[johnwk]

If you don’t think Obama is a con artist and could care less about a hard working father living in Harlem who is trying to make ends meet and feed his family, you just don’t understand the Washington Establishment and its political plum job empire, which Obama and his inner circle are attempting to seize control over for their own personal economic benefit.

To put this matter into easily understandable terms, when slavery was practiced in America, the very object of a slave owner was the confiscation of the product which Blacks had in their labor. When a government becomes corrupt and turns upon the people it claims to represent, one of the very first signs of such corruption is the manner in which that government raises its revenue. Thomas Jefferson understood this, and it is exhibited in his First Inaugural Address:

“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“.

Indeed, any taxing system which taxes the wages which a laboring person has earned is a taxing system which immediately divides the people into dangerous political factions, and burdens the most productive laboring class citizens while relieving the unproductive from contributing ___ the latter of these two groups then becomes a captive voting block which sells its vote to folks in government who have promised to allow them to feed at the public trough. This is what Obama’s game plan is all about, and is the hallmark of America’s socialist Democrat Party ___ promising to allow one group to feed at the public trough if socialist Democrats are elected, while another group will be taxed to fill the trough.

But there is something even more sinister about Obama’s game plan and America’s socialist Democrat Party, and it is realized when one asks: why was there so much fighting and mud slinging between our socialist democrat party’s members, especially Hillary and Obama, who were campaigning against each other for their party’s nomination?

The answer is, whoever wins the national election gets to be in charge of who will be hired and fired from the countless political plum jobs created by our socialist Democrat Party ___ the jobs I refer to are those not being within the delegated powers granted to the federal government by our written Constitution, and being nothing more than a job to redistribute a part of our hard working father’s paycheck living in Harlem to those who do not contribute into the federal treasury!

For example, let us take a look at our federal Department of Education. Obama has made state public school systems, education, a center piece of his campaign. What does Obama and his inner circle have to gain if he wins the election?

Surprise, surprise! The federal Department of Education has approximately 5000 federal political plum job employees with excessive salaries, top of the shelf medical plans, and an outrageous pension program, all of which our hard working father living in Harlem can only dream of having but will be taxed by Obama to finance if Obama is elected.

As a matter of fact, the federal Department of Education has an annual budget of approximately $ 67 BILLION which was the entire federal budget in 1956! It’s absolutely amazing how fast our federal government can grow. And, the sad truth is, public education just happens to be a state constitutionally authorized function, which the people in every state are taxed by their state government to finance. Keep in mind public schools created under state constitutions are not a federal function, and yet, hard working people living in Harlem will be taxed by Obama to fund a federal department of education, in addition to being taxed by their state, and in the process 5000 political plum job employees, who will be part of Obama’s inner circle, become the real winners and will live large, while our hard working father living in Harlem will have been made a tax slave to finance the Washington Establishment and its millions of federal political plum job holders.

Think I’m telling a tail? Let us take a look at our 5000 political plum job holders at the federal Department of Education who are rewarded quite well by our socialist Democrat Party for doubling as their foot soldiers during election time.

WASHINGTON’S POLITICAL PLUM JOB OVERVIEW

Are you considering a government job? The federal government employs more than 2,700,000 workers and hires hundreds of thousands each year to replace civil service workers that transfer to other federal government jobs, retire, or leave for other reasons. Average annual salary for full-time federal government jobs exceeds $67,000. The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the United States, hiring about 2.0 percent of the nation's work force. Federal government jobs can be found in every state and large metropolitan area, including overseas in over 200 countries. The average annual federal workers compensation, pay plus benefits, is $106,871 compared to just $53,288 for the private sector according to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis.

In addition to salary, here are other federal employee ``benefits`` which our hard working farther living in Harlem will be taxed by Obama to finance:


Life insurance plan___ our hard working farther living in Harlem will get to pay 1/3 of a federal Department of Education worker’s federal life insurance plan and;

Federal Employees Dental & Vision Program is a full coverage plan and federal employees get to use pre-tax dollars to pay for their vision and dental premiums while our hard working farther living in Harlem is forced to use after taxed dollars to fund their Dental & Vision plan.


Under the federal employee retirement system, there is a tax-deferred savings plan known as the ``Thrift Savings Plan``. Under this plan, federal workers may contribute up to 10% of their salaries to the plan, with our hard working farther living in Harlem being taxed by Obama to match up to 5% of a federal employee`s contribution.


Also, under the Civilian Service Retirement System a federal employee contributes 7% of their paycheck to retirement while our hard working farther living in Harlem will be taxed by Obama to match that 7 % .

And, with reference to health insurance, which is in addition to the above mentioned dental and vision plan, see Federal Employees to See Moderate Rise in Health Insurance Premiums

Health insurance premiums for federal employees and retirees will increase by an average of 2.1 percent next year, the Office of Personnel Management announced this afternoon.


Cut------


The federal program will offer 283 plans next year and will provide insurance coverage to about 8 million Americans: civil service and postal workers, retirees, and family members. The government picks up about 70 percent of premium costs in its role as employer.

What the writer meant to write is our hard working father living in Harlem will be taxed by Obama to finance about 70 percent of the premium costs for federal employees.

