Obama claims to support American Jobs and the American Auto Industry.
Obama boosts of his support by Warren Buffet and assistance to help for Obama’s economic advise.
Buffet owns 10% of China based auto manufacture that will be selling their electric car in the United States by the end of the year.
Buffet move will put more UAW, Ford, GM, and Chrysler jobs on the line.
Now Who Does Obama Support? Facts speak the truth and read the following published stories.
Read the following from The Truth About Cars
Buffett Bucks Boosts BYD Chinese Hybrid
By Edward NiedermeyerOctober 16, 2008
Battery maker and hybrid powertrain dark horse BYD got quite a legitimacy boost when the Oracle of Omaha (and possible Obama cabinet member) Warren Buffett dropped $230m on ten percent of its stock. And that boost seems to be translating into accelerated plans to bring BYD cars to market. China Car Times reports that BYD will begin selling its “dual mode” (not to be confused with GM’s disasterous “two-mode”) hybrids (specifically, the Toyota Corolla F3DM compact) before the end of the year, several months before the previously-publicized release date.
No plans have been announced to accelerate European sales, set to begin in 2010. And U.S. sales are still a gleam in Warren Buffett’s shrewd eye. BYD hybrids have been extensively tested in China, and the firm claims that its proprietary batteries are good for 62 mile of plug-in charge and will last over 300k miles before needing to be replaced. The parallel/serial hybrids can be charged to 50 percent of capacity in ten minutes, while a 100 percent charge takes seven hours, according to BYD. If these numbers hold up and quality is up to snuff, BYD could soon be a big name in the hybrid game. After all, Ma Buffett didn’t raise any fools.
Here is a story from Portland Business Journal on September 30, 2008
The Warren Buffett-owned parent company of Pacific Corp. announced Monday it bought a 10 percent stake in BYD Co. Ltd., the Chinese company that is considering Portland as a test market for its electric automobiles.
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co., a subsidiary of Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and owner of the Portland-based electric utility Pacific Power, said it agreed to buy 225 million shares of Shenzhen-based BYD — a $230 million investment.
“We are thrilled to be partners with BYD and the people of China,” Buffett said in a news release. MidAmerican Chairman David Sokol said they are attracted to BYD’s commitment to make a “dramatic environmental impact with their products.”
BYD Co. is the world’s biggest maker of mobile-phone batteries. The company broadened into automaking in 2003, when it bought Shaanxi Qinchuan Auto Co. It's now working to develop its battery technology to bring a new breed of alternative fuel vehicles to the marketplace.
BYD Auto executives have visited Portland twice since April in the search for a U.S. test market for its planned plug-in electric and all-electric models. Some are hopeful that it will eventually make electric cars here.
In August, Henry Z. Li, general manager of the company’s auto export trade division, met with Gov. Ted Kulongoski (D), Portland Mayor-elect Sam Adams (D) and U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith (R), among other leaders in the business community, to discuss the company’s plans.
Li said BYD’s initial plans are likely to involve placing 10 of the company’s vehicles into a corporate fleet, allowing them to gauge the vehicles’ performance in a controlled setting.
While those plans may be small in scale, state officials may have larger plans.
Kulongoski on Friday created a working group that is tasked with creating policy and an alternative fuel infrastructure aimed at luring electric car manufacturers to the state. From Nov. 15-21st, Kulongoski will be in China and Japan where he will meet with exeutives from BYD, Toyota and Nissan to make the case for bringing manufacturing sites to Oregon.
“We have to move away from gasoline powered vehicles and move towards alternative power sources such as electric, natural gas and fuel cell vehicles — and Oregon is positioned to be a national a leader for this next generation of vehicles,” Kulongoski said in a news release last week
Monday, October 20, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Powell Endorses Obama - Powell Stands To Make Millions Off Deal
(Read the entire post as the first point outlines a few of the things Powell talked about Sunday when he endorsed Barack Obama for President)
On Sunday former Sectary of State Collin Powell announced he was going to support Barack Obama for President of the United States. He played out the usual Obama party line but did it with a little more flare.
He was critical of McCain as to not having a solid economic plan to help the middle class. However he never addressed or was asked how Obama’s tax rebate for the “middle class” did less then provide a large rebate check to those who do not pay any federal taxes currently.
He went on to be critical of McCain for the comment of some lady in a crowd that Obama was Muslin. In fact Powell went to get length to hammer this subject as though people within the McCain campaign had said such. He did not even acknowledge that McCain took the microphone from the lady and denied Obama was such.
Powell then moved on to the issue of people in Sarah Palin campaign rally crowd yelled “kill him” and “terrorist” in reference to Obama. This issue was first brought to the attention to the media and public via Obama campaign officials. Not one media outlet reported hearing such on the day it was suppose to have happened. In follow up investigation the Secret Service investagated the claims. They talked to their own agents attending the event that where scatter all over the crowd in their protection of Palin. The Secret Service also talked to police officers, civilian ushers, and others attending the event. NOT ONE OF THEM HEARD EITHER SET OF WORDS!
Of course this is the same guy that stood before the public, the UN, and Congress telling them that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction. Many in the public, the UN, and Congress believed him. This turned out to be a lie. On Sunday Powell tried to pass this off on to some other members of President Bush’s staff.
Powell is the same person who first investigated the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam by US Soldiers. He issued a report that stated, “In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent.” Further investagation proved Powell lied. In 2004 Powell, on the Larry King Show, pretty much stated this is just something that happens in war.
NOW FOR THE FINANCAIL WHORE
In 2005 Powell joined Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a venture capitol firm located near San Francisco, California. He joined and was given the newly-created position of "strategic limited partner." Which means to us poor saps is he brought no money to the fund but will be cut into the action, based on what he can do for them. Then in 2007 Al Gore joined the firm as a partner.
In April 2008 Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers announced they where trying to raise $400 million to invest in green technology to be used as venture capitol into start up companies. They pictured billion dollar payoffs from investments.
KPCB has publicized its plan to put as many as 50,000 electric cars on U.S. roads by late next year (2009) and would be produced just south of San Francisco. The venture will be called Think North America and be based in Menlo Park, California.
Obama has promised to provide tax cuts for people purchasing new electric cars. This would encourage people to purchase these cars. Also Obama has promised to cut to zero capitol gains tax made by companies in this kind of business for two years. Obama has offered other tax cuts for new start up companies like this one.
This company made billions of dollars by taking such companies like Netscape when sold to American On Line. It appears KPCB made just under one billion dollars. Another investment of KPCB was the $8 million invested and returned to them two billion on the sale of Cerent to Cisco Systems.
Powell is a two time self admitted liar and now can add financial whore to his resume. He just sold out the general public for his own financial wealth.
On Sunday former Sectary of State Collin Powell announced he was going to support Barack Obama for President of the United States. He played out the usual Obama party line but did it with a little more flare.
He was critical of McCain as to not having a solid economic plan to help the middle class. However he never addressed or was asked how Obama’s tax rebate for the “middle class” did less then provide a large rebate check to those who do not pay any federal taxes currently.
He went on to be critical of McCain for the comment of some lady in a crowd that Obama was Muslin. In fact Powell went to get length to hammer this subject as though people within the McCain campaign had said such. He did not even acknowledge that McCain took the microphone from the lady and denied Obama was such.
Powell then moved on to the issue of people in Sarah Palin campaign rally crowd yelled “kill him” and “terrorist” in reference to Obama. This issue was first brought to the attention to the media and public via Obama campaign officials. Not one media outlet reported hearing such on the day it was suppose to have happened. In follow up investigation the Secret Service investagated the claims. They talked to their own agents attending the event that where scatter all over the crowd in their protection of Palin. The Secret Service also talked to police officers, civilian ushers, and others attending the event. NOT ONE OF THEM HEARD EITHER SET OF WORDS!
Of course this is the same guy that stood before the public, the UN, and Congress telling them that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction. Many in the public, the UN, and Congress believed him. This turned out to be a lie. On Sunday Powell tried to pass this off on to some other members of President Bush’s staff.
Powell is the same person who first investigated the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam by US Soldiers. He issued a report that stated, “In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent.” Further investagation proved Powell lied. In 2004 Powell, on the Larry King Show, pretty much stated this is just something that happens in war.
NOW FOR THE FINANCAIL WHORE
In 2005 Powell joined Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a venture capitol firm located near San Francisco, California. He joined and was given the newly-created position of "strategic limited partner." Which means to us poor saps is he brought no money to the fund but will be cut into the action, based on what he can do for them. Then in 2007 Al Gore joined the firm as a partner.
In April 2008 Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers announced they where trying to raise $400 million to invest in green technology to be used as venture capitol into start up companies. They pictured billion dollar payoffs from investments.
KPCB has publicized its plan to put as many as 50,000 electric cars on U.S. roads by late next year (2009) and would be produced just south of San Francisco. The venture will be called Think North America and be based in Menlo Park, California.
Obama has promised to provide tax cuts for people purchasing new electric cars. This would encourage people to purchase these cars. Also Obama has promised to cut to zero capitol gains tax made by companies in this kind of business for two years. Obama has offered other tax cuts for new start up companies like this one.
This company made billions of dollars by taking such companies like Netscape when sold to American On Line. It appears KPCB made just under one billion dollars. Another investment of KPCB was the $8 million invested and returned to them two billion on the sale of Cerent to Cisco Systems.
Powell is a two time self admitted liar and now can add financial whore to his resume. He just sold out the general public for his own financial wealth.
Obama - The Numbers Don't Lie On Your Rebate
Before starting let it be made clear I fully understand and support to assisting those of less means. They are fellow humans. Those of us of more means should extend a hand to them. What I am outraged with is the system is broken because of just throwing cash out and not really helping these people with real programs.
Let us meet the fictitious gentlemen of John Doe of Anytown, Indiana. John is a single parent with two young children. He works for Ajax Disk Company. He earns $20,000.
Mr. Doe can obtain what is called “Section 8” housing. This is a government SUBDIZED program to assist those of low income with housing. Depending on where Mr. Doe elects to live this assistance could be valued up to about $225 a month. This represents $2,700 in assistance SUBDIZED by taxpayers.
Mr. Doe can take part in Indiana’s health insurance program for a $54 a month. This would offer him full coverage of himself and his two children. The taxpayers pick up the remaining cost. The total cost to Mr. Doe is $648 a year. Those of just slightly more in incomes, purchasing the same policy via their employer, would pay about $1750 a year out of their paychecks. This is based on the employer paying 75% and the employee paying 25%. The taxpayers are SUBDIZING Mr. Doe insurance coverage by $1,102 a year.
Mr. Doe may also qualify for some amount of Food Stamps and Low Income/Free Lunch program for his children during the school year
Mr. Doe pays income tax, Social Security tax, and Medicare tax every paycheck during the year. He would see no more then $2,500 in federal taxes withheld, $1,240 withheld for social security, and $290 for Medicare taxes.
The end of the year comes and it is time to do Mr. Doe’s taxes. Using the Deluxe Turbo Tax 2007 software his tax returns where completed.
On line 24 Mr. Doe qualifies for the standard $7,850 deduction. This reduces his taxable income to $12,150 for line 25. Line 26 calls for a reduction of $3,400 per person claimed. This provides Mr. Doe with an additional deduction of $10,200. The results in Mr. Doe of having a taxable income of $1,950 on line 27.
Line 38 is the amount of federal taxes Mr. Doe paid, which was $2,500. He also qualifies for an additional child tax credit of $1,238 on line 41. Line 42 totals the tax credits and in the case of Mr. Doe, it comes to $3,738.
