U.S. Tax system explained in terms of beer - to make it more manageable (stick with this and it will make sense):
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. 'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!' 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!' The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Friday, November 21, 2008
U.S. Tax System Explained
I got this the other day in an email and thought it was such an eloquent explanation of how Mr. Obama's tax philosophy works, I thought I would post it here.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
More on the Auto Companies
The controversy goes on…
I heard a radio host this morning talking about the auto company execs going to Washington looking for money and the fact that they flew there on their corporate jets. He was on the “Big Three bashing” kick like most everyone it seems, blaming the overpaid company big shots for the problems of the world.
He referred to them going to Washington to “beg” for help as if they were showing up panhandling or looking for handouts. In fact, they are simply asking for LOANS. He also played over and over again Rep. Brad Sherman, D-California, asking the CEOs to “raise their hand if they flew here commercial” and then “let the record show, no hands went up.”
The real idiocy came later though when he said, “Second, I'm going to ask you to raise your hand if you are planning to sell your jet in place now and fly back commercial. Let the record show, no hands went up." Right… Only someone as self important and pompous as a politician could ask an idiotic question like that. Did he really think someone would say, “Ok, we’ll just abandon the aircraft at the airport and hang a For Sale sign on it. We don't have to ask the board of directors or anything..."
Guess what friends and neighbors. CEOs of ALL large corporations fly on corporate jets. That’s the way it is like it or not. Why aren’t they upset over the very same thing at the companies that they are already giving money to? Did they try to humiliate the CEOs from AIG and ask them about their company jets that they still operate? Did they call them in and look down their noses at them after they spent a pile of money on lavish parties and corporate retreats for their execs? No.
This is how these politicians work though. Have you ever noticed how they question anybody there? It’s a little like an inquisition. They all sit up above everyone else so they can look down on whoever is before their eminences. It’s a power position and they all play the part of God sitting in judgment of those called before them. It seems like they try to be as sarcastic and condescending as they can while they grill the person. That way, they can inflate their feeling of self worth and feel they are better than everyone else. They disgust me more than the fat cat CEOs.
What really gets me is that a politician is that condescending to a CEO and all the while he would and does take advantage of any and all perks he can get. The same guy asking them about flying on the corporate jet is the guy who flies anywhere he wants at taxpayer’s expense, right? You’re a great one to talk Mr. Congressman…
Believe me; I’m not sticking up for corporate excess. It disgusts me. I just think they are being extremely hypocritical to single out the auto execs for ALL corporate excess. If they want to try and address that issue then do it some other time. Right now, deal with the problem at hand instead of blowing hot air to get your name in the news.
It seems like the sentiment now is that everyone wants to punish the corporate execs but they also want to punish the unions that are responsible for getting the high pay for the auto workers. In fact, the union officials ARE just as bad as the corporate execs and the power mad politicians. They are all of the same ilk.
Everyone wants to punish the guys in charge but you know who will suffer in all this? The workers. The guy on the line trying to make a living. No matter who they intend to punish, the ones that will feel the pain are the little guys. The big shot execs will bail with their golden parachutes. The union officials will find other groups to bring into their fold so they can keep on collecting union dues. The politicians will go on being pompous blowhards, collecting their fat paychecks and perks and millions of workers will lose their jobs and the economy will tank even further which means all the rest of us working stiffs will suffer too.
So why is it that the government jumped to help companies like AIG and the banks but are balking at helping the auto companies? Could it be because AIG and the bankers and all the companies they are handing money to unconditionally are white collar companies? Are they looking out for their own? I mean what happens if the car companies go under? They’re just a bunch of blue collar workers right? Who cares what happens to them?
Don’t get the idea that I’m totally on the side of the auto worker here either. I think they are overpaid compared to other factory jobs and that fact contributes to the Big Three not being as competitive as they could be.
The fact is, I’m arguing on the side of what I think is right for the country and our economy right now.
If it was any other time other than this economic recession, do you think the auto companies would be asking for help? Would they need to? If they were in their present predicament simply for the fact that they were mismanaged and uncompetitive and they were failing in a normal economy, I would be the first screaming to let them stew in their own juice, but the FACT is, it’s simply not the case. Even with their excesses and bloated corporate salaries and bonuses, their companies were doing fine before the economy went south.
So now that the industry is asking for a loan from the government to help them through the bad economy, that the very same government is largely responsible for I might add, the sentiment seems to be that they need to be sent packing.
I don’t agree. No matter what they do or don’t do to address “corporate excess”, they need to find a way to do it without costing jobs. Make no mistake about it; the only thing that is going to bring this economy back is to keep people working. Period. End of story.
.
I heard a radio host this morning talking about the auto company execs going to Washington looking for money and the fact that they flew there on their corporate jets. He was on the “Big Three bashing” kick like most everyone it seems, blaming the overpaid company big shots for the problems of the world.