The sad truth is our hard working father living in Harlem, who can barely meet his own family’s health care needs, gets to pick up about 70 percent of the premium costs to provide health care to the Washington Establishment’s political plum job holders and their families.

As I have correctly stated so many times before regarding Obama’s game plan___ Black working people who support Obama are absolutely correct when they say, as a general statement, “its all about the Benjamins”. But they seem to be easily conned into surrendering the “Benjamins“ they earn to "agents of change" who merely want to change the existing faces of those holding political plum jobs within the inner circle of the Washington Establishment. Does our hard working father living in Harlem not realize he will be betrayed by Obama's "agents of change and remain a tax slave ___ useful for nothing more than his vote, and, to be taxed to feed political plum job holders on Obama’s federal plantation?

JWK


If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then buy their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills ____ our Marxist Democrat Party’s game plan, a plan to create a federal plantation.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

"Socialist Democrats are like slave owners"




I love it

[Dakar V]

What the hell is a "hard working farther"?

Edit: It appears to be a copy/pasted typo.

[ort888]

Ssssss....

[besson3c]

I had 3 abortions today!

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by johnwk 

If you don’t think Obama is a con artist and could care less about a hard working father living in Harlem who is trying to make ends meet and feed his family, you just don’t understand the Washington Establishment and its political plum job empire, which Obama and his inner circle are attempting to seize control over for their own personal economic benefit.

To put this matter into easily understandable terms, when slavery was practiced in America, the very object of a slave owner was the confiscation of the product which Blacks had in their labor. When a government becomes corrupt and turns upon the people it claims to represent, one of the very first signs of such corruption is the manner in which that government raises its revenue. Thomas Jefferson understood this, and it is exhibited in his First Inaugural Address:



Indeed, any taxing system which taxes the wages which a laboring person has earned is a taxing system which immediately divides the people into dangerous political factions, and burdens the most productive laboring class citizens while relieving the unproductive from contributing ___ the latter of these two groups then becomes a captive voting block which sells its vote to folks in government who have promised to allow them to feed at the public trough. This is what Obama’s game plan is all about, and is the hallmark of America’s socialist Democrat Party ___ promising to allow one group to feed at the public trough if socialist Democrats are elected, while another group will be taxed to fill the trough.
color]

Um, maybe I missed it, but did you actually explain how Obama's tax plan would be harder on that working father fellow?

Oh, and way to use Jefferson to justify a system of concentrated wealth that is wholly alien to his view of an agrarian United States.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Um, maybe I missed it, but did you actually explain how Obama's tax plan would be harder on that working father fellow?

Yup, you sure did miss it!

Black working people who support Obama are absolutely correct when they say, as a general statement, “its all about the Benjamins”. But they seem to be easily conned into surrendering the “Benjamins“ they earn to "agents of change" who merely seek to change the faces of those holding political plum jobs within the inner circle of the Washington Establishment.

Do hard working black voters not realize they will be betrayed by Obama's "agents of change“ if Obama is elected and remain tax slaves ___ useful to work and pay taxes to feed political plum job holders on our federal plantation?

and

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then buy their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills ____ our Marxist Democrat Party’s game plan, a plan to create a federal plantation.

JWK

[besson3c]

johnwk: that explains nothing, but merely restates your gut feeling.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Hahaha, what a totally idiotic thread… I'm so much dumber by even attempting to have read that.

I love it.

greg

[hyteckit]

What things cost in 1956.

http://www.fiftiesweb.com/pop/prices-1956.htm

Holy sh8t. Gas was $0.23/gal. Gas is now 1600% more today. Damn socialist democrats.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What things cost in 1956.

http://www.fiftiesweb.com/pop/prices-1956.htm

Holy sh8t. Gas was $0.23/gal. Gas is now 1600% more today. Damn socialist democrats.

The average annual income was less than $4,000 in 1956.

You can't compare the past with the present without factoring in relative dollar amounts.

Using GDP per capita (an accepted measure of how affordable something is to an average wage earner), $0.23 in 1956 dollars is $4.04 in 2007 dollars.

What exactly was your attempted point?

[Dual Porpoise]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

What exactly was your attempted point?

I think he was satirizing the way you deal with facts when making arguments.

[johnwk]

Could the following article be one of the reason why Obama keeps attacking talk radio and attempting to shut talk radio shows down? See: Obama’s International Socialist Connections

Obama's socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat.
Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the "champions" of "Chicago's democratic left" and a long-time socialist activist. Obama's stint as a "community organizer" in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored.
………

The international connection is important and significant because an Obama bill, "The Global Poverty Act," has just been rushed through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with the assistance of Democratic Senator Joe Biden, the chairman, and Republican Senator Richard Lugar. The legislation (S.2433) commits the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars more in foreign aid on the rest of the world, in order to comply with the "Millennium Goals" established by the United Nations

Maybe this is also the reason why our establishment big media [NBC, CBS, ABC CNN, MSNBC , The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc., ] will not report on Obama’s continued attacks against WGN talk radio …our big media supports world socialism, the American Taxpayer being enslaved to finance it and Obama is their man here in America.

JWK

Hey Joey tight-lips Biden, how do you feel about your running mate trying to shut down America’s “Patriotic” talk radio shows? Do you approve of Obama’s un-American strong arm tactics?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Dual Porpoise 

I think he was satirizing the way you deal with facts when making arguments.

