politicalpartypoop.com

WASHINGTON (New York Post)  - You won’t find it in his campaign ads, but Barack Obama let slip his plans to become a modern-day Robin Hood in the White House, confiscating money from the rich to give to the poor.

Conservatives yesterday ripped Obama after he was caught on video telling an Ohio plumber that he intends to take the profits of small-business owners and “spread the wealth around” to those with lesser incomes.

The fracas over Obama’s tax plan broke out Sunday outside Toledo when Joe Wurzelbacher approached the candidate.

Wurzelbacher said he planned to become the owner of a small plumbing business that will take in more than the $250,000 amount at which Obama plans to begin raising tax rates.

“Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the blue-collar worker asked.

After Obama responded that it would, Wurzelbacher continued: “I’ve worked hard . . . I work 10 to 12 hours a day and I’m buying this company and I’m going to continue working that way. I’m getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream.”

“It’s not that I want to punish your success,” Obama told him. “I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success, too.

Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.

“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Critics said Obama let the cat out of the bag.

“It’s clear that his main goal is redistribution of wealth, not growth,” said Andy Roth with the anti-tax group Club for Growth. “He’s perfectly happy to destroy wealth as long as he can redistribute it.”

Obama has been meticulous, Roth said, to conceal the “socialistic” nature of his tax plans. “But every once in a while, he lets it slip,” he said.

Republican candidate John McCain yesterday charged that Obama’s comment was telling.

“This explains how Senator Obama can promise an income-tax cut for millions who aren’t even paying income taxes right now,” he said in Pennsylvania.

“My plan isn’t intended to force small businesses to cut jobs to pay higher taxes so we can ’spread the wealth around.’ My plan is intended to create jobs and increase the wealth of all Americans.”

Meanwhile, a New York Times/CBS poll last night showed Obama moving into a commanding 53-39 percent lead.

Reminder….Tennessee Guerilla Women

For a very long time, right-wing bloggers have been calling Barack Obama a socialist. And now they say they have proof. Barack Obama is a secret socialist? Be still my bleeding heart. Barack Obama has a secret plot to make the U.S. into a social democracy? Like all those countries in Europe? Please goddess, let it be true. I would crawl across cut glass for the privilege of having a president who is a secret socialist. Single payer health care! Equal pay! Equal Representation for women and minorities! Paid family leave! Education for everyone! No more homeless children! No more hungry children!

(Source) WASHINGTON – Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said Thursday that paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans.

Rangel says he won’t quit House panel over tax dispute

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Rep. Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat, said Wednesday he will not step down as chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee in the face of a call from the Republican leader in the House for him to do so.

Rangel has been under fire for failing to report income from a rental property he owns in the Dominican Republic.

He admitted Tuesday he had not paid tax on the income, but said it was a mistake and he will pay whatever back taxes he owes. He said the income had gone directly toward paying down the mortgage on the property and he had rarely if ever received income statements related to it.

“I really didn’t pay any attention to it. I wasn’t getting any money from it,” he said, calling his failure to pay taxes “an omission that’s irresponsible, and that’s it.”

“I don’t believe that making mistakes means you have to give up your career,” he said.

He also admitted that he had not been charged interest on the mortgage for the past 18 years, but said he had “no clue” that the mortgage lender had made that decision. He denied having been singled out for preferential treatment.

Rangel’s Ways and Means Committee writes tax law, among other responsibilities.

This is by Neal Bortz on the Nealz Nuze Section

Barack Obama wants to make the highest income earners in this country return to the 39% tax bracket. And the reason, according to Barack Obama, is because those people “can afford that.” In exchange, because he is such a nice guy, Obama says he is going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans … an act which he declares is not class warfare.

 Two points: First, when Obama talks about raising taxes on the evil, disgusting, putrid, rancid, stinking rich because they can afford it, he’s merely going back to his Marxist roots. Remember “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs?” Straight from the Communist Manifesto .. just reworded slightly by The
Chosen One. Second; Let’s put this nonsense about tax cuts for 95% of Americans to rest. The bottom 50% of income earners don’t even pay income taxes, so how is Our Savior going to give them a tax break? What Obama is really talking about is tax credits. Here’s how his plan will work. He’ll come up with some fancy new tax credit to reward his minions for some type of acceptable behavior – like voting Democrat. Let’s say the tax credit is $2000. But … these people don’t owe any taxes! So what good is a tax credit to them? Well, this is a new type of credit called a “refundable” tax credit. If you’re eligible for the $2000 credit, and you don’t owe any income taxes, you just get a check form the federal government for $2000. Just a very simple wealth redistribution plan. Remember, Obama and the Democrats think that wealth in the United States is not earned, it’s distributed. It’s the government’s job to re-work that distribution to make it more “fair.”