He referred to them going to Washington to “beg” for help as if they were showing up panhandling or looking for handouts. In fact, they are simply asking for LOANS. He also played over and over again Rep. Brad Sherman, D-California, asking the CEOs to “raise their hand if they flew here commercial” and then “let the record show, no hands went up.”
The real idiocy came later though when he said, “Second, I'm going to ask you to raise your hand if you are planning to sell your jet in place now and fly back commercial. Let the record show, no hands went up." Right… Only someone as self important and pompous as a politician could ask an idiotic question like that. Did he really think someone would say, “Ok, we’ll just abandon the aircraft at the airport and hang a For Sale sign on it. We don't have to ask the board of directors or anything..."
Guess what friends and neighbors. CEOs of ALL large corporations fly on corporate jets. That’s the way it is like it or not. Why aren’t they upset over the very same thing at the companies that they are already giving money to? Did they try to humiliate the CEOs from AIG and ask them about their company jets that they still operate? Did they call them in and look down their noses at them after they spent a pile of money on lavish parties and corporate retreats for their execs? No.
This is how these politicians work though. Have you ever noticed how they question anybody there? It’s a little like an inquisition. They all sit up above everyone else so they can look down on whoever is before their eminences. It’s a power position and they all play the part of God sitting in judgment of those called before them. It seems like they try to be as sarcastic and condescending as they can while they grill the person. That way, they can inflate their feeling of self worth and feel they are better than everyone else. They disgust me more than the fat cat CEOs.
What really gets me is that a politician is that condescending to a CEO and all the while he would and does take advantage of any and all perks he can get. The same guy asking them about flying on the corporate jet is the guy who flies anywhere he wants at taxpayer’s expense, right? You’re a great one to talk Mr. Congressman…
Believe me; I’m not sticking up for corporate excess. It disgusts me. I just think they are being extremely hypocritical to single out the auto execs for ALL corporate excess. If they want to try and address that issue then do it some other time. Right now, deal with the problem at hand instead of blowing hot air to get your name in the news.
It seems like the sentiment now is that everyone wants to punish the corporate execs but they also want to punish the unions that are responsible for getting the high pay for the auto workers. In fact, the union officials ARE just as bad as the corporate execs and the power mad politicians. They are all of the same ilk.
Everyone wants to punish the guys in charge but you know who will suffer in all this? The workers. The guy on the line trying to make a living. No matter who they intend to punish, the ones that will feel the pain are the little guys. The big shot execs will bail with their golden parachutes. The union officials will find other groups to bring into their fold so they can keep on collecting union dues. The politicians will go on being pompous blowhards, collecting their fat paychecks and perks and millions of workers will lose their jobs and the economy will tank even further which means all the rest of us working stiffs will suffer too.
So why is it that the government jumped to help companies like AIG and the banks but are balking at helping the auto companies? Could it be because AIG and the bankers and all the companies they are handing money to unconditionally are white collar companies? Are they looking out for their own? I mean what happens if the car companies go under? They’re just a bunch of blue collar workers right? Who cares what happens to them?
Don’t get the idea that I’m totally on the side of the auto worker here either. I think they are overpaid compared to other factory jobs and that fact contributes to the Big Three not being as competitive as they could be.
The fact is, I’m arguing on the side of what I think is right for the country and our economy right now.
If it was any other time other than this economic recession, do you think the auto companies would be asking for help? Would they need to? If they were in their present predicament simply for the fact that they were mismanaged and uncompetitive and they were failing in a normal economy, I would be the first screaming to let them stew in their own juice, but the FACT is, it’s simply not the case. Even with their excesses and bloated corporate salaries and bonuses, their companies were doing fine before the economy went south.
So now that the industry is asking for a loan from the government to help them through the bad economy, that the very same government is largely responsible for I might add, the sentiment seems to be that they need to be sent packing.
I don’t agree. No matter what they do or don’t do to address “corporate excess”, they need to find a way to do it without costing jobs. Make no mistake about it; the only thing that is going to bring this economy back is to keep people working. Period. End of story.
.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Should We Bail Out GM?
There is a lot of controversy going on now about government help for the auto companies, General Motors specifically, but I don’t really see why it should be such a big deal. For me, it’s cut and dried. The government needs to help the auto companies, period. There shouldn’t be any question about it.
Here’s my reasoning. They have already made the decision to get the government involved with bailing out corporations in trouble. The first bailout package committed 700 billion of our tax dollars to this end with another bailout package in the making. The idea of bailing out these companies is so their failure won’t have a disastrous effect on our economy. This is logical thinking at least and whether it’s the right thing to do is moot at this point because it’s already being done.
