The Good Bad News

Not exactly. Hugo Chávez, Vladimir Putin and Iran's ruling mullahs, whose geopolitical ambitions are lubricated by high oil prices, are dismayed, which augments America's stock of happiness.

Gee wouldnt it have been better to have had a democratic administration to have gone green all the way back to the Carter days??All those NEW jobs and companies to invest in HERE IN THE U>S>A>??

Does anyone doubt that Americans consume too much and save too little?
Im sorry but wasnt it BUSH WHO TOLD US TO GO SHOPPING???Now we cant shop OR save.THANKS!!

If you are among the millions who own Wal-Mart stock???either directly or through this or that fund???you are benefiting, as that company is, from the new frugality.

WOW thanks for that not only do we send money to our enenies in the middle east{oil} but we get to also fund chinas military and economy??Im sorry but at what point do you not cheer the destruction of the middle class in this country?I know that the implosion of the car companies with those most hated unions must be giving you the sweetest of dreams{but a middle class nightmare!}.

The important thing is to change your mind-originality. Surely, the global economy is grimmy, but we have the routine opening for recovery. Don't look behind yourselves. Thank you for your cooperation and support.

In the exchange with "Joe the plumber" Obama unintentionally revealed that he really is as radical as his early political mentors and acquaintances, Davis, Ayers, Wright, Khalidi etc., (gee, there sure seem to be a lot of them) and that he is into the failed economic policy of wealth redistribution. Now there is absolute proof. In 2001, Obama, the "community organizer" turned legislator, said in an interview:

"And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that,"

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

2001 Chicago Public Radio Interview.

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

Indeed, some democrats are publically saying as much. See Barney Franks comments on the news, including face the nation last week, stating essentially that Democrats in Congress intend to greatly raise taxes and go on a spending spree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Mazjm_A5k

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

See http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23617.html

Obama's ill-conceived programs will require him to tax, and his health care plan alone is a substantial 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.

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


The democrats failed social engineering policies in the housing market are what brought us to ruin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=related
Even Bill Clinton says so. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsynspIqAoE
Obama and a supermajority of Democrats simply is not the change we need, nor is it change we can afford.

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005),
What does redistributive mean. Well, remember that it was the liberal Left-Wing Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court that brought us this little jewel, holding that the government could take your real property, like your home, not for public use like a road or school, but to give to another private individual, such as a political contributor or other party hack or interest group.
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan. The Court held in a 5-4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion; he was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer
The decision was widely criticized by American politicians and the general public. Many members of the general public viewed the outcome as a gross violation of property rights and as a misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment, the consequence of which would be to benefit large corporations at the expense of individual homeowners and local communities. Some in the legal profession construe the public's outrage as being directed not at the interpretation of legal principles involved in the case, but at the broad moral principles of the general outcome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Mr. Will
Come on give me some thing new , Icould have written this I won't insight not a statement of stats this is not baseball.Come on give us some of those GEMS.

Mr. Will
Come on tell is something we did not no,Iwait for your stuff and you give me something I could have written .

Remember this one? Jesus saves but Moses invests. Americans who have money do not put much in bank savings accounts and only those are measured as savings. Must of us with sense pay down our mortgage and even more important put VAST sums into our pre-tax retirement plans. Hokem Americans don't save. We invest tons where Uncle Sam can't easily tax it!

