Ok, You Two, What Would You Do to Solve This Mess?

Chuck Baldwin is the single most greatest man ever to walk the face of this planet we call earth. "GO BUY A GUN". what more could you want? Chuck Baldwin is for America. If you dont love 'em you are a commie.I love 'em. I'd marry Chuck Baldwin if he weren't completely opposed to gay marrage. GOD, FAMILY, AND REPUBLIC!

If Dems do, ...McCain will lose!
There are more Dems registered than Republicans this time, and if the undecided Democrats vote along party lines, Obama will win. This is why it is so important to get out the vote on the Dem side, we have to get this republican policy out , and get a different policy in place. Whether you believe Obama will be as affective as he says or not, McCain , will not be affective in change policy at all, he will be a Bush clone,....no?....he wants to stay in Iraq, " stay the course",..he wants to keep tax breaks for Corp.s in place including oil companies, plus add additional cuts for the oil industry, he wants to keep the tax rates for wealthy Americans, at present rate, he has no health plan, no education plan, and no solution to the economic crisis. Obama , is just the opposite, he knows that if you broaden your tax base with new jobs , in the form of green jobs, and high tech jobs, because of new training, and put the wealthy back in the tax rate they had under Clinton, and bring the troops home , saving 150 billion per year, all of this combined will improve the economy in the long run, and in the short run, a tax break for the middle class, and the troops out of Iraq.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

2001 Chicago Public Citizen Radio Interview criticizing the Warren Court as not radical enough for not pursuing redistribution of wealth.

Says that community organizing is for the purpose of assembling the political power to force redistribution of wealth.

The Kennedy tax cut.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm

About half way through the article.

"President Kennedy proposed massive tax-rate reductions, which were passed by Congress and became law after he was assassinated. The 1964 tax cut reduced the top marginal personal income tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent by 1965. The cut reduced lower-bracket rates as well. In the four years prior to the 1965 tax-rate cuts, federal government income tax revenue--adjusted for inflation--increased at an average annual rate of 2.1 percent, while total government income tax revenue (federal plus state and local) increased by 2.6 percent per year . In the four years following the tax cut, federal government income tax revenue increased by 8.6 percent annually and total government income tax revenue increased by 9.0 percent annually. Government income tax revenue not only increased in the years following the tax cut, it increased at a much faster rate.
The Kennedy tax cut set the example that President Ronald Reagan would follow some 17 years later. By increasing incentives to work, produce, and invest, real GDP growth increased in the years following the tax cuts: More people worked, and the tax base expanded. Additionally, the expenditure side of the budget benefited as well because the unemployment rate was significantly reduced.
Using the Congressional Budget Office's revenue forecasts (made with the full knowledge of the future tax cuts), revenues came in much higher than had been anticipated, even after the "cost""of the tax cut had been taken into account. Additionally, in 1965--one year following the tax cut--personal income tax revenue data exceeded expectations by the greatest amounts in the highest income classes.
Testifying before Congress in 1977, Walter Heller, President Kenned''s Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, summarized:
What happened to the tax cut in 1965 is difficult to pin down, but insofar as we are able to isolate it, it did seem to have a tremendously stimulative effect, a multiplied effect on the economy. It was the major factor that led to our running a $3 billion surplus by the middle of 1965 before escalation in Vietnam struck us. It was a $12 billion tax cut, which would be about $33 or $34 billion in today's terms, and within one year the revenues into the Federal Treasury were already above what they had been before the tax cut.
Did the tax cut pay for itself in increased revenues? I think the evidence is very strong that it did."

Who "Joe the plumber" may be is not the issue, though it's easy to see why the Dems want it to be. That's because the real issue is what Obama's comments to him revealed about Obama. In the exchange with "Joe the plumber" we find out that Obama really is as radical as his early political acquaintances, Davis, Ayers, Wright, etc., and that he is into the failed economic policy of wealth redistribution. Obama's tax and spending plans alone would be bad enough, but add Reid and Pelosi to the mix, with the three of them controlling both houses of Congress and the executive branch without any effective restraint, and you have something that should causes concern even among moderate Democrats.
See Wall Street Journal: A Liberal Supermajority:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html

And whether McCain won or lost the third debate is also not relevant. He succeeded in the first half hour to plant the seeds of a Reagan style wipeout. Reputable historians and economists overwhelmingly agree that the taxation imposed by Hoover and FDR, and the "stimulus" spending and public works programs of FDR, actually deepened and prolonged the Great Depression. It was the production demands of WWII that got the economy going again. And when the war was over, the economy promptly went into recession.