But now we have something new in the mix. Obama has come up with a new excuse for wealth and income redistribution. He has a new excuse – reason, if you will – to implement the Marxist “from each according to their ability” doctrine.

The new excuse? Neighborliness.

Yes, I kid you not. This is what is fueling Barack Obama’s tax plan. Neighborliness. You know … because it would be the nice thing to do. He explains, “If I am sitting pretty, and you’ve got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can’t — what’s the big deal for me to say, ‘I’m going to pay a little bit more.’ That is neighborliness.”

“What’s the big deal?” Obama says? You’re kidding me, right? The big deal that the government is using its exclusive right to use deadly force to accomplish its goals by forcing you to be neighborly at the point of a gun. If you decide that you need the money you have worked for and earned for your own family – and that you don’t particularly want to give it away to someone who somehow can’t earn more than the minimum wage – then the government simply sticks you up at gunpoint? If the poor, poor pathetic minimum wage waitress did this she would be arrested. No problem though. Barack Obama will just do it for her. Lord how we need this guy.

Here’s a little more from Obama: “What I believe is, is that there are certain things we have to do. We’ve got to help people who are having tough times affording college, so they can benefit like we benefited from this great country. People who are having a tough time — they don’t have health care; people who are trying to figure out how they are going to pay the bills…”

Remember .. most of these people who, as Obama says, are having a “tough time,” created their own tough time. “Having a tough time” is another way of saying “living with the consequences of your decisions.”

What would life be like in an ObamaNation? There’s the government sitting there watching you – watching you work – watching you go the extra mile. The government takes note of the fact that you pursued an advanced education. Then the government observes you working 50, 60 maybe 80 hours a week trying to start a business. The government watches your income as it rises. Finally at some point the government says “Enough! You now have more than you need! There are people out there who did not pursue an education like you did. There are people out there who did not work as hard and as long as you did. There are people out there who did not make the careful choices and take the risks you did. Now you have to be a good neighbor. So we’re going to take some of that money you don’t need and ’spread the wealth’, so to speak.”

Do you really want a government that can decide when you have enough .. and take the excess away? Then vote for Obama.

When told that his tax plan is just a fancy way of saying “income redistribution,” which is a tenant of socialism, Obama’s response was, “Teddy Roosevelt supported a progressive income tax.” That’s it. That’s his excuse.

So now we have Teddy Roosevelt and neighborliness. How wonderful.

From the Wall Street Journal, “For Obama, Taxes Are About Fairness” by William McGurn

Great column here by McGurn, exploring the “soak the rich” tax mentality that characterizes Barack Obama’s campaign:

Mr. Obama, by contrast, started out much more directly, suggesting that if you make $150,000 or less you may be poor or middle class. A family with an income above $250,000, he went on to say, is “doing well.” And if you find yourself in that category, he’s going to target you for a tax hike — all in the name of creating “a sense of balance, and fairness in our tax code.”

In fact, the idea of fairness is at the heart of his whole economic argument. And he goes back to it in almost every public appearance.

He talks about it as a general theme: “It is time for folks like me who make more than $250,000 to pay our fair share.”

He invokes it as a solution for Social Security: “[W]e will save Social Security for future generations by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.”

He points to how it guides his energy policy: “The first part of my plan is to tax the windfall profits of oil companies and use some of that money to help you pay the rising price of gas.”

And he stuck to it on capital gains, even after ABC’s Charlie Gibson noted that the record shows increased taxes on capital gains — which would affect 100 million Americans — would likely lead to a decrease in government revenues: “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”

Translated into ordinary English, what that means is that it doesn’t really matter whether a tax increase actually brings in more revenue. It’s not about robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Robbing from the rich will do, especially if it’s done in the name of fairness

The committee hosting the Democratic National Convention has used the city’s gas pumps to fill up and apparently avoided paying state and federal fuel taxes.

