McCain has a plan...just like Obama has one....

• Yet another fact about Obama - Liberty Counsel E-Mail
  • Umm...pieces launched with first-line disclaimers - cry out for source inspection...sm
  • More garbage - gourdpainter
    • This is from the LATimes website - sbMT
      • Since when - gourdpainter
        • It may not - sbMT
          • That is all we can all do....s/m - gourdpainter
          • sorry dont agree - shelly
            • But what you don't realize - sbMT
              • If your father-in-law s/m - gourdpainter
                • What about his comment to Joe the Plumber? - sbMT
                  • I could not possibly agree with you more - gourdpainter
                    • why does that seem fair to you? - cj
                      • Look, we can argue about this until the cows come home - gourdpainter
                    • That is exactly what he said. He wants to raise taxes... - sam
                      • where does he say that? - Amanda
                  • I agree with you on everything you said except.... - sam
                    • I meant as far as dems are concerned - sbMT
                      • Exactly. And the fact that the governor of Ohio... - sam
                  • P.S. Don't Puke! - sbMT
                    • I agree too - shelly
                      • Amen, shelly! Not many are born with a good job or making a... - sam
                • Obama said...from his own mouth...to Joe the Plumber.... - sam
                  • Right back at ya.... - gourdpainter
                    • At least we agree on one thing...LOL.... - sam
                      • So we better go take a board off the fence. LOL - gourdpainter
                        • You too...have a good one! nm - sam
    • Why are you McCain people so desperate? You are just like McCain. No plan. Just criticism of the - pc
      • I find it interesting that anything negative about Obama is - Kendra
        • It is because the great "O" has spoken... - sam
      • McCain has a plan...just like Obama has one.... - sam
        • I most certainly do not turn off the TV every time he speaks - gourdpainter
      • Just stating facts - Not desperate
      • Let's start a groundswell campaign to support - Michel Moore for Secretary of Labor...sm
        • This post should be under gourdpainter. - nm
          • So okay, put it under gourdpainter - gourdpainter
        • I'll vote for that. LOL n/m - gourdpainter
      • Yeah and she's already making noise - gourdpainter
        • Unless something changes radically I will vote for her. About time... - sam
          • Aw, sam, you're smarter than that. - gourdpainter
            • I whole-heartedly disagree with you on that one, GP.... - sam
              • Sorry, Sam s/m - gourdpainter

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Click on the individual windows to get the complete plan. 

http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/jobsforamerica/

He keeps saying he knows how to find BinLaden and will do that after he is elected.  Why isn't he sharing his secret fool-proof plan to capture him with the current administration?  He is dangling that promise over our heads.  If he actually does have a fantastic plan, he is allowing the whole country to be vulnerable UNTIL he gets what he wants - the presidency.  Thumbs down on you, grandpa.

Initially, when McCain announced his "new" mortgage buyout plan, it was simply a restatement of the existing provisions already authorizing the Treasury Department and Federal Housing Administration to purchase, restructure and guarantee mortgages.  In fact, these provisions had been promoted and supported by Obama during the legislative process when they were included in the original legislation.   

At first, the buyout would have purchased mortgages at their current devalued amount, meaning that the lenders would have to "recognize the loss" they had already suffered.  Lenders were required to back only 90% of the original value and homeowners would have been required to share any increase in value with the government, reflecting shared responsibility. 

Under McCain's "revised" plan, the treasury would pay FULL face value of mortgages, even though they are no longer worth that amount.  He deleted the shared responsibility phrase, thus creating what amounts to a windfall for the banking industry, rewarding the most irresponsible lenders.  Under this revision, banks receive full payment, even on artificially inflated values for the homes and assume no loss while tax payers take all the loss of the mortgage value and perhaps even end up losing more in the event that the housing values do not recover.  Taxpayers would also not get any benefit should the houses increase in value. 

Some lenders, voluntarily or as part of settlements, are working on solutions to the mortgage meltdown that modifying mortgages to help homeowners stay in their homes –WITHOUT costing taxpayers a dime. But if the McCain plan were in place, this process would stop because lenders would know they could always sell their mortgages at full face value to taxpayers.  

So, contrary to sam's claims, O is simply promoting protection for the homeowners AND the taxpayer.  This is not "punishment" of the lenders.  This is an effort to hold the guilty parties responsible for their longstanding shady lending practices and ensure that THEY too shoulder the burden of the costs.  

