All Things ProCain

[EvilMonkey]

I thought it was pretty laughable to suggest Obama changed his name from Mohammad (before anybody cared about the name) to Hussein (at the time when Saddam was public enemy #1).

Yeah, I didn't get that one either. But when was Obama's citizenship brought up before? i remember people wondering/accusing him of being Muslim, but I don't recall anyone asking if he was born a citizen.

[lostfan]

Yeah, I didn't get that one either. But when was Obama's citizenship brought up before? i remember people wondering/accusing him of being Muslim, but I don't recall anyone asking if he was born a citizen.

I don't know. It does sound familiar though.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25496

 

Obama Spend-O-Rama

by Ross Kaminsky

Posted: 03/14/2008

 

Late Wednesday afternoon, Sen.Wayne Allard (R-Co.) introduced Amendment 4246 into the Senate budget debate. The amendment, which Allard calls “The Obama Spend-o-Rama” proposes funding 111 of the 188 spending proposals put out so far during Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) presidential campaign. (These were the proposals which Allard’s staff had time to analyze before the GOP leadership asked him to offer the amendment on the floor.) According to Allard, “There are another 77 proposals with unknown cost estimates that will add billions to this number.” (Click here to read Senator Allard’s Fiscal Responsibility Floor Statement.)

 

Allard freely admits that he will oppose his own amendment and urges other Senators to do the same. But, as a senior Senate staffer pointed out to HUMAN EVENTS, “Let’s see how many Senators who have endorsed Obama will actually vote for his budget.”

 

Some of the numbers around the federal budget are incomprehensibly large. How do you wrap your mind around a 5-year cost of $1.4 trillion?

 

• This new spending, if enacted, would represent an almost 10% increase over the President’s FY 2009 budget.

 

• This $300 billion spending proposal would cost more than 42 states’ budgets combined (general fund expenditures).

 

• It is more than the United States spent last year on imported oil ($294 billion net).

 

• It is more than 60% larger than any one-year federal spending increase, ever.

 

An initial draft of the Amendment which was obtained by HUMAN EVENTS shows its purpose of “raisi(ng) taxes by an unprecedented $1.4 trillion for the purpose of fully funding 111 new or expanded federal spending programs” and, referencing S. Con. Res. 70, the Fiscal Year 2009 budget proposal, lists 111 items in the format of “On page 11, line 4, increase the amount by $5,120,000,000.”

 

According to Senator Allard’s communications director, Steve Wymer, “This amendment is obviously somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But if leaders in the Democratic Party are going to propose billions…or trillions…of dollars of new spending, at least let’s be honest about it.”

 

Of course, the problem with government spending is that government only has the money it takes from taxpayers. Senator Allard therefore laid out the tax consequences of Obama’s budget-busting proposals:

 

“According to CBO, President Clinton’s 1993 tax increase raised taxes $240.6 billion over five years. The late Senator Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) called it the ‘largest tax increase in the history of public finance in the United States or anywhere else in the world.’ But this proposal will increase spending $300 billion in a single-year.”

 

Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), who spoke immediately after Allard, re-emphasized the point: One year of Obama’s proposed spending increase “is bigger than the 5-year increase (in federal income tax collections) that President Clinton imposed on the American taxpayer.”

 

Burr argued that Obama’s promise to raise taxes just on the Democrats’ “attractive target” of people earning over $250,000, will only generate $225 billion over 5 years, far short of the $1.4 trillion which Obama’s proposed programs (actually only 60% of them) would saddle taxpayers with during that same time frame.

 

If Obama wanted to raise taxes on only the top 1% (earning over $365,000) to fund his plans, those citizens’ tax bills would have to rise by over $40,000 annually, an increase of 57%. Given the impossibility of that scenario, even under complete Democratic control of government, the tax hikes would have to trickle down to the American middle class.

 

“So if Congress decides to widen the pool of taxpayers footing the bill, it would have to raise taxes on the top 5% by 38%; or the top 10% by 32%; or the top 25% by 26%; or the top 50% of taxpayers by 23%. The top 50% of American taxpayers, who already pay 96.9% of all federal income taxes, are those who earn $31,000 (AGI) or more.