Bases on his adjusted income of $1,950 Mr. Doe will have no Federal Tax obligation. Hence, the IRS will send Mr. Doe a check for $3738. That is $1,238 SUBDIZED by other taxpayers.
Using Barack Obama’s tax rebate calculator Mr. Doe will also receive $1,379 check SUBDIZED BY other taxpayers.
The point is Mr. Doe is not “getting his own money back” as he already got that back and dipped into other taxpayers’ pocket when he received his $3,738 check. Now he is taking a second dip to the tune of $1,379.
Let us meet the fictitious gentlemen of John Doe of Anytown, Indiana. John is a single parent with two young children. He works for Ajax Disk Company. He earns $20,000.
Mr. Doe can obtain what is called “Section 8” housing. This is a government SUBDIZED program to assist those of low income with housing. Depending on where Mr. Doe elects to live this assistance could be valued up to about $225 a month. This represents $2,700 in assistance SUBDIZED by taxpayers.
Mr. Doe can take part in Indiana’s health insurance program for a $54 a month. This would offer him full coverage of himself and his two children. The taxpayers pick up the remaining cost. The total cost to Mr. Doe is $648 a year. Those of just slightly more in incomes, purchasing the same policy via their employer, would pay about $1750 a year out of their paychecks. This is based on the employer paying 75% and the employee paying 25%. The taxpayers are SUBDIZING Mr. Doe insurance coverage by $1,102 a year.
Mr. Doe may also qualify for some amount of Food Stamps and Low Income/Free Lunch program for his children during the school year
Mr. Doe pays income tax, Social Security tax, and Medicare tax every paycheck during the year. He would see no more then $2,500 in federal taxes withheld, $1,240 withheld for social security, and $290 for Medicare taxes.
The end of the year comes and it is time to do Mr. Doe’s taxes. Using the Deluxe Turbo Tax 2007 software his tax returns where completed.
On line 24 Mr. Doe qualifies for the standard $7,850 deduction. This reduces his taxable income to $12,150 for line 25. Line 26 calls for a reduction of $3,400 per person claimed. This provides Mr. Doe with an additional deduction of $10,200. The results in Mr. Doe of having a taxable income of $1,950 on line 27.
Line 38 is the amount of federal taxes Mr. Doe paid, which was $2,500. He also qualifies for an additional child tax credit of $1,238 on line 41. Line 42 totals the tax credits and in the case of Mr. Doe, it comes to $3,738.
Bases on his adjusted income of $1,950 Mr. Doe will have no Federal Tax obligation. Hence, the IRS will send Mr. Doe a check for $3738. That is $1,238 SUBDIZED by other taxpayers.
Using Barack Obama’s tax rebate calculator Mr. Doe will also receive $1,379 check SUBDIZED BY other taxpayers.
The point is Mr. Doe is not “getting his own money back” as he already got that back and dipped into other taxpayers’ pocket when he received his $3,738 check. Now he is taking a second dip to the tune of $1,379.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Obama Endorsement - Give Me A Break
Am I the only one in the United States that is not surprised by the Chicago Tribune’s and L. A. Times endorsement of Barack Obama? I was surprised it had not come earlier!
I figured such would happen back in July. Try the name of Sam Zell. Good old Sam is one more multibillionaire from Chicago. If you have forgotten Zell purchased the Tribune Company back at the end of 2007.
Zell’s purchase included in part the Chicago Tribune and the L.A. Times. Also included was the Chicago Cubs and Wrigley Field.
As the deal was finalizing newspapers all over America saw editorials written that the end of the newspaper business as a true newspaper was nearly over. The fear was Zell was only interested in turning a profit and not being a true servant of the people.
Zell’s worth was built on mostly commerical realsate and based out of Chicago.
On June 27, 2008 the following exchange took place between Zell and Carl Quintanilla on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” with regards to the Chicago Tribune.
CNBC’s Carl Quintanilla: HOW IS THE AD MARKET GOING TO HOLD UP THIS YEAR?Sam
Zell: WHAT AD MARKET?
Quintanilla: WELL PUT.
Zell: I MEAN, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO BUY ADS? I'M TRYING TO FIND ONE OF THEM.
Quintanilla: YOU'RE ON YOUR WAY, THOUGH, TO EQUALIZING NEWS COVERAGE AND ADVERTISING, RIGHT?
Zell: THAT'S CORRECT.
Quintanilla: YOU'VE LAID OFF SOME PEOPLE IN HARTFORD, BALTIMORE. YOU'RE GOING TO SELL NEWSDAY TO CABLEVISION. HOW MUCH PROGRESS DO YOU FEEL YOU'VE MADE IN GETTING TRIBUNE TO A POINT WHERE IT CAN FINANCE, IT CAN SURVIVE?
Zell: I THINK THE CASE OF "THE TRIBUNE" OR THE NEWSPAPERS IN GENERAL BASICALLY COMES DOWN TO PRODUCING A NEWSPAPER THAT THE CUSTOMER IS WILLING TO PAY FOR. AND THE CUSTOMER IS THE ADVERTISER AND THE CUSTOMER IS THE READER. THAT'S THE CHALLENGE. I THINK THAT BECAUSE NEWSPAPERS HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN MONOPOLIES, I THINK THEY'VE BEEN INSULATED FROM REALITY. I, YOU KNOW, AM IN THE POSITION WHERE I'M GOING TO HAVE TO, QUOTE/UNQUOTE DELIVER REALITY. I THINK WE CAN HAVE TERRIFIC NEWSPAPERS, BUT I THINK THE NEWSPAPERS HAVE TO RESPOND TO THEIR CUSTOMERS. IN MANY CASES A LOT OF THE THINGS WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW WERE ALL IDENTIFIED IN FOCUS GROUPS OVER THE LAST EIGHT YEARS. AND THE FOCUS GROUPS WERE MADE, WERE TAKEN, AND NOBODY PAID ANY ATTENTION TO THEM. OUR CUSTOMERS WERE TELLING US WHAT THEY WANTED AND WE'RE GOING TO GIVE IT TO THEM.
I think Mr. Zell pretty well sums up his views on what he intended to see the direction the paper was going to take. Considering a major percentage of the readers of the Chicago Tribune are Democrats, it would indicate that Zell intended the paper to take more of a liberal view. This would drive up readership and hence induce increased advertisement revenues.
This is the same newspaper the in 2006 and earlier raised serious issues about Obama’s association with Bill Ayres. When Tony Rezko was first charged with Federal crimes the Tribune was asking a number of questions and provided readers with some less then favorable details.
During the primary race the writers of the paper wrote a number of columns in which they asked questions to Obama’s campaign on a number of “sensitive” issues. They noted Obama’s campaign never answered questions phoned or emailed to them.
Reading the Chicago Tribune endorsement all of those issues seem like they never existed and not answering Tribune questions was not even considered. In this editorial endorsement they to simply dismissed the work and efforts of their own writers.
Considering Zell’s drive for advertising dollars, the changes in the editorial board make up since he has arrived, and Zell’s “heavy hands on” approach to the operation of paper it is little wonder this endorsement took place.
It is sad to see the end of 161 year history come to an end at the hands of a single private owner over that of being owned by the public stockholders.
I figured such would happen back in July. Try the name of Sam Zell. Good old Sam is one more multibillionaire from Chicago. If you have forgotten Zell purchased the Tribune Company back at the end of 2007.
Zell’s purchase included in part the Chicago Tribune and the L.A. Times. Also included was the Chicago Cubs and Wrigley Field.
As the deal was finalizing newspapers all over America saw editorials written that the end of the newspaper business as a true newspaper was nearly over. The fear was Zell was only interested in turning a profit and not being a true servant of the people.
Zell’s worth was built on mostly commerical realsate and based out of Chicago.
On June 27, 2008 the following exchange took place between Zell and Carl Quintanilla on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” with regards to the Chicago Tribune.
CNBC’s Carl Quintanilla: HOW IS THE AD MARKET GOING TO HOLD UP THIS YEAR?Sam
Zell: WHAT AD MARKET?
Quintanilla: WELL PUT.
Zell: I MEAN, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO BUY ADS? I'M TRYING TO FIND ONE OF THEM.
Quintanilla: YOU'RE ON YOUR WAY, THOUGH, TO EQUALIZING NEWS COVERAGE AND ADVERTISING, RIGHT?
Zell: THAT'S CORRECT.
Quintanilla: YOU'VE LAID OFF SOME PEOPLE IN HARTFORD, BALTIMORE. YOU'RE GOING TO SELL NEWSDAY TO CABLEVISION. HOW MUCH PROGRESS DO YOU FEEL YOU'VE MADE IN GETTING TRIBUNE TO A POINT WHERE IT CAN FINANCE, IT CAN SURVIVE?
Zell: I THINK THE CASE OF "THE TRIBUNE" OR THE NEWSPAPERS IN GENERAL BASICALLY COMES DOWN TO PRODUCING A NEWSPAPER THAT THE CUSTOMER IS WILLING TO PAY FOR. AND THE CUSTOMER IS THE ADVERTISER AND THE CUSTOMER IS THE READER. THAT'S THE CHALLENGE. I THINK THAT BECAUSE NEWSPAPERS HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN MONOPOLIES, I THINK THEY'VE BEEN INSULATED FROM REALITY. I, YOU KNOW, AM IN THE POSITION WHERE I'M GOING TO HAVE TO, QUOTE/UNQUOTE DELIVER REALITY. I THINK WE CAN HAVE TERRIFIC NEWSPAPERS, BUT I THINK THE NEWSPAPERS HAVE TO RESPOND TO THEIR CUSTOMERS. IN MANY CASES A LOT OF THE THINGS WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW WERE ALL IDENTIFIED IN FOCUS GROUPS OVER THE LAST EIGHT YEARS. AND THE FOCUS GROUPS WERE MADE, WERE TAKEN, AND NOBODY PAID ANY ATTENTION TO THEM. OUR CUSTOMERS WERE TELLING US WHAT THEY WANTED AND WE'RE GOING TO GIVE IT TO THEM.
I think Mr. Zell pretty well sums up his views on what he intended to see the direction the paper was going to take. Considering a major percentage of the readers of the Chicago Tribune are Democrats, it would indicate that Zell intended the paper to take more of a liberal view. This would drive up readership and hence induce increased advertisement revenues.
This is the same newspaper the in 2006 and earlier raised serious issues about Obama’s association with Bill Ayres. When Tony Rezko was first charged with Federal crimes the Tribune was asking a number of questions and provided readers with some less then favorable details.
During the primary race the writers of the paper wrote a number of columns in which they asked questions to Obama’s campaign on a number of “sensitive” issues. They noted Obama’s campaign never answered questions phoned or emailed to them.
Reading the Chicago Tribune endorsement all of those issues seem like they never existed and not answering Tribune questions was not even considered. In this editorial endorsement they to simply dismissed the work and efforts of their own writers.
Considering Zell’s drive for advertising dollars, the changes in the editorial board make up since he has arrived, and Zell’s “heavy hands on” approach to the operation of paper it is little wonder this endorsement took place.
It is sad to see the end of 161 year history come to an end at the hands of a single private owner over that of being owned by the public stockholders.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Obama Should Give Rev. Jackson Credit
Many voters have a short memory because it was Rev. Jessie Jackson used two phrases throughout his campaigns for President of the United States in 1984 & 1988. Rev. Jackson routinely used “out of touch” to describe all the other candidates he was running against in the primary race.