I can’t really see an argument NOT to help GM. Experts say that if GM fails, Ford and Chrysler will follow, so it’s not just GM we’re talking about, it’s the entire U.S. auto industry. Think about that and let it sink in; the total elimination of automobile manufacturing in this country. No more American cars. The industry that has been the backbone of our nation during its growth and prosperity; dead... Do we want to let that happen?
There’s also our independence as a nation to consider. Do we want to lose such a huge portion of our manufacturing capability in this country? We’ve made ourselves dependent on others for oil; do we want to make ourselves dependent on others for our cars as well? We’re trying to be independent for energy production; we shouldn’t be so quick to want to lose ground in another important industry.
Some will argue that they won’t completely go out of business if they are allowed to go into bankruptcy but even if they are able to reorganize, they won’t survive in their present form and it will have a monumental effect on our economy. This is THE most important reason for helping GM, as Joe Biden himself so dubiously put it with his “3 letter word”, JOBS. The auto industry employs hundreds of thousands of people who would join the ranks of the unemployed if they fail. But it’s not only the employees of the Big Three; there are thousands of businesses that are suppliers to the auto industry that would be down the drain as well. 3 million jobs is the estimate. How do you think that would impact our economy?
I’ve heard some of the other lame arguments why GM should be left to fail, like they have been mismanaged. Well, if that was a determining factor, why are we helping Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG which have all been grossly mismanaged and still are, but funds are flowing to them.
If GM is somewhat mismanaged, at least they haven’t run the company into the ground to the extent of management at Fannie and Freddie and have not shown the blatant irresponsibility of the morons at the helm of AIG who promptly took their execs on not one, but two lavish junkets after receiving their bailout money. That’s mismanagement to say the least, if not downright despicable, so to help AIG and not GM would just be backward thinking. It wouldn’t make any sense at all.
These companies don’t even produce anything either, they only deal in money. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG; none of them produce anything tangible. Absolutely nothing at all. The auto makers produce a tangible product that the American public uses every day. For those of you who mistakenly think they don’t make a product people want to buy, GM outsells all other manufacturers including Honda and Toyota so don’t think their products aren’t in demand. I would rather see my tax dollars helping a company that actually makes something of quality instead of just the “money changers.”
Don’t think we are just giving them money either. We are just talking about loans here. In normal times, GM would borrow money from commercial sources but the banks aren’t loaning money, even though a big part of the bailout package was intended to loosen up the lending market, the banks seem to be holding onto it for themselves. GM needs loans to get them through the market downturn and it’ll be repaid when things pick back up again. It worked for Chrysler a few years back so there’s no reason to think it won’t work for GM.
To put it simply, helping the auto industry now will help our country in the long run and I for one want them to be a part of America’s future. I proudly buy and drive American and I want to keep doing so.
Here’s my reasoning. They have already made the decision to get the government involved with bailing out corporations in trouble. The first bailout package committed 700 billion of our tax dollars to this end with another bailout package in the making. The idea of bailing out these companies is so their failure won’t have a disastrous effect on our economy. This is logical thinking at least and whether it’s the right thing to do is moot at this point because it’s already being done.
I can’t really see an argument NOT to help GM. Experts say that if GM fails, Ford and Chrysler will follow, so it’s not just GM we’re talking about, it’s the entire U.S. auto industry. Think about that and let it sink in; the total elimination of automobile manufacturing in this country. No more American cars. The industry that has been the backbone of our nation during its growth and prosperity; dead... Do we want to let that happen?
There’s also our independence as a nation to consider. Do we want to lose such a huge portion of our manufacturing capability in this country? We’ve made ourselves dependent on others for oil; do we want to make ourselves dependent on others for our cars as well? We’re trying to be independent for energy production; we shouldn’t be so quick to want to lose ground in another important industry.
Some will argue that they won’t completely go out of business if they are allowed to go into bankruptcy but even if they are able to reorganize, they won’t survive in their present form and it will have a monumental effect on our economy. This is THE most important reason for helping GM, as Joe Biden himself so dubiously put it with his “3 letter word”, JOBS. The auto industry employs hundreds of thousands of people who would join the ranks of the unemployed if they fail. But it’s not only the employees of the Big Three; there are thousands of businesses that are suppliers to the auto industry that would be down the drain as well. 3 million jobs is the estimate. How do you think that would impact our economy?
I’ve heard some of the other lame arguments why GM should be left to fail, like they have been mismanaged. Well, if that was a determining factor, why are we helping Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG which have all been grossly mismanaged and still are, but funds are flowing to them.
If GM is somewhat mismanaged, at least they haven’t run the company into the ground to the extent of management at Fannie and Freddie and have not shown the blatant irresponsibility of the morons at the helm of AIG who promptly took their execs on not one, but two lavish junkets after receiving their bailout money. That’s mismanagement to say the least, if not downright despicable, so to help AIG and not GM would just be backward thinking. It wouldn’t make any sense at all.