See e.g. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/03/opinion/main4499465.shtml
And
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

Point is, Obama's programs require him to tax, and his health care plan is a hidden tax on all business, large an small. In reality, it does not really matter who he taxes, those taxes are going to be passed through the economy. He has to tax, because it is they only way he can pay for his massive social engineering experiments. Any first year economics student knows that taxation is a tool used to contract an economy experiencing inflation, because it reduces demand by reducing the amount of money individuals and businesses have to spend. It is contractionary, which is exactly what you do not want to do when the problem is that the economy is contracting already into recession. Like Hoover and FDR, Obama's plans will only make it worse for longer.

FactCheck.Org is owned by the Annenberg group of Chicago! Talk about a conflict of interest! And Obama has been telling people on the trail to check out the site to verify his opponents claims. Funny, every time that he endorsed something, it turns out to be a part of his spin machine! Like he raised objections in the primaries when Indiana required photo I.D. to vote. He Protested that It took away people's right to vote! I
knew then and there that he was up to no good! America, wake up from the MASS HYPNOSIS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWTs1YyhFRg&feature=related

See: http://www.newsweek.com/id/164972

Stating that Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act wasn't what caused the meltdown, and noting that "economists on both sides of the political spectrum have suggested that the act has probably made the crisis less severe than it might otherwise have been."

This is so true about how the election is already bought and paid for:
http://www.againstobama.com/2008/10/what-is-it-that-barack-obama-knows-that-the-rest-of-us-don%E2%80%99t/#comment-1929

Nims: Funny how fast Newsweek took that article : AP IMPACT: Mortgage firm arranged stealth campaign, http://www.newsweek.com/id/164732 , came off the general table of contents for this site once they figured out that, instead of being a bit on those evil lobbiest, it in fact admitted that the Republicans were trying to regulate Freddie and Fannie in 2005 and were targeted by Freddie, and the no Democrats were targeted because they were all in the tank with Freddie and Fannie not to regulate them as a means of promoting the Community Reinvestment Act. I don???t think that article stayed up 24 hrs before they took it off the main screen.

Obama, the excuses are wearing thin. what excuse do you have for this one?:
http://www.againstobama.com/2008/10/obama-praised-searing-and-timely-book-by-ayers/

Who "Joe the plumber" may be is not the issue, though it's easy to see why the Dems want it to be. That's because the real issue is what Obama's comments to him revealed about Obama. In the exchange with "Joe the plumber" we find out that Obama really is as radical as his early political acquaintances, Davis, Ayers, Wright, etc., and that he is into the failed economic policy of wealth redistribution. Obama's tax and spending plans alone would be bad enough, but add Reid and Pelosi to the mix, with the three of them controlling both houses of Congress and the executive branch without any effective restraint, and you have something that should causes concern even among moderate Democrats.
See Wall Street Journal: A Liberal Supermajority:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html

And whether McCain won or lost the third debate is also not relevant. He succeeded in the first half hour to plant the seeds of a Reagan style wipeout. Reputable historians and economists overwhelmingly agree that the taxation imposed by Hoover and FDR, and the "stimulus" spending and public works programs of FDR, actually deepened and prolonged the Great Depression. It was the production demands of WWII that got the economy going again. And when the war was over, the economy promptly went into recession.

See e.g. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/03/opinion/main4499465.shtml
And
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

Point is, Obama's programs are tax, and it does not really matter who he taxes, those taxes are going to be passed through the economy. He has to tax, because it is they only way he can pay for his massive social engineering experiments. Any first year economics student knows that taxation is a tool used to contract an economy experiencing inflation, because it reduces demand by reducing the amount of money individuals and businesses have to spend. It is contractionary, which is exactly what you do not want to do when the problem is that the economy is contracting already into recession. Like Hoover and FDR, Obama's plans will only make it worse for longer.

Look and listen for yourself. Hear Obama in his own words discusses his links to both ACORN and the mortgage meltdown, and praises bundling and securitizing mortgages by banks as a means to float loans to the poor. Never mind the link commentators point of view, just listen to what Obama says in his own words. A picture is worth a thousand words. Maybe more in the case of the last half of the second link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJcVgJhNaU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=related

See also:
http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=808692&boardsparam=Page%3d2

This is a link to C-SPAN video clips of the Congressional hearings at roughly the time McCains attempt at S.190. to fix Fannie and Freddie. See for yourself who said what.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

The link below contains a purported list of the top 25 in Congress who got contributions from the folks at Fannie and Freddie. Obama is listed third, after Dodd and Kerry, even though Obama is just a junior Senator. Obama is followed next by Clinton. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are on the list as well.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&artnum=1&issue=20080918

And the link below describes how some Democrats in Congress tried to use the original version of the bailout bill to divert money eventually recovered to groups like ACORN, a group Obama has a long association with. See:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122247015469280723.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

It's kind of scary to read some of these comments.