The the word “erratic” was saved for use when he was talking about a single opponent.
So for some of us it like a flash back some 20 years ago!
Of course some of the same people that worked with Rev. Jackson back then is involved with Barack Obama’s campaign this time!
The the word “erratic” was saved for use when he was talking about a single opponent.
So for some of us it like a flash back some 20 years ago!
Of course some of the same people that worked with Rev. Jackson back then is involved with Barack Obama’s campaign this time!
An Open Letter To Warren Buffet
Dear Mr. Buffet,
I admire you for putting some of your money into stock market and maybe it will work out. I know you believe strongly in the character of the man tells you more then the man speaks. I also know that if you know a person’s friends and who he associates with tells you about the man’s real character.
I understand you endorse Mr. Barack Obama for President. What I need is some help on understanding why you would do such, considering the following.
Mr. Obama has never shared with the voters anything about his grades and courses of study while in college. I know you would never hire someone with a short career in the financial field without knowing about their schooling. So I ask why would someone hide such from a potential employer?
Mr. Obama met this fellow by the name of Bill Ayres when he first returned to Chicago from Yale. When Mr. Obama was questioned about Mr. Ayres he said he did not know him. But once presented with evidence by the national med that he had served on boards with the man and only then did Mr. Obama remember him.
However, Mr. Obama has offered us voters no less then five stories on his relationship with Mr. Ayres. My question is how can us voters trust him when he has to keep changing his story as more facts are learned from outside sources? If you had an employee that kept changing their story on some business dealings just how long would you keep them employed?
Mr. Obama also met Rev. Wright and started attending his church when he arrived in Chicago from Yale. Rev. Wright has been long known in Chicago as “fire and hell” minister. This has often documented by the local news media, be it the print or electronic.
It seems Mr. Obama’s friend Oprah Winfrey had attended Rev. Wright’s church prior to Mr. Obama arrived in town. It has been reported by several print outlets that she left the church because of his radical preaching. She has never stated any reasons other then she decided to change churches.
Rev. Wight’s anti government, anti white, anti free enterprise, and other hatred has came from his lips for over 25 years. He makes no bones about what he thinks and shares it with his followers every Sunday.
My question here is why would Mr. Obama set in the church pews for 20 years and listen to radial sermons? Then only after Rev. Wright’s ravings are shown on national television does he elect to separate himself from the church? Mr. Buffet does that not rise to what Mr. Obama’s real values are and what he really believes?
I understand Mr. Buffet that you believe in Social Justice but is that not a two way street so everyone can meet in the middle? I mean, if one side is teaching hatred for one side it is pretty hard for the other side to extend their hand. We hardly can meet in the middle when one party is full of hatred!
Maybe you can help me out on understanding Mr. Obama’s relationship with Tony Rezko. Mr. Rezko said in federal court recently he first talked to Mr. Obama when he was still a student at Yale but that is not what Mr. Obama had said before.
A big concern Mr. Buffet is Mr. Obama had a professional, political, and family friendship with Mr. Rezko. Mr. Rezko owned a company Mr. Obama knew about that rehabbed and managed low income apartments in Chicago. Mr. Obama claims to have had little professional contact, as a lawyer, with him.
When Mr. Obama ran for Illinois Senate he developed a political relationship with Mr. Rezko, in the way of political contributions and the hosting fund raising events. There is nothing wrong with this outside to establish they knew each other in more then casual nature Mr. Obama had previously offered.
Once Mr. Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate he assisted in getting a bill passed that allowed Mr. Rezko to make millions of dollars on one of many low income projects he was taking part in.
Mr. Rezko was sued a number of times Chicago by the Chicago Housing Authority for not keeping the low income apartments in decent repair. There were actually protests by residents that drew the attention of the media over these issues. The stories showed up in the newspapers and on television. Yet, Mr. Obama to this day claims he never heard of these problems.
Mr. Rezko most infamous problem when the heat to one of the large low income housing buildings was turned off for four weeks because the gas bill had not been paid. The Chicago Housing Authority had to sue Mr. Rezko to force him to pay the bill and get the natural gas turned back on. This was covered by both local print and electronic media. Again Mr. Obama said he did not know anything about such.
Now you have to understand Mr. Buffet some of these buildings wherein a short driving distance to Mr. Obama’s home. He would have often traveled close enough to them to see the broken windows, broken play equipment, and trash strewn about. Again Mr. Obama has maintained he did not know anything about such.
Mr. Obama purchased a house and as part of the overall deal Mr. Rezko purchased the vacant lot next to Mr. Obama’s home. At a later date Mr. Obama purchased part of the vacant lot from Mr. Rezko. Mr. Obama said, only after being pressured by the media, that he did a dumb thing by getting involved in the home purchase with Mr. Rezko.
I ask you Mr. Buffet if you interviewed a possible employee and he gave you these stories would you hire him? Would you want to share this kind of information to other investors and claim he is your number one employee?
Mr. Buffet, I am sure you are on first name basis with Penny Pritzker. You know, the Finance Chair of Mr. Obama’s campaign. While her worth is not like yours, but she is non the less a billionaire, a couple times around.
Ms. Pritzker formally owned a bank called Superior Bank of Chicago. The bank that was taken over by the FDIC in 2001. The FDIC indicated that one of the biggest cause of the bank failure was bad mortgage loans made by the bank and its agents. In order to stay out of court she paid the FDIC $100 million at one time and agreed to pay $335 million more over 15 years.
Mr. Buffet, I wonder how you feel about the poor people who savings where not covered by the FDIC insurance. She never stepped up to the plate to cover their losses. Some how I do not seeing this as a practice of social justice.
Mr. Obama has known Ms. Pritzker for years, yet he has never objected to her causing those with less, harm. Mr. Obama has never shown concern for this and that by itself would indicate he endorses such behavior.
Mr. Buffet does it not seem a question of one’s character in that they shout about some oil company making a moral/legal profit over a friend who violated the financial laws and also turned on those who had less then her?
I know from your history that you have gone into board rooms and ripped CEOs for their behavior. You mix no bones about being a moral person and also follow the intent of the law. You have ripped them for not looking out for stockholders, employees and even the general public. I think that is a great way to conduct yourself both in the business sector.
Now Mr. Buffet I ask you this simple question of would you hire a new employee with a history even near that of Mr. Obama’s? I would appreciate hearing from you because at my level there is no way I could even think about giving Mr. Obama a second interview, let alone hiring him as President of the United States.
I admire you for putting some of your money into stock market and maybe it will work out. I know you believe strongly in the character of the man tells you more then the man speaks. I also know that if you know a person’s friends and who he associates with tells you about the man’s real character.
I understand you endorse Mr. Barack Obama for President. What I need is some help on understanding why you would do such, considering the following.
Mr. Obama has never shared with the voters anything about his grades and courses of study while in college. I know you would never hire someone with a short career in the financial field without knowing about their schooling. So I ask why would someone hide such from a potential employer?
Mr. Obama met this fellow by the name of Bill Ayres when he first returned to Chicago from Yale. When Mr. Obama was questioned about Mr. Ayres he said he did not know him. But once presented with evidence by the national med that he had served on boards with the man and only then did Mr. Obama remember him.
However, Mr. Obama has offered us voters no less then five stories on his relationship with Mr. Ayres. My question is how can us voters trust him when he has to keep changing his story as more facts are learned from outside sources? If you had an employee that kept changing their story on some business dealings just how long would you keep them employed?
Mr. Obama also met Rev. Wright and started attending his church when he arrived in Chicago from Yale. Rev. Wright has been long known in Chicago as “fire and hell” minister. This has often documented by the local news media, be it the print or electronic.
It seems Mr. Obama’s friend Oprah Winfrey had attended Rev. Wright’s church prior to Mr. Obama arrived in town. It has been reported by several print outlets that she left the church because of his radical preaching. She has never stated any reasons other then she decided to change churches.
Rev. Wight’s anti government, anti white, anti free enterprise, and other hatred has came from his lips for over 25 years. He makes no bones about what he thinks and shares it with his followers every Sunday.
My question here is why would Mr. Obama set in the church pews for 20 years and listen to radial sermons? Then only after Rev. Wright’s ravings are shown on national television does he elect to separate himself from the church? Mr. Buffet does that not rise to what Mr. Obama’s real values are and what he really believes?
I understand Mr. Buffet that you believe in Social Justice but is that not a two way street so everyone can meet in the middle? I mean, if one side is teaching hatred for one side it is pretty hard for the other side to extend their hand. We hardly can meet in the middle when one party is full of hatred!
Maybe you can help me out on understanding Mr. Obama’s relationship with Tony Rezko. Mr. Rezko said in federal court recently he first talked to Mr. Obama when he was still a student at Yale but that is not what Mr. Obama had said before.
A big concern Mr. Buffet is Mr. Obama had a professional, political, and family friendship with Mr. Rezko. Mr. Rezko owned a company Mr. Obama knew about that rehabbed and managed low income apartments in Chicago. Mr. Obama claims to have had little professional contact, as a lawyer, with him.
When Mr. Obama ran for Illinois Senate he developed a political relationship with Mr. Rezko, in the way of political contributions and the hosting fund raising events. There is nothing wrong with this outside to establish they knew each other in more then casual nature Mr. Obama had previously offered.
Once Mr. Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate he assisted in getting a bill passed that allowed Mr. Rezko to make millions of dollars on one of many low income projects he was taking part in.
Mr. Rezko was sued a number of times Chicago by the Chicago Housing Authority for not keeping the low income apartments in decent repair. There were actually protests by residents that drew the attention of the media over these issues. The stories showed up in the newspapers and on television. Yet, Mr. Obama to this day claims he never heard of these problems.
Mr. Rezko most infamous problem when the heat to one of the large low income housing buildings was turned off for four weeks because the gas bill had not been paid. The Chicago Housing Authority had to sue Mr. Rezko to force him to pay the bill and get the natural gas turned back on. This was covered by both local print and electronic media. Again Mr. Obama said he did not know anything about such.
Now you have to understand Mr. Buffet some of these buildings wherein a short driving distance to Mr. Obama’s home. He would have often traveled close enough to them to see the broken windows, broken play equipment, and trash strewn about. Again Mr. Obama has maintained he did not know anything about such.
Mr. Obama purchased a house and as part of the overall deal Mr. Rezko purchased the vacant lot next to Mr. Obama’s home. At a later date Mr. Obama purchased part of the vacant lot from Mr. Rezko. Mr. Obama said, only after being pressured by the media, that he did a dumb thing by getting involved in the home purchase with Mr. Rezko.
I ask you Mr. Buffet if you interviewed a possible employee and he gave you these stories would you hire him? Would you want to share this kind of information to other investors and claim he is your number one employee?
Mr. Buffet, I am sure you are on first name basis with Penny Pritzker. You know, the Finance Chair of Mr. Obama’s campaign. While her worth is not like yours, but she is non the less a billionaire, a couple times around.
Ms. Pritzker formally owned a bank called Superior Bank of Chicago. The bank that was taken over by the FDIC in 2001. The FDIC indicated that one of the biggest cause of the bank failure was bad mortgage loans made by the bank and its agents. In order to stay out of court she paid the FDIC $100 million at one time and agreed to pay $335 million more over 15 years.
Mr. Buffet, I wonder how you feel about the poor people who savings where not covered by the FDIC insurance. She never stepped up to the plate to cover their losses. Some how I do not seeing this as a practice of social justice.
