A Venti-Sized Recession?

The GOP is grasping at straws. They have nothing substantive against Obama, but boy are they good at making up lies. This has been a leading Rove tactic for years, and if America falls for this again we should be ashamed of ourselves. Not to mention the fact that this is all a smokescreen to keep the focus off of the fact that Palin and her Alaska associates are in contempt of court for refusing to testify in the Troopergate hearings. After Nixon and Clinton, Americans are to some extent jaded, but really, would you want a VP who refuses to attend hearings in her own defense, and instructs her employees not to testify? That smells like guilt. It surely doesn't give the impression that she has done no wrong and has nothing to hide.

This year, the GOP offers you an angry old man and a woman who, while personable, is desperately uniformed about national and international issues. Both of them are far right politically. McCain used to be a maverick, but since 2004 he has voted 90% with Bush. McCain's policies are not original or reformist, despite how he has tried to co-opt Obama's popular message of change. Please go to the websites of both of the candidates and read their platforms. Obama's Blueprint for Change has more good ideas than McCain's plan. Compare them yourself. Obama's basic premise is that tax dollars should be spent to make America stronger and to improve the lives and well being of our people. For example, he uses education programs to train a technology workforce, contributing to energy independence, creating jobs and improving the economy. When you read McCain's plan you will find no over-arching design to get America back on track. Instead you'll find more tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of the health care industry.

I'm a Republican. Although I embrace some forward-thinking social values, in the past I've rarely voted Democrat. My thinking was that since Republicans grow robust economies, by voting Republican I'd be endorsing a plan that would grow wealth for our nation, and then we would be able to afford social programs. It was a good strategy for a couple decades, but I have to say that the tenure of W. Bush has changed my mind. Not only is there nothing fiscally responsible about today's GOP, the insidious alignment of the party with religious intolerance has really turned me off.

On the other hand, the intelligent luminous thought of Barack Obama has ignited my patriotism. I want a President who puts America first and can get the economy back on track. In my mind, values voting takes a back burner when we are faced with a meltdown of the economy. It's time for a change, a real change. The Republicans have controlled the Presidency for 28 of the past 40 years, but they have fallen down on the job. The Democrats have a stellar candidate this year, and I am voting for Obama.

Taxation is and always has been a redistribution of wealth. Once you recognize that point, the question is, how are we going to spend the money we raise in taxes?

For the past 8 years, our tax dollars have gone to killing civilians in Iraq and giving big payoffs to Halliburton (co-incidentally owned by the Cheney family). And since there wasn't enough in the Treasury to do this in style, we borrowed money from communist China and ran up the national debt to pay for it.

Like 80% of Americans, I am sick of this particular redistribution plan.

Obama's plan reduces taxes on 95% of Americans. The other 5% of us (who make over $250,000 a year) can afford to pay an extra 3%. That extra 3% comes out to only $300 for every $10,000 they make above $250,000. It's not going to kill them. In fact, if you make over $250,000 a year, $300 probably doesn't mean much to you. The other source of increased revenue will be making corporations that ship jobs overseas pay a higher share of tax. Right now, these corporations pay a lower share than companies that keep their employees in the USA. No more incentives to hurt America. We all can agree with that.

Obama promises to go through the Federal budget line by line and cut all the wasteful spending. He promises to have transparency, a website where you can go and actually see the real Federal budget, not the made for TV version you can access under Bush.

Furthermore, Obama's economic plans will lead to a strong economy, an educated workforce, more American based jobs, affordable health care, and freedom from foreign oil. We will regain our position as a world leader, a nation that spreads democracy not with guns and threats, but with prosperity and diplomacy.

How do I know this? I read Obama's Blueprint for Change. And I compared it to what McCain had to offer (more tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, more wars, a really inadequate health plan, and the stated intention of overturning Roe v. Wade). You really should visit the websites of both candidates and read their platforms.

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

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

Nice try, but I bet you theory doesn't pass the smell test!!

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."

People on these bogs are fond of saying that the current economic meltdown was caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac underwriting bad mortgages. While Fannie and Freddie obviously are guilty of writing bad mortgages, and worse, guilty of lobbying Congress to allow them to do so with impunity, their actions are just a small piece of the puzzle when it comes to determining who (or what) caused the financial crisis we face today.