If that's what he was attempting, it failed miserably. It's been leftists whining about the price of gas far more than conservatives. He pretty much revealed that it's historically not all that high.

[Dual Porpoise]

You're right that gas is too cheap, I don't think that 'leftists' have much to do with it.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Dual Porpoise 

You're right that gas is too cheap, I don't think that 'leftists' have much to do with it.

Gas isn't necessarily cheap now, but it wasn't really all that 'cheap' in the past either. Unless of course, we're comparing it to what most of the rest of the world pays for gas- then of course, it's still VERY cheap.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

If that's what he was attempting, it failed miserably. It's been leftists whining about the price of gas far more than conservatives. He pretty much revealed that it's historically not all that high.

Failed miserably? Isn't that what your nick implies?

The OP failed miserably comparing the budget of 1956 to today's budget. Doesn't he know everything cost more today compare to 1956? How much do teachers make today compared to 1956? $4000/yr in 1956 compare to $40,000/yr today? That's a 9000% increase. Of course the budget is going to be much more today compared to 1956.

Let's not forget that Republicans were in charge in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 where the Department of Education budget keep increasing.

2001: $42.2 billion
2002: $49.9 billion
2003: $53.1 billion
2004: $55.7 billion

A 32% increase in budget from 2001 to 2004. Let me see, Republican President, Republican control congress.

It's those damn socialist liberal democrats fault.

[johnwk]

So, what are we to think about Obama`s $845 BILLION 'Global Poverty Act' which is designed to establish global socialism with the American Taxpayer being enslaved to pick up the tab?


JWK

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Let's be honest here: no one wants to pay $845 billion to help reduce extreme global poverty when they could spend $145 billion less and bail out wealthy investors instead.

Clearly, the taxpayers aren't stupid.

greg

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Let's be honest here: no one wants to pay $845 billion to help reduce extreme global poverty when they could spend $145 billion less and bail out wealthy investors instead.

Clearly, the taxpayers aren't stupid.

greg

"...taxpayers aren't stupid..."

Well, if what you assert is correct, and I am not claiming you are not correct, then it would stand to reason that the majority of Obama’s supporters are not “taxpayers".


JWK

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then buy their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills ____ our Marxist Democrat Party’s game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation.

[RAILhead]

DAMMIT! Again with the bassackwards apostrophes! WHY OH WHY DO YOU TYPE THEM LIKE THAT?!?! The key's not even on the same side of the keyboard for Pete's sake!

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by johnwk 

"...taxpayers aren't stupid..."

Well, if what you assert is correct, and I am not claiming you are not correct, then it would stand to reason that the majority of Obama’s supporters are not “taxpayers".


JWK

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then buy their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population enslaved to pay the bills ____ our Marxist Democrat Party’s game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation.

Do you work hard to be this silly, or does it come naturally? Are you even aware that it's been under the current Republican administration that the federal government's growth has exploded?

[Shaddim]

What has the Democrat controlled congress done to stop this? Why do they have the lowest approval numbers in history? (even lower than Bush's)

[RAILhead]

(^^ they don't like to talk about that, so please don't bring it up again)

[chris v]

The current administration is busily Socializing Wall Street, to the tune of 700 billion taxpayer dollars. We The People now own 80% of the world's largest insurance company. Nationalizing industries in one of the fundamental tenets of Socialism, and the Republicans suddenly find themselves waaaay ahead in this department. Privatize profits, Socialize risk.

I think I'd rather take my chances elsewhere than with a known gang of thugs that first deregulated everything is sight, then when the deregulation led to a spectacular meltdown after all their cronies had taken their golden parachutes and fled, used 700 BILLION (and counting) taxpayer dollars to buy the entire bankrupt financial system.

Also, google "McCain Keating Five." He's been up to this crap for 20 years. Not exactly a real reformer.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

(^^ they don't like to talk about that, so please don't bring it up again)

I'll talk about it, and I've voted Democrat most of my life. Today's Democratic party is almost indistinguishable from the Republican. They've both sold out the American people to corporate power. It's disgusting!

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by chris v 

The current administration is busily Socializing Wall Street, to the tune of 700 billion taxpayer dollars. We The People now own 80% of the world's largest insurance company. Nationalizing industries in one of the fundamental tenets of Socialism, and the Republicans suddenly find themselves waaaay ahead in this department. Privatize profits, Socialize risk.

I think I'd rather take my chances elsewhere than with a known gang of thugs that first deregulated everything is sight, then when the deregulation led to a spectacular meltdown after all their cronies had taken their golden parachutes and fled, used 700 BILLION (and counting) taxpayer dollars to buy the entire bankrupt financial system.

Also, google "McCain Keating Five." He's been up to this crap for 20 years. Not exactly a real reformer.

Unfortunately, we have too few principled conservatives around. A principled conservative would have refused to nationalize any of these corporations, and refused to bail out these corporations. Instead, we have this not-conservative-at-all "compassionate conservatism" nonsense.

Is it worth noting under OldMacMan's comment that it was folks who had been in Clinton's administration who took their golden parachutes out of Fannie and Freddie?

As he says, the party's members are equal opportunity offenders.