It amazes me how the McCain campaign is afraid to label Obama's tax cut for 95% of the American people a welfare program for +-30% of the country, when this is exactly what this so called tax cut represents. Approximately 30% to 35% of Americans currently pay no income taxes and under the Obama tax program this percentage will increase to 45%-60% based on various accounts. How is Obama going to cut income taxes for people who currently pay no income taxes (and in some cases pay no social security taxes either)? The core of the Democratic political philosophy is making government appear free to as many Americans so they vote Democratic. Many of our parents, grandparents, etc??? left other nations so they could "pursue happiness" without the interference of an intrusive government. I pray that the next generation of Americans will not need to leave the United States to preserve these precious economic liberties.
Here are some questions for our liberal friends:
Subsidizing Consumption
Can someone please explain to me why 5-10% of the American people should subsidize excessive consumption for 40-50% of Americans, when one of the primary causes of the current economic turmoil is that most Americans already consume well beyond their means (e.g. more than they earn). A middle or high income person who spends 100% of what he or she earns on a large home or mansion gets a nice mortgage interest deduction, but the saver gets penalized with higher, and some would argue, confiscatory tax rates. How does this economic philosophy not reward instant gratification and punish those of us who devote economic resources to other uses and expand of businesses, skills, etc... ?
Tax fairness (Disparity between income taxes and capital gains or wealth and income)
Senator Obama proposes only taxing the Kennedy, Bush, etc??? trust fund children at either 15% or 20% (capital gains) or at 0% in the case of his Silicon Valley contributors. Senator Obama is not raising taxes on the wealthy, rather he is raising taxes on those of us who invest in our long term earnings power by enhancing our education, skills, business, etc??? to generate future income, accumulate wealth slowly at much higher rates, and can not legally structure our earnings as capital gains. Where does this all end? Is there a maximum tax rate our more liberal friends have in mind? Does liberal tax policy end with taking the capital gains from 15% to 20% and taking the top rate from 35% to 40%? Obama has also hinted at removing the social security cap, which would the top marginal federal rate to +-46% (52% for those Americans who pay both the employer and employee portion of payroll taxes)? For those who of us living in NY or CA, this would mean the top marginal federal, state, and local rate would be over 60%!! At a certain point, it simply does not make sense to get out of bed once a person reaches the earnings level Obama considers too high.

Hey dumocrat bharat, did you forget about 9/11, the Iraq war supported by Dumocrats and Katrina disaster screwed up by the Dumocrat mayor and governor which lead to our deficit. Combine that with Barnie Frank and Chris Dodd protecting Fannie and Freddie so that every deadbeat could buy a house regardless of whether they could afford one so they could inure personally via sweetheart loans - there is your financial crisis. You are the crybabies who challenge every election lost with a temper tantrum and vote recounts. I hope you enjoy supporting the Dumocrat lead "party of death" and taking God out of everything because you and your naive atheistic ilk are not heading to a good place once you die !!

Regulator:"I will take Carter's time anytime over W. At least hard working people kept their hard earned savings."
You gotta be kidding! By the time Carter had been finished with his term, he left us with:
- 14% inflation
- 12% unemployment
- 15%Mortgage rates
- Ayatollah Khomeini
- Russia's invasion of Afghanistan
- 2,000 Soviet SST's moving into Eastern Europe
- Communist revolutions winning in 6 countries
- U.S. soldiers on food stamps
- Nobody could buy houses because nobody was selling (would you dump your 5% mortage to buy a new home with a 15% mortgage?

Your statement on people keeping their savings exposes profound ingnorance. All the interest earned on savings accounts pushed people into higher tax brackets (it wasn't until Reagan that tax brackets were indexed for inflation). So you lost money on your savings in real terms. Same for income. If you received a cost-of-living raise equal to inflation, you again got pushed into higher tax brackets. Real after-inflation lower and middle class income was getting ripped off increasingly by higher IRS tax brackets. As for the upper income folks, they did then what the Kennedy's, Kerry's and Gore's are doing now - hiring tax lawyers to minimize their tax payments. It's the lower and middle classes that got slaughtered financially.

Do you think it was the VRWC that gave Reagan 49 states in 1980? And Carter was a flippin' moderate compared the liberal fascism that The One has in store for us.

w

Are the RepubLIEcans going to accept the outcome of the elections next Tuesday and do whatever is necessary in assisting the healing process? It seems that the RepubLIEcans are dishonorable winners and sore losers!