If Obama wins...(HYPOTHETICAL)

[dantheman617]

I will move to the South Pole

 

[KB5252]

Will this still be true, if you perceive that the election was somehow stolen from your candidate?

People who have no understanding of how the election process works may, but those who know our history know how the process works.

 

[KB5252]

Or in 04 when over 100,000 dead people voted democrat....

That number is likely to be dwarfed in comparison this year!

 

[KB5252]

That is bold, considering the division we have seen the last 6 years. Agree with his policies or not, liberal or conservative, this administration has been extremely divisive, using patriotism and fear as tools of division. Admittedly, congress has been part of the problem too.

As opposed to the class warfare and outright lies about rich people paying less and poor people paying more? That isn't divisive at all!

 

[KB5252]

Well, hopefully McCain will win and there will be no more Social Security. Then we can finally start getting rid of those stupid old people.

If you believe either party can fix that problem you are mistaken. They both spend more than comes in so it doesn't have a chance! Both parties are to blame there, don't try and pretend it is a republican thing.

 

[Vol Mania 21]

i know i know everyone thinks everyone is the anti christ, i'm not saying obama is, but things kind of relate to him, if you say he doesn't kind of match the description then ur retarded. he did say we are no longer a christian nation. i got this in an email

"How long is the beast allowed to have authority in Revelations?
Revelations Chapter 13 tells us it is 42 months, and you know what that is... Almost a four-year term of a Presidency.

All I can say is "Lord, Have mercy on us!"

According to The Book of Revelations the anti-Christ is: The
Anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40's, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything..

Do we recognize this description??

I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to post this as many times as you can! Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet..do it!

I refuse to take a chance on this unknown candidate who came out of nowhere."

 

[Vol Mania 21]

From yesterday's WSJ. V

OCTOBER 13, 2008
Obama's 95% Illusion
It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is.

One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.
It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.

The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.

It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.

There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

That number is likely to be dwarfed in comparison this year!

Cuyuhoga county does have a lot of dead people.

 

[notverycrucial]

Cuyuhoga county does have a lot of dead people.

And we know they'll all be voting for Barack Obama. Just like the 100,000 dead people that cast votes for John Kerry in 2004 (source?)

 

[BigPapaVol]

From yesterday's WSJ. V

OCTOBER 13, 2008
Obama's 95% Illusion
It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is.

One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.
It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.

The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.

It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.

There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

why bury this here? there are some folks around here that need to read it to understand the garbage they're being sold.

As an add, this little piece neglects the impact of the massive tax hike on the wealthy to total gov't receipts over time and unemployment levels.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

And we know they'll all be voting for Barack Obama. Just like the 100,000 dead people that cast votes for John Kerry in 2004 (source?)

The Cleveland Plain Dealer or the Columbus Dispatch.

Again, I cannot help that you are lazy.

:hi:

Paulding County was the main culprit.

 

[CaedmonVol]

docs and hospital don't pay exorbitant insurance fees due to the price of litigation, but I'm for forcing loser to pay. That's not tort reform, that's justice. Limiting penalties fits in Britain because in their hearts, they're socialists. Arbitrary values on health, life and mistakes is inherently unamerican and we're not into telling individuals their worth.

By the by, your party is the crowd hampering efforts at tort reform and doing so through your type and the ACLU.

The linkage you suggest is extremely weak and medical malpractice insurance would not drop drastically if something were enacted on that front.

The costs are littered throughout the system and none of those players is going to voluntarily give away money. These private contractor fantasms you're having are complete garbage. That's providing medical care via lowest cost provider and placing said provider in handcuffs. Limiting pay to docs with this method limits the docs willing to play, which is exactly what should not happen and is nothing akin to the lie that Obama is spreading about his own benefits.

Finally, if it's via contractor and that makes it dramatically, who pays for the bureaucracy between contractor and gov't, pays the spread to the contractor and pays for the care being provided that isn't being provided today? This littile answer should be cute, especially from an attorney with the apparent financial sense of Obama.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

How do you know what party I'm in? Just because I support Obama in 2008 doesn't mean I love the Democratic party and hate the Republican party. I happen to think both parties are awful, both have little coherence or direction, and both are mainly about getting and keeping power, NOT about helping to preserve and further this nation's interests. That said, given a choice between Obama and McCain, I believe that Obama is better for the overall direction of this country. His party affiliation is not important to me.

In terms of health care, I agree that UHC will probably be a fiscal nightmare, but I think it's worth keeping things in context -- Iraq, Medicare Part D, and now the Paulson plan are all enormous expenses that GWB and the Republican Congress have borrowed from the Chinese and charged to our children. Let's be fair, ALL of these expenses are unreasonable unless it's for a national emergency. We can't grow our way out of these deficits. I might add that under Clinton and the Republican congress of the 90s, we didn't have these deficits, though the debt was still growing.

The real issue, in my opinion, is how to get out of the debt we're in. Whether we pay for wars, health care, whatever, we owe $10 trillion plus now to mostly foreign interests. That is THE single most long-term problem that we face as Americans, folks, it's the fault of both crappy parties, and the Republicans have proven over the last 8 years that they are just as bad as the Dems at spending your tax dollars. Yeah, they cut taxes, but they increased spending and shifted the burden onto our children. That's selfish short-term thinking, designed to win elections and not to strengthen the nation. It's not the kind of thinking that will lead us through the crazy challenges we face in the 21st century. Honestly, we probably need a full-scale economic meltdown to get back to basics, learn how to live interdependently again, and rebuild our country from the ground up.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

How do you know what party I'm in? Just because I support Obama in 2008 doesn't mean I love the Democratic party and hate the Republican party. I happen to think both parties are awful, both have little coherence or direction, and both are mainly about getting and keeping power, NOT about helping to preserve and further this nation's interests. That said, given a choice between Obama and McCain, I believe that Obama is better for the overall direction of this country. His party affiliation is not important to me.