 

“To translate this point into language everyone can understand: if you have an income of $104,000 or more, the plan will cause your tax bill to go up at least an additional $5,300 a year; if you have an income of $62,000 or more, the plan will cause your tax bill to go up at least $2,300 a year. This is on top of the $2,300 increase already assumed by the failure to extend current tax policy.” (emphasis added)

 

Obama claims to want to “balance the budget and stop spending the Social Security Surplus.” Combining that laudable goal with Obama’s massive new spending would cause the tax bills of the average taxpayer earning $62,000 to rise $5,300, or 61%. For taxpayers earning $104,000, the increase would be over $12,000, or 74%, and for the top 1%, earning over $365,000, “their income tax bill rise by an astounding $93,500 (132%)!”

 

It is not only individuals would suffer under the Obama Spend-o-rama: “If you want economic growth in this country, it comes out of the small business sector. And when you raise their taxes markedly, it’s going to markedly have an adverse effect on the economy.” This is on top of the $4,100 tax increase which small businesses will face when the Democratic congress refuses to renew the Bush tax cuts.

 

In his closing, Senator Allard noted that this is not simply a hypothetical discussion; the current debate is about the 2009 budget, the first year of the next president’s administration. It is therefore important (and good politics) to show the American public the ugly details of Obama’s pretty talk.

 

As Senator Burr pointedly warned, Congress must not “fictitiously propose that the federal government can increase spending and in fact balance it on the backs of a select few. It will be like every other tax increase — we will balance it on the backs of every American who can’t afford any more taxes.”

 

Even John McCain, who admits not to be an expert on economics, should be able to tear apart Obama’s proposed spending spree. He could take Obama to task gently, saying “If I can see that my opponent’s plans are a recipe for national bankruptcy, any American can.” That leaves Obama either having to defend the indefensible, or backing away from the “progressive” agenda which is much of the basis of his support from naïve liberals, primarily young or rich.

 

Senator Allard has put Barack Obama in an uncomfortable position. As Allard staffer Steve Wymer put it, the Obama Spend-o-Rama Amendment is “just one step in trying to bring some truth to the budgeting process.”

 

The Allard amendment went down to a 97-0 defeat late Thursday afternoon, to nobody’s surprise. Although the measure was hastily prepared, simply getting into the public record the scale of Obama’s spending proposals and the tax hikes required to fund them was a worthwhile endeavor. Reached for comment after the vote, Senator Allard’s communications director Steve Wymer noted that "(Allard) voted against it with everyone else. But still, the point was made.”

[EvilMonkey]

Could the Blue Dog Dems be Obama's worst nightmare?

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jPG6u74...YSfdGAD917E7M81

 

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Democratic Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma said Tuesday Barack Obama is "the most liberal senator" in Congress and he has no intention of endorsing him for the White House....

 

[southsider2k5]

They had a poll on MSNBC last night that said even now, 22% of Hillary supporters plan on voting for McCain, and only 62% currently plan on voting for Obama.

[lostfan]

It's basically just campaign rhetoric. It's pretty transparent IMO, it doesn't take a genius to know that a Democratic president is going to raise taxes after a Republican president cuts them. And that's whether his spending proposals actually go through or not. Government isn't free.

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25496

 

Obama Spend-O-Rama

by Ross Kaminsky

Posted: 03/14/2008

 

Late Wednesday afternoon, Sen.Wayne Allard (R-Co.) introduced Amendment 4246 into the Senate budget debate. The amendment, which Allard calls “The Obama Spend-o-Rama” proposes funding 111 of the 188 spending proposals put out so far during Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) presidential campaign. (These were the proposals which Allard’s staff had time to analyze before the GOP leadership asked him to offer the amendment on the floor.) According to Allard, “There are another 77 proposals with unknown cost estimates that will add billions to this number.” (Click here to read Senator Allard’s Fiscal Responsibility Floor Statement.)

 

Allard freely admits that he will oppose his own amendment and urges other Senators to do the same. But, as a senior Senate staffer pointed out to HUMAN EVENTS, “Let’s see how many Senators who have endorsed Obama will actually vote for his budget.”