Mr. Obama has known Ms. Pritzker for years, yet he has never objected to her causing those with less, harm. Mr. Obama has never shown concern for this and that by itself would indicate he endorses such behavior.
Mr. Buffet does it not seem a question of one’s character in that they shout about some oil company making a moral/legal profit over a friend who violated the financial laws and also turned on those who had less then her?
I know from your history that you have gone into board rooms and ripped CEOs for their behavior. You mix no bones about being a moral person and also follow the intent of the law. You have ripped them for not looking out for stockholders, employees and even the general public. I think that is a great way to conduct yourself both in the business sector.
Now Mr. Buffet I ask you this simple question of would you hire a new employee with a history even near that of Mr. Obama’s? I would appreciate hearing from you because at my level there is no way I could even think about giving Mr. Obama a second interview, let alone hiring him as President of the United States.
Obama - Your Rebate - Your Taxes - Double Talk
1- Obama’s MIDDLE CLASS tax rebate is just that. It is not a true tax cut as the tax charts are not being changed.
2- Obama’s MIDDLE CLASS tax rebate has not been promoted to be more then maybe a one shot deal. After 2008 tax filings it will be gone. That is why it is called a TAX REBATE and not a TAX CUT! Listen to his ads and him speak.
3- Regardless of what independent tax information you use you will find that nearly 33% of all people filing tax returns end up paying no federal tax when their federal tax return is completed April 15th .
4- About 25% of all filing tax returns end up getting more back from the government then they paid in income taxes all year.
5- While Barack Obama says he is going to tax the rich more, which is true it, does not tell the entire story. It makes good campaign talk.
6- On your tax return you see that you have paid $1700 over the course of the year. With your credits you will get $300 back. So you will end up paying $1400 for the year. Then you will get a $500 TAX REBATE at some later date. This brings down your net federal tax to the federal government to $800.
7- Your $800 goes into the big federal checking account, along with the 66% of the other people who end up paying any federal taxes each year. This becomes one big pile of money to operate the entire federal government.
8- Now the federal government starts writing the checks for the rebates. Well you only get your $500. Part of your $800 you paid over the year goes to the 33% that ended up paying ZERO income taxes for the entire year.
9- In fact you are going to really help out the person with two children that makes $20,000 a year. They will pay no federal tax for the year. What was taken out of their paychecks during the year will be returned with their filing of a tax return. If this person is divorced, their former spouse pays any amount of support, the ex spouse pays the rent, and the ex spouse covers the children with health care. This person will be getting $1,379 tax rebate.
You can go to http://taxcut.barackobama.com/?source=sem-pm-fts-tc-search-us&gclid=CJWNwq2nr5YCFQ0xawodziDALg and verify it for yourself. Enter $20,000, with 2 dependents, and you pay some form of child care.
You bust your butt all year and end up paying a net $800 to the federal government. The person who is used as an example above will be $1,379 on the plus size. Therefore they are $2,179 dollars a head of you on April 16th. So run to your nearest voting booth and cast a vote for Obama. You will have just voted for socialism!
2- Obama’s MIDDLE CLASS tax rebate has not been promoted to be more then maybe a one shot deal. After 2008 tax filings it will be gone. That is why it is called a TAX REBATE and not a TAX CUT! Listen to his ads and him speak.
3- Regardless of what independent tax information you use you will find that nearly 33% of all people filing tax returns end up paying no federal tax when their federal tax return is completed April 15th .
4- About 25% of all filing tax returns end up getting more back from the government then they paid in income taxes all year.
5- While Barack Obama says he is going to tax the rich more, which is true it, does not tell the entire story. It makes good campaign talk.
6- On your tax return you see that you have paid $1700 over the course of the year. With your credits you will get $300 back. So you will end up paying $1400 for the year. Then you will get a $500 TAX REBATE at some later date. This brings down your net federal tax to the federal government to $800.
7- Your $800 goes into the big federal checking account, along with the 66% of the other people who end up paying any federal taxes each year. This becomes one big pile of money to operate the entire federal government.
8- Now the federal government starts writing the checks for the rebates. Well you only get your $500. Part of your $800 you paid over the year goes to the 33% that ended up paying ZERO income taxes for the entire year.
9- In fact you are going to really help out the person with two children that makes $20,000 a year. They will pay no federal tax for the year. What was taken out of their paychecks during the year will be returned with their filing of a tax return. If this person is divorced, their former spouse pays any amount of support, the ex spouse pays the rent, and the ex spouse covers the children with health care. This person will be getting $1,379 tax rebate.
You can go to http://taxcut.barackobama.com/?source=sem-pm-fts-tc-search-us&gclid=CJWNwq2nr5YCFQ0xawodziDALg and verify it for yourself. Enter $20,000, with 2 dependents, and you pay some form of child care.
You bust your butt all year and end up paying a net $800 to the federal government. The person who is used as an example above will be $1,379 on the plus size. Therefore they are $2,179 dollars a head of you on April 16th. So run to your nearest voting booth and cast a vote for Obama. You will have just voted for socialism!
Obama's Health Plan Not Endorsed By Chamber
If you listen to Barack Obama, one would believe the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports his health care plan. Obama has made this point many times during debates, stump speeches, and television ads. So it must be true! Well, no!
First, no local level, state wide, or the national Chamber of Commerce unit has given either health plan an endorsement. That is simple fact!
The President of the US Chamber of Commerce posted the following on their web site today.
“ Endorsing a Health Care Plan
by Tom Collamore
It is great to see the issue of health care reform getting the coverage it deserves during this election season. I would just like to clear up one misperception we have noticed in the last few weeks. The U.S. Chamber does not endorse presidential candidates, nor have we specifically supported either candidate’s health care platform. As Tom Donohue, president and CEO of the Chamber, often states:
We stand ready to work with whoever is elected president, and we hope that any new president will want to work closely with us."
Neither presidential proposal on health care reform is perfect, very little in this world is. But the Chamber is committed to ensuring that we have a world-class health care system, and equally committed to working with the next Administration to ensure that the health reform debate builds on a foundation that works – the employer sponsored system.
If you are looking for a health care platform we do endorse, get a quick summary here, or read a more detailed version.”
You can go to the C of C site on by clicking below. This will allow you to follow links to additional information. http://www.chamberpost.com/2008/10/endorsing-a-hea.html
Both Obama and McCain seek the same end point with regards to health care. They differ on how to pay for it. The C of C does not endorse neither candidate, nor their health plan. They believe neither addresses the true problem of rising costs.
Obama keeps on beating the drum that by spending $60 billion of taxpayer money to put all hospitals on computerized record systems will save 25% of health insurance costs. The only hospitals not currently on computerized records systems are ones that have neglected to on their own accord.
The vast majority of hospitals have already switched over to computerized record systems within their own cost savings programs. They did not need outside government financial support to do so. Right here in Fort Wayne, Indiana you will find everyone one of our hospitals has already switched to computerized record systems.
Fort Wayne residents will not see hospital care costs go down by 25% (this savings has been debated to be much closer to 10% savings then 25%). Hence, Fort Wayne’s health care costs will remain nearly the same. Therefore health care insurance premiums will stay near where they are at.
Obama’s proposed savings will not be realized until four years out. The reason is his plans call for four years to convert all hospitals to using computerized medical records program. So using Obama’s concept, on an average across the nation there should be a 6% reduction in health costs per year.
Obama and McCain do not address trying to control actual health care run-a-way costs of 8-12% a year. Obama’s so called savings would be gone in two to three years at best but cost 60 billion dollars to get there. McCain’s $5,000 tax credit would be gone in three to four years.
Obama can only hang his endorsement of any Chamber of Commerce group is to the Miami Chamber of Commerce that took a survey of members on who they would vote for in November. On October first the Miami Chamber released a press statement saying 46% of members polled said they would be voting for Obama. 25% had indicted they would be voting for McCain. The remaining 28% had not decided. The Miami Chamber did not release how many of their members had actually been polled.
What is interesting when you go to the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce you can not find a press release of such. In fact, the only web site reporting on this is web site called “The Insider!”
Here is the link:
http://dailybusinessreview.typepad.com/insidetrack/2008/10/bucking-the-tre.html
So Obama has no endorsement from any Chamber for his health care plan.
First, no local level, state wide, or the national Chamber of Commerce unit has given either health plan an endorsement. That is simple fact!
The President of the US Chamber of Commerce posted the following on their web site today.
“ Endorsing a Health Care Plan
by Tom Collamore
It is great to see the issue of health care reform getting the coverage it deserves during this election season. I would just like to clear up one misperception we have noticed in the last few weeks. The U.S. Chamber does not endorse presidential candidates, nor have we specifically supported either candidate’s health care platform. As Tom Donohue, president and CEO of the Chamber, often states:
We stand ready to work with whoever is elected president, and we hope that any new president will want to work closely with us."
Neither presidential proposal on health care reform is perfect, very little in this world is. But the Chamber is committed to ensuring that we have a world-class health care system, and equally committed to working with the next Administration to ensure that the health reform debate builds on a foundation that works – the employer sponsored system.
If you are looking for a health care platform we do endorse, get a quick summary here, or read a more detailed version.”
You can go to the C of C site on by clicking below. This will allow you to follow links to additional information. http://www.chamberpost.com/2008/10/endorsing-a-hea.html
Both Obama and McCain seek the same end point with regards to health care. They differ on how to pay for it. The C of C does not endorse neither candidate, nor their health plan. They believe neither addresses the true problem of rising costs.
Obama keeps on beating the drum that by spending $60 billion of taxpayer money to put all hospitals on computerized record systems will save 25% of health insurance costs. The only hospitals not currently on computerized records systems are ones that have neglected to on their own accord.
The vast majority of hospitals have already switched over to computerized record systems within their own cost savings programs. They did not need outside government financial support to do so. Right here in Fort Wayne, Indiana you will find everyone one of our hospitals has already switched to computerized record systems.
Fort Wayne residents will not see hospital care costs go down by 25% (this savings has been debated to be much closer to 10% savings then 25%). Hence, Fort Wayne’s health care costs will remain nearly the same. Therefore health care insurance premiums will stay near where they are at.
Obama’s proposed savings will not be realized until four years out. The reason is his plans call for four years to convert all hospitals to using computerized medical records program. So using Obama’s concept, on an average across the nation there should be a 6% reduction in health costs per year.
Obama and McCain do not address trying to control actual health care run-a-way costs of 8-12% a year. Obama’s so called savings would be gone in two to three years at best but cost 60 billion dollars to get there. McCain’s $5,000 tax credit would be gone in three to four years.
Obama can only hang his endorsement of any Chamber of Commerce group is to the Miami Chamber of Commerce that took a survey of members on who they would vote for in November. On October first the Miami Chamber released a press statement saying 46% of members polled said they would be voting for Obama. 25% had indicted they would be voting for McCain. The remaining 28% had not decided. The Miami Chamber did not release how many of their members had actually been polled.
What is interesting when you go to the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce you can not find a press release of such. In fact, the only web site reporting on this is web site called “The Insider!”
Here is the link:
http://dailybusinessreview.typepad.com/insidetrack/2008/10/bucking-the-tre.html
So Obama has no endorsement from any Chamber for his health care plan.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Obama's Class Warfare Battle Opens On New Front
Barack Obama has already started a class war by his socialist action of taking directly from the so-called “rich” to hand it to all others. If person did this on their own they would be defending themselves in court on thief charges.