Although, I think OldMacMan gets it wrong when he presumes johnwk is a McCain supporter through and through - I'm of the opinion that johnwk is much more of a libertarian/constitutional literalist than anything, based on his previous advocation for abolishment of the 16th amendment and a return to taxation apportioned by the states rather than the 16th's taxation without apportionment.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

What has the Democrat controlled congress done to stop this? Why do they have the lowest approval numbers in history? (even lower than Bush's)

To stop what? Democrats are for more spending on public education.

[tie]

Facts have no connection to JWK. But he's loves cross-posting his rants across the Internet. Meh.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by tie 

Facts have no connection to JWK. But he's loves cross-posting his rants across the Internet. Meh.

I just checked on that 5 minutes ago. Nice thinking.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I'll talk about it, and I've voted Democrat most of my life. Today's Democratic party is almost indistinguishable from the Republican. They've both sold out the American people to corporate power. It's disgusting!

Very true unfortunately. Though both parties have particular things they emphasize more and a slightly different economic theory (Republican = "trickle down", Democrat = "bottom up") both are essentially representing the interests of industry giants that all but outright rule this country (how many pieces of legislation are actually written by industry lobbyists and merely signed off on by the Congress ... answer, most of them).

We gotta remember here, this is capitalist economic system we operate under. By default, it automatically rewards those who have capital much as in a monarchy your position in the system depends on how close you are to the monarch. One person can work full time and make 50k a year while another, who has a million dollars (maybe earned, maybe inherited, maybe built from having prior capital gains) can make the same 50k simply by putting the million in a very low risk value fund or savings account. That person collecting 50k in interest needn't do anything ... they are simply being rewarded for having capital to begin with. And yes, there are millionaires who are movers and shakers who are actively investing and taking risks to make much more than 5% but the point is, they are set up to receive some amount of money simply for having money to begin with and they can add or diminish from that amount based on what they do. And, for the last 22 years, this sort of money is actually taxed a lower rate than earned income (in addition to being exempt from FICA taxes). And that "interest" doesn't simply materialize out of thin air ... it is actively collected by skimming from the blokes who are paying 7, 8, 12, 15% to borrow capital. Point being, the system is designed from the the get-go to reward those who have capital in the first place by punishing those who don't. In a capitalist system, you are meant to "donate" a portion of your income (and therefore your time spent working) to support those for whom work is an option.

And now, deregulated and basically operating with nearly zero oversight, the unearned-income brokers who already gain money from non-productive work and enjoy lower tax rates on that unearned income are getting nearly a trillion dollar safety net thrown to them. Now the lowly earned-income tax payers are going to be footing the bill (just like we are did and are still doing the the Savings and Loan fiasco of the late 80s). Even as we discuss this, the lie is being put to all that BS about a "free market" and "risk and reward". Quite simply, whatever leaps in logic have to be taken, the government represents the interests of those who hold the power in this society and will do whatever it takes to make sure they are OK even as they let the general citizenry bear the full brunt of the risks they took in the real estate market.

As chris v said, its "privatize profits and socialize risk". Watch the actions of this government in the days ahead and in the years recently past. There should be no doubt who interests are truly represented by our current elected leaders.

[Ratm]

**** off.

[besson3c]

Yeah, it's time for a star off!

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I'll talk about it, and I've voted Democrat most of my life. Today's Democratic party is almost indistinguishable from the Republican. They've both sold out the American people to corporate power. It's disgusting!

Well, you have part of the problem correct, and only part of the problem because in all likelihood you view things through a democrat’s selective vision which excludes the big picture. “They” have not only sold out to international corporate giants which have no allegiance to America or any nation, and have done so in many cases for campaign contributions, but countless members of Congress are also raping the American Taxpayer to fund particular projects at taxpayer expense, pork barrel projects, which ultimately profit the financial interests of their immediate family members or relatives _____ a typical example being former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and his notorious land deal

Funny thing is, the major portion of these rip-offs would not be possible if our federal Constitution, and the intentions under which it was adopted, would be followed.


Don’t be fooled by phony proposals to regulate Wall Street either. The financial crisis we now experience as a nation, which in truth and substance is the plundering of the American People’s federal treasury by Congress and Congress’s inside crony crowd via Freddie and Fannie, is the result of Congress subjugating our written Constitution and the documented intentions under which it was adopted, and particularly, Congress’s total disregard for our Constitution’s prohibition against notes, such as Federal Reserve Notes [ a private banking institution‘s notes], being made a legal tender for all debts public and private.

There really is nothing new in the Freddie and Fannie scheme which now plunders real material wealth created by America’s hard working people. The root cause of our problem is, America’s working people have become detached from their own nation’s history, and are ignorant of the tools used by dishonest bankers to plunder real material wealth created by a nation’s people.

Our founding fathers suffered the same type of plundering and fraud we now experience from dishonest banking schemes which are intentionally designed to plunder. For example, see: John Law and the Mississippi Bubble: 1718-1720 to understand what is now taking place in America with our privately owned banking institution called the federal reserve.


Now, let us take a look at what our founding fathers agreed upon to prevent such plundering, which was a prohibition against promissory notes [such as federal reserve notes] being made a legal tender.