I am left wondering what the bum's rush is on this McCain plan.  A mortgage bail-out should not be conceived, defined, proposed, debated or passed as part of another halting, frenetic political stunt designed to make McCain look like he knows what he is doing when it comes to addressing the economic woes of the nation.  It requires careful, thourhgtful, informed consideration...the kind that can only take place AFTER the election and in the absence of underlying agendas aimed at rescuing a failing presidential campaign.    

I assume you watched both conventions?????  I watched the Dems and now I'm watching the Pubs.  I am an INDEPENDENT.  I would support Obama were it not for my research of the church he has been associated with for 20 years.  This church, in my humble opinion, belongs to an extreme, radical, racist group.  We don't need that in the White House. With the exception of illegal immigration, he pretty much addressed all the things that I feel are important to the future of my children and grandchildren and were it not for his affiliation with his chosen church, I would probably vote for him.  .  At least he had the good sense to select a person as his running mate who actually might be "ready on day one" to lead this country.

Secondly, again in my humble opinion, McCain has a few screws loose rattling around upstairs.  He answers every question, even about how many houses he owns, with something like, "well, the longest time I spent anywhere was when I was a POW."  Other than that it has been all about bashing Obama and his not having "experience."  Then look what he did.  Picked a little-known female who has been abroad exactly once and tries to pass her off as "experienced." Truth:  She is a female and her state is the second largest producer of oil.  Bush governed the biggest oil producing state.  Enjoying those prices at the pumps?   To this point all the pub speakers have pushed McCain's war record.  What?????  Do we need more war?  I think a peacemaker would be better.

Now, before anyone pounces on me, I support NEITHER of these candidates and NEITHER will receive my vote.  Either way, the middle class Americans, to which I expect most MTs belong, lose. Our government will change when and if the majority of Americans quit using their heads as a hatrack for the Democrat and Republican parties, kick them out and bring back government "of the people, by the people and for the people."  Won't  happen this time but maybe next time won't be too late.

First of all, let me say I was undecided on this election until yesterday.  Obama's tax plan scares me to death.  I heard him on an interview yesterday, and he said that the top 5% of the country could *afford to help out those less fortunate to us*, meaning those that make above $200,000.  He also said that someone making under $45,000 would *probably* not have to pay income taxes, because all the tax revenue would be generated from the top 5% of the country, again, who could *afford* to help out his fellow man.

So, here's my question.  If I work my BUTT off making a great living for my family, who the heck is he to say I have to share it?  My husband and I put ourselves through school to get a good education for ourselves, searched for good jobs, worked more than one sometimes, and enjoy or standard of living, because we worked hard for it and EARNED it.  How dare he suggest that I have to share that with ANYONE, just because they dont' have as much.  We give to quite a few neighborhood organizations and national charities, we do not keep every penny for ourselves. 

If he does get elected and puts this new plan in place, why would people work hard to make a good living if quite a bit chunk of it is going to be taken away?  Why not just sit back, work as little as you want, stay under that $40,000 radar, not pay income taxes, and have the government give you some other *rich* guy's money because you don't have as much?

This really made my mind up for me.  It's time this county taught some personal responsibility and accountability, and I do not think he is the one for the job!

I haven't been here for a while, and if this has already been posted below somewhere, I apologize for duplicating it.

The following link will take you to a site that will show you how much money Barack Obama will save you on taxes, compared to John McCain.  (Remember, McCain will be taxing your health insurance benefits for the first time in American history.)  Depending on your income, there is quite a difference between the two plans.

http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/

McCain may be taxing us, but he is anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage

Mrs. Palin proudly boasted that she had put her state's "checkbook" on line so the fine Alaskan citizens could actually see where their money was being spent.  Bless her heart.  She said under the Palin/McCain (yep, in that order) administration, she would do the same with the federal "checkbook." 

Come to find out that Obama had already done that 2 to 3 years ago.  He should be ashamed of stealing her idea.

What he hasn't bothered to tell all his lame followers is if he allows the Bush tax cuts to expire in a few years, this is equal to a tax increase on the middle class. Obama knows most of his followers don't even know what the real Bush tax cuts mean nor what it will mean for them when and if they are allowed to expire. 