 

Some of the numbers around the federal budget are incomprehensibly large. How do you wrap your mind around a 5-year cost of $1.4 trillion?

 

• This new spending, if enacted, would represent an almost 10% increase over the President’s FY 2009 budget.

 

• This $300 billion spending proposal would cost more than 42 states’ budgets combined (general fund expenditures).

 

• It is more than the United States spent last year on imported oil ($294 billion net).

 

• It is more than 60% larger than any one-year federal spending increase, ever.

 

An initial draft of the Amendment which was obtained by HUMAN EVENTS shows its purpose of “raisi(ng) taxes by an unprecedented $1.4 trillion for the purpose of fully funding 111 new or expanded federal spending programs” and, referencing S. Con. Res. 70, the Fiscal Year 2009 budget proposal, lists 111 items in the format of “On page 11, line 4, increase the amount by $5,120,000,000.”

 

According to Senator Allard’s communications director, Steve Wymer, “This amendment is obviously somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But if leaders in the Democratic Party are going to propose billions…or trillions…of dollars of new spending, at least let’s be honest about it.”

 

Of course, the problem with government spending is that government only has the money it takes from taxpayers. Senator Allard therefore laid out the tax consequences of Obama’s budget-busting proposals:

 

“According to CBO, President Clinton’s 1993 tax increase raised taxes $240.6 billion over five years. The late Senator Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) called it the ‘largest tax increase in the history of public finance in the United States or anywhere else in the world.’ But this proposal will increase spending $300 billion in a single-year.”

 

Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), who spoke immediately after Allard, re-emphasized the point: One year of Obama’s proposed spending increase “is bigger than the 5-year increase (in federal income tax collections) that President Clinton imposed on the American taxpayer.”

 

Burr argued that Obama’s promise to raise taxes just on the Democrats’ “attractive target” of people earning over $250,000, will only generate $225 billion over 5 years, far short of the $1.4 trillion which Obama’s proposed programs (actually only 60% of them) would saddle taxpayers with during that same time frame.

 

If Obama wanted to raise taxes on only the top 1% (earning over $365,000) to fund his plans, those citizens’ tax bills would have to rise by over $40,000 annually, an increase of 57%. Given the impossibility of that scenario, even under complete Democratic control of government, the tax hikes would have to trickle down to the American middle class.

 

“So if Congress decides to widen the pool of taxpayers footing the bill, it would have to raise taxes on the top 5% by 38%; or the top 10% by 32%; or the top 25% by 26%; or the top 50% of taxpayers by 23%. The top 50% of American taxpayers, who already pay 96.9% of all federal income taxes, are those who earn $31,000 (AGI) or more.

 

“To translate this point into language everyone can understand: if you have an income of $104,000 or more, the plan will cause your tax bill to go up at least an additional $5,300 a year; if you have an income of $62,000 or more, the plan will cause your tax bill to go up at least $2,300 a year. This is on top of the $2,300 increase already assumed by the failure to extend current tax policy.” (emphasis added)

 

Obama claims to want to “balance the budget and stop spending the Social Security Surplus.” Combining that laudable goal with Obama’s massive new spending would cause the tax bills of the average taxpayer earning $62,000 to rise $5,300, or 61%. For taxpayers earning $104,000, the increase would be over $12,000, or 74%, and for the top 1%, earning over $365,000, “their income tax bill rise by an astounding $93,500 (132%)!”

 

It is not only individuals would suffer under the Obama Spend-o-rama: “If you want economic growth in this country, it comes out of the small business sector. And when you raise their taxes markedly, it’s going to markedly have an adverse effect on the economy.” This is on top of the $4,100 tax increase which small businesses will face when the Democratic congress refuses to renew the Bush tax cuts.

 

In his closing, Senator Allard noted that this is not simply a hypothetical discussion; the current debate is about the 2009 budget, the first year of the next president’s administration. It is therefore important (and good politics) to show the American public the ugly details of Obama’s pretty talk.