See The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, reported by James Madison : August 16

On August 16th of the Federal Convention the delegates took up a number of powers proposed to be granted to Congress, one such power being:”To borrow money, and emit bills on the credit of the United States...” The following reaction is taken from Madison’s Notes:

Mr. GOVr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States" — If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless.

Mr. BUTLER, 2ds. the motion.

<<<< SNIP>>>

*23. This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts.

Now, look at one of those things you call a “dollar”, look for the words : “THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PULBIC AND PRIVATE” Is this not exactly what was intended to be forbidden by our founding fathers and our Constitution?

The federal reserve manipulates and regulates the “value” of federal reserve bank notes, mistakenly called dollars, by setting rediscount rates, which in turn determines the winners and losers of billions and billions. When the federal reserve was created, people understood how they were being robbed by the newly created federal reserve banking cartel. See:this 1920’s article about rediscount rates


The New York Times
August 3, 1920, Tuesday
Section: Business & Finance, Page 21, 997 words

The Federal Reserve Bank of New Yoek, through the monthly bulletin issued by the Federal Reserve Agent, made a vigorous defense yesterday of its position with regard to rediscount rates and the resultant earnings of the bank, and challenged the charge that the Reserve Banks are profiteering.

With all the current talk about needing new “regulatory” measures, the only regulatory measure needed is to prohibit Notes, especially a private bank’s notes, from being made a legal tended. The only “legal tender” which ought to be recognized, regardless of various bank or government notes which may and can be in circulation, ought to be gold and silver, which is what our founding fathers intended and is the key regulatory measure needed to control Wall Street, and would allow the market place and the people to determine the safest mediums of exchange in circulation. America must be freed from the money monopoly created by Congress in violation of Constitution which now plunders the people, and, the money manipulators who are being paid millions of dollars a year to “regulate” must be prosecuted and their improperly accumulated wealth confiscated and returned to the federal treasury. When will the American People wake up?

Isn’t it time for the American people to pay a visit to Washington, D.C. with their sporting gear and a very large supply of tar and feathers?

JWK

History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance._____ James Madison

[ShortcutToMoncton]

…wow.

[besson3c]

What's with the little ____ underlines? Am I suppose to write something in there? I'm trying to add funny words like "butt", "boobie", and "monkey", but it won't let me!

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by johnwk 

So, what are we to think about Obama`s $845 BILLION 'Global Poverty Act' which is designed to establish global socialism with the American Taxpayer being enslaved to pick up the tab?

This is what happens when people get all their info from their own echo-chamber. Your right-wing websites are lying to you.

Obama's proposed Global Poverty Act would cost 1 million a year. Million. Not Billion. The numbers are in the official CBO (Congressional Budget Office) cost estimate. This is the source, not a right or left-wing "news" site. Read it for yourself:

S. 2433 would require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to reduce global poverty. The strategy should include, among other things, more effective forms of development assistance, coordination of efforts with other countries and international organizations, and continuation of existing initiatives to reduce poverty and disease in developing countries. The bill also would require the State Department to prepare several reports describing the strategy, its implementation, and the progress made on achieving the objectives for reducing global poverty.

Based on information from the State Department, CBO estimates that implementing S. 2433 would cost less than $1 million per year, assuming the availability of appropriated funds.

You should have stopped to think about this for a second - do you really think that Obama would have proposed funding the UN with taxpayer dollars for an amount $145 billion more than the planned $700 billion Wall Street bailout, and yet NOBODY outside of the right-wing blogosphere is talking about it? Not a single MSM source would even notice? John McCain never mentions it in an ad or speech? The reason why is because it's false, that's why nobody's talking about it - other than the people who have a vested interest in believing every wild conspiracy theory about Obama, no matter how preposterous.

It's hard to take the rest of your claims about Obama's supposed hidden economic agenda seriously when you've got facts like this completely wrong.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

This is what happens when people get all their info from their own echo-chamber. Your right-wing websites are lying to you.

Obama's proposed Global Poverty Act would cost 1 million a year. Million. Not Billion. The numbers are in the official CBO (Congressional Budget Office) cost estimate. This is the source, not a right or left-wing "news" site. Read it for yourself:
.

You’re funny! “Your right-wing websites are lying to you.” The big lie is your assertion that Obama’s Global Poverty Act would only cost 1 million a year to the United States Taxpayers.

Instead of you posting such nonsense, how about you reading the Obama proposal which I posted a link to?

(View The Full Text Here)

[Report No. 110-331]
To require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of theMillennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

The bill would commit U.S. taxpayers to spend 0.7% of our gross domestic product on foreign handouts above what we already contribute around the globe.


NOTE:
This figure of 0.7% was codifed in a United Nations General Assembly Resolution and states:

In recognition of the special importance of the role which can be fulfilled only by official development assistance, a major part of financial resource transfers to the developing countries should be provided in the form of official development assistance. Each economically advanced country will progressively increase its official development assistance to the developing countries and will exert its best efforts to reach a minimum net amount of 0.7 per cent of its gross national product at market prices by the middle of the Decade

In addition:

Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.’s “Millennium Project,” says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.’s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the “Millennium Development Goals,” this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels. ________ see: Barack Obama's Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote

Heck, even Susan Rice, one of Obama’s top foreign policy advisers, says the U.S. should give 0.7 percent of its Gross Domestic Product to developing nations.