These companies don’t even produce anything either, they only deal in money. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG; none of them produce anything tangible. Absolutely nothing at all. The auto makers produce a tangible product that the American public uses every day. For those of you who mistakenly think they don’t make a product people want to buy, GM outsells all other manufacturers including Honda and Toyota so don’t think their products aren’t in demand. I would rather see my tax dollars helping a company that actually makes something of quality instead of just the “money changers.”
Don’t think we are just giving them money either. We are just talking about loans here. In normal times, GM would borrow money from commercial sources but the banks aren’t loaning money, even though a big part of the bailout package was intended to loosen up the lending market, the banks seem to be holding onto it for themselves. GM needs loans to get them through the market downturn and it’ll be repaid when things pick back up again. It worked for Chrysler a few years back so there’s no reason to think it won’t work for GM.
To put it simply, helping the auto industry now will help our country in the long run and I for one want them to be a part of America’s future. I proudly buy and drive American and I want to keep doing so.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
What Lies Ahead?
Well, it happened. Not really any big surprise though, with the way things were going. While there are a few races still undecided, the voters seem to have done exactly what most analysts and pollsters predicted. I have to admit, even with all my misgivings about the man, his background and his questionable associations; the fact that he was elected, disagreeable as it may be, is understandable.
The Obama machine really did its job. They ran an excellent campaign to make the most advantage of his outstanding public speaking ability. The mainstream media did their part by glossing over his past, his inexperience and his lack of true qualifications to sell him to the American public, which is exactly what they did. Indeed, together they elevated him to an almost “rock star” like popularity.
It was easy for them when you think about it. There was never any question that he would have the black vote. It was obvious from the beginning that 99% of blacks would vote for him no matter what he said or did so he didn’t have to expend any resources to get those votes. All he really had to do was court the independents and capitalize on the anti-Bush sentiment that grew to its peak after the economy went south. That played right into their hands and for most of the latter stages of the campaign, that was their main message; ‘everything bad was Bush’s fault and McCain was just more Bush’, and it worked like a charm. Next January, he’ll be the man in charge.
The question now is, how will he face the problems ahead for this country and how will he govern? Will he do what he has been saying and govern more from the center as a moderate Democrat or will he try to take the country hard left more like his short voting record in the Senate would suggest? This alone will determine if we make a slow recovery and rebuild our nation and our economy or we plunge further into the downward spiral.
So far, even though there has been a clamoring for action from the radical left wing and a few blowhards in congress spouting off, there isn’t any real showing of what the president elect really intends. We’ll just have to wait and see.
I tend to think that he isn’t going to do anything radical at first. He is going to start out with a more moderate tendency because to do anything else would be 180 out with what he has been promising. His true far left policies won’t show themselves until later in his presidency, but I do think it will happen. It’s simply a matter of time.
The best thing he could do now though, to help the economy, is postpone any plans for any tax increases. If he publicly announced that he is backing off of any tax increases, especially the capital gains tax, for at least the next year or so, you would see the economy start to come back. Wall Street would settle down, the wild swings would level out and the slow climb would begin. It will take time to bring things back. The government will have to do everything it can to help business and minimize large corporation failure that would have a huge impact on the economy and buy time for the recovery to progress, but it will happen if our government takes the right approach.
There is a lot of speculation at this point but one thing is for sure, there are huge expectations of what the Obama presidency is going to do. All eyes will be upon him.
I wonder if he feels the pressure yet.
The Obama machine really did its job. They ran an excellent campaign to make the most advantage of his outstanding public speaking ability. The mainstream media did their part by glossing over his past, his inexperience and his lack of true qualifications to sell him to the American public, which is exactly what they did. Indeed, together they elevated him to an almost “rock star” like popularity.
It was easy for them when you think about it. There was never any question that he would have the black vote. It was obvious from the beginning that 99% of blacks would vote for him no matter what he said or did so he didn’t have to expend any resources to get those votes. All he really had to do was court the independents and capitalize on the anti-Bush sentiment that grew to its peak after the economy went south. That played right into their hands and for most of the latter stages of the campaign, that was their main message; ‘everything bad was Bush’s fault and McCain was just more Bush’, and it worked like a charm. Next January, he’ll be the man in charge.
The question now is, how will he face the problems ahead for this country and how will he govern? Will he do what he has been saying and govern more from the center as a moderate Democrat or will he try to take the country hard left more like his short voting record in the Senate would suggest? This alone will determine if we make a slow recovery and rebuild our nation and our economy or we plunge further into the downward spiral.
So far, even though there has been a clamoring for action from the radical left wing and a few blowhards in congress spouting off, there isn’t any real showing of what the president elect really intends. We’ll just have to wait and see.