In 1929 the stock market crash caused the banks to fail, because the banks were in bed with the stock market. Back then, banks owned investment houses, so when the stock market fell, the banks fell too. This triggered the Great Depression. So in 1933 the Congress wrote laws that regulated banking, making it illegal for banks to own investment companies, mortgage guaranty companies or insurance companies. The idea was to keep key industries separated by a fire wall, so that if one industry failed the whole economy would not go down in flames.

But the Republicans under Bush deregulated the banking industry. Senator Phil Gramm wrote legislation (the Gramm Rudman Act, the Gramm Leach Biley Act, etc.) that stripped away the regulations in the financial and insurance industies. He pushed them through the Republican Congress and they were signed into law by Geo. W. Bush. John McCain voted in favor. Everybody said how great it is to deregulate and create free markets.

Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch each gave over a million dollars to Senator Gramm's re-election campaign.

The economic collapse that happened later was a direct result of the deregulation, and here's how: the banks wrote bad mortgages, then bundled the mortgages into investment vehicles that they sold all over the world, and they even got firms like AIG to insure the investments. It was all a house of cards.

If there had been no deregulation, sure we would have had a bunch of bad mortgages, and the mortgage guaranty and real estate industries would have suffered, but there would not have been a global financial meltdown, since the problem would have been contained in one sector of the economy. You can thank Geo W. Bush, Sen. Phil Gramm and Sen John McCain for the meltdown, since they were strong proponents of deregulation.

Furthermore, although Fannie and Freddie are now holding the bulk of these bad mortgages, Fannie and Freddie did not originally write most of these mortgages. They bought them after the fact, bundled by banks/investment companies. Fannie and Freddie got screwed by the Wall Street fat cats. And so did you, if you pay taxes.

What is Phil Gramm doing today? He works as a lobbyist in Washington, trying to make it legal for the Swiss bank he represents to sell Death Bonds in the United States. Nice guy, Phil Gramm. Incidentally, John McCain has said that he wants to appoint Phil Gramm as Treasury Secretary. Some people just can't learn from their mistakes.

Comment: THE GREAT BUSH DEPRESSION
I follow an economist named Bob Proctor. He has called the top and bottom of every market crash since the 70s correctly.
He perfectly predicted the current meltdown and the picture he paints about what will happen next
is terrifying.He thinks it will be worse then the great depression.
The banks in the U.S. are going under one after the other. Countrywide ,Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch , Fanny and Freddy Mae ,AIG
The government took them over because they are bankrupt. Even with the goverment nationalizing hundreds of billions of dollars in debt the stock market is crashing
the credit markets are frozen and all of us may suffer beyond anything seen in generations
McCain just like Bush " doesn't understand the economy".
That not just my opinion its his own words. Not only does he not understand how to fix it but he does not understand how its been broken.
It is no surprise that he doesn't. The people that make up these securities use quantum mathematical models very few people understand.
Bush and McCain both can take the credit for this mess since they helped deregulate the laws that were protecting us.
Bush's economic advisor Phil Graham wrote the deregulation bill that allowed banks to take huge risks with all of our future.
Now, Phil Graham is the head of McCain's economic policy.He is also McCain's choice for the next secretary of the treasury.
No one in this country can afford for that to happen. The last time Bush met with his economic advisors was in March. He was the last to know somthing was wrong. Phil Graham had the guts to say that we are in a mental recession after he helped create the worst economy meltdown in our lifetime. Check out this link to the truth http://my.barackobama.com/keatingvideo
It will take the best and brightest minds in the world to get us out of this nightmare. As bad as Bush has done, McCain would be
even more destructive because things are in much worse shape. The next president will not inherit a budget surplus like Bush did but a crashing economy and a 11,600,000,000,000 (trillion) dollars deficit. Most of it Bush created and it will take decades to pay it back.
If you do what you have always done then you will get what you have always got.
When it comes to policy Bush and McCain are the same 90 percent of the time.
So why are the polls even close then ?
Mccains team just said they no longer want to talk about the economy.Instead they would like to spend time talking about obama
which means running the biggest smear campaign in history.
They think they can just tell you lies and you wont be smart enough to see through it
Let's teach him we are smarter than that
Stand up and hold them accountable
Bush isn't on the ballot this year but his policies are
Elect Obama Biden 2008