JWK

[hyteckit]

How's deregulation and corporate welfare working for you? $700 billion?

How's the Iraq War working out for you? $650 billion?

How are pork-barrel projects working for you?

How about Palin, the pork barrel queen? $600 million for bridge and road project.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080916/...dge_to_wasilla

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by johnwk 

The bill would commit U.S. taxpayers to spend 0.7% of our gross domestic product on foreign handouts above what we already contribute around the globe.

There's a lot more to this story than you are letting on.

1) The .7% is NOT "above and beyond what we already contribute around the globe". It accounts for what we currently give (about .22%) and bumps it to .7. The dollar figures you quoted are "above and beyond" but not the percentage.

2) If you read your own quotation by Jeffery Sachs, the total dollar amount listed would be if we had immediately moved to .7% back in 2002 and continued for 13 years until 2015. Obviously, we missed the first 7 years of that up to 2009, so the $845 billion number is false. The $65 billion/yr is also contradicted by the Fox news quote that you linked out to about Susan Rice. From the article YOU QUOTED:

“Obama and Biden will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and they will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal,” the candidates vow in their campaign platform.

I don't know how you do math, but "doubling to $50 billion sounds like we give $25 billion now and would need to be augmented by $25 billion more to make $50 billion. Can you explain whether it's $25 billion more as as listed in the Fox News article in describing the Obama-Biden proposal or is it actually "$65 billion collected by a global tax on fossil fuels" as speculated by a guy (Sachs) who is not a member of the US Congress, does not have the power to propose a tax or determine where those tax dollars come from. His predictions, dollar amounts, and wet dreams about how we're going finance it with a fossil fuel tax was something he wrote as a professor of international trade at Harvard in 1999 (linked to in your article as well) . Actually, a tax on fossil fuels in 1999 was a pretty sensible solution given how cheap gas was then ... but that's beside the point. Are you trying to say that what Sachs opinion from 1999 is what Obama has proposed in his current legislation ?

I'm starting to agree with Gee-Man about the "right wing echo chamber" you seem to be in. Even the most cursory reading of the very articles you linked to leads to far different conclusions that those you have come up with. Give us a ring when someone in congress actually proposes a $65billion/year increase, retroactive to 2002, that will be funded by a global tax on fossil fuels. The fact of the matter is, nobody has proposed this bill ... Jeffery Sach's opinion from 1999 <> S. 2443.

3) We agreed to the .7% threshold at the UN General Assembly in 1970 and reaffirmed our commitment to this goal numerous times since then. We've just never actually met that goal. The proposed legislation really just codifies as law a foreign policy objective we have repeatedly committed to over the last 38 years.

4) Of the 22 "donor" countries who agreed to the threshold level, the US is a consistent dead-last as far as the percentage GDP we actually contribute. Of the 22 nations, 16 have already set timetables and made plans on how they will meet a .56 level by 2010 and the .7 level by 2015. 5 countries have already met the threshold.

5) Assisting the poorest countries where people are starving is not just benevolence .. it a key element of foreign policy (just like military aid which we spend more on than even the proposed amount of humanitarian aid). Foreign policy is more than just forcing people to do what we want at the end of a gun barrel ... sometimes humanitarian aid is more practical and will reap greater benefits than invasion in the long run (Believe it or not !!!).

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by Krusty 

There's a lot more to this story than you are letting on.

1) The .7% is NOT "above and beyond what we already contribute around the globe".
………

I guess I will have to do this in crayon for you.

Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.’s “Millennium Project,” says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.’s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the “Millennium Development Goals,” this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels. ________ see: Barack Obama's Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote

2002 + 13 YEARS brings us to the year 2015 when the U.S. is expected to meet the “Millennium Development Goals,”

Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.’s “Millennium Project,” says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends.

The figure to be added per year as stated above is $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends.


13 years x 65 BILLION PER YEAR = $845 BILLION

This $845 BILLION has to do with the Millennium Development Goals and has nothing to do with all the other foreign aid America sends out.

Does this clear things up for you?

Foreign Aid has become a bottomless pit and nothing changes except for warlords stealing the money to buy modern weapons to enslave those who were to be helped by the foreign aid. And now we are to increase the tax burden on hard working Americans living in Harlem under Obama's plan which would further enslave the American Taxpayer to the UN's Millennium Development Goals?

What I don’t understand about Obama is, we have children living in Harlem who go to bed hungry at night and Obama wants to tax hardworking fathers living in Harlem and then send their paychecks around the world, and Obama especially wants to send this money to his brother in Kenya?


I wonder if the plan is for Obama‘s brother living in Kenya, George, after receiving the money to then share the $845 BILLION with Barack, transferring some into a Swiss Bank Account for the chosen one!

So why does Obama wants to tax the fuel [his carbon tax] which heats the apartments in Harlem to help fund his $845 BILLION foreign give away scheme?


JWK

``Change`` we can believe in if Obama is elected ---- tax our dollars and leave us with change.
.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by johnwk 

You’re funny! “Your right-wing websites are lying to you.” The big lie is your assertion that Obama’s Global Poverty Act would only cost 1 million a year to the United States Taxpayers.

Instead of you posting such nonsense, how about you reading the Obama proposal which I posted a link to?