The practice, which began four months ago, may have ended hours after its disclosure. An aide to Mayor John Hickenlooper released a statement Tuesday evening saying that Denver 2008 Host Committee members would pay market prices for fuel and would also be liable for all applicable taxes.

Check out more at The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

At TAPPED, Goldstein writes that property taxes should not be used to fund public schools because people might try and avoid the taxes…by moving.

Because some people, who don’t have kids in public schools and who aren’t particularly civic-minded, will inevitably resent paying them and do everything they can to avoid doing so. Case in point: Sun belt retirees living in “adult” communities that not only ban children, but also incorporate outside of existing cities and towns in order to achieve full tax revolt status.

Well, we can’t have people making choices which lead to paying fewer taxes, now can we. Her unwritten, but presumed solution would be to institute a more broadly applicable tax, one that cannot be avoided simply by moving out of the burdened area.

READ THE REST

(LINK) Some 50,000 fewer passengers are expected to use Amsterdam Schiphol airport, one of Europe’s busiest, this summer on account of a Dutch environmental tax on flights, it was reported Saturday.
“We’re expected zero growth in 2008, and in fact a decrease (in passenger numbers) in July and August,” an airport spokesman was quoted as saying by the domestic ANP news agency.

The Netherlands is the only country that levies an environmental tax on flights departing the country — 11.25 euros per passenger (17.75 dollars) for European destinations and 45 euros for intercontential points.

With higher fuel prices pushing up air fares worldwide, travel industry experts say the tax will hurt business at Schiphol and see many Dutch travellers go to nearby German airports instead.

Work with me people I’m gonna weave a couple of topics and posts into one confusing one, LOL!

From Hot Air

The latest ad from the RNC takes some low-hanging fruit and makes a feast from it. The ad takes the energy policy of Barack Obama and compares it to the last President that tried it — Jimmy Carter. Obama’s call for a windfall-profits tax against oil companies prompts a history lesson about the results from the last such attempt:

RNC Commercial

MORE HERE

MORE READINGPDF - RNC Research Briefing: Why Does Barack Obama Want To Increase Taxes Again And
Drive Up The Cost Of Gasoline On Americans?

BUT NOW WATCH THIS CLIP OF OBAMA….

TEXT: Sen. Barack Obama The Age of oil must end speech

“oil money funds everything from the madrassas that plant the seeds of terror in young minds, to sunni insurgents that attack our troops in Iraq, corrupts budding democracies
and gives dictators from Venezuela to Iran the power to freely defy the international community it even presents a larger target for Osama Bin Laden who has told Al Qaeda to focus your operations on oil especially in Iraq and the gulf area since this will cause Americans to die off on their own”

The clip

Now Bush says this:

“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,”

said Bush, in what White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to sit down for talks with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Because Obama said this….

Obama: “Sure, I’ll meet with Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, etc”

And as Allahpundit noted, from Obama’s own website:

Without preconditions. That means without Iran guaranteeing anything, let alone the big prize of their nuclear program.

MORE OF THIS HERE AT HOT AIR AGAIN

Now I’m confused and I’m the one posting this shit, Obama says to me (Snoop evil dictator) you run one of the most despotic regimes in the world and I plant the seeds of terror in young minds, and you STILL want to sit down and talk to me? What the fuck?
Which is it? Negotiate with terrorist thugs, stop sending these thugs our money via oil, reduce dependency on foreign oil, we need a windfall profits tax to tax the oil companies, oh don’t forget that we have no other alternative energy resources, bla bla bla, yada yada yada.

CONFUSED!?!

Yes I must agree with El Borak, an Obama presidency will no doubt be a fun one blogging wise. Just think the Democrats will fucken have control of the House, Senate and likely the presidency (even if McCain wins the same thing). The Democrats are likely to turn this country back into the Stone Age. And who do we have to blame, Republicans since they are a bunch of spineless no guts assholes that refuse to run on and stand up for conservative principles.