Comment: THE GREAT BUSH DEPRESSION
I follow an economist named Bob Proctor. He has called the top and bottom of every market crash since the 70s correctly.
He perfectly predicted the current meltdown and the picture he paints about what will happen next
is terrifying.He thinks it will be worse then the great depression.
The banks in the U.S. are going under one after the other. Countrywide ,Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch , Fanny and Freddy Mae ,AIG
The government took them over because they are bankrupt. Even with the goverment nationalizing hundreds of billions of dollars in debt the stock market is crashing
the credit markets are frozen and all of us may suffer beyond anything seen in generations
McCain just like Bush " doesn't understand the economy".
That not just my opinion its his own words. Not only does he not understand how to fix it but he does not understand how its been broken.
It is no surprise that he doesn't. The people that make up these securities use quantum mathematical models very few people understand.
Bush and McCain both can take the credit for this mess since they helped deregulate the laws that were protecting us.
Bush's economic advisor Phil Graham wrote the deregulation bill that allowed banks to take huge risks with all of our future.
Now, Phil Graham is the head of McCain's economic policy.He is also McCain's choice for the next secretary of the treasury.
No one in this country can afford for that to happen. The last time Bush met with his economic advisors was in March. He was the last to know somthing was wrong. Phil Graham had the guts to say that we are in a mental recession after he helped create the worst economy meltdown in our lifetime. Check out this link to the truth http://my.barackobama.com/keatingvideo
It will take the best and brightest minds in the world to get us out of this nightmare. As bad as Bush has done, McCain would be
even more destructive because things are in much worse shape. The next president will not inherit a budget surplus like Bush did but a crashing economy and a 11,600,000,000,000 (trillion) dollars deficit. Most of it Bush created and it will take decades to pay it back.
If you do what you have always done then you will get what you have always got.
When it comes to policy Bush and McCain are the same 90 percent of the time.
So why are the polls even close then ?
Mccains team just said they no longer want to talk about the economy.Instead they would like to spend time talking about obama
which means running the biggest smear campaign in history.
They think they can just tell you lies and you wont be smart enough to see through it
Let's teach him we are smarter than that
Stand up and hold them accountable
Bush isn't on the ballot this year but his policies are
Elect Obama Biden 2008

See also
http://www.newsweek.com/id/164732 from this web site. (oops!) stating that Freddie Mac was spending tax payer money to target Republicans in 2005 who were trying to regulate Fannie and Freddies fraud. Democrats were not targeted, as the were all in the tank with Fannie and Freddie to kill the regulations. Hear that, the article admits that Republicans were trying to regulate Freddie and Fannie, and Democrats were trying to stop it from happening as a means to facilitate the Community Reinvestment Act.

See also: 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."

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

Their failed policies are what brought us to ruin. Even Bill Clinton says so. Obama and a supermajority of Democrats simply is not the change we need, nor is it change we can afford.

People on these bogs are fond of saying that the current economic meltdown was caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac underwriting bad mortgages. While Fannie and Freddie obviously are guilty of writing bad mortgages, and worse, guilty of lobbying Congress to allow them to do so with impunity, their actions are just a small piece of the puzzle when it comes to determining who (or what) caused the financial crisis we face today.

In 1929 the stock market crash caused the banks to fail, because the banks were in bed with the stock market. Back then, banks owned investment houses, so when the stock market fell, the banks fell too. This triggered the Great Depression. So in 1933 the Congress wrote laws that regulated banking, making it illegal for banks to own investment companies, mortgage guaranty companies or insurance companies. The idea was to keep key industries separated by a fire wall, so that if one industry failed the whole economy would not go down in flames.

But the Republicans under Bush deregulated the banking industry. Senator Phil Gramm wrote legislation (the Gramm Rudman Act, the Gramm Leach Biley Act, etc.) that stripped away the regulations in the financial and insurance industies. He pushed them through the Republican Congress and they were signed into law by Geo. W. Bush. John McCain voted in favor. Everybody said how great it is to deregulate and create free markets.

Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch each gave over a million dollars to Senator Gramm's re-election campaign.

The economic collapse that happened later was a direct result of the deregulation, and here's how: the banks wrote bad mortgages, then bundled the mortgages into investment vehicles that they sold all over the world, and they even got firms like AIG to insure the investments. It was all a house of cards.

If there had been no deregulation, sure we would have had a bunch of bad mortgages, and the mortgage guaranty and real estate industries would have suffered, but there would not have been a global financial meltdown, since the problem would have been contained in one sector of the economy. You can thank Geo W. Bush, Sen. Phil Gramm and Sen John McCain for the meltdown, since they were strong proponents of deregulation.

