Obama's Plan to Rejoin the World Community...

• Obama's Plan to Rejoin the World Community... - sm
  • PhyllisSchlafly - You must be joking! - Shirley U. Jest
    • I didn't even know she was still alive!! nm - Happy MT

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

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?

This is an excellent article.  It includes pretty dramatic graphs that I wasn't able to copy and post, and I would urge anyone who is unbiased and is truly interested in giving the President-Elect a chance to succeed -- JUST A CHANCE -- click on the link and see for yourselves.

Foreign poll favours Democrat but shows hostility to US

Julian Glover

guardian.co.uk, Friday October 17 2008 00.01 BST

The research, carried out by eight leading newspapers including the Guardian, finds overwhelming support for the Democratic candidate. He would win by a landslide in every country surveyed, including Britain, where he is ahead of the Republican candidate John McCain by 64% to 15%.

Support for Obama is stronger than backing for John Kerry in 2004, when the Guardian participated in a similar polling exercise. Then, the Democrat was the preferred candidate of 50% of British people.

The poll, conducted by papers including France's Le Monde, Japan's Yomiuri Shimbun, Canada's LA Presse and Mexico's Reforma, also shows that opinion of America has dropped sharply since the start of the decade. In France 75% say their view of the US has got worse or much worse since President George Bush replaced Bill Clinton in 2001; in Canada 77%; in Switzerland 86% and in Japan 62%.

People everywhere have turned to Obama. He would win by a simple majority in six of the eight countries surveyed, including Canada, where he leads McCain by 70%-14%, and Japan, where the margin is 61%-13%.

French voters are even more hostile to the Republican candidate, who gets the backing of only 5%, against 68% who hope Obama will win.

In British results, from ICM/Guardian polling, 67% of voters say their opinion of the US is worse than it was before the Bush presidency began. Only 21% say it has improved.

But the special relationship endures. People in Britain are more likely than in any of the other seven countries surveyed to say relations are friendly: 49% think this is the case, against 18% who say relations are tense and 30% who say they are neutral.

Support for an Obama presidency is strong among all types of voters in Britain - 64% want him to win. He is most popular among more prosperous voters, where he has 71% backing, and least popular among people at the bottom of the socio-economic scale, 54% of whom want him to become president.

Elsewhere, only in Poland and Mexico, both emerging democracies, is there any hesitation about the prospect of an Obama victory. In Poland he leads by 43% to 26% and in Mexico by 46% to 13%.

Many people now fear rather than warm to America. In France 25% of voters say relations with the US are tense, against 38% who say they are friendly and 39% who think they are neutral. In Japan only 16% say friendship and 19% tension, with 62% neutral. In no country does a majority think relations should be described as friendly.

Even America's two neighbouring states are sceptical of US intentions. Only 23% of Mexicans describe relations as friendly and 28% say they are tense. In Canada, which has just re-elected a Conservative minority government, voters are strongly supportive of a Democratic presidency; 43% say relations with the US are friendly and 14% tense.

The survey also finds strong opposition to any attack on Iran and - in the six countries questioned on the issue - majority support for a rapid withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.

The possibility of military intervention in Iran is opposed by a majority everywhere except in Poland and Britain.

In Britain 47% say the next president should specifically rule out an attack, against 42% who say options should be left open.

Each newspaper involved in the survey used professional polling organisations, including ICM for the Guardian in Britain. Research was carried out this month, except in Poland, where polling took place in September.

Although the methodologies used differ - which may affect exact comparisons - the scale of Obama's lead everywhere outweighs any variation in results.
Research was carried out by: La Presse, Canada (1,500 telephone sample); the Guardian, UK (1,007 telephone, October 10-12 2008); Le Temps, Switzerland (600 telephone); Le Monde, France (1,000 face to face); Yomiuri Shimbun, Japan (3,000 face to face); Reforma, Mexico (850 telephone); Le Soir, Belgium (1,007 telephone); Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland, (1,000 telephone)

q· This article was amended on Tuesday October 21 2008. A graphic showing the results of a poll on how the US is viewed around the world reversed the findings for Belgium. We stated that 39% of Belgians polled said their opinion of the US had changed for the worse since the start of the Bush presidency, and 52% said it had changed for the better. Those figures should have been the other way round.

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/

"New World Order," the phrase previously attributed to "whacky conspiracy theorists," is now being PUBLICLY advocated by this senile old man.  I hope Obama is too smart and too reasonable for this "NWO" stuff because this is one of the reasons I voted for him.

Kissinger: Obama's 'task' is to help create a 'new world order'

My "baby" is 37 years old.  I was just thinking..........he earned his private pilot's license at age 16.  MAYBE something like this is what Obama has in mind??

http://www.cap.gov/visitors/about/our_programs/cadet_programs.cfm