Democracy Has Prevailed.

August 25, 2008

New Obama Ad


John K. said...

John K: Sure we want four more years of the same.  After all, we all enjoyed spending the Bush tax cuts.  And it worked so well that Hussein Obama is proposing giving us $1,000 more if elected.  Besides, Bush kept the country safe since 9-11.  He kept homegrown terrorists like Ayers under control.  I could use 4 more years of Bush.  But I might also settle for McCain.

Infinonymous said...

Keep all those points in mind, John. That's what you'll be muttering bitterly to yourself for the next eight years or so.

You might want to throw in a couple of "damned hippies -- shoulda fixed them all when we had the chance" and "I'da killed every last gook in Vietnam" and "damned coloreds -- it's like we let 'em run the whole country now" references. That will greatly increase your stature among the other bitter, muttering wingnuts.

Conservative Mountaineer said...

I'd take 4 years of McCain before I'd take 1 minute of Obama.

Hey, John K... Check this blog out.. I think you'll enjoy it. The writer, PJ-Comix, "analyzes" various postings at Democrat Underground, a real collection of looney angry leftists. Occasionally (actually, very seldom), I venture over to DU, but I always feel like I need a bath after visiting... those folks are vile. (I don't post.)

Conservative Mountaineer said...

To the rest of you leftists... I KNOW you went to look... Go ahead. Admit it. How's the blood pressure? A little high, now? Hehehehehehehe.

I'll repeat...

Gotta love it.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Right, KGC, because their aren't vile bloggers on the right, eh? I mean, it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that Obama is an evil terrorist, as your little winger friend John K. has started.

In short - you've gotta a lot of nerve talk about "vile" rhetoric.

And, no, I didn't waste my time looking.

Just to clear up John's complete inaccuracy with regards to Obama's tax cuts:

First, Obama supports repealing the tax cuts of George W. Bush - you know, the ones that benefit people who own 9 homes?

Second, Obama proposes a truly broadbased tax cut for the middle class. Instead of just talking about cutting taxes for middle class families and business owners as John McCain does, it is a central part of Obama's economic plan.

For example, if you make between $38,000-$66,000, Obama's plan cuts your taxes by $1,042. McCain's only reduces the tax burden for these middle class citizens by $319.

If you make between $66,000-112,000, Obama's plan calls for a tax cut of $1290. McCain: $1009.

Now, if you make $2.9 million or more, John McCain is going to cut your taxes by $269, 364.

That's probably why McCain's tax plan ignores 101 million American families, whereas Obama proposes a plan that will actually help middle class Americans. They won't have to wait for the phantom "trickle down" effect that Republicans are always talking about but which never seems to manifest.

John McCain's tax policies are like Bush's - their tax cuts are for people that own more homes than most people have pairs of shoes.

And what do we have 8 years later?

Lower wages, a weakened dollar, fewer good-paying jobs, more jobs shipped overseas, more people living in poverty, income disparity at its highest level since the Great Depression, more people unable to afford health care, more people unable to send their children on to secondary education, more and more Americans unable to live the American dream.

I guess that's John K.'s recipe for success.

And I don't think you get to call out homegrown terrorists, John K., when it was winger fruitcakes such as yourself that supported murderers like Timothy McVeigh, support vigilante groups like the Montana militia and the Minutemen.

Frankly, to hear a conservative talk, you'd swear they hate our government as much as the terrorists do.

Conservative Mountaineer said...

Let's just say I'm my income is higher than $112,000 (not much, but higher), excluding my wife's salary. I partly own 1 business, fully own another start-up. I employ people. My family will get scr*wed under Obama. I will shut-down the start-up.

From Obama's "Blueprint for a Change", downloaded this afternoon...

Taxes. Obama will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay. [Page 11]

= The payroll tax they pay is for SS, a benefit someone such as myself will NEVER see.. even though I will pay much more in than I could "Hope" (there's that word, again) to receive. What about EITC? Food Stamps? $$ for babies?

Oh, and where do you think the $1,000 will come from? Tooth fairy? No, people like me.

Repeal Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy. Obama is committed to repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. [Page 29]

= No further discussion on this topic in his "Blueprint". Platitude, nothing more.