Furthermore, although Fannie and Freddie are now holding the bulk of these bad mortgages, Fannie and Freddie did not originally write most of these mortgages. They bought them after the fact, bundled by banks/investment companies. Fannie and Freddie got screwed by the Wall Street fat cats. And so did you, if you pay taxes.

What is Phil Gramm doing today? He works as a lobbyist in Washington, trying to make it legal for the Swiss bank he represents to sell Death Bonds in the United States. Nice guy, Phil Gramm. Incidentally, John McCain has said that he wants to appoint Phil Gramm as Treasury Secretary. Some people just can't learn from their mistakes.

People on these bogs are fond of saying that the current economic meltdown was caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac underwriting bad mortgages. While Fannie and Freddie obviously are guilty of writing bad mortgages, and worse, guilty of lobbying Congress to allow them to do so with impunity, their actions are just a small piece of the puzzle when it comes to determining who (or what) caused the financial crisis we face today.

In 1929 the stock market crash caused the banks to fail, because the banks were in bed with the stock market. Back then, banks owned investment houses, so when the stock market fell, the banks fell too. This triggered the Great Depression. So in 1933 the Congress wrote laws that regulated banking, making it illegal for banks to own investment companies, mortgage guaranty companies or insurance companies. The idea was to keep key industries separated by a fire wall, so that if one industry failed the whole economy would not go down in flames.

But the Republicans under Bush deregulated the banking industry. Senator Phil Gramm wrote legislation (the Gramm Rudman Act, the Gramm Leach Biley Act, etc.) that stripped away the regulations in the financial and insurance industies. He pushed them through the Republican Congress and they were signed into law by Geo. W. Bush. John McCain voted in favor. Everybody said how great it is to deregulate and create free markets.

Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch each gave over a million dollars to Senator Gramm's re-election campaign.

The economic collapse that happened later was a direct result of the deregulation, and here's how: the banks wrote bad mortgages, then bundled the mortgages into investment vehicles that they sold all over the world, and they even got firms like AIG to insure the investments. It was all a house of cards.

If there had been no deregulation, sure we would have had a bunch of bad mortgages, and the mortgage guaranty and real estate industries would have suffered, but there would not have been a global financial meltdown, since the problem would have been contained in one sector of the economy. You can thank Geo W. Bush, Sen. Phil Gramm and Sen John McCain for the meltdown, since they were strong proponents of deregulation.

Furthermore, although Fannie and Freddie are now holding the bulk of these bad mortgages, Fannie and Freddie did not originally write most of these mortgages. They bought them after the fact, bundled by banks/investment companies. Fannie and Freddie got screwed by the Wall Street fat cats. And so did you, if you pay taxes.

What is Phil Gramm doing today? He works as a lobbyist in Washington, trying to make it legal for the Swiss bank he represents to sell Death Bonds in the United States. Nice guy, Phil Gramm. Incidentally, John McCain has said that he wants to appoint Phil Gramm as Treasury Secretary. Some people just can't learn from their mistakes.

I think that under Obama's Health Care Plan for senior citizens is the Soylent Green Program. Obama's plan will save thousands of dollars for every nursing home and hospitals. Under this exclusive coverage, any senior citizen who reaches the minimum age of 70 years old will be required to be detained and taken to one of the Soylent Green Program Plants to be processed into little green crackers that are edible, packaged and sent back to area hospitals and nursing homes, where they will be given to existing senior citizens to eat. It's a great plan that saves money, everyone should agree that Obama has a good solution to elderly populations.

Obama in this video, addressing his work with ACORN litigation against the banks and relating to the Community Reinvestment Act and the failure of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, as they relate to the current real estate and financial crisis, states that, and I quote:

???Subprime lending started out as a good idea, helping Americans buy homes who previously could not afford to. Financial institutions created new financial instruments that could securitize these loans, slice them into finer and finer risk categories, and spread them out among investors and around the country, as well as around the world. In theory, this should have allowed mortgage lending to be less risky, and more diversified.???

??? The original idea was a good one, which was, lets see if we can distribute risk more broadly, and make it easier to provide loans to people who otherwise might not be able to get one.???