He hopes no one looks too closely at this.  Not only does he want that to expire, which he has already said he will not vote to continue, back in March he actually tried to shorten that so taxes could begin for those making 31k-63K.   He knows most of you don't understand any of this for obvious reasons but for those of us who do pay attention, wake up!  You will not be getting off the hook paying taxes no matter how much that sounds wonderful.  If it sounds too good to be true, it will be. 

Obama's plan very clearly states that taxes will be raised on those making over 250,000 and tax cuts for those under that.  Meanwhile I've seen post after post complaining about him rasing taxes in general, which is in direct conflict with what he has said.

So, if he's planning on raising taxes on the higher tax brackets what's the problem?  Aren't these the same people you guys have been bashing?  For example, the auto CEOs who went to Washington in a private jet? 

He only signed off on it after it had been planned and then vouched for by a whole lot of other people.  The CEO of a car company does not design a car or put together a sales campaign.  He only gives the go-ahead after others have figured out what to do, then takes credit for it.

The only thing this guy has ever made in his life is reservations. 

So Obama believes we should spread the wealth around. Here are his charitable contributions:

Too bad he wasn't spreading his wealth around these past years. Oh well he did give 800,000.00 to ACORN. You know them don't you? Do you suppose this is his idea of spreading the wealth?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/17/eveningnews/realitycheck/main4530306.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/obama.foreclosures/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Hope this helps those of you that need help.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123617623602129441.html

In the absence of a direct response from the bankrupt McCain campaign, dems better take cover and ride out the next avalanche of hate speech that looms on the horizon. 

As you read the piece (see link below) in the London Times, substitute "Obama" for Brown, and "Geithner" for "Darling".  Then multiply the billions in pounds by 1.5 to change them to US dollars.  You'll think you're reading about the US plan - and the same catastrophic results, among which the worst are:

1.  A burden on future generations of unparalleled and unprincipled proportions.

2.  An outflow of investment capital to other countries that do not penalize the engines of the economy.

What struck me about Brown's plan was his "soak the rich" approach, which exactly mirrors Obama's - i.e., hitting the "upper 2%" of the "wealthy".  It is more than passing strange to me that this is the precise percentage that Obama proposes - and is equally doubtful.  Given Brown's recent meetings with Obama, no one will ever convince me that he didn't get some tutoring from our superclown...er, I mean, superpresident.

Another thing that's striking is how Brown's proposals are structured so that the real pain will be imposed after the elections in GB next year.  In Obama's case, most of the real pain has also been scheduled for the "out years" - meaning that the public won't begin to feel them until beyond 2011. 

And finally, there is the criticism that Brown's program is based on a lot of rosy "recovery" predictions which are very doubtful.  Exactly the same criticism has been leveled at Obama's program, and in our case the criticism has come not from the opposition party but from within the government itself, i.e. the Office of Management and Budget - which is considered to be a very credible source of information on this sort of thing

Cut and paste, or follow the link at the bottom: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6168950.ece?Submitted=true

.

I see again that everyone is talking about President Obama's plan for universal health care and I once again feel the need to distinguish between universal health care and what the plan is that President Obama has campaigned for.  I have copied and pasted part of the web page, but also included the link at the bottom of this for you to see the whole plan. 

President Obama does not ask for universal health care where the government is in charge - he just wants the government to ensure that everyone has access to medical care and health insurance.  Why is it so difficult to understand that this is not socialized medicine, government run healthcare, or universal coverage plans?

Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan

On health care reform, the American people are too often offered two extremes - government-run health care with higher taxes or letting the insurance companies operate without rules. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe both of these extremes are wrong, and that’s why they’ve proposed a plan that strengthens employer coverage, makes insurance companies accountable and ensures patient choice of doctor and care without government interference.

The Obama-Biden plan provides affordable, accessible health care for all Americans, builds on the existing health care system, and uses existing providers, doctors and plans to implement the plan. Under the Obama-Biden plan, patients will be able to make health care decisions with their doctors, instead of being blocked by insurance company bureaucrats.

Under the plan, if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year.

If you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of new, affordable health insurance options.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

Do you think either candidate is more "real" than the other? Is one of them truly a "what you see is what you get" sort of person, or is one of them liable to turn tail and be the opposite of what we see now?

Thoughts, opinions, comments?

I had hoped to include Hillary in my list, but I guess that won't be necessary now. Bummer.