Now Obama is introducing a new social warfare battle. This time he has attempted to carry it out in silence in hopes the people do not figure it out.
Over on the Obama site they have this new “Obama-Biden Tax Calculator” to provide users a chance to see what they will be getting from his socialist transfer of money.
On the evening of October 14th I tested Mr. Obama’s system out. Being formally from engineering background I tried several various incomes and being single over married, filing a joint return.
Let us start out with a person making $30,000 a year. If you are single, you get $500 just like his commercial says. If you are married, filing a joint return you get $1,000. This follows right along with his plan.
Now if you making $30,000 and are buying a house the game changes. A single taxpayer will get a check for $957 and the married couple will be given $1,457. That is based mortgage balance of $76,000.
So it appears if you DO NOT rent/lease an apartment or house then you don’t deserve the same refund. It appears those who rent or lease are doing much well off then those who are buying their home.
It gets crazier –
Let us jump up to the people making $50,000 to $75,000. If you are single non-homeowner you get $500. The married couple non-homeowner will be given a $1,000 check. But if you are single and have a $125,000 mortgage you get $1300. A married couple with the same $125,000 mortgage you get a check for $1,800.
It appears as you make more in this bracket and are deeper in debt, of your own choosing, you get $800 more.
If you use a mortgage balance of $125,000 and apply it to the above single/married to the above the single person gets $1,282 and the married couples get $1782. So there is a reward of $18 to be $25,000 deeper in mortgage debt.
And Even More Craziness –
Let us jump up to the $150,000 - $200,000 gross income bracket. If you are single, living in a rented home you will get back a grand total of $34. Being married, living in a rental or leased housing you will get back $504.
Now if you are single, buying a home with a mortgage balance of $200,000 you will get a check for $834. A married couple would get $1300.
Again Obama is showing the more debt you owe the GOVERNMENT owes you more money.
Obama has started new class warfare by pitting those who are buying homes against those who rent or lease. He is also rewarding people with the higher debt with money over those who owe less.
This is a reminder to everyone. Obama’s plan is not a tax cut that applies equal to all. Obama is not offering to redo the tax charts but only providing a “one time giveaway!”
Remember in 2010 Obama, and apparently a Democratic Party Congress, can quickly change this program and move people who this year are getting a check into those paying more taxes. If Obama wanted this to be a long term program he would have offered to have the tax tables changed like he proposes for the "rich!"
If you wish to check out Obama’s site here is the link:
http://taxcut.barackobama.com
Now Obama is introducing a new social warfare battle. This time he has attempted to carry it out in silence in hopes the people do not figure it out.
Over on the Obama site they have this new “Obama-Biden Tax Calculator” to provide users a chance to see what they will be getting from his socialist transfer of money.
On the evening of October 14th I tested Mr. Obama’s system out. Being formally from engineering background I tried several various incomes and being single over married, filing a joint return.
Let us start out with a person making $30,000 a year. If you are single, you get $500 just like his commercial says. If you are married, filing a joint return you get $1,000. This follows right along with his plan.
Now if you making $30,000 and are buying a house the game changes. A single taxpayer will get a check for $957 and the married couple will be given $1,457. That is based mortgage balance of $76,000.
So it appears if you DO NOT rent/lease an apartment or house then you don’t deserve the same refund. It appears those who rent or lease are doing much well off then those who are buying their home.
It gets crazier –
Let us jump up to the people making $50,000 to $75,000. If you are single non-homeowner you get $500. The married couple non-homeowner will be given a $1,000 check. But if you are single and have a $125,000 mortgage you get $1300. A married couple with the same $125,000 mortgage you get a check for $1,800.
It appears as you make more in this bracket and are deeper in debt, of your own choosing, you get $800 more.
If you use a mortgage balance of $125,000 and apply it to the above single/married to the above the single person gets $1,282 and the married couples get $1782. So there is a reward of $18 to be $25,000 deeper in mortgage debt.
And Even More Craziness –
Let us jump up to the $150,000 - $200,000 gross income bracket. If you are single, living in a rented home you will get back a grand total of $34. Being married, living in a rental or leased housing you will get back $504.
Now if you are single, buying a home with a mortgage balance of $200,000 you will get a check for $834. A married couple would get $1300.
Again Obama is showing the more debt you owe the GOVERNMENT owes you more money.
Obama has started new class warfare by pitting those who are buying homes against those who rent or lease. He is also rewarding people with the higher debt with money over those who owe less.
This is a reminder to everyone. Obama’s plan is not a tax cut that applies equal to all. Obama is not offering to redo the tax charts but only providing a “one time giveaway!”
Remember in 2010 Obama, and apparently a Democratic Party Congress, can quickly change this program and move people who this year are getting a check into those paying more taxes. If Obama wanted this to be a long term program he would have offered to have the tax tables changed like he proposes for the "rich!"
If you wish to check out Obama’s site here is the link:
http://taxcut.barackobama.com
So You Think Obama's Tax Plan Is Fair?
1- Regardless of the words you elect to use taking from one person to directly to give the proceeds to the other is socialism. If you did such on your own you would go to jail for thief.
2- More then 60% of small business owners, whose business GROSSES in excess of $250,000 a year, live a middle income life style. That after paying all the bills of the business they end up with the income of their middle class neighbors.
3- Look around your neighborhood or even city. Who are the businesses who purchase the advertising signs on the little league diamonds, contribute to the food banks, sponsor the bowling teams, purchase for the schools needed equipment, and donate money to local charities? We all know that when things get tough these businesses have to cut back on giving. With nearly a 10% federal tax increase facing them they will have to decide if they can afford to help their own local community. Keep in mind, most businesses are in trouble from the down turn in the economy and yet Obama wants to hit them with a massive tax increase. What would you do if you where in their shoes?
2- More then 60% of small business owners, whose business GROSSES in excess of $250,000 a year, live a middle income life style. That after paying all the bills of the business they end up with the income of their middle class neighbors.
3- Look around your neighborhood or even city. Who are the businesses who purchase the advertising signs on the little league diamonds, contribute to the food banks, sponsor the bowling teams, purchase for the schools needed equipment, and donate money to local charities? We all know that when things get tough these businesses have to cut back on giving. With nearly a 10% federal tax increase facing them they will have to decide if they can afford to help their own local community. Keep in mind, most businesses are in trouble from the down turn in the economy and yet Obama wants to hit them with a massive tax increase. What would you do if you where in their shoes?
Where Is Jimmy Carter????
Former President Jimmy Carter has traveled to many parts of the world to ensue that elections in these countries have fair and open election. He has spoken out strongly with regards to voter fraud. Yet, where is he with regards to ACORN and registration fraud that is the required in order to carry out voter fraud?
While I have not agreed with many things Carter did while in the White House I have always admired him for his efforts to make sure democratic elections where held in other countries. Sadly, with him standing on the sidelines brings into question was he ever really interested in fair election?
While I have not agreed with many things Carter did while in the White House I have always admired him for his efforts to make sure democratic elections where held in other countries. Sadly, with him standing on the sidelines brings into question was he ever really interested in fair election?
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Democrat Gun Owners Vote Obama For Gun Control
Monday, October 13, 2008 the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence endorsed Barack Obama for president. One should not be surprised of the support.
People like Bill Ayres and Barack Obama have long supported of taking guns away from the people. It is sort of ironic a person like terrorist Bill Ayres would support such considering he and his cohorts used deadly explosives to kill people back in the 1960’s. Then again he knows people without guns can not defend themselves and that criminals have guns.
Bill Ayres is not a ghost living in some small office at the Univeristy of Chicago. He is still involved in Obama’s ideals and nurturing, but now he uses the cell phone.
What should amaze people is Obama several times opposed changes in the Illinois law to enhance the sentence for people who committed crimes with the aid of gun! For some reason using guns in crimes is OK, but owning one should be a crime!
One more reason to support Obama - Biden
People like Bill Ayres and Barack Obama have long supported of taking guns away from the people. It is sort of ironic a person like terrorist Bill Ayres would support such considering he and his cohorts used deadly explosives to kill people back in the 1960’s. Then again he knows people without guns can not defend themselves and that criminals have guns.
Bill Ayres is not a ghost living in some small office at the Univeristy of Chicago. He is still involved in Obama’s ideals and nurturing, but now he uses the cell phone.
What should amaze people is Obama several times opposed changes in the Illinois law to enhance the sentence for people who committed crimes with the aid of gun! For some reason using guns in crimes is OK, but owning one should be a crime!
One more reason to support Obama - Biden
Monday, October 13, 2008
United States & China Understand It - Obama Doesn't
Currently capitol gains tax in the US is set at 15%. In China it is 20%. Obama proposes to set the US rate at 28%. Like it or now everyone of us live in a world economy! If you where an investor from Great Britain, France, Germany, or the United States just where would you invest your money into a new company? On a 100 thousand dollar business gain would you rather take home $85,000, $80,000, or $72,000 after capitol gains tax?
Obama's way is the exact way NOT TO ATTRACT FOREIGN investments into the United States.
Obama's way is the exact way NOT TO ATTRACT FOREIGN investments into the United States.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Michelle Obama Odd Statement Makes Sense Now
I remember when Michelle Obama made her comment about finally being able to be proud of her country. At that time I knew very very little about Barack Obama, let alone his wife. On the Democrat side I was listening more to what Hillary Clinton was saying as I figured she would be her party’s pick.
My own independent researching of who Barack Obama did not start until after he was picked at the DNC. None the less, her comment just seemed odd at the time. Today, I can not say that it was not odd at all!
February 17, 2008
Speaking in Milwaukee, Wis., on Monday, Michelle Obama said, “People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and … for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”
Think about their friend, hardliner socialist and self admitted terrorist Bill Ayres. The very guy who did and still supports, the destruction our government as it is. To destroy our corporate business world and see that Israel is destroyed.
BTW Bill Ayres was not the one who seleced Obama to join various groups. It was the king power broker of Chicago and that was Bill's father, Thomas Ayres.
BTW in Chicago they do not get to hung up on the word "foundation." People up there laugh about the word. Many of these groups use "foundations" to collect federal, state, and local tax dollars to facilitate their political driven ideas of social change. They move money from foundation to foundation then to some group. It is difficult often to find out who some these groups are and who are members. Along the way many of them make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for themself as they are employed by these foundations.
BTW Barack Obama first connected up with Newton Minow, Harold Washington, Rev. Jessie Jackson Jr., Thomas Ayres, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayres, and the rest of the left wingers when Harold Washington ran for Mayor of Chicago. That is where it all started.
BTW Obama got into Harvard not on a letter from Bill Ayres. No, his father the power king of Chicago and Newton Minow wrote the letters that pulled the strings.
BTW the story of people in Boston raising money to get Obama into Havard are bogus. Obama attended there on minority scholorship, Tom Ayres' money, and Newton Minow's money. That is why you never say anything in Obama's own books about working or doing anything at Harvard. He was there to get an education and to return to Chicago.
Obama is not his own man. He shares the same politicial views with several based far leftwingers from Chicago who have the power and money.
In closing remember Obama's comment about meeting any leader at any time..... Do you remember what person in the United States did that very thing? Here comes a surprise ......
Rev. Jessie Jackson.
He used his public standing and did that very thing. Just think how many times he screwed up our relations with various governments by doing so.
My own independent researching of who Barack Obama did not start until after he was picked at the DNC. None the less, her comment just seemed odd at the time. Today, I can not say that it was not odd at all!