I've already read it. You haven't, apparently - since you are seeing a mandate that simply isn't there. You think my links are "nonsense"? Are you kidding? Numbers from the CBO, whose sole purpose is to be the final authority on what proposed laws are going to cost, and the State department are "nonsense" to you?

The bill would commit U.S. taxpayers to spend 0.7% of our gross domestic product on foreign handouts above what we already contribute around the globe.

Let me say this slowly:

The Global Poverty Act doesn't commit to any particular funding level.

Unlike bills that actually have a tax increase, the words "tax", "credit", "bond", "income", or "Internal Revenue" don't appear anywhere in the bill's text. That's because this bill doesn't add a new tax. All the bill says is that the President should work with private enterprise, look for ways to take our existing aid and repackage it, and generally give status reports on how we're doing on the way to meet the recommended, but not required, Millennium Development Goals of the UN. There is no tax requirement in the bill, period, end of story.

So there is no way the US would be forced to spend $845 billion. Maybe Jeffrey Sachs thinks we should be spending that much, and that's his opinion. This is NOT what the bill says.

Once again, your right-wing websites are lying to you. And you simply refuse to see the truth, even when reality is sitting right in front of you.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

So there is no way the US would be forced to spend $845 billion. Maybe Jeffrey Sachs thinks we should be spending that much, and that's his opinion. This is NOT what the bill says.

Once again, your right-wing websites are lying to you. And you simply refuse to see the truth, even when reality is sitting right in front of you.

It’s not about what Jeffrey Sachs thinks or what the U.N. can “force” or not “force“. Stop switching the subject which is a stupid debating trick. We are talking about what Obama thinks, and his $845 BILLION Global Poverty Act and that Obama approves of American Taxpayers being taxed 0.7 percent of America’s Gross Domestic Product, which is then to be transferred to developing nations. SEE:

(LINK)Obama Laments Debt, But Promises Billions for Anti-Poverty Program

JWK

``Change`` we can believe in if Obama is elected ---- tax our dollars and leave us with change.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by johnwk 

I guess I will have to do this in crayon for you.

2002 + 13 YEARS brings us to the year 2015 when the U.S. is expected to meet the “Millennium Development Goals,”

The MDG is to attain a percentage of giving by 2015, not to reach back to 2002 and "back charge" for $65 billiion/yr.

Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.’s “Millennium Project,” says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends.

As I said in my first post. The dollar amount per year may be correct (or may not, your other link contradicts the amount) but the 0.7 is the delta between what the percentage we currently give (about .022) and 0.7. Please re-read your cited articles and it becomes very clear. And please cite any source that the says the UN plans to "force" the US to pay any particular amount. That's just some stuff you copied from a blog. If you go directly to the source (the millennium project) and read its description of the Millenium project, that it "recommends", "urges", that a timetable be set and the goal reached by 2015.
http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/press/07.htm

The figure to be added per year as stated above is $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends.

The figure, yes (if you base it on Sachs 1999 declaration and if the US immediately rushed to a 0.7% giving rate by 2002). The addition of 0.7, no (and I said all of this in my first post). Bringing it up to 0.7 from its current level is clearly what your cited article states. The $65 billion number is what Jeffery Sachs proposed in 1999 that the US should do beginning in 2002 through 2015. Clearly, we haven't done that. We don't "owe" back pay on that and Jeffery Sachs proposal IS NOT the same proposal that Obama is actually making. Please, read your OWN LINK to Fox news where they say the Obama proposal adds $25billion. Please show me ANYWHERE that Jeffery Sachs proposal is in Obama's (or any) legislation. It's not. You keep citing Jeffery Sachs statement from 1999 as though he is actually making US policy in 2008 ... he's not. Me or some guy on the street corner can also say that the US should have paid X amount of dollars to help hungry people going back to 2002 but that doesn't make it happen and it doesn't make congress vote on it. As I said in my first post, for all intents and purposes, Jeffery Sachs is just some dude who said what he said in 1999 as a professor at Harvard ... 3 years prior to even becoming head of the Millennium Project. Show me where Jeffery Sachs proposal is forcing anybody to do anything or where Obama (or anyone) is stating that they are going to follow Jeffery Sachs plan and pay $845 billion ($65/yr retroactive to 2002).

Foreign Aid has become a bottomless pit and nothing changes except for warlords stealing the money to buy modern weapons to enslave those who were to be helped by the foreign aid. And now we are to increase the tax burden on hard working Americans living in Harlem under Obama's plan which would further enslave the American Taxpayer to the UN's Millennium Development Goals?

What I don’t understand about Obama is, we have children living in Harlem who go to bed hungry at night and Obama wants to tax hardworking fathers living in Harlem and then send their paychecks around the world, and Obama especially wants to send this money to his brother in Kenya?