I tend to think that he isn’t going to do anything radical at first. He is going to start out with a more moderate tendency because to do anything else would be 180 out with what he has been promising. His true far left policies won’t show themselves until later in his presidency, but I do think it will happen. It’s simply a matter of time.
The best thing he could do now though, to help the economy, is postpone any plans for any tax increases. If he publicly announced that he is backing off of any tax increases, especially the capital gains tax, for at least the next year or so, you would see the economy start to come back. Wall Street would settle down, the wild swings would level out and the slow climb would begin. It will take time to bring things back. The government will have to do everything it can to help business and minimize large corporation failure that would have a huge impact on the economy and buy time for the recovery to progress, but it will happen if our government takes the right approach.
There is a lot of speculation at this point but one thing is for sure, there are huge expectations of what the Obama presidency is going to do. All eyes will be upon him.
I wonder if he feels the pressure yet.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
The Real Obama?
Why does the American voting public seem not to be concerned? I don’t understand it, I really don’t.
When I was growing up, my parents told me many times that I would be judged by the company I keep. They told me that if I hung out with the “bad kids” I would be judged a bad kid too. They explained that it’s not just “guilt by association” but people realize that if I know I am associating with people of questionable character and I continue to associate with them, I am in fact validating and endorsing their behavior and beliefs and demonstrating I am of a like mind. I’ve remembered that lesson my entire life.
So why is it that we seem on the verge of electing a person to the highest office in our great country that has the worst associations of anyone ever to run for office? Why is the Democratic Party ignoring it and trying to sweep it under the rug? Why is the Liberal media not reporting it? Why is it that the voting public doesn’t seem to care?
Let’s take a look at who he is and who his friends are and who is behind him and endorsing him for president.
First of all, he scoffs at anyone that describes him as a socialist but by his own actions and words, if he is not a socialist, he is a socialist sympathizer. In his own book he stated that when he was in college he chose his friends carefully, choosing “The more politically active black students, the foreign students. the chicanos, the Marxist professors and structural feminists." http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/obama-affinity-marxists-dates-college-days/
The most well know Marxists he associated with are the America hating, terrorist criminals Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn. These people carried out bombings against the Pentagon, the Capitol building and the New York City police department and are self described Marxists, Communists and friends of Obama. He’s been to his house. They hosted a party for him there as he was running for office for the first time. They helped him launch his political career. Obama wrote a recommendation for Ayers’ book. He worked with him. They are friends and not just casual acquaintances as he now would have you believe. When recently asked if he was sorry for what he did, Ayers said he was not sorry at all. He wished he had bombed more. Here’s a picture of him showing his opinion of America:
Here’s a little tidbit about Ayers that should make any moderate democrat cringe. Bill Ayers wrote in one of his books praise for and dedicated the book to people he considers “political prisoners” and in the list of people he admired and sympathized with, one Sirhan Sirhan, the person who assassinated Robert F. Kennedy. http://www.zombietime.com/prairie_fire/ Would you be a friend to this man?
Next we have Jeremiah Wright, his pastor, mentor and friend for over 20 years. This man is a radical leftist, racist preacher who preaches hatred against whites in his church. Yes, this is the man who during his sermon, in his church made the statement “God Damn America” and says it’s in the Bible. He refers to our country as the “U. S. of KKK A.”
He preaches Black Liberation Theology which is based in Marxism. He is friends with Luis Farrakhan who is well known for his racist anti-white and anti-Semitic views. These two men traveled together to the Middle East to meet with Muammar el-Qaddafi. Both men are against Israel and side with the PLO. Obama referred to him as one of his closest friends and mentors for over 20 years. He went to his church and listened to him preach hatred for over 20 years and only denounced him when it became public when he was running for president.
And when Rev. Wright isn’t around, father Michael Pfleger fills in. I won’t bother telling you about him. The only description that comes to mind when I see him is “raving lunatic”. You can judge for yourself:
Both Obama and Bill Ayers are friends with a guy name Rashid Khalidi who, although he denies being an “official” spokesman for the PLO, repeatedly endorses and defends them any time he speaks. Obama attended a dinner, along with Bill Ayers, given for Khalidi. He even spoke at this gathering. The LA Times has a video of the event and it’s reported that there were many anti-Jewish statements made by Khalidi and others in attendance. They are refusing to release the video. The Times insists that Obama made no derogatory statements himself on the video. I would wonder why they are refusing to release it then. There must be something on it that would put him in a bad light. Perhaps his reaction to the statements? We don’t know.
I heard the other day that according to polls, 75% of the Jews in Florida are backing Obama. Are they not paying attention?