In terms of health care, I agree that UHC will probably be a fiscal nightmare, but I think it's worth keeping things in context -- Iraq, Medicare Part D, and now the Paulson plan are all enormous expenses that GWB and the Republican Congress have borrowed from the Chinese and charged to our children. Let's be fair, ALL of these expenses are unreasonable unless it's for a national emergency. We can't grow our way out of these deficits. I might add that under Clinton and the Republican congress of the 90s, we didn't have these deficits, though the debt was still growing.

The real issue, in my opinion, is how to get out of the debt we're in. Whether we pay for wars, health care, whatever, we owe $10 trillion plus now to mostly foreign interests. That is THE single most long-term problem that we face as Americans, folks, it's the fault of both crappy parties, and the Republicans have proven over the last 8 years that they are just as bad as the Dems at spending your tax dollars. Yeah, they cut taxes, but they increased spending and shifted the burden onto our children. That's selfish short-term thinking, designed to win elections and not to strengthen the nation. It's not the kind of thinking that will lead us through the crazy challenges we face in the 21st century. Honestly, we probably need a full-scale economic meltdown to get back to basics, learn how to live interdependently again, and rebuild our country from the ground up.

:lolabove:

 

[joevol320]

Last I checked, the Constitution permits all citizens aged 18 or over to vote for president. There is no intelligence test. If those "morons" made a mistake that favored Bush instead of Gore, I'm pretty sure you would argue like hell that those votes should be counted.

this was why back in the olden days, people who own land could only vote. they were the ones who were actually impacted on election outcome.

i read some stat that 14 "poor" people vote for every 1 "wealthy" person vote. it was a really interesting stat. basically 14 poor people (who didn't pay taxes) controlled how that wealthy person's taxes were going to be spent.

 

[truefan]

1. No, I see a divide in this nation that has not been seen since the Civil War..

2. I love my country. I do not trust it's government. Should B. Hussein Obama be elected. I will trust it even less. Obama is a racist, lying, socialist.

This nation is already divided in a manner we haven't seen since the Civil War. Your behavior is a perfect example of why this divide exists.

You wouldn't know a socialist if you saw one

 

[joevol320]

trufan, you don't have a clue

 

[OrangeEmpire]

1. This nation is already divided in a manner we haven't seen since the Civil War. 2 Your behavior is a perfect example of why this divide exists.

You wouldn't know a socialist if you saw one

1.) That is no where close to being true.

2.) Try looking in the mirror sometime.

:good!:

 

[JZVOL]

This nation is already divided in a manner we haven't seen since the Civil War. Your behavior is a perfect example of why this divide exists.

You wouldn't know a socialist if you saw one

It's not that hard to spot one.

A vote for Barack is a vote for socialism.

 

[Vol Mania 21]

truefan plz stop, you're making yourself look ridiculous w/ comments about the civil war

 

[truefan]

i know i know everyone thinks everyone is the anti christ, i'm not saying obama is, but things kind of relate to him, if you say he doesn't kind of match the description then ur retarded. he did say we are no longer a christian nation. i got this in an email

"How long is the beast allowed to have authority in Revelations?
Revelations Chapter 13 tells us it is 42 months, and you know what that is... Almost a four-year term of a Presidency.

All I can say is "Lord, Have mercy on us!"

According to The Book of Revelations the anti-Christ is: The
Anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40's, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything..

Do we recognize this description??

I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to post this as many times as you can! Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet..do it!

I refuse to take a chance on this unknown candidate who came out of nowhere."

So, in your far right zeal, you ignore the fact Obama is a Christian?

I am not posting this garbage anywhere. Crawl back under your bible, please

 

[OrangeEmpire]

So, in your far right zeal, you ignore the fact Obama is a Christian?

I am not posting this garbage anywhere. Crawl back under your bible, please

So in your far left zeal you ignore the fact that republicans are chrisitians?

Crawl back under your posters of aborted babies...

:good!:

 

[Vol Mania 21]

So, in your far right zeal, you ignore the fact Obama is a Christian?

I am not posting this garbage anywhere. Crawl back under your bible, please

if you read the top of my quote, i said, i didn't think he was the anti christ, just thought it was interesting. sorry that i actually read my bible, God bless your soul

 

[defaultusername]

i know i know everyone thinks everyone is the anti christ, i'm not saying obama is, but things kind of relate to him, if you say he doesn't kind of match the description then ur retarded. he did say we are no longer a christian nation. i got this in an email

"How long is the beast allowed to have authority in Revelations?
Revelations Chapter 13 tells us it is 42 months, and you know what that is... Almost a four-year term of a Presidency.

All I can say is "Lord, Have mercy on us!"

According to The Book of Revelations the anti-Christ is: The
Anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40's, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything..

Do we recognize this description??

I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to post this as many times as you can! Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet..do it!

I refuse to take a chance on this unknown candidate who came out of nowhere."

hahahahhah please show me this scripture. i need to be educated!!:lolabove:

 

[therealUT]

According to The Book of Revelations the anti-Christ is: The
Anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40's, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything..

This is so ridiculous and off the wall it is not even funny. Whoever sent you that email should probably be added to your block list Vol Mania.

 

[SavageOrangeJug]

This nation is already divided in a manner we haven't seen since the Civil War. Your behavior is a perfect example of why this divide exists.

You wouldn't know a socialist if you saw one

You base your statement on?

You obviously don't have a clue. Any other ASSumptions you would like to make?