With the Democrats in charge America will in essence be imprisoned by liberalism and thus will become the “tossed salad man”

Primary Sources: The “Crisis of Confidence” Speech July 15, 1979

This from Red State

Not content to have parlayed their public service into great wealth, the Clintons continue to cost the taxpayers money. It seems that, despite having written a book on it, former President Clinton feels more comfortable getting paid for charity than giving it:

The Clintons have made a $100-million fortune since leaving the White House, but a Politico analysis found that hasn’t kept Bill Clinton from taking full advantage of the publicly funded perks offered to ex-presidents.

In fact, his presidential retirement benefits cost taxpayers almost as much as those of the other two living ex-presidents combined.

The price tag for Clinton’s federal retirement allowance from 2001 through the end of this year will run $8 million, compared to $5.5 million for George H. W. Bush’s and $4 million for Jimmy Carter’s during the same period.

More

From Boston.com

(link) WASHINGTON - Republicans in Congress, trying to appear tightfisted with taxpayer dollars this election year, found yesterday that some in their ranks led a list of “pork” spenders in a watchdog group’s analysis of government waste.The annual survey by Citizens Against Government Waste contends that 11,610 special-interest projects were stuffed into spending bills approved by the Democratic-led Congress last year at a $17.2 billion cost to taxpayers.But according to the survey, individual Republicans pushed the most pork last year. In addition, the three House Republicans sponsoring legislation calling for a moratorium all engaged in the practice, the report said.

For months, House Republican leader John Boehner has been leading a crusade against such projects, known as earmarks, which benefit lawmakers’ districts. Boehner, of Ohio, has called for suspending pork spending and has criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, for not yet agreeing to do so.

Republicans have attacked Democratic Representative John Murtha for delivering a pile of special-interest funds to his western Pennsylvania district.

According to the report, however, two House Republicans bested Murtha: Roger Wicker of Mississippi, who recently became a senator, and Representative Bill Young of Florida. The two scored $176.3 million and $169.5 million in earmarks respectively, beating Murtha’s $159.1 million.

In the Senate, the top three big spenders were Republicans, who together scored about $1.8 billion in home-state projects. Those senators were Thad Cochran, the senior Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, Richard Shelby of Alabama, and Ted Stevens of Alaska, who was roundly criticized a few years back for winning approval of a “bridge to nowhere” and has been reported to be the target of a federal corruption probe.

All the top spenders are members of the House and Senate Appropriations committees, which dole out federal dollars.

Opponents of the special-interest projects argue that they do not receive adequate oversight.

Among the pork outlined in the group’s report was $188,000 by Maine’s Republican senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and Democratic Representative Thomas Allen to help the Lobster Institute, which the report said is working on a “Lobster Cam” and developing lobster dog biscuits.

SHOCKING! El Borak agrees with Hillary!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

This latest move by the Pelosi-Reid Congress is not surprising.
Democrats have always been against oil drilling and exploration.
And, they have been wanting to increase taxes on oil companies since forever.
Their policies have caused our reliance on foreign oil to grow significantly.

For decades, the Democratic party has blocked one effort after another to responsibly develop the energy resources our country possesses, transforming vast areas of opportunity into “The No Zone.”

MUCH MORE HERE

The brilliant scam continues. I have said often, global warming is not about “saving the planet” it’s about money, jobs, research dollars, growing gubment.

In his quest to make San Francisco the greenest city in the nation, Mayor Gavin Newsom recently created a $160,000-a-year job for a senior aide and gave him the ambitious-sounding title of director of climate protection initiatives.

One might expect someone with such an exalted handle to solve global warming and save the rain forest all in a day’s work.

But the new climate protection initiatives director is just the latest person to join the city payroll in the name of tackling global climate woes, raising questions about whether environmentalism is becoming the latest excuse for a bloating government payroll.

San Francisco has at least two dozen other city employees already working directly on climate issues at a cost to taxpayers of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“Although it sounds very well intentioned, and perhaps even necessary, I’m concerned this is a case where eco-chic has gone out of control,” said Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, the only Green Party member on the Board of Supervisors.

Newsom’s critics in City Hall have pounced on the amorphous “climate protection” title and have blasted the mayor for creating the new role - as well as for creating new jobs for other members of his senior circle and doling out hefty pay raises - while the city braces for a projected $233 million deficit next fiscal year and lawmakers contemplate reducing hospital operating room hours and delaying playground improvement projects to balance the budget.