Sink” appeal on taxes allowing him to pose as a middle class tax cutter.  Posing is something Obama does well; after all he has posed as a US Senator while campaigning for President for most of his term.  Kitchen Sink means that he is promising tax cuts for everything and everyone.  Let’s combine that with the billions of dollars needed for the government programs that he wants to implement or expand.  Unless you are completely ignorant, common sense will tell you this is not possible.   One of Obama’s biggest campaign promises is that he’ll cut taxes for 95% of working families.  Hell, who wouldn’t love a promise like that?  Remember Bill Clinton, he made similar tax cut promises and less than a year later American taxpayers got the bill for Clinton’s reality.  So how does Obama back up this 95% claim?  Since 33% of tax filers pay no taxes it’s not possible to cut their taxes.    Remember when Clinton tried to change the definition of what “is” is?  The same thing is happening here.  Obama is trying to change the meaning of what a tax cut is.  To me, a tax cut means I get to keep more of what I earn.  Obama wants to change the definition to include billions of dollars in government handouts.  These handouts are cleverly disguised with the more acceptable name “tax credit.”  If you follow all the small print you could qualify for one or more of these credits, but you will have to buy the cars they tell you to buy, purchase the insurance they tell you to, see the doctors they tell you to, go to the schools they tell you to and so on.  Most people will not be in a position to earn these credits, but they don’t want to tell you that.  Even non-taxpayers can earn these and this is accomplished by shifting income from taxpayers to non-taxpayer in the form of welfare checks. A recent analysis by the Wall Street Journal also suggests that the Obama plan would be a disincentive to work harder.  Here is a chart that illustrates that as a family works more to make more money, they lose much larger percentages of their income for each dollar earned. Obama’s current tax plan is being compared to that of Herbert Hoover, a plan that plunged us deeper in to the Great Depression.  What is similar is that Obama proposes greater taxes for investors and the “wealthy”.  These are the people that provide the employment for most Americans.  Below is a listing of some of his proposed tax increases:  
  • To Increase the top individual income tax rate by 13% and the second individual income tax rate by 10%.
  • To Increase the capital gains tax rate by 33%.
  • To Increase the tax rate on dividends by 33%.
  • To raise the top payroll tax rate by between 16%-32%.
  • New payroll tax on employers to help pay for national health insurance.
  • Reinstatement of the death tax, which is being phased out under current law, with a new top marginal tax rate of 45%.
  • Protectionist trade policies and higher tariff taxes.

The result of all of these increases would be lower employment, less money being reinvested and many businesses closing.  At least we won’t have to worry about our taxes.  Oh yeah, about our taxes.  Most people will see a large tax increase under Obama’s tax plan.  It’s the only way he can accomplish his goals.

 

God forbid that you are successful in the age of Obama’s tax plan.  He wants to take the money that you’ve earned and “spread the wealth around, it’s good for everyone.”  Here is a link to a short video that shows you just what Obama thinks of anybody that works hard to be successful. 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNuqV7N_bj0

 “Spread the wealth around” is Obama’s economic philosophy and is part of Socialism.  "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."   Obama responds with, "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.  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."   His entire plan is wealth redistribution accomplished by increasing taxes on most taxpayers.

This is the type of tax help that most Americans can’t afford and would flush our economy down that kitchen sink’s drain.


 

Obama and Dems Fueled The Economy Crisis

By Ed Furey
Wednesday, Oct 8 2008, 12:01 AM

More than three years ago, John McCain proposed additional oversight and regulation on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in a bill that had full Republican support and no Democratic support.  A bill that could have prevented much of what went wrong.  A bill that would have prevented these GSE's (Government Sponsored Enterprises) from speculating on the mortgage based securities that they packaged.  The profit from this speculation is what provided the means for outrageous executive bonuses.  Obama and his cohorts, the rest of the Senate Democrats killed the bill.  Why would they do this?  Maybe it was a difference of opinion.  If so, that shows again why McCain is better suited to lead this country. 

I don't think that is the real reason the Dems killed it.  See, if they sided with McCain, the Democrats would lose their big fat donations (bribes) from Freddie and Fannie.  You see, even though Obama has only been in office for four years, (less than two if you remove his time campaigning for President - something that he said he wasn't qualified to do less than two years before he decided to) yet he was getting bigger payoffs than more senior Democrats.   Conspiracy theorists have speculated that Dhimocrats actually wanted the collapse, to try to build an even better case for one of their own to gain the White House.

Republicans are usually against regulations, but in this case McCain went against conventional thinking and tried to get these GSE's under tighter regulations.  In his speech supporting this legislation this is what he said:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs-and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

Fox News Journalist John Gibson, reports on how Obama continued to benefit from Freddy and Fannie and how Obama and the Democrats had much to lose if their golden goose was cooked.

JOHN GIBSON: All right Heather. Lehman Brothers' collapse is traced back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two big mortgage banks that got a federal bailout a few weeks ago. Freddie and Fannie used huge lobbying budgets and political contributions to keep regulators off their backs. A group called the center for responsive politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions. The top three U.S. Senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were democrats and number two is Senator Barack Obama.

Now, remember, he has only been in the Senate four years but still managed to grab the number two spot ahead of John Kerry, decades in the senate, and Chris Dodd who is chairman of the senate banking committee. Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congressional democrats and the Clinton white house, designed to make mortgages available to more people, and as it turned out, some people who couldn't afford them. Fannie and Freddie have also been places for big Washington democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector and pocket millions. The Clinton administration's white house budget director Franklin Raines ran Fannie and collected 50 million dollars. Jamie Gurilli, Clinton Justice Apartment Official, worked for Fannie and took home 26 million dollars. Big Democrat Jim Johnson, recently on Obama's VP search committee has hauled in millions from his Fannie Mae C.E.O. job.