 

As Senator Burr pointedly warned, Congress must not “fictitiously propose that the federal government can increase spending and in fact balance it on the backs of a select few. It will be like every other tax increase — we will balance it on the backs of every American who can’t afford any more taxes.”

 

Even John McCain, who admits not to be an expert on economics, should be able to tear apart Obama’s proposed spending spree. He could take Obama to task gently, saying “If I can see that my opponent’s plans are a recipe for national bankruptcy, any American can.” That leaves Obama either having to defend the indefensible, or backing away from the “progressive” agenda which is much of the basis of his support from naïve liberals, primarily young or rich.

 

Senator Allard has put Barack Obama in an uncomfortable position. As Allard staffer Steve Wymer put it, the Obama Spend-o-Rama Amendment is “just one step in trying to bring some truth to the budgeting process.”

 

The Allard amendment went down to a 97-0 defeat late Thursday afternoon, to nobody’s surprise. Although the measure was hastily prepared, simply getting into the public record the scale of Obama’s spending proposals and the tax hikes required to fund them was a worthwhile endeavor. Reached for comment after the vote, Senator Allard’s communications director Steve Wymer noted that "(Allard) voted against it with everyone else. But still, the point was made.”

Obama's overambitious spending plans are starting to scare me as well. All candidates promise the world, but, with a large Dem majority in Congress likely in November, I'm afraid that Obama may (ironically) end up continuing the same spend-and-spend policies we have seen under Bush. Some his ideas are good, but others are not, and things need to be brought under control.

 

[BigSqwert]

I would add that I am concerned about the never-ending war in Iraq and the trillions it will cost us if McCain were to be elected.

[FlaSoxxJim]

They had a poll on MSNBC last night that said even now, 22% of Hillary supporters plan on voting for McCain, and only 62% currently plan on voting for Obama.

 

Heck, that 22% may all be working-class white male Hillary supporters. No female Hillary supporter who is actually looking for forward progress on womens' rights is going to vote for McCain.

 

Also, there's so much time until November for the hurt feelings of the Hillary backers to heal, I see it as a huge relief that less than two weeks after her concession almost 2/3 of her supporters are behind Obama.

[BigSqwert]

Heck, that 22% may all be working-class white male Hillary supporters. No female Hillary supporter who is actually looking for forward progress on womens' rights is going to vote for McCain.

 

Also, there's so much time until November for the hurt feelings of the Hillary backers to heal, I see it as a huge relief that less than two weeks after her concession almost 2/3 of her supporters are behind Obama.

No kidding. We haven't even had one debate between the 2 nominees. They haven't even picked their Veep choices.

[NorthSideSox72]

I would add that I am concerned about the never-ending war in Iraq and the trillions it will cost us if McCain were to be elected.

Sure, and I agree with that too. Its yet another reason that I am unsure on who to vote for. I was just pointing out that Obama seems to want to go spend that war money, and then some. But I will also be waiting for Obama to show how he plans to pay for it, as I am sure that Senator Allard may have not been completely accurate in his estimations of things.

 

 

[BigSqwert]

Sure, and I agree with that too. Its yet another reason that I am unsure on who to vote for. I was just pointing out that Obama seems to want to go spend that war money, and then some. But I will also be waiting for Obama to show how he plans to pay for it, as I am sure that Senator Allard may have not been completely accurate in his estimations of things.

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't most candidates for President propose a slew of big initiatives when they run and once they get elected only institute a small percentage of them, regardless of who controls Congress?

[NorthSideSox72]

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't most candidates for President propose a slew of big initiatives when they run and once they get elected only institute a small percentage of them, regardless of who controls Congress?

Of course they do. I think I even hinted at that. But, with what appears to be a large Dem majority in Congress come 2009, I'd be afraid that Obama might actually implement a LOT of those things. And that could lead to one of two things - higher taxes (which could take a huge toll on the economy, depending on what they were), and/or more spend-and-spend BushCo policy. Neither of those are ideas I like.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Of course they do. I think I even hinted at that. But, with what appears to be a large Dem majority in Congress come 2009, I'd be afraid that Obama might actually implement a LOT of those things. And that could lead to one of two things - higher taxes (which could take a huge toll on the economy, depending on what they were), and/or more spend-and-spend BushCo policy. Neither of those are ideas I like.