Both candidates tax plans have been pored over extensively and Obama's lowers taxes on ALL people in the sub $250k range, is about even (+$12) on people between $250k and $603k, and a DRAMATIC increase on people making more than $2.9 million/yr (back to levels similar to what they've paid for most of the years since WWII .. except for the Reagan/Bush years when they've gotten a huge windfall drop in tax rates). So, no, Obama's plan does not raise taxes on the dad and harlem to pay for this aid ... it raises it on the same folks who we are preparing to finish a $1 trillion giveaway to. It raises it on the $67 million/yr executive who can't remember how many homes he even owns. The tax proposals of both candidates are a matter of public record yet you are blithely saying that Obama's will raise taxes on the dad in Harlem. it won't unless that dad in harlem is dragging down > $603k/yr. If you are actually proposing that the dad in Harlem is going to pay more in taxes under Obama than he currently does, you are knowingly lying. The dad in Harlem will not only pay slightly less in taxes, he may actually get a health plan to take care of his kids for less than it currently costs him.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by johnwk 

It’s not about what Jeffrey Sachs thinks or what the U.N. can “force” or not “force“. Stop switching the subject which is a stupid debating trick. We are talking about what Obama thinks, and his $845 BILLION Global Poverty Act and that Obama approves of American Taxpayers being taxed 0.7 percent of America’s Gross Domestic Product, which is then to be transferred to developing nations. SEE:

(LINK)Obama Laments Debt, But Promises Billions for Anti-Poverty Program

JWK

Great, another link to an opinion piece from Foxnews that directly contradicts what you are espousing about Jeffery Sachs. How 'bout go to the original source materials, read them, and form and opinion rather than taking someone else pre-packaged opinion and citing it as though it were original source material

From your article:

But in December, Obama also sponsored the Global Poverty Act which, if passed, would require the president to commit to cutting global poverty in half by 2015. Critics say that would cost American taxpayers $845 billion

"Critics say that would cost American taxpayers $845 billion" Really ? Must be critics from 1999 because, clearly, if we went by Obama's current plan (cited at the beginning of the article) and began it in next year's budget, we wouldn't come close to $845 billion.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by johnwk 

It’s not about what Jeffrey Sachs thinks or what the U.N. can “force” or not “force“. Stop switching the subject which is a stupid debating trick.

Switching the subject? Umm, project much? You're the one claiming that what Jeffery Sachs says is what Obama's bill mandates. I'm saying he's irrelevant - what matters is the content of the bill and the official cost estimate.

You keep dodging and weaving, but you haven't proven anything you claim. The $845 billion number is false. My sources are: 1) the actual contents of Obama's Global Poverty Act, and 2) the official government source for the cost of the bill, the Congressional Budget Office.

Can you disprove the numbers of the Congressional Budget Office and the US State Department, or not? Or are you going to continue to misread your own sources, or find random blogs and right-wing "news" sites to bolster your paranoia?

Please find and quote, exactly, this "tax" you keep talking about in the text of the actual bill... I'll wait.

We are talking about what Obama thinks, and his $845 BILLION Global Poverty Act

Saying the number over and over doesn't make you right. Provide some proof or let it go.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by Krusty 

The MDG is to attain a percentage of giving by 2015, not to reach back to 2002 and "back charge" for $65 billiion/yr.

Stop blowing smoke. No one on this end made such an absurd claim. You're trying to switch the subject again.

NOW, BACK THE SUBJECT AND WHAT OBAMA PROPOSES FOR THE U.S. TAXPAYER!

Obama proposes:

[Report No. 110-331]
To require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of theMillennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day. ____From the text of Obama’s Bill)

Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.’s “Millennium Project,” says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.’s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the “Millennium Development Goals,” this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels. ________ see: Barack Obama's Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote

Susan Rice, one of Obama’s top foreign policy advisers, says the U.S. should give 0.7 percent of its Gross Domestic Product to developing nations. SEE:
Obama Laments Debt, But Promises Billions for Anti-Poverty Program

Now, let us do the math!

2002 + 13 YEARS brings us to the year 2015 when the U.S. is expected to meet the “Millennium Development Goals,”

Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.’s “Millennium Project,” says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends.

The figure to be added per year as stated above is $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends.

13 years x 65 BILLION PER YEAR = $845 BILLION

This $845 BILLION has to do with the Millennium Development Goals which Obama is supporting with his bill and has nothing to do with all the other foreign aid America already sends to foreign nations!.


Obama is looking to rape the America Taxpayer for $845 BILLION and send this wealth to foreign nations!


Any questions about Obama proposing to rape the U.S. Taxpayers and send their wealth to foreign lands?

JWK

``Change`` we can believe in if Obama is elected ---- tax our dollars and leave us with change.

[G Barnett]

Textbook, really.

The random bolding, capitalization and bright red text score bonus points.

[Gee-Man]

Re-posting links over and over that have already been debunked doesn't make your arguments any more correct. You're still wrong.

This really is a waste of time, but anyway... the descriptive text you keep posting is in the introduction of the bill. I asked you to find the "tax" in the bill's text that requires the US to spend additional money towards the bill. Hint: Look for the word "tax" or other words with the same meaning. And oh, this means you'll have to actually read the bill.

Keep looking. I'm sure you'll find something to match your paranoia some day.

[besson3c]

Of course, even if this bill would cost us and Obama did support it then, it is not a given that he would support it now, just like John McCain doesn't support deregulation now like he used to in the past. I don't mean that as a little dig, but to illustrate the fact that people's positions change, and that is healthy. Why don't we save this debate for when this is actually on the table? Given all that the next president will have to work on, I somehow doubt that this project would have any sort of priority, especially given the state of our economy.