Well, there’s more. Obama, although he didn’t go himself, sent his recently appointed “Muslim Outreach” director (the former director resigned over links to a radical cleric. (hmmm… what a coincidence…) to a meeting attended by several Muslim extremists, one of whom has close ties to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Another has publicly announced his support for the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Yet another extremist attendee to this meeting has stated that "You will see Islam move from being the second largest religion in America -- to being the first religion in America." http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/10/obamas-muslim-outreach-coordinator/
Now, I am asking the question, does Obama sympathize with the views of these extremists or is he just buddying up to them to court the Muslim vote? He IS definitely trying to get the Muslim vote. That part is not in question as he has stated he wants the Muslim vote but is he just trying to use them to get elected or is he making deals behind the scenes and making promises to get the Muslim vote? I have to say, either way, it stinks and I don’t like it.
And we may as well include Tony Rezko in this notorious group. The full extent of any impropriety involving Rezko and Obama is unclear but a few facts are undisputed. I’ll state them here and let you draw your own conclusions.
Rezko was involved in the land deal that got Obama his 1.65 million dollar house at a $300,000 discount. At the same time Obama bought the house, Rezko’s wife purchased the vacant lot next door. Obama had mentioned his interest in that lot to Rezko. Shortly after Rezko came under federal investigation for influence peddling, Obama purchased a portion of that lot from Rezko’s wife.
There is also some question as to any connection to one Nadhami Auchi who is an Iraqi billionaire and former bagman for Saddam Hussein and obviously anti-Israel. He was also accused of laundering money for Hussein and Khadafi.
It is rumored that Rezko contacted Obama for help in getting Auchi a visa to enter the U.S. in 2005. Obama denies helping Auchi but he did attend a party Rezko threw for Auchi in 2004 but denies meeting him.
Auchi transferred 3.5 million dollars to Rezko for investment in real estate in Chicago’s south loop. This was shortly before the Obama house deal. There is speculation that the money from Auchi may have been to help Obama in the deal or it may have been that Rezko was trying to shield assets as he had several pending lawsuits at the time. Exactly what money came from where and went to who isn’t exactly clear but then again, we have a money launderer working with a slum lord shady real estate investor and Barack Obama.
Tony Rezko was indicted in 2006 as the result of a federal investigation known as “Operation Board Games”. He went to trial and this year was found guilty on 16 charges including wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering and corrupt solicitation. I’m not exactly clear on the details but the 3.5 million dollar money transfer from Auchi may have played a part in Rezko’s conviction.
Have you noticed that all these friends of Obama are now in hiding? Why is that? Ayers won’t speak to any reporters and ducks the cameras. Khalidi refuses to speak and runs from the cameras and tries to hide his face. Rev. Wright has disappeared from public view as has Pfleiger. Tony Rezko isn’t talking. Oh yeah, he’s in jail…
The fact is that this guy has a lot of very shady characters in his past and present circle of friends. http://www.barackobamaassociates.info/ and http://www.barackbook.com/Friends.htm
Now let’s delve into Obama’s involvement with ACORN. For those of you that don’t know, ACORN (Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now) is a radical leftist group with a history of strong arm tactics and intimidation to get what they want. ACORN was the group that was instrumental in pressuring banks into making the bad loans that directly lead to the recent mortgage banking meltdown involving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They claim to be involved in “get out the vote” movements but in fact they have a history of promoting voter fraud. They have been found guilty of voter fraud in the past and are presently under federal investigation again for voter fraud in this election.
Obama denied any direct connection with the group but later changed his story. As a lawyer, he represented them in a lawsuit against the state of Illinois. He taught classes for future leaders of ACORN. When Obama served as the head of the Woods Fund with Bill Ayers, he funneled grant money to ACORN. The Obama campaign also paid over $800,000 to CSI, a “subsidiary” of ACORN and then attempted to hide it by filing finance reports to the Federal Election Commission claiming the money was for “polling, advance work and staging major events”. When it was discovered, they said it was a mistake and amended the report to say the money was actually for “get out the vote” activities.
Just as a point of interest, creating a dummy company under another name is a common money laundering technique. That company can then receive cash and on paper it doesn’t appear to be going to the company that actually ends up with it. For example, ACORN could create a company called CSI that could then receive cash payments. The organization paying could say they paid CSI money for services rendered such as “lighting and staging” when in fact CSI does nothing other than receive the money and pass it along to ACORN for their activities. All hypothetical of course…
Sen. Obama has said that, "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues that you care about my entire career." He also says he wants to have organizations like this come to the White House to help shape his agenda.
Have you noticed the number of people here surrounding Barack Obama that are on the wrong side of the law?
Now, I’ll just mention some of his more sordid supporters. I know that he can’t help who endorses him. He has no control over that but it still makes me a little uneasy when I see who is backing him for president. It makes me wonder why they are backing him. Here are a few I would wonder about:
Iran
Hamas
Luis Farrakhan
Rev. Jeremiah Wright
Father Pfleiger
ACORN (now under investigation for voter fraud)
France's socialist party head Francois Hollande
Communist Party USA
Hugo Chavez
Fidel Castro
Paul Reyes (Columbia’s terrorist FARC chieftain) says he doesn’t “endorse” Obama but would like to see him in the White House (figure that one out…)
I guess everyone will have to decide for themselves about this man. I don’t know about you but I just have too many unanswered questions, too many unknowns and what I do know, I don’t like...