February 17, 2008
Speaking in Milwaukee, Wis., on Monday, Michelle Obama said, “People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and … for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”
Think about their friend, hardliner socialist and self admitted terrorist Bill Ayres. The very guy who did and still supports, the destruction our government as it is. To destroy our corporate business world and see that Israel is destroyed.
BTW Bill Ayres was not the one who seleced Obama to join various groups. It was the king power broker of Chicago and that was Bill's father, Thomas Ayres.
BTW in Chicago they do not get to hung up on the word "foundation." People up there laugh about the word. Many of these groups use "foundations" to collect federal, state, and local tax dollars to facilitate their political driven ideas of social change. They move money from foundation to foundation then to some group. It is difficult often to find out who some these groups are and who are members. Along the way many of them make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for themself as they are employed by these foundations.
BTW Barack Obama first connected up with Newton Minow, Harold Washington, Rev. Jessie Jackson Jr., Thomas Ayres, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayres, and the rest of the left wingers when Harold Washington ran for Mayor of Chicago. That is where it all started.
BTW Obama got into Harvard not on a letter from Bill Ayres. No, his father the power king of Chicago and Newton Minow wrote the letters that pulled the strings.
BTW the story of people in Boston raising money to get Obama into Havard are bogus. Obama attended there on minority scholorship, Tom Ayres' money, and Newton Minow's money. That is why you never say anything in Obama's own books about working or doing anything at Harvard. He was there to get an education and to return to Chicago.
Obama is not his own man. He shares the same politicial views with several based far leftwingers from Chicago who have the power and money.
In closing remember Obama's comment about meeting any leader at any time..... Do you remember what person in the United States did that very thing? Here comes a surprise ......
Rev. Jessie Jackson.
He used his public standing and did that very thing. Just think how many times he screwed up our relations with various governments by doing so.
Obama Hates Them But Now Wants Them
Someone explain how this works….. Barack Obama wants to kick the crap out of big business in increased taxes and restrictions. That big business and the rich owe it to the small people to pay “their share!” Now he is wants those same people to step up to the plate to save the economy. To return to a stock market he hates. To invest in the big banks he hates. To invest in the big companies, that he hates, to keep people working!
At least now Obama will not need to worry about changing the “capitol gains” tax. No one is going to have any “capitol gains” for a long time. He can get his fellow Democrats to double “capitol gains” or triple it because there is nothing there to get.
One does not need to be a genius to figure out if Obama taxes business enough they will just leave. No business needs the United States any more. Even GM could close down their North American Operation and continue to be in business! IBM could close most of their North American operations and move what is left to India. Toyota could close their North American manufacturing operations and go back to Japan.
We all will be working on government “make work” projects and after a few years there will be no money to even pay for them! The Unites States is no longer the dog that wag's the tail of the world. We are just one part of the dog now!
China and Russia have figured it out a few years ago and have switched to free enterprise systems. Obama wants to go the other way by taxation. No, our form of government/business is not perfect. But does it not seem odd that every other country in the world trys to model their business sector after ours.
Think long and hard before you vote. You will be voting on your future, your children, and maybe your parents.
At least now Obama will not need to worry about changing the “capitol gains” tax. No one is going to have any “capitol gains” for a long time. He can get his fellow Democrats to double “capitol gains” or triple it because there is nothing there to get.
One does not need to be a genius to figure out if Obama taxes business enough they will just leave. No business needs the United States any more. Even GM could close down their North American Operation and continue to be in business! IBM could close most of their North American operations and move what is left to India. Toyota could close their North American manufacturing operations and go back to Japan.
We all will be working on government “make work” projects and after a few years there will be no money to even pay for them! The Unites States is no longer the dog that wag's the tail of the world. We are just one part of the dog now!
China and Russia have figured it out a few years ago and have switched to free enterprise systems. Obama wants to go the other way by taxation. No, our form of government/business is not perfect. But does it not seem odd that every other country in the world trys to model their business sector after ours.
Think long and hard before you vote. You will be voting on your future, your children, and maybe your parents.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Obama On Seperation Of Church And State
Barack Obama has stated he fully supported faith based programs that used taxpayers’ dollars to execute local programs. While on the surface this seems like a good idea but one needs to view the world from a wider view then their own church.
Back in 1990, after Obama had graduated from Harvard Law School, he was teaching part time at University of Chicago and working in at a Chicago law firm he wrote a paper for University of Illinois at Springfield under a highly controversial project called After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois. He wrote his paper under the title of, “Why Organize? Problems and Promise in the Inner City.”
He wrote the following paragraph:
“Nowhere is the promise of organizing more apparent than in the traditional black churches. Possessing tremendous financial resources, membership and — most importantly — values and biblical traditions that call for empowerment and liberation, the black church is clearly a slumbering giant in the political and economic landscape of cities like Chicago. A fierce independence among black pastors and a preference for more traditional approaches to social involvement (supporting candidates for office, providing shelters for the homeless) have prevented the black church from bringing its full weight to bear on the political, social and economic arenas of the city.”
The very thing of separation of church and state that is a consent struggle at all levels in this county. Yet in 1990 believed this did not apply to those he was trying to organize. Just remember Rev. Wright, Obama’s pastor, from Trinity United Church was on the pulpit when he was ranting about the United States. The Catholic Priest Michael Pfleger was also addressing a worship meeting of Trinity Church when he carried on with regards to belittling Hillary Clinton.
One has to wonder what Obama’s real idea of the separation of church and state? This clearly shows Obama has one more set of standards that he will apply to some and not to others. Under Obama, America will not be equal!
Back in 1990, after Obama had graduated from Harvard Law School, he was teaching part time at University of Chicago and working in at a Chicago law firm he wrote a paper for University of Illinois at Springfield under a highly controversial project called After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois. He wrote his paper under the title of, “Why Organize? Problems and Promise in the Inner City.”
He wrote the following paragraph:
“Nowhere is the promise of organizing more apparent than in the traditional black churches. Possessing tremendous financial resources, membership and — most importantly — values and biblical traditions that call for empowerment and liberation, the black church is clearly a slumbering giant in the political and economic landscape of cities like Chicago. A fierce independence among black pastors and a preference for more traditional approaches to social involvement (supporting candidates for office, providing shelters for the homeless) have prevented the black church from bringing its full weight to bear on the political, social and economic arenas of the city.”
The very thing of separation of church and state that is a consent struggle at all levels in this county. Yet in 1990 believed this did not apply to those he was trying to organize. Just remember Rev. Wright, Obama’s pastor, from Trinity United Church was on the pulpit when he was ranting about the United States. The Catholic Priest Michael Pfleger was also addressing a worship meeting of Trinity Church when he carried on with regards to belittling Hillary Clinton.
One has to wonder what Obama’s real idea of the separation of church and state? This clearly shows Obama has one more set of standards that he will apply to some and not to others. Under Obama, America will not be equal!
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Michigan - Case Study Of Obama's Corp. Tax Plan
Barack Obama has been campaigning all over the state of Michigan about how he is going to bring jobs back to the once famous home of the world’s greatest auto manufacturing companies. The talk sounds great, and on the surface should justify every single VOTER in the state to vote for him.
However, Michigan provides a case study of what happens when government oversteps the boundary of what the rest of the nation and world is doing. The very government voted in year after year proved to be the very demise of the auto manufacturing industry in Michigan. All one has to do is look at Flint, Saginaw and Detroit as shell’s of their former strong cities.
VOTERS in Michigan elected people from both parties, that over a twenty year span, pushed unemployment compensation well above the national average, they pushed workman’s compensation well above the national average, they pushed business taxes well above the national average, they jacked up property taxes, and frankly bite the very hand that fed the state hundreds of millions of dollars every year. These elected officials kept this up, at the wish of VOTERS, until the GOOSE THAT LAID THE GOLDEN EGGS decided to go nest in some other place. Be it a neighboring state or move manufacturing completely out of North America, but they left.
GM, Ford, and Chrysler all had plants in Michigan that they could have retooled to produce new vehicle lines but financially it no longer made sense. They could afford, over a ten year payback period, to go purchase new property, build brand new buildings, equip the buildings, and transfer hundreds of UAW workers to new states.
I have driven through Flint, Michigan and it sad to see all the empty buildings. But the VOTERS ARE THE ONES AT FAULT. They kept buying into and voting for people who would continue to suck more and more out of the auto manufactures. It reached the point that to stay competitive, they had to leave! They had no choice if they wanted to survive!
Corporate America has a responsibility to pay whatever their “fair share” is! But by electing people, who push the fair share too finance government funded social programs, will learn a very ugly fact of life. Where that point is often unknown, but once it comes to past, it is too late. There is no re due in this!
Regardless to what any candidate, from any party, says they have no way of stopping a business from moving to some other state or country. They may throw up some roadblocks but either the company will move or be forced to close. They will no longer where competitive! Either way they will be gone! The VOTER pays the real price and not the talking elected officials.
When a candidate appears before you and says that the woes facing America will be solved by increased taxing of corporate America is seeking a vote from only your heart. Every VOTER should stand back and think of the big picture. We live in a global economy today! If there ever a time to vote with your brain over your heart is this year.
However, Michigan provides a case study of what happens when government oversteps the boundary of what the rest of the nation and world is doing. The very government voted in year after year proved to be the very demise of the auto manufacturing industry in Michigan. All one has to do is look at Flint, Saginaw and Detroit as shell’s of their former strong cities.
VOTERS in Michigan elected people from both parties, that over a twenty year span, pushed unemployment compensation well above the national average, they pushed workman’s compensation well above the national average, they pushed business taxes well above the national average, they jacked up property taxes, and frankly bite the very hand that fed the state hundreds of millions of dollars every year. These elected officials kept this up, at the wish of VOTERS, until the GOOSE THAT LAID THE GOLDEN EGGS decided to go nest in some other place. Be it a neighboring state or move manufacturing completely out of North America, but they left.
GM, Ford, and Chrysler all had plants in Michigan that they could have retooled to produce new vehicle lines but financially it no longer made sense. They could afford, over a ten year payback period, to go purchase new property, build brand new buildings, equip the buildings, and transfer hundreds of UAW workers to new states.
I have driven through Flint, Michigan and it sad to see all the empty buildings. But the VOTERS ARE THE ONES AT FAULT. They kept buying into and voting for people who would continue to suck more and more out of the auto manufactures. It reached the point that to stay competitive, they had to leave! They had no choice if they wanted to survive!
Corporate America has a responsibility to pay whatever their “fair share” is! But by electing people, who push the fair share too finance government funded social programs, will learn a very ugly fact of life. Where that point is often unknown, but once it comes to past, it is too late. There is no re due in this!
Regardless to what any candidate, from any party, says they have no way of stopping a business from moving to some other state or country. They may throw up some roadblocks but either the company will move or be forced to close. They will no longer where competitive! Either way they will be gone! The VOTER pays the real price and not the talking elected officials.
When a candidate appears before you and says that the woes facing America will be solved by increased taxing of corporate America is seeking a vote from only your heart. Every VOTER should stand back and think of the big picture. We live in a global economy today! If there ever a time to vote with your brain over your heart is this year.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Oversite Committee - One More Congressional Joke On Us - Obama Shadow Testified
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Hearings – A Major Joke
Monday (10-06-08) Representative Henry A. Waxman graveled the committee to order to hear testimony in regards the recent bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers. The Committee On Oversight and Government Reform appeared, by watching the event on the cable television C-Span channel, that about 1/3 of the total committee members where there. Maybe due to campaigns was the reason for so many being absent. Of seventeen Republicans committee members, only two or three appeared to be there.