 

But recent history has shown us that there isn't a lot of ideological lockstep with the Democratic party. Clinton had good working majorities in Congress in 93 and 94 and still couldn't get much accomplished until the balance of power switched to the GOP in Congress.

[southsider2k5]

So I am not the only one who got the connection between Johnson and the mortgage crisis. It was bad enough where Howard Dean had to accuse John McCain of PLANTING him in the Obama campaign, DISPITE his past work with other Democratic Presidential candidates. As has become the case with Obama lately, too busy worrying about meeting with enemies, he threw a friend under the bus. I await the quote from Barack that "this isn't the Johnson that I knew..."

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelst...cle-jim-johnson

 

Howard Dean: McCain Planted WaPo Article on Jim Johnson

Photo of Mark Finkelstein.

By Mark Finkelstein | June 11, 2008 - 12:06 ET

 

Washington Post: GOP tool? Might sound a tad far-fetched to you. But you're not Howard Dean.

 

Appearing on today's Morning Joe, DNC Chairman Dean claimed a Washington Post article about Jim Johnson, whom Barack Obama has chosen to head up the vetting of potential VP picks, was "planted" by the McCain campaign. Johnson's appointment has become an embarrassment to Obama because the former CEO of Fannie Mae has been linked to the mortgage crisis. As WaPo reported:

 

The questions about Johnson began after the Wall Street Journal reported Saturday that he received more than $2 million in home loans that might have been below average market rates from Countrywide Financial, a partner of Fannie Mae and a leading purveyor of the kind of subprime mortgages that spawned a national housing crisis.

 

Moreover:

 

As CEO of Fannie Mae, Johnson, a former chief of staff to Vice President Walter F. Mondale and chairman of the board of the Kennedy Center, was the beneficiary of accounting in which Fannie Mae's earnings were manipulated so that executives could earn larger bonuses.

 

Dean smelled a rat.

 

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Are you saying this Washington Post article is planted by John McCain?

 

HOWARD DEAN: Yeah. That's exactly right. I suspect the McCain people called up the Post, which is what both sides do, and got the reporter to write an interesting article about this stuff.

 

So in Dean's mind, WaPo serves as something of a Republican transcribing service. Call up, dictate your article, give your placement instructions, "yeah, put it on the front page," and . . . voila!

 

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the McCain campaign did indeed push the story—it would be virtual campaign malpractice not to do so. But surely Dean must realize the story is highly newsworthy and that the Post would be among the last papers to take Republican talking points at face value.

 

Dean got off another rib-tickler in the course of the conversation, claiming that Johnson was "not a key appointment." Right. Obama has called his choice of running mate "the most important decision that I will make before I am president." And Johnson is heading up the vetting committee. Nothing "key" there ;-)

[southsider2k5]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M...DY5NzQ0MzJlY2U=

 

Have Some Respect [bill Bennett]

 

McCain has nothing to apologize for or retreat from re: yesterday’s statement on the most important thing and Iraq, but that’s how the statements the campaign is making in his defense read. The weak defense I have read — “their lives are precious” is well ...weak.

 

McCain is absolutely right. First, the military, the all-volunteer military, does not think returning home is the most important thing to them. Doing their job successfully is what they consider to be their most important job. These are not children in a summer camp where the river is rising and the most important thing — the only thing — is to get them home. These are the soldiers of the U.S. military. Their lives are valuable indeed, but their mission is foremost. They understand that. And that's why they reenlist and that's what they tell us again and again on this show and elsewhere. Second, do the Democrats really want to try to lecture family McCain on how they should feel about returning home and being in the battlefield? The entire McCain bloodline, up and down the generations, is defined by being in the battlefield and away from home. Do they really want to tell a man who turned down early release and spent five and a half years in a POW camp that he is insensitive to the desires of returning home? Do they really want to tell a man whose father and grandfather are military heroes that the most important thing is returning home? Do they really want to tell a man whose own son has signed up and fought in Iraq about the importance of coming back home?