"A man's friendships are one of the best measures of his worth."
-- Charles Darwin
When I was growing up, my parents told me many times that I would be judged by the company I keep. They told me that if I hung out with the “bad kids” I would be judged a bad kid too. They explained that it’s not just “guilt by association” but people realize that if I know I am associating with people of questionable character and I continue to associate with them, I am in fact validating and endorsing their behavior and beliefs and demonstrating I am of a like mind. I’ve remembered that lesson my entire life.
So why is it that we seem on the verge of electing a person to the highest office in our great country that has the worst associations of anyone ever to run for office? Why is the Democratic Party ignoring it and trying to sweep it under the rug? Why is the Liberal media not reporting it? Why is it that the voting public doesn’t seem to care?
Let’s take a look at who he is and who his friends are and who is behind him and endorsing him for president.
First of all, he scoffs at anyone that describes him as a socialist but by his own actions and words, if he is not a socialist, he is a socialist sympathizer. In his own book he stated that when he was in college he chose his friends carefully, choosing “The more politically active black students, the foreign students. the chicanos, the Marxist professors and structural feminists." http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/obama-affinity-marxists-dates-college-days/
The most well know Marxists he associated with are the America hating, terrorist criminals Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn. These people carried out bombings against the Pentagon, the Capitol building and the New York City police department and are self described Marxists, Communists and friends of Obama. He’s been to his house. They hosted a party for him there as he was running for office for the first time. They helped him launch his political career. Obama wrote a recommendation for Ayers’ book. He worked with him. They are friends and not just casual acquaintances as he now would have you believe. When recently asked if he was sorry for what he did, Ayers said he was not sorry at all. He wished he had bombed more. Here’s a picture of him showing his opinion of America:
Here’s a little tidbit about Ayers that should make any moderate democrat cringe. Bill Ayers wrote in one of his books praise for and dedicated the book to people he considers “political prisoners” and in the list of people he admired and sympathized with, one Sirhan Sirhan, the person who assassinated Robert F. Kennedy. http://www.zombietime.com/prairie_fire/ Would you be a friend to this man?
Next we have Jeremiah Wright, his pastor, mentor and friend for over 20 years. This man is a radical leftist, racist preacher who preaches hatred against whites in his church. Yes, this is the man who during his sermon, in his church made the statement “God Damn America” and says it’s in the Bible. He refers to our country as the “U. S. of KKK A.”
He preaches Black Liberation Theology which is based in Marxism. He is friends with Luis Farrakhan who is well known for his racist anti-white and anti-Semitic views. These two men traveled together to the Middle East to meet with Muammar el-Qaddafi. Both men are against Israel and side with the PLO. Obama referred to him as one of his closest friends and mentors for over 20 years. He went to his church and listened to him preach hatred for over 20 years and only denounced him when it became public when he was running for president.
And when Rev. Wright isn’t around, father Michael Pfleger fills in. I won’t bother telling you about him. The only description that comes to mind when I see him is “raving lunatic”. You can judge for yourself:
Both Obama and Bill Ayers are friends with a guy name Rashid Khalidi who, although he denies being an “official” spokesman for the PLO, repeatedly endorses and defends them any time he speaks. Obama attended a dinner, along with Bill Ayers, given for Khalidi. He even spoke at this gathering. The LA Times has a video of the event and it’s reported that there were many anti-Jewish statements made by Khalidi and others in attendance. They are refusing to release the video. The Times insists that Obama made no derogatory statements himself on the video. I would wonder why they are refusing to release it then. There must be something on it that would put him in a bad light. Perhaps his reaction to the statements? We don’t know.
I heard the other day that according to polls, 75% of the Jews in Florida are backing Obama. Are they not paying attention?
Well, there’s more. Obama, although he didn’t go himself, sent his recently appointed “Muslim Outreach” director (the former director resigned over links to a radical cleric. (hmmm… what a coincidence…) to a meeting attended by several Muslim extremists, one of whom has close ties to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Another has publicly announced his support for the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Yet another extremist attendee to this meeting has stated that "You will see Islam move from being the second largest religion in America -- to being the first religion in America." http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/10/obamas-muslim-outreach-coordinator/
Now, I am asking the question, does Obama sympathize with the views of these extremists or is he just buddying up to them to court the Muslim vote? He IS definitely trying to get the Muslim vote. That part is not in question as he has stated he wants the Muslim vote but is he just trying to use them to get elected or is he making deals behind the scenes and making promises to get the Muslim vote? I have to say, either way, it stinks and I don’t like it.