What is wealthy? $100K, $250K, $1M, $2M, $5M in ASSETS? In INCOME? What about someone who makes $500,000 in NYC? I guarantee they're not wealthy or rich. What about someone in Des Moines, IA? $100,000 is probably rich there.

Expand the EITC. Obama will increase benefits and expand the number of individuals eligible for EITC, one of the most successful anti-poverty programs in history. [Page 41]

=Before I hurl, let's see.. we've spent something on the order of $5-$6 TRILLION since LBJ to combate proverty and... we STILL HAVE POVERTY and POOR PEOPLE! Guess what, there will ALWAYS be poor people... lazy POOR people.

EITC is a distribution of wealth program, nothing more.

I could go on and on and on. Obama is WRONG for America and his "Blueprint" is a blueprint for Socialism and wealth distribution from those who create jobs and wealth to those who b*tch, moan and cry that they're oppressed.. they can't get a job...

[Wish we could add a tagline to all posts. Mine would be:
"Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should not be a Federal Agency. It should be a convenience store."]

Conservative Mountaineer said...

Oh and from Forbes Magazine...

Truly Toxic Tax Boost
Democratic party presidential nominee Barack Obama wants to sharply increase Social Security taxes on upper-income earners, righteously declaring that "the rich can afford it." However, the economy can't.

Raising the highest federal tax take on income to over 50% would slam the economy hard by punishing success. High tax rates have been the principal barrier to growth in western Europe. High-tax countries such as Germany and France consider themselves in a boom when their growth rates reach an anemic 2%.

Weakening long-term economic growth seems a peculiar way to meet Social Security's gargantuan obligations to the 78 million baby boomers who are just starting to retire and draw benefits.

Obama's plan is a destructive form of double taxation. Money he would supposedly raise from the higher tax will be promptly spent by Washington politicians. The Social Security system will receive yet another nonmarketable IOU from the Treasury Department. When the Social Security Trust Fund turns in the IOU, the federal government will have to find new money to make good on that IOU: more taxes.

There's another big problem with Obama's risky scheme: The biggest job creators in the American economy are small businesses. What Obama and his ilk don't recognize is that most small businesses are taxed at personal income tax rates. Thus, their profits will be hit by his higher taxes.

Is that the kind of change we really want?

Conservative Mountaineer said...

In reference to my most recent post...

Didn't Obama just have an Intern in Europe tour? Hmmmm, Europe is in the toilet because of their high tax rates, onerous employment practices, socialized healthcare, etc.?

And, Obama apparently wants to duplicate that? Good grief.

Count-down to execution of liberal response...
1. Stake a far-left position based on "feelings".
2. Be presented with logic and argument as to fallacy and/or inconsistency(ies) of said position(s), including historical results. [e.g., higher tax rates result is less taxes... free $$ result in lazy people.]
3. Resort to name-calling.

Conservative Mountaineer said...

5, 4, 3, 2, 1.....

P.S., John K.. this is way too easy and way too much fun.

John K. said...

John  K: Infinony, please try to restrain your bigotry, there are liberals present in this room.

Richmond K. Turner said...

The whole "McCain is the same as Bush" thing just isn't sticking for me, anymore than the "Obama is the same as Rev. Wright" thing did.

Just my opinion, but Obama's ad buys would do better if they would directly attack some of the utter bullshit claims that McCain's advertisements have put forward. People just don't feel they know Obama, but they do know that the left is absolutely ga-ga over him (that's what the "biggest celebrity on the planet" spot fed into). So when McCain's later ads claim that Obama wants to raise taxes on people earning $45,000 a year, and Obama doesn't come out and immediately say "that's just bullshit", people look at what they do know to evaluate McCain's claim. And they figure, well, he's a Democrat, and the lefties are in love with him, and the lefties love taxing the shit out of us, so, hey maybe it's true.

There's only a tiny percentage of the electorate that even wants to be well informed to know that it's not true. An astonishingly small number of people simply will *not* take the time to do even a Google search on the topic. The only way to refute the bullshit with these voters is to shove the refutation right under their noses with TV ads.

But I haven't seen too many ads of that kind from Obama.

John K. said...

John K: Remember lefties, Clinton could neither restrain home grown terrorism, Oklahoma City, nor foreign terrorism, Kenya, USS Cole etc.  But Bush did.  He took his oath seriously and acted like a commander in chief.  McCain will do the same.  But Clinton did kick some real butt at Waco eh?  So yes, I will take McCain over a Hussein Obama who thinks a bevy of lawyers suing everyone is all we need.