First, "Change" is not a campaign slogan. Neither is "Hope". And while being a maverick doesn't insure that you will be a good president or earn the votes that McCain will undoubtedly need, Obama seems to have built his campaign on the fact that he isn't Bush. And that scares me. I've heard a lot about how we don't need four more years of Bush, but I haven't heard much about how this much-vaunted "change" is supposed to occur.

As for Clinton being a good president- need I remind anyone here about the 1860 election? Buchanan got Americans into the bloodiest war in history, and Lincoln was blamed for it. Likewise, some of Clinton's economic policies got us where we are now. He insisted that everyone had to have a house- and the economy eventually collapsed in on itself, as it always does. I'm not saying that Bush did- or is doing- a fantastic job. But it seems to me that everyone is blaming him for things that started long before he ever came into office. We forget quickly- after 9/11, Bush had one of the highest approval ratings in HISTORY. While some of the McCain camps' statements scare the h*** of me, I think it's a bit naive to think that Obama will become president and all will become sweetness, light, puppies and rainbows. I want the war in Iraq to end. But it won't be worth it, to me, if the sacrifice that the families, vets and those who will always be left behind is in vain. Why do we keep electing men (and yes, I'm including Bush here) as commander-in-chiefs who have never served a day in uniform? As far as I can tell, Obama just kind of appeared out of nowhere and now he's suddenly the best thing since sliced bread. He's going to get us out of Iraq, he's going to improve our economy, he's going to do all of these things- how? How did he suddenly become the best thing on earth? How did that happen?

You can't get something for nothing- and I'm afraid that's just what we'll be buying into with Obama. At least McCain, for all his faults (and there are many) is straightforward about how he'll vote. Obama's made a lot of promises- but I'm not sure I want someone in office who has never had to go against a foreign power as the person who makes the choices for this country.

PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE TO BE HELD SUNDAY AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

The Free and Equal Elections Coalition (FREE) and the Columbia Political Union are pleased to announce that a Presidential debate will be held this coming Sunday, October 19th, 2008, on the campus of Columbia University.

ALL SIX of the Presidential candidates who appear on enough state ballots to acquire the 270 Electoral Votes needed to become President are invited. They are as follows (listed in alphabetical order by affiliation):

Constitution Party Candidate: Chuck Baldwin
Democratic Party Candidate: Barack Obama
Green Party Candidate: Cynthia McKinney
Independent Candidate: Ralph Nader
Libertarian Party Candidate: Bob Barr
Republican Party Can John McCain

The Columbia Political Union will present the debate from 8:00pm to 10:00pm in the Altschul Auditorium, located at 417 International Affairs Building. The debate will be moderated by Pacifica Radio's Amy Goodman, the host of "Democracy Now!". CSPAN will cover the debate, and live radio broadcasts are expected.

"The Columbia Political Union is committed to energizing political discourse on Columbia's campus," said Allon Brann, Columbia Political Union Publisher. "As a non-partisan organization, we work to provide students with opportunities to encounter and engage with political ideas across a wide ideological spectrum, and on a wide range of issues."

"It is with these goals in mind that we have organized this Presidential Debate: to give all candidates-- either within or outside of the political "mainstream"-- the opportunity to speak directly to students about their goals on the issues they deem critical for this country."

"We have invited all eligible candidates, and it is our sincere hope that all will participate, to ensure the substance and rigor of the dialogue which we believe is crucial at this time."

Certified letters officially inviting each candidate have been sent to the respective campaigns.

The Free and Equal Elections Coalition and the Columbia Political Union await the response from the candidates. All candidates' supporters are encouraged to contact the Presidential campaigns and urge them to attend.

The Columbia Political Union seeks to enhance involvement in the political process, domestic and international, and draw every member of the campus community into an ongoing discussion of political ideas.

FREE is a coalition of political parties, independent citizens and civic organizations formed to promote free and equal elections in the United States.

http://www.freeandequal.org/events.php?id=7

Comment: by Ralph Nader
October 10. 2008
Rolling the Dice on Derivatives - The Nader Page

The derivatives markets of today have become a high stakes casino of unimaginable magnitude. Wall Street???s bets have gone bad, and now the whole financial system is in peril. In a best-case scenario, it appears, the taxpayers will be required to rescue the system from itself. This is why Warren Buffett labeled derivatives ???weapons of financial mass destruction.???

