New Media Fallout

If Joe the (unlicensed, divorced, gasp Christian) plumber is going to undergo the kind of media and moonbat scrutiny the candidates do (reporters haven’t been this busy digging through trash cans since they got back from Alaska) shouldn’t he maybe have a secret service detail too?

Everyone loves Obama so much, maybe he can lend Joe one of his.

Just a thought.

Obama is no Robin Hood.

Brits at their Best  have a great piece on the misguided notion that Obama is some sort of Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Obama’s plan sounds great for the plumber who is working hard to make ends meet, but what about when the plumber’s hard work and dedication put him in a position to fulfill his dreams and start his own business, hire his own employees, and pay them a salary?

The Senator explained that he wants to “spread the wealth around”. It sounds lovely, doesn’t it, even if it means that hard-working plumbers, small shop owners, and risk-taking entrepreneurs are going to be taxed more heavily? The New York Post called it a warning shot from Robin Hood, but mistakenly identified Robin - 1) Robin Hood did not steal from entrepreneurs. He stole from the Sheriff of Nottingham and from rich clergy - the tax men - to return their money to those who had earned it. His target was the rapacious state. 2) Robin Hood did not rob plumbers.

What people are buying into with Obama’s cockamamie scheme is a system that will penalize them for working towards success. That isn’t the principles America was founded on.

Indeed, the founders had all been British subjects, and like Robin Hood they understood the principle of predatory taxation very well. It’s a smaller step than we may think from the government deciding that entrepreneurs making more than $250,000 should be taxed to the gills to deciding that teachers on a retirement pension are receiving too much pay. It happened in the USSR. It happened in Prague.

At its heart, this kind of tax the rich rhetoric that Obama spins is sheer Marxist class warfare. The logical conclusion is lowering the bar until everyone can take heart knowing “at least no one else has it better than I.” The conservative ideology is removing the bar altogether.

Short answer: Wealth redistribution.

Shorter answer: Welfare.

How Obama’s vote-buying 95% tax cut scheme works.

One of Barack Obama’s most potent campaign claims is that he’ll cut taxes for no less than 95% of “working families.”

First, the bait and switch:

There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of “tax cut.”

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase “tax credit.”

This is also known as welfare, but a rose by any other name…. Still a good deal for hard working families?

Nyet Komrade.

Buried under all the slick talk is the great big spike in marginal tax rate.

There’s another catch: Because Mr. Obama’s tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge “marginal” tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory.

This will feel like a major disincentive to earn more, which translates into stagnation, discontentment, and in my mind, higher taxes down the road. Why would I take a job with a 20% pay raise if my taxes are going to increase by so much I won’t see the extra money, only feel the extra responsibility, longer hours, etc? The financial incentive is to remain lower on scale and take advantage of the handouts rather than move up the scale and help pay for them.

Great article - a must read: Obama’s 95% Illusion - WSJ.com

And I don’t have the words for how fun this will be if there’s any truth to it. Just seeing the Obama fans trying to spin it….

Democrat=Socialist sums up my thoughts on this well:

Did anyone else notice how distracted Obama seemed today during his speech?  Notice the mis-speaks?  Notice how we haven’t seen hide nor hair of Queen Hillary?  Could she have been spending all of this time “washing” herself of any connections to the Fannie/Freddie/ACORN crimes?  Is Rezko singing?   Is this how the democrats prefer to be represented?  Is Blagojevich dropping dimes like a drunk at the soda machine? Could we crown Cheney King for Life? 

This guy apparently knows somebody who knows somebody:
Tomorrow could be the start of Fitzmas: rumor in Chicago is Patrick Fitzgerald is investigating ACORN and SoetorObama campaign for RICO violations

And then there’s this:
Clinton supporters sharing evidence for RICO case against Obama campaign « HillBuzz

Embedded Video

Tags: communism

Newt Gingrich explains how it is predatory politicians that caused the problem.

In the midst of the economic crisis and the wake
of the Paulson bailout, the mainstream media have begun publishing
obituaries for the free market.   The elite press has begun to trumpet
“the end of American-style capitalism” and “the bankrupt dogma of
Reagan-Thatcherism.”
 
But are free markets at the root of the current economic crisis, or meddling politicians?
 
In short:  Is our problem predatory lenders, or predatory politicians?

Gunman kills 15 potential voters…

Gunman Kills 15 Potential Voters In Crucial Swing State

Obama to focus on saving shitty jobs

Obama Promises To Stop America’s Shitty Jobs From Going Overseas

New Competition for John McCain

Old, Grizzled Third-Party Candidate May Steal Support From McCain

H/T All American Blogger

Andrew Wilkow asked this today while guest hosting the Mark Levin show. I wish I got Sirius Radio where I live.

Looks like Obama got caught cooking the books.  They were paying the ACORN offshoot to “get out the vote for them” Obama told the FEC they were just doing some polling. Now they have to correct the FEC record. Something tells me this won’t be all over the news tonight.

 The Obama campaign response: “It’s ok, really, this sort of thing happens all the time.”

“Accidently misrepresented” …yeah right. Liberal call less than this a lie. Don’t forget, they said Bush was lying when he stated the fact that Brittish intelligence reported Hussein was seeking yellow cake uranium… But that was a couple years ago, this is 2008. Liberal standards change from hour to hour.

RNC:

“Barack Obama’s failure to accurately report his campaign’s financial records is an incredibly suspicious situation that appears to be an attempt to hide his campaign’s interaction with a left-wing organization previously convicted of voter fraud. For a candidate who claims to be practicing ‘new’ politics, his FEC reports look an awful lot like the ‘old-style’ Chicago politics of yesterday.”

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_584284.html

Newt has a great list of questions on newt.org.

Being the Media will never ask them, (Obama has told them it is not allowed, it will distract from him milking the economy issue which should put him in the tank not ahead, but this is supposed to be parenthetical) I suggest Newt change the title to:

Questions John McCain and Sarah Palin need to ask and John McCain and Sarah Palin need to answer when Obama doesn’t - all day, every day, until the election.

And they should start by asking them and answering them in the presence of the bitter clingers.

There are 19 of them about Resco, acorn, Fannie, Freddie, Ayers, and the like. You know, the issues that should be in the news throughout 2008 but haven’t been.

The list