Listen for yourself. You cannot dispute the mans on words recorded live:

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


Obama in this second video is campaigning at a convention of Acorn and I believe two other ???Community Activist??? organizations. Ask if he will be their ally if he becomes President, Obama says, quote:

???Yes, but let me say that before I even get inaugurated, during the transition we are going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda. We???re going to be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the United States of America.

See and hear it for yourself. Obama promised that Acorn and other groups like it will setting his agenda if elected:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJcVgJhNaU
See also: 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."
See also:
http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=808692&boardsparam=Page%3d2

Below 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
See also
http://www.newsweek.com/id/164732 from this web site. (oops!) stating that Freddie Mac was spending tax payer money to target Republicans in 2005 who were trying to regulate Fannie and Freddies fraud. Democrats were not targeted, as the were all in the tank with Fannie and Freddie to kill the regulations. Hear that, the article admits that Republicans were trying to regulate Freddie and Fannie, and Democrats were trying to stop it from happening as a means to facilitate the Community Reinvestment Act.

I believe that the cheap price of oil led to the expansion of home developments in suburbs, all Starbucks did was reduce people's savings and retirement accounts since if drinking a cup each day can cost a person up to $2,000 a year.
http://www.bailoutdisaster.com trying to get an open forum going to discuss our nations problems.

Other than the fact that Starbucks coffee if drunken every day of the year would have cost a little under $2,000, so that is $4,000 for a couple, I don't know if Starbucks relates directly with the economy being in recession. They must have definitely kept couples from buying inexpensive or home made coffee instead and thus reduced their savings, or retirement, but I always thought the rapid rise of the economy was due in part to cheap oil.

http://www.bailoutdisaster.com

I don't know why Newsweek has such article when the whole world is worried about US depression? Are we, American, too worried about China getting better? From the negative article of Newsweek about China, I think so. You tell me!

Now I can only offered to by from a web site that sells electronics made in China: www.yeedong.com.
Guess what, it's too expensive to buy from Best Buy or other US outlets.
No, more to say. Just feel sad....

NBC=ACORN=LEFT-WING NUTJOBS=ANTI-AMERICAN=NY TIMES=SOCIALISM=CNN=OBAMA

Does anyone dispute this? ....thought so ....enjoy REID=PELOSI=OBAMA regime for the next 4 years...yikes!

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA WILL SUFFER FROM THE "NOBAMA EFFECT???...TOO BAD...HE WILL LOSE!!

TODAY, AT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S DAMAGE CONTROL PRESS CONFERENCE ATTRIBUTED TO
JOE BIDEN'S "FLIRTATEOUS RHETORIC" RELATING TO OBAMA NOT ABLE TO HANDLE THE PENDING CRISIS IF HE WERE ELECTED. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA GOES ON TO PROMOTE HIS ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY OF "SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND" SO THAT HE CAN CREATE AN AMERICAN SOCIETY WHERE ALL CITIZENS ARE AS EQUALS AND ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD IN ORDER TO PURSUE PERSONAL PROSPERITY. WELL, IN OTHER WORDS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS TELLING TO EVERY AMERICAN'S FACE THAT HE WILL BE "DICTATING" YOUR PERSONAL FINANCES. AND ALL YOU GUYS ARE EATING IT ALL UP.

THIS POLITICAL DOCTRINE THAT OBAMA WILL IMPLEMENT IS KNOWN AS SOCIALISM, MARXISM, COMMUNISM, OR WHATEVER TERM ONE WANTS TO USE...BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THIS IS AN AFFRONT
TO THE FOUNDATION OF AMERICA...CAPITALISM.

TO IMPOSE THESE DRACONIAN MEASURES SUCH AS RAISING TAXES TO SUPPORT THOSE IN SOCIETY WHO DO NOT EVEN WANT TO SUPPORT THEMSELVES BUT OBAMA DECLARES "SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND" WILL LEAD TO AN ECONOMIC ABYSS.

IS THIS THE IDEOLOGY OBAMA ADOPTED FROM HIS CLOSE ASSOCIATION WITH WILLIAM AYERS WHO ALSO IS A BIG PROPONENT OF MARXISM?

AMERICANS, IF INDICATIONS ARE CORRECT AND OBAMA GETS ELECTED, IT WILL PROVE TO BE THE THIRD TIME IN A ROW THAT AMERICA REGRETS WHO THEY ELECTED AS PRESIDENT.

AN OLD WISE MAN ONCE SAID ..." BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR ...."