Amazingly, there seems to be some lingering sense that current-day derivatives properly perform an insurance function.

Case in point: Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve Chairman. Greenspan says the world is facing ???the type of wrenching financial crisis that comes along only once in a century,??? but, reports the New York Times, ???his faith in derivatives remains unshaken.??? Greenspan believes that the problem is not with derivatives, but that the people using them got greedy, according to the Times.

This is quite a view. Is it a surprise to Alan Greenspan that the people on Wall Street ??? said to be ruled only by the opposing instincts of greed and fear ??? ???got greedy????


http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/rolling-the-dice-on-derivatives-by-ralph-nader/

www.votenader.org

McCain is connected to Nazi supporters and Central American death squads.. so says
FoxNews and Washington Post (two Republican news publishers)

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/07/attention-ayers-renew-focus-mccains-iran-contra-connection/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/07/AR2008100700025.html

The old guy has a long infamous past.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=30122043&l=0510b&id=1130236838

EL GRAN OBAMA PRESIDENTE 2008-14 El GOBIERNO DE LA DIPLOMACIA INTERNACIONAL. con (Cuba, Venezuela, Nuevo País patria Libre Independiente, y países del Medio Oriente), serán incluidos en la integración diplomática y respeto como nació. Después del debate, en donde fue definitivo, quedo claro, el perfil, visionario y las características de OBAMA PRESIDENTE 2008-14, que sacara de la crisis económica a los EE.UU y la región. OBAMA PRESIDENTE 2008-14 aplicara políticas de gobierno organizado, los mercados y la competencia, serán métodos que se enmarque en modelos económicos, dirigidos por los economistas (analistas y especialistas), y los métodos administrativos serán de expertos, de manera que el modelo conlleve una forma efectiva de llevar a la región al desarrollo económico, social, y cultural, en donde: prime el respeto y el equilibrio estado-el mercado, Que converja en beneficio de la sociedad y encamine todos los esfuerzos sincronizados de manera que se pueda erradicar la pobreza, erradicar la cultura de violencia, guerra y corrupción, 1ADELFA PINEDA TRANSPARENCIA Y ÉTICA: Por el Desarrollo del País; Dignidad Publica,:. 1

Maybe I'm being too much of an alarmist, but I'm worried for the first time in my life that the election of a presidential candidate could lead to a fundamental change in our system of government. Just listen to the comments of post-debate focus group members expressing a knowing willingness to accept Obama's socialism, such is their angst at the sub-prime mortgage mess.
Already some 38 percent of Americans do not pay income taxes, and Barack Obama wants to increase that percentage dramatically. How ironic that he and other Democrats pretend to be targeting their message to "working-class" people when many of their constituents aren't working. But such is class warfare that the upper-middle class and wealthy are demonized as not earning an honest living.
Do you suppose it has registered with class warfare-receptive Obama voters that Obama is deliberately turning the American dream on its head? Could it be any clearer that his message to the middle class is: Don't aspire to achievement, success and wealth because a) it is immoral to have more than others, b) the government will take your wealth away from you and give it to others, and c) why bother to bust your rear end to make more when you can vote yourselves money from the public trough?

It's one thing to say that higher income earners should pay a higher percentage for government services. But Obama makes no pretense of stopping there. He told Joe the plumber that he wants to use the tax code to confiscate money from higher income earners and give it to others. But he hasn't been so open about that in the presentation of his fraudulent tax plan.
When Obama says he will cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans, he is dissembling. If 38 percent are already not paying, his tax credits to them amount to transfer payments from higher income earners, which are actually spending increases, not tax cuts, as the Wall Street Journal editors have noted.
Liberals, such as Obama, might deny human nature, but they can't change it. And human nature happens to dictate that people will not produce as much when you confiscate more of what they produce and give it to others. The working wealthy, especially Christians and conservatives, are some of the most generous people in the world, but we're talking about voluntary charitable contributions, not unconstitutionally coerced redistributions.
How many times must history repeat itself before we learn that socialism and communism cannot work? Liberals love to mock the trickledown theory, but they simply cannot refute the axiom that people produce less when they aren't allowed to keep as much of what they produce. When do-gooder social planners try to control how much we keep, they guarantee that everyone gets less in the end because they shrink the GDP pie.