 

George Bush may not like to use these words anymore, but I will, Bring it on!

[lostfan]

I really wish McCain would've chosen his words more carefully. I know what he wanted to say, but that's not what he said, and people trying to apologize for him isn't going to change that. I also haven't noted him saying that's not what he meant to say, that he's only having his words parsed and taken out of context (they're really not, I heard both the question and the full answer). As a vet myself, one of the things that really irks me (and one of the reasons I got out, actually) is being taken for granted by people who really should know better. Being treated like a number instead of a person. I don't even want special recognition, but dammit, don't be so dismissive and give that whole "oh, but they volunteered" line.

[EvilMonkey]

I really wish Obama would've chosen his words more carefully. I know what he wanted to say, but that's not what he said, and people trying to apologize for him isn't going to change that. I also haven't noted him saying that's not what he meant to say, that he's only having his words parsed and taken out of context (they're really not, I heard both the question and the full answer).

That first part of what you said can go for just about everyone this election cycle. I changed it to fit what I have heard several times from the Obama camp so far this year. Next we will all be discussing the meaning of 'IS' again.

[Balta1701]

I really wish McCain would've chosen his words more carefully. I know what he wanted to say, but that's not what he said, and people trying to apologize for him isn't going to change that. I also haven't noted him saying that's not what he meant to say, that he's only having his words parsed and taken out of context (they're really not, I heard both the question and the full answer). As a vet myself, one of the things that really irks me (and one of the reasons I got out, actually) is being taken for granted by people who really should know better. Being treated like a number instead of a person. I don't even want special recognition, but dammit, don't be so dismissive and give that whole "oh, but they volunteered" line.

The problem is...what McCain said yesterday is McCain's stated policy. He thinks it is a good idea, if the violence in Iraq drops to zero somehow by magic, for the U.S. to maintain a large imperial presence in the middle east on Iraqi soil indefinitely whether they want us there or not. He never really explains how we'll get to the point of zero casualties, and no one ever seems to really press him on that point, but this is John McCain's policy. He and his campaign may have wanted to say something else...but McCain's problem is...he keeps accidentally saying his actual policy, and after the last 5+ years of this debacle, that's a policy that most people don't agree with.

[southsider2k5]

http://cameron.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/0...er-second-term/

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an interview with Carl Cameron today, Sen. McCain introduced some new pushback to Sen. Obama’s assertion that the GOPer represents a Bush third term. The presumptive Republican nominee instead argues that the Illinois Democrat is promoting policies that would mean a second term for President Carter.

 

“You know one of his favorite phrases is that I would be a Bush third term. Well I think maybe his proposals could be a Carter second term,” McCain told Fox.

[lostfan]

That first part of what you said can go for just about everyone this election cycle. I changed it to fit what I have heard several times from the Obama camp so far this year. Next we will all be discussing the meaning of 'IS' again.

It's the same thing as Obama's "bitter" comments, IMO. A very poor choice of words but while it's kinda silly to call Obama an "elitist" or whatever the hell for saying that, it's BS to act like McCain doesn't care about the troops. Plus it's not going to change anyone's vote by itself (unless they are stupid, and they shouldn't be voting in the first place). It's just a comment that, by itself, really gets on my nerves on a personal level. I know what he meant. But I also know what he said.

[Balta1701]

Ron Paul reportedly to finally exit the race.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Ron Paul reportedly to finally exit the race.

ABOUT FREAKIN TIME!

He went from interesting and provocative to weird and loony in 1.3 seconds.

Edited June 12, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[southsider2k5]

Ron Paul reportedly to finally exit the race.

 

In other news Walter Mondale has conceded to Ronald Reagan...

[lostfan]

McCain disagrees with the SCOTUS decision from today. From a strategic standpoint I'm not sure I understand what he's doing, and it also pretty much contradicts what he's said in the past. He's supposed to be trying to shed the McSame image FFS, not endorse it.

 

I guess it will fire up the GOP base who don't want liberal judges appointed to SCOTUS, but did they really need that motivation to vote against Obama? They won't win him the election, the independents will.