Now remember, Obama's ads and stump speeches attack McCain and republican policies for the current financial turmoil. It is demonstrably not Republican policy and worse, it appears the man attacking McCain, Senator Obama, was at the head of the line when the piggy's lined up at the Fannie and Freddie trough for campaign bucks. Senator Barack Obama, number two on the Fannie/Freddie list of favored politicians after just four short years in the senate. Next time you see that ad; you might notice he fails to mention that part of the Fannie and Freddie problem. Heather.

NAUERT: Wow, that's quite a report, begs the question - where is John McCain on this?

GIBSON: John McCain is a measly $20,000 after over 20 years so he really doesn't even come close in the political contribution department.

20 years of compiling this info and Obama, in less than four years, was number 2 in contributions.

John McCain has finally taken off the gloves to try to get the truth out, instead of playing nice with all of the Obama lies.  Here is what McCain is saying today:

Our current economic crisis is a good case in point. What was his actual record in the years before the great economic crisis of our lifetimes?

This crisis started in our housing market in the form of subprime loans that were pushed on people who could not afford them. Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of unsustainable debt began to spread. This corruption was encouraged by Democrats in Congress, and abetted by Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has accused me of opposing regulation to avert this crisis. I guess he believes if a lie is big enough and repeated often enough it will be believed. But the truth is I was the one who called at the time for tighter restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that could have helped prevent this crisis from happening in the first place.

Senator Obama was silent on the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and his Democratic allies in Congress opposed every effort to rein them in. As recently as September of last year he said that subprime loans had been, quote, "a good idea." Well, Senator Obama, that "good idea" has now plunged this country into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

To hear him talk now, you'd think he'd always opposed the dangerous practices at these institutions. But there is absolutely nothing in his record to suggest he did. He was surely familiar with the people who were creating this problem. The executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have advised him, and he has taken their money for his campaign. He has received more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other senator in history, with the exception of the chairman of the committee overseeing them.

Did he ever talk to the executives at Fannie and Freddie about these reckless loans? Did he ever discuss with them the stronger oversight I proposed? If Senator Obama is such a champion of financial regulation, why didn't he support these regulations that could have prevented this crisis in the first place? He won't tell you, but you deserve an answer.

John McCain has a proven track record of working with the other party and against his own to get done what needs to be done.  Obama has a proven record of poor decisions, poor choices for influential people in his life, corruption and lies.

Choosing McCain is the only reasonable decision.


 

Covering Up The Crisis & Shifting Blame for the Failed Bailout

By Ed Furey
Monday, Sep 29 2008, 11:10 PM

Another must see video.  Thanks to Charlie Sykes.

Democrats are the majority party in Congress.  This means that if they want something to pass, all they need to do is vote for it.  Nancy Pelosi says that the Republicans are to blame for the bailout failure, because only one third of them voted to approve it.  Yet she only needed a few more votes for it to pass and nearly 100 Democrats voted against this package.  Sorry Nancy, this does not pass the common sense rule.  To top it off, she is the one that called for a vote knowing full well that they were short of the votes needed.  All morning and early afternoon the press said that they didn't have the votes. 

Barney Frank (the second coming of Elmer Fudd - has anybody listened to the way he talks?), Harry Reid and Pelosi have had their own agenda on this since the start.  First Reid says that the Democrats won't vote for anything unless McCain shows up to vote, then McCain calls his bluff and puts Country First to try and make sure that if something is done it gets done right, at which point Reid says don't come we don't need you.  The reason was they were trying to position Obama as the savior and leader.  Even during the big meeting at the White House, the other Democrats deferred to Obama so that he could show his leadership and take charge.  The Democratic leadership was appalled when he failed to do so.  Obama ready to lead?  There isn't one Democratic leader that thinks he is. 


 

What Caused The Crisis?

By Ed Furey
Friday, Sep 26 2008, 10:51 AM

 Please watch this video to get a short education on how the economic crisis got to this point.


 

The We Deserve It Dividend

By Ed Furey
Thursday, Sep 25 2008, 05:09 PM

My sister sent this to me, and I enjoyed it so much I thought I would share it with everybody.  Thanks to Viking Dave.

 

I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.
 
Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to
America in a We Deserve It Dividend.
 
To make the math simple, let's assume there are
200,000,000 bona-fide U.S. Citizens 18+.
 
Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every
 man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..
 
So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billion that
equals $425,000.00.
 
My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend.
 
Of course, it would NOT be tax free.
 
So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.
 
Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.
 
That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.
 
But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket.

A husband and wife has $595,000.00.
 
What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?

Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.
 
Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads
 
Put away money for college - it'll be there
 
Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.
 
Buy a new car - create jobs
 
Invest in the market - capital drives growth
 
Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves
 

Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else
 
Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+
including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers
and every other company that is cutting back. And of course,
for those serving in our Armed Forces.
 
If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's
really do it...instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00
( 'vote buy' ) economic incentive that is being
proposed by one of our candidates for President.
 
If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout,
let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!
 
As for AIG - liquidate it.
 
Sell off its parts.
 
Let American General go back to being American General.
 
Sell off the real estate.
 
Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and
clean it up.
 
Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.

Sure it's a crazy idea that can 'never work.'
 
But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!
 
How do you spell Economic Boom?
 
I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the
$85 Billion We Deserve It Dividend more than I do the geniuses at AIG
or in Washington DC

 
And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5
Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes
to Uncle Sam.
 
Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.


 
More Posts

Posts

Your browser must support javascript to use the posts pager. Please enable javascript or return to the home page to page through posts.
Newer Older

Tags

Search the Blogs