The person who testified that drew my interest was Nell Minow, Chairman of the Board and Editor, The Corporate Library. She blasted corporate America and government every chance she could. While The Corporate Library website indicates the company serves a noble purpose of providing services/information to small stockholders within corporate America she hardly came across as such.
Well that started the old brain a spinning. So off to the Internet I went. First stop was OpenSecrets.org to check on any contributions to the elected officials. Well, slap me silly as Minow had made two contributions to the presidential race. Mr. Barack Obama was provided with $500 on March 12, 2007 and $500 more on February 10, 2008.
For some reason her last name struck a nerve so I searched “Minow Chicago” and up came 100's of places to look. I learned her father was Attorney Newton (Norman) Minow and worked at the law firm called Sidney-Austin. That she has two sisters by the names of Martha Minow and Mary Minow. Her mother’s name is Josephine.
Back to OpenSecrets.org I go. Josephine Minow, of Chicago, sent Barack Obama $2,300 on February 23, 2007. Then she followed up with $2,300 more on August 16, 2007 (This would be a violation of federal law and one of the payments should be returned).
Next we have Martha Minow of Cambridge, Mass. She donated $2,300 to Obama on February 23, 2007. Then she followed that up with $2,300 more on March 28, 2007. Then she contributed a final $2,300 more on July 14, 2008. (This would be a violation of federal law and two of the payments should be returned).
Last but least his her other sister, Mary. She contributed $283 to Obama coffers on August 27, 2008. She lives in Cupertino, California.
So the four member Minow crew has pumped in $11,783 into Obama coffers. OpenSecrets.org has shown Obama’s campaign has returned $4,600 to family members, but that is not included in the above numbers and dates.
Martha’s is employed as a professor at Harvard Law School and that drew my interest. Obama graduated from Harvard Law School. Sure enough, she was a teacher there when Obama attended law school.
Let us jump back to their father Norman Minow. He was a partner in the law firm of Sidney-Austin in Chicago. That rings a bell in researching Bill Aryes, the domestic terrorist, a couple weeks ago. It also rang a bell that is the law firm where Michelle worked and met Barack. Now we are talking a small small world.
The question that I always wondered about is when Barack had just completed his first year of law school he was obtained an internship with a Chicago law firm. Internships for lawyers is hardly ever done, and if so, they are only offered to students before their final year of all school.
The reason law firms do not take interns is because the legal industry has learned that interns often end up with other firms after graduation and client lists from the first company often goes with them.
Still I was puzzled how this all worked? We had Obama at Harvard, Martha Minow was one of his law professors, and Martha’s father was a partner the law firm Sidney-Austin.
Then I stumbled across the fact Bernardine Dohrn worked at the law firm Sidney-Austin. This is the wife of Bill Ayres and who served a long federal sentence for her terrorist actions also worked in the office. Dohrn, who was graduated from law school, can not be licensed as an attorney, because of her felony record.
There are no records, no one will talk, and there is no paper trail of the relationship of all these people during that summer. That only thing talked about is Michelle’s first date with Obama. Other then that, everyone’s lips are sealed. Stange!
What did surface that on May 11, 2008 Nell Minow sent an email to a blog by the name of Global Labor and Politics. The gentleman, who wrote a column on Obama, wondered about how Obama got connected to the law firm of Sidney-Austin. Well, Nell explained in her email that her sister, the professor, talked to her dad about hiring him for the summer.
So now we know how Nell (testified today before congress) Minow, her sister Martha, her mom Josephine, he dad Norman, Bill Ayres, Bernardine Dohrn, and Michelle Obama all know each other. What a small world we live in.
To me, it also explains Nell’s comments in the hearing today. It was like Obama had one of his paid talking heads to testify before the committee…. Oh, why I am no longer surprised.
Here is some other triva-
Nell Minow went to University of Chicago
Dr. Luigi Zingales, who also testified today, teaches at the University of Chicago
Bill Ayres teaches at University of Chicago
Nell Minow contributed to Obama campaign
Robert Prescott, who also testified today, donated to Obama’s campaign
Michelle Obama worked in Mayor Daley's admin. and was promoted, but she has never talked about that part of her career.
Monday (10-06-08) Representative Henry A. Waxman graveled the committee to order to hear testimony in regards the recent bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers. The Committee On Oversight and Government Reform appeared, by watching the event on the cable television C-Span channel, that about 1/3 of the total committee members where there. Maybe due to campaigns was the reason for so many being absent. Of seventeen Republicans committee members, only two or three appeared to be there.
The person who testified that drew my interest was Nell Minow, Chairman of the Board and Editor, The Corporate Library. She blasted corporate America and government every chance she could. While The Corporate Library website indicates the company serves a noble purpose of providing services/information to small stockholders within corporate America she hardly came across as such.
Well that started the old brain a spinning. So off to the Internet I went. First stop was OpenSecrets.org to check on any contributions to the elected officials. Well, slap me silly as Minow had made two contributions to the presidential race. Mr. Barack Obama was provided with $500 on March 12, 2007 and $500 more on February 10, 2008.
For some reason her last name struck a nerve so I searched “Minow Chicago” and up came 100's of places to look. I learned her father was Attorney Newton (Norman) Minow and worked at the law firm called Sidney-Austin. That she has two sisters by the names of Martha Minow and Mary Minow. Her mother’s name is Josephine.
Back to OpenSecrets.org I go. Josephine Minow, of Chicago, sent Barack Obama $2,300 on February 23, 2007. Then she followed up with $2,300 more on August 16, 2007 (This would be a violation of federal law and one of the payments should be returned).
Next we have Martha Minow of Cambridge, Mass. She donated $2,300 to Obama on February 23, 2007. Then she followed that up with $2,300 more on March 28, 2007. Then she contributed a final $2,300 more on July 14, 2008. (This would be a violation of federal law and two of the payments should be returned).
Last but least his her other sister, Mary. She contributed $283 to Obama coffers on August 27, 2008. She lives in Cupertino, California.
So the four member Minow crew has pumped in $11,783 into Obama coffers. OpenSecrets.org has shown Obama’s campaign has returned $4,600 to family members, but that is not included in the above numbers and dates.
Martha’s is employed as a professor at Harvard Law School and that drew my interest. Obama graduated from Harvard Law School. Sure enough, she was a teacher there when Obama attended law school.
Let us jump back to their father Norman Minow. He was a partner in the law firm of Sidney-Austin in Chicago. That rings a bell in researching Bill Aryes, the domestic terrorist, a couple weeks ago. It also rang a bell that is the law firm where Michelle worked and met Barack. Now we are talking a small small world.
The question that I always wondered about is when Barack had just completed his first year of law school he was obtained an internship with a Chicago law firm. Internships for lawyers is hardly ever done, and if so, they are only offered to students before their final year of all school.
The reason law firms do not take interns is because the legal industry has learned that interns often end up with other firms after graduation and client lists from the first company often goes with them.
Still I was puzzled how this all worked? We had Obama at Harvard, Martha Minow was one of his law professors, and Martha’s father was a partner the law firm Sidney-Austin.
Then I stumbled across the fact Bernardine Dohrn worked at the law firm Sidney-Austin. This is the wife of Bill Ayres and who served a long federal sentence for her terrorist actions also worked in the office. Dohrn, who was graduated from law school, can not be licensed as an attorney, because of her felony record.
There are no records, no one will talk, and there is no paper trail of the relationship of all these people during that summer. That only thing talked about is Michelle’s first date with Obama. Other then that, everyone’s lips are sealed. Stange!
What did surface that on May 11, 2008 Nell Minow sent an email to a blog by the name of Global Labor and Politics. The gentleman, who wrote a column on Obama, wondered about how Obama got connected to the law firm of Sidney-Austin. Well, Nell explained in her email that her sister, the professor, talked to her dad about hiring him for the summer.
So now we know how Nell (testified today before congress) Minow, her sister Martha, her mom Josephine, he dad Norman, Bill Ayres, Bernardine Dohrn, and Michelle Obama all know each other. What a small world we live in.
To me, it also explains Nell’s comments in the hearing today. It was like Obama had one of his paid talking heads to testify before the committee…. Oh, why I am no longer surprised.
Here is some other triva-
Nell Minow went to University of Chicago
Dr. Luigi Zingales, who also testified today, teaches at the University of Chicago
Bill Ayres teaches at University of Chicago
Nell Minow contributed to Obama campaign
Robert Prescott, who also testified today, donated to Obama’s campaign
Michelle Obama worked in Mayor Daley's admin. and was promoted, but she has never talked about that part of her career.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
True Health Insurance Crisis - Maybe Not
Trying to find a solid figure for how many Americans are uninsured is nearly impossible. It appears the Census Bureau released a report called, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005.” They put the number at 46.6 million uninsured, based on collected census data. However, other groups have a much lower number. Please read on.
One of the things found in the report was there was 9.5 million that where “not a citizen!” This drops the number to about 37.1 million. Mikael Moore, of the movie "SICKO" has said himself that unless you are an American then you would not be considered for coverage under any national health plan. This was stated by Moore on “ABC’s Dateline” show on June 17, 2007.
On May 23, 2007, Katie Couric reported on CBS’s “Evening News” that there where 47 million Americans who “COULD NOT AFFORD INSURANCE.”
On July 10, 2007, Moore repeated the statement on CNN’s “Larry King Live” show.
Let us check the Census report referenced above-
There are 8.3 million Americans without insurance who earn between $50,000 and $74,999 annually. Then you can add on 8.7 million more, which make in excess of $75,000 a year. The medium income in 2005 was $46,326. One could conclude that these families elected not to take part in partial employer funded or purchase their own health care insurance. Subtracting the 17 million, who have elected not to purchase health insurance, from the 37.1 adjusted figures the uninsured number drops to 20.1 million.
What is interesting is a study done by the highly liberal San Francisco based The Kaiser Family Foundation reported even a lower number then the 20.1 million. They report the number they could calculate was between 8.2 and 13.9 million who lack health insurance and make under $50,000 a year.
Kaiser went on to state that the 8.2 chronically uninsured only includes those uninsured for two years or more.
It is also worth noting, that, 45 percent of uninsured people will be uninsured for less than four months according to the Congressional Budget Office. Using the high figure 20.1 million uninsured would be reduced to 11.1 million based on the CBO figures. Which is near the average of the two numbers calculated by The Kaiser Foundation.
Also it should be noted and not calculated into the figures is how many of the uninsured would be covered under Medicaid or state ran children coverage if they had a claim. Because they are healthy and not needing any health care they are lumped into the uninsured group.
As of today the US Census Bureau estimates the US population is 305,342,612 people. Using the 20.1 million the uninsured is 6.6% of the population. Using the high 13.9 million Kaiser Foundation number converts to 4.6%. Using the uninsured based on CBO/The Kaiser Foundation average, the number for the real long term uninsured is 11.1 million or 3.6 percent of the population.
One really needs to ask is this really a health insurance industry led boondoggle? The insurance companies know if health care is transferred from employer based that fewer people would purchase any coverage. More people would run the risk of staying healthy over investing in health care. So that does not help them. So their continued increases in employer provided coverage runs the fore mentioned risk.
Health insurance companies also suffer large claims often in employer funded coverage because of catastrophic claims. An entire year’s collected premiums could be wiped out with one major claim.
