trickle down....its true, if you give some guy who makes 40K/year and extra 3-4K big deal, but if you give a guy who makes 2M an extra 300K he's going to be able to invest it somewhere and create jobs.....and yes my parents are wealthy but I make around 70K, not a millionaire by any means but i understand you dont hurt the hand that feeds you and Im nothing but a luxury to my boss, he could easily come do my job if need be and if he were taxed higher and needed to let me go
Sorry, but hard work is not all it takes. Your father was able to come to this country and succeed because a bunch of people paid their taxes to support the legal/economic/social/physical infrastructure that is the foundation of American prosperity. And it's very likely that at the time he came here, the top tier was paying a significantly higher percentage of their income in taxes than they do now.
To DaDakota: As for Obama's Marxism, criticism of Civil Rights movement not destroying the Constitution, listen to this interview of his from 2001: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck Note that in the radio interview Obama says the failure of the civil rights movement was that it failed to totally destroy constitutional limitations on governmental powers, making the "redistribution" of WEALTH unachievable. Not income, but wealth. He's not talking about a more "progressive" income tax system but the confiscation of savings, including your retirement income, to be "spread around," Karl Marx style. (Of course, McCain is also a redistributionist. Taking money from me and giving it to Lockheed Martin counts as redistribution.) As for Obama not wanting to extend the welfare/warfare state... Are you serious? Are you really this ignorant of your Savior? Here's a great and recent article showing how similar the foreign policy of Obama is to McCain's: http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan170.htm Another one showing that Obama and McCain are two sides of the same coin on foreign policy: http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=198 Here's some articles on Obama's foreign policy from antiwar.com (starting with the most recent): The Limits of Change - http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13709 The War Party Embraces Obama - http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13623 Obama's Cheney - http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13378 Is Obama the 'Antiwar Candidate'? - http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13183 You Want Change - http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12995 Will Obama Stand Up to the War Party - http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12942 As for Obama endorsing a welfare State... I thought this would be quite obvious. Both Republicans and Democrats have long given up the idea of self-dependency and have embraced welfarism. Obama, as a President, would expand the welfare State, but not much more than McCain would. For a good read on welfarism, and the effects it has on everyone, read "Man vs. The Welfare State", by Henry Hazlitt. Here's a decent and recent article on the subject: http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory169.html On health care... He does want to nationalize much of it. He does want to alter prices from their market value (which shot up in '33 and '65, years in which government involvement in education increased substatially), and the negative result of this will be long-term and deep. But the biggest problem is that he thinks government involvement is the solution to supplying everyone with top-notch health care, when it's actually the biggest impediment to that bold goal. We had socialized health care in Hawaii that lasted for a grand total of 7 months. The politicians who implemented this "plan" seemed to be completely surprised that good intentions couldn't overcome basic economic laws, like the Law of Scarcity. On National Service... Correction: people will be working for the government, not for the country - which is nothing more than a collection of individuals. And no, the government does not work for us, no matter what you've been told in government schools. And as for why national service of any kind is bad for us, I suggest you check French economist Federic Bastiat, and his essay "That Which is Seen, And That Which is Not Seen," which can be found through a quick Google search. For (what I think is) a simpler explanation of Bastiat's "Broken Window" fallacy, check out the first chapter of the aforementioned Henry Hazlitt's book, Economics in One Lesson, which is provided free right here: http://mises.org/story/3000 On coal... This is true. After all, we humans, since the Industrial Revolution, have been warming up the planet. Our government says so. So do a bunch of scientists who live off government funding. And they wouldn't lie to us. I just hope they can soon explain why, 6,000 years ago, Greenland was completely free of ice? On Obama vs. Free Speech... He calls for criminal prosecution in Missouri of anyone who runs a TV ad that his campaign claims is false. (I suspect that his campaign would consider anything less than a declaration of Obama as Messiah would be considered not true.): http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1 Then his campaign now trying to shut down ads in Pennsylvania made by the NRA, again appealing to regulation of television and the airwaves. (I can't find a link for this. Sorry.) Again, don't mistake my criticisms of Obama as endorsements for McCain. They are both pieces of garbage, and though one my be "the lesser of two evils," they are both still evil. Also, listen to Peter Schiff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSixu-wxvKI
I guess based on the libertarian slant of the stuff you posted we would agree on at least some of the social issues. Not necessarily on the role of government, or lack of it.
I know the fact that Obama had a racist pastor for 20+ years is OK with you but to say it has no substance is false. Also, the fact that he would associate with a known terrorist to further his political career has substance. The fact that he has no moral issues with taking favors on loans from felons instead of legislating something to help avoid an economic disaster also has substance. The fact that he would vote "present" on two bills to make partial birth abortions illegal has substance, or that he voted "present" on three different bills that would protect aborted babies that were born alive this has substance. The substance is that he was too worried about the effects on his political career to take a stand for what is right. As President I don't think "present" is going to be good enough. I appreciate your demeaning name calling, it shows what type of person you are. FYI Barak Husein Obama is definitely a Muslim name.
So basically, you dislike his word choice. No, I'm right. They wanted just representation to assure that taxes were fair. 1) So what? 2) That's a compliment, given that those donations (as I have SAID BEFORE TWICE NOW) were primarily from individuals. Do try and understand. NOT A FINANCIAL ADVISOR TO OBAMA. Stop revising your bull**** commentary every time I prove it... well, bull****. Yawn. As do your lousy, uninformed, ignorant, and unsubstantiated attacks, devoid of any rationale for your own supposed candidate. No, it's not. But this accusation confirms what the last several posts have made abundantly evident: You are intentionally uninformed/ignorant. You're boring, and I have work to do. (OMG!!! An Obama supporter who works! OMGWTFBBQ?!!?!!?!!?!!1111!)
Barak though he changed it to this hebrew name for shine or lightning. It is not Barack which is arabic as is Husein and Obama.
You are very typical of a media spin artist in that you delete anything that is fact or you can't debate like Obama's voting record, or his ties to racism. All that stuff is ugly... lets not look at it. The fact is these two candidates are both unhealthy for this country but one has more questions concerning his moral fiber than the other.
The meaning of the name Barack is Blessed The origin of the name Barack is African Notes: Form of the Hebrew name Baruch.
Yes. Barack, Baraka, Baruch, Berakhah, Mubarak: All Words from the Same Semitic Root All these words begin in the Proto-Semitic trilitteral verbal root b-r-k whose prime meaning is ‘to bless.’ Some of the Koranic and modern Arabic reflexes of this root are: Baraka or Barakah Barakah بركة This is a noun meaning ‘a blessing’ from Allah. A pious Muslim is enjoined by Allah and by the Koran as revealed to Muhammad to bring as much barakah upon himself or herself as can be obtained during a lifetime, chiefly by doing deeds that are pleasing to Allah. The Hebrew word ברכה berakhah is a reflex of the same root, with similar meanings in Hebrew and a few shades of significance different from its Arabic meanings. Many Muslims believe that one can receive blessing by touching sacred things. To receive baraka, millions of pilgrims to the holy city of Mecca circle the Kaaba—the house that Abraham built for God—performing the Hajj, the holy pilgrimage. Pilgrims touch and kiss a black rock—believed to be a meteor—framed in silver and gold. By touching this celestial rock and circling around the Kaaba, believers are said to be blessed by being in proximity to the divine. Baraka can inhere in blessed objects and thus be transferred. Thus hajji often bring back from Mecca blessed items. One of the more popular baraka-bearing things is water from the well of Zamzam.