And we may as well include Tony Rezko in this notorious group. The full extent of any impropriety involving Rezko and Obama is unclear but a few facts are undisputed. I’ll state them here and let you draw your own conclusions.
Rezko was involved in the land deal that got Obama his 1.65 million dollar house at a $300,000 discount. At the same time Obama bought the house, Rezko’s wife purchased the vacant lot next door. Obama had mentioned his interest in that lot to Rezko. Shortly after Rezko came under federal investigation for influence peddling, Obama purchased a portion of that lot from Rezko’s wife.
There is also some question as to any connection to one Nadhami Auchi who is an Iraqi billionaire and former bagman for Saddam Hussein and obviously anti-Israel. He was also accused of laundering money for Hussein and Khadafi.
It is rumored that Rezko contacted Obama for help in getting Auchi a visa to enter the U.S. in 2005. Obama denies helping Auchi but he did attend a party Rezko threw for Auchi in 2004 but denies meeting him.
Auchi transferred 3.5 million dollars to Rezko for investment in real estate in Chicago’s south loop. This was shortly before the Obama house deal. There is speculation that the money from Auchi may have been to help Obama in the deal or it may have been that Rezko was trying to shield assets as he had several pending lawsuits at the time. Exactly what money came from where and went to who isn’t exactly clear but then again, we have a money launderer working with a slum lord shady real estate investor and Barack Obama.
Tony Rezko was indicted in 2006 as the result of a federal investigation known as “Operation Board Games”. He went to trial and this year was found guilty on 16 charges including wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering and corrupt solicitation. I’m not exactly clear on the details but the 3.5 million dollar money transfer from Auchi may have played a part in Rezko’s conviction.
Have you noticed that all these friends of Obama are now in hiding? Why is that? Ayers won’t speak to any reporters and ducks the cameras. Khalidi refuses to speak and runs from the cameras and tries to hide his face. Rev. Wright has disappeared from public view as has Pfleiger. Tony Rezko isn’t talking. Oh yeah, he’s in jail…
The fact is that this guy has a lot of very shady characters in his past and present circle of friends. http://www.barackobamaassociates.info/ and http://www.barackbook.com/Friends.htm
Now let’s delve into Obama’s involvement with ACORN. For those of you that don’t know, ACORN (Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now) is a radical leftist group with a history of strong arm tactics and intimidation to get what they want. ACORN was the group that was instrumental in pressuring banks into making the bad loans that directly lead to the recent mortgage banking meltdown involving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They claim to be involved in “get out the vote” movements but in fact they have a history of promoting voter fraud. They have been found guilty of voter fraud in the past and are presently under federal investigation again for voter fraud in this election.
Obama denied any direct connection with the group but later changed his story. As a lawyer, he represented them in a lawsuit against the state of Illinois. He taught classes for future leaders of ACORN. When Obama served as the head of the Woods Fund with Bill Ayers, he funneled grant money to ACORN. The Obama campaign also paid over $800,000 to CSI, a “subsidiary” of ACORN and then attempted to hide it by filing finance reports to the Federal Election Commission claiming the money was for “polling, advance work and staging major events”. When it was discovered, they said it was a mistake and amended the report to say the money was actually for “get out the vote” activities.
Just as a point of interest, creating a dummy company under another name is a common money laundering technique. That company can then receive cash and on paper it doesn’t appear to be going to the company that actually ends up with it. For example, ACORN could create a company called CSI that could then receive cash payments. The organization paying could say they paid CSI money for services rendered such as “lighting and staging” when in fact CSI does nothing other than receive the money and pass it along to ACORN for their activities. All hypothetical of course…
Sen. Obama has said that, "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues that you care about my entire career." He also says he wants to have organizations like this come to the White House to help shape his agenda.
Have you noticed the number of people here surrounding Barack Obama that are on the wrong side of the law?
Now, I’ll just mention some of his more sordid supporters. I know that he can’t help who endorses him. He has no control over that but it still makes me a little uneasy when I see who is backing him for president. It makes me wonder why they are backing him. Here are a few I would wonder about:
Iran
Hamas
Luis Farrakhan
Rev. Jeremiah Wright
Father Pfleiger
ACORN (now under investigation for voter fraud)
France's socialist party head Francois Hollande
Communist Party USA
Hugo Chavez
Fidel Castro
Paul Reyes (Columbia’s terrorist FARC chieftain) says he doesn’t “endorse” Obama but would like to see him in the White House (figure that one out…)
I guess everyone will have to decide for themselves about this man. I don’t know about you but I just have too many unanswered questions, too many unknowns and what I do know, I don’t like...
"A man's friendships are one of the best measures of his worth."
-- Charles Darwin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)