Under employer funded insurance coverage it is difficult for an insurance company to weed out people with chronic health needs. They have no way, out outside of raising premiums, to the company and risk losing the business. But if they raise the premiums too much the employer will seek a new company to provide coverage for their employees or cancel the employee plan. Hence they run the risk of loosing again.
However, if they could convince the government to offer a plan to underwrite basic coverage based on individual coverage they would be in. The government picks up the employees with chronic diseases, along with the rest of the employees. Much like Medicare’s Part “A” the coverage is very basic and any person that can afford it carries Medicare Part “B.” Even with this coverage a person can often find they have thousands of dollars still owing after Medicare coverage is exhausted.
Health insurance companies will offer their own deluxe Part “B” but only for those with perfect health. Should they contact a chronic illness (diabetes, cancer, heart trouble, etc) they will be cancelled or premiums rose so high they can not afford it. At that time the insurance company will be thrilled.
Rest assured if the health insurance industry have their way everyone will have their own policy and they will cherry pick who can afford true adequate coverage in their Part “B” program.
Our health care system may not be as broken as we have been led to believe. That what we are getting is a major smoke screen so the health insurance industry can reap profits to a level they have never obtained before.
Granted we see higher insurance costs but are they being inflated in hopes of pushing us into a “semi national health program” to benefit these insurance companies? It will take an HONEST congress to look into this matter, but any of that hope seems to be slipping away day after day.
One of the things found in the report was there was 9.5 million that where “not a citizen!” This drops the number to about 37.1 million. Mikael Moore, of the movie "SICKO" has said himself that unless you are an American then you would not be considered for coverage under any national health plan. This was stated by Moore on “ABC’s Dateline” show on June 17, 2007.
On May 23, 2007, Katie Couric reported on CBS’s “Evening News” that there where 47 million Americans who “COULD NOT AFFORD INSURANCE.”
On July 10, 2007, Moore repeated the statement on CNN’s “Larry King Live” show.
Let us check the Census report referenced above-
There are 8.3 million Americans without insurance who earn between $50,000 and $74,999 annually. Then you can add on 8.7 million more, which make in excess of $75,000 a year. The medium income in 2005 was $46,326. One could conclude that these families elected not to take part in partial employer funded or purchase their own health care insurance. Subtracting the 17 million, who have elected not to purchase health insurance, from the 37.1 adjusted figures the uninsured number drops to 20.1 million.
What is interesting is a study done by the highly liberal San Francisco based The Kaiser Family Foundation reported even a lower number then the 20.1 million. They report the number they could calculate was between 8.2 and 13.9 million who lack health insurance and make under $50,000 a year.
Kaiser went on to state that the 8.2 chronically uninsured only includes those uninsured for two years or more.
It is also worth noting, that, 45 percent of uninsured people will be uninsured for less than four months according to the Congressional Budget Office. Using the high figure 20.1 million uninsured would be reduced to 11.1 million based on the CBO figures. Which is near the average of the two numbers calculated by The Kaiser Foundation.
Also it should be noted and not calculated into the figures is how many of the uninsured would be covered under Medicaid or state ran children coverage if they had a claim. Because they are healthy and not needing any health care they are lumped into the uninsured group.
As of today the US Census Bureau estimates the US population is 305,342,612 people. Using the 20.1 million the uninsured is 6.6% of the population. Using the high 13.9 million Kaiser Foundation number converts to 4.6%. Using the uninsured based on CBO/The Kaiser Foundation average, the number for the real long term uninsured is 11.1 million or 3.6 percent of the population.
One really needs to ask is this really a health insurance industry led boondoggle? The insurance companies know if health care is transferred from employer based that fewer people would purchase any coverage. More people would run the risk of staying healthy over investing in health care. So that does not help them. So their continued increases in employer provided coverage runs the fore mentioned risk.
Health insurance companies also suffer large claims often in employer funded coverage because of catastrophic claims. An entire year’s collected premiums could be wiped out with one major claim.
Under employer funded insurance coverage it is difficult for an insurance company to weed out people with chronic health needs. They have no way, out outside of raising premiums, to the company and risk losing the business. But if they raise the premiums too much the employer will seek a new company to provide coverage for their employees or cancel the employee plan. Hence they run the risk of loosing again.
However, if they could convince the government to offer a plan to underwrite basic coverage based on individual coverage they would be in. The government picks up the employees with chronic diseases, along with the rest of the employees. Much like Medicare’s Part “A” the coverage is very basic and any person that can afford it carries Medicare Part “B.” Even with this coverage a person can often find they have thousands of dollars still owing after Medicare coverage is exhausted.
Health insurance companies will offer their own deluxe Part “B” but only for those with perfect health. Should they contact a chronic illness (diabetes, cancer, heart trouble, etc) they will be cancelled or premiums rose so high they can not afford it. At that time the insurance company will be thrilled.
Rest assured if the health insurance industry have their way everyone will have their own policy and they will cherry pick who can afford true adequate coverage in their Part “B” program.
Our health care system may not be as broken as we have been led to believe. That what we are getting is a major smoke screen so the health insurance industry can reap profits to a level they have never obtained before.
Granted we see higher insurance costs but are they being inflated in hopes of pushing us into a “semi national health program” to benefit these insurance companies? It will take an HONEST congress to look into this matter, but any of that hope seems to be slipping away day after day.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
OBAMA - TOUGH ON CRIME - NOT HARDLY
Barack Obama makes mention in his own book about his use of cocaine in his younger years. While admitting such could not be easy it clearly illustrates his belief society owes the criminal element. That society has failed these people and hence society owes them. Those views where carried to his days in the Illinois Senate and now to his presidential race for the White House.
TREATMENT OF JUVENILES
Obama believes that transferring any juveniles to adult court is wrong, regardless to the crime they committed. He believes transferring them is unwarranted because it has not shown any reduction in juvenile crime levels.
Under our laws juveniles sentenced for crimes can be held until they turn 21, at the latest, in some states and 18 in most states. They are free to walk the streets again and their records are sealed. Seldom in adult court can a juvenile’s record become part of the evidence for a jury to consider in deciding guilt or sentencing.
Keep in mind in most cases juveniles are not bound over to adult court unless the crime is so outrageous it sickens most people. Crimes like rape, home invasion, murder, armed robbery, deadly beatings, assault, shootings, and the likes are generally the only charged crimes that see a juvenile transferred to adult court.
What Obama misses is when a juvenile has been transferred to adult court the system is doing so as to remove that person from the free society. It is a matter of protecting the free society!
I would like to see Mr. Obama stand before a parent of young daughter who was raped by a seventeen year old and tell them that he thinks the fellow that committed the crime will only be sent a way for a couple of years and then turned totally free. That society made him do it!
I would like to see Mr. Obama stand before a man in a wheel chair, who no longer can walk, and tell him that the person who beat him with a club that the juvenile will be walking the streets in a year or so. That the man was part of society that made him do it!
I would like to see Mr. Obama walk into a funeral home and tell a family that the person who murdered their father that would be free to walk the streets in a year or two. That the man brought the death on himself because society made him do it!
GANGS ARE OK WITH OBAMA
Most people like the idea of a politician who votes for individual rights, but the fact that Obama could do so and still maintain the respect of law enforcement shows his political skills. Obama voted against a proposal to criminalize contact with a gang for any convicts on probation or out on bail. In 2001, Obama opposed making gang activity eligible for the death penalty. "There's a strong overlap between gang affiliation and young men of color.... I think it's problematic for them to be singled out as more likely to receive the death penalty for carrying out certain acts than are others who do the same thing." In 1999, Obama opposed mandatory adult prosecution for youth who discharge a firearm near a school, declaring, "There is really no proof or indication that automatic transfers and increased penalties and adult penalties for juvenile offenses have, in fact, proven to be more effective in reducing juvenile crime or cutting back on recidivism."
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.146 Oct 30, 2007
OBAMA WANTS FREE COLLAGE EDUCATION FOR CONVICTS
While people who have remained outside the criminal justices system often have to take out student loans to pay for collage Obama believes convicts should get a free ride to the same education. He has made no bones about his belief in this concept since he was an Illinois State Senator in 1998! That society messed up and made the convict undertake his crimes.
His belief, because there is no evidence to support his position, is in giving a free collage education to former convicts will reduce the odds on them returning to a life of crime.
However, he still believes those of any means must struggle with maybe two jobs and loans to obtain a collage degree.
Obama continues to support his failed Illinois idea in his run for the White House. It is outlined in his own “Blueprint For Change!”
Do not believe me, do your own research on the Internet. It is there and only takes a little research to find such.
TREATMENT OF JUVENILES
Obama believes that transferring any juveniles to adult court is wrong, regardless to the crime they committed. He believes transferring them is unwarranted because it has not shown any reduction in juvenile crime levels.
Under our laws juveniles sentenced for crimes can be held until they turn 21, at the latest, in some states and 18 in most states. They are free to walk the streets again and their records are sealed. Seldom in adult court can a juvenile’s record become part of the evidence for a jury to consider in deciding guilt or sentencing.
Keep in mind in most cases juveniles are not bound over to adult court unless the crime is so outrageous it sickens most people. Crimes like rape, home invasion, murder, armed robbery, deadly beatings, assault, shootings, and the likes are generally the only charged crimes that see a juvenile transferred to adult court.
What Obama misses is when a juvenile has been transferred to adult court the system is doing so as to remove that person from the free society. It is a matter of protecting the free society!
I would like to see Mr. Obama stand before a parent of young daughter who was raped by a seventeen year old and tell them that he thinks the fellow that committed the crime will only be sent a way for a couple of years and then turned totally free. That society made him do it!
I would like to see Mr. Obama stand before a man in a wheel chair, who no longer can walk, and tell him that the person who beat him with a club that the juvenile will be walking the streets in a year or so. That the man was part of society that made him do it!
I would like to see Mr. Obama walk into a funeral home and tell a family that the person who murdered their father that would be free to walk the streets in a year or two. That the man brought the death on himself because society made him do it!
GANGS ARE OK WITH OBAMA
Most people like the idea of a politician who votes for individual rights, but the fact that Obama could do so and still maintain the respect of law enforcement shows his political skills. Obama voted against a proposal to criminalize contact with a gang for any convicts on probation or out on bail. In 2001, Obama opposed making gang activity eligible for the death penalty. "There's a strong overlap between gang affiliation and young men of color.... I think it's problematic for them to be singled out as more likely to receive the death penalty for carrying out certain acts than are others who do the same thing." In 1999, Obama opposed mandatory adult prosecution for youth who discharge a firearm near a school, declaring, "There is really no proof or indication that automatic transfers and increased penalties and adult penalties for juvenile offenses have, in fact, proven to be more effective in reducing juvenile crime or cutting back on recidivism."
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.146 Oct 30, 2007
OBAMA WANTS FREE COLLAGE EDUCATION FOR CONVICTS
While people who have remained outside the criminal justices system often have to take out student loans to pay for collage Obama believes convicts should get a free ride to the same education. He has made no bones about his belief in this concept since he was an Illinois State Senator in 1998! That society messed up and made the convict undertake his crimes.
His belief, because there is no evidence to support his position, is in giving a free collage education to former convicts will reduce the odds on them returning to a life of crime.
However, he still believes those of any means must struggle with maybe two jobs and loans to obtain a collage degree.
Obama continues to support his failed Illinois idea in his run for the White House. It is outlined in his own “Blueprint For Change!”
Do not believe me, do your own research on the Internet. It is there and only takes a little research to find such.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