Conservative Mountaineer said...

Richmond.. I'd argue that there's a large portion of voters who can't peel themselves away from Deal or No Deal, ET Tonight, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, American Idol, Survivor, et al, long enough to even know issues. Issues? We don't need to know issues. Where's our money? The gubmint and rich folk owe us.

Dayvoe said...

[Sigh] I guess we have to go over this again, don't we John.

9/11 happened on Bush's watch. So I guess he "couldn't restrain" terrorism either. And considering the warning he got with the daily briefing in August of 2001, HE DIDN'T EVEN TRY.

And how 'bout those anthrax letters? I guess he couldn't restrain domestic terrorism, either, huh?

You should at least TRY to be consistent with your spin.

Conservative Mountaineer said...

[Sigh] I guess our side has to remind your side that Clinton was OFFERED bin Laden, but refused.. and decided to bomb a tent and an aspirin factory..

Have you read the Daily Briefing? Very inconclusive. Wish I had the time or the inclination to locate. Will try, though.

Oh, and the fact that many of Bush's transition and appointees, etc. were held up due to Gore's whining in FL?

Geez, liberals.. get over it. Terrorism was spawned and escalated loooooong before Bush. [Hint for the time-challenged.. escalated AFTER 1992. Who was President?]

But, but... if we just sit down and talk with them, they will understand and love us!

Dayvoe said...


You have to be kidding. The daily briefing was titled (and I know you remember this - but are conviently ignoring it) "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US."

So of course it's "inconclusive."

The "Bin Laden was offered to Clinton" story has already been debunked - by the 9/11 Commission. They said they were not able to find any evidence that the Sudanese offered bin Laden to the US.

And do I need to remind you that 9/11 happened about EIGHT MONTHS AFTER Bush was inaugurated? Are you really saying that what happened between November 2000 and December 2000 had something to do with how Bush's appointees failed to protect this country nearly a year later?

Maybe you should just stick to peppering your comments with John K's "LMAO" and "LOL". As ridiculous and as infantile as they are, they're hardly as ridiculous as that last argument of yours.

C.H. said...

"The "Bin Laden was offered to Clinton" story has already been debunked - by the 9/11 Commission."

Okay, how come you guys will believe the 9/11 commission when it comes to this, but when I rebuke the nonsense that McCain "does not know the difference" between Sunni and Shia by linking to the same report and asserting that Iran and AQ have at least in principle worked together for what they see as the greater good of hurting all those who disagree with them--and that includes Americans, westerners, Muslims, and Jews--you guys will shy away.

What's up with that? You cannot have it both ways...but then again, the far-left tends to do this all the time.

BTW, Big O seems to think there is a different between terrorist groups and states that support them. I believe that the United States and the Iranian people have very much in common when it comes to fighting terrorism...but so long as Khamenei and the revolutionaries are running things in Tehran, saying we should chat it up with them is like saying Bush should have tried to pre-empt 9/11 by talking with the Taliban in '01. Its that stupid...

m dachshund said...

Did the Young Republicans/Libertarians Anonymous Reunion not go well last evening?

For, how on earth could such a trio of wingnut loons come together here in the course of the past 12 hours?

John K. said...

John K: Remember, Clinton refused Bin laden (Bin Biden LOL LOL) because he did not think he had enough evidence to prosecute.  So left wing kooks, how did that lawyer thing work out during the Clinton years? LMAO

EdHeath said...

Hey, the video (from yesterday!) is no longer available.

You know, it’s not a matter of Obama repealing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy. At least some of them were passed years ago with sunset provisions. John McCain wants to make them permanent. Are they working now? Have real wages increased for the majority of workers in this country?

McCain wants to discourage and eventually eliminate employer provided health insurance (that’s from the McCain website). He wants the opposite of universal health care, he wants no health insurance for anyone. We would get a tax credit of $2500 to $5000 to help pay for health insurance. Except that family care costs more like a thousand a month now, and will skyrocket if there are no pools of workers to spread the risk. But the insurance companies “excess revenues” will also skyrocket, especially for rackets like UPMC, health insurance and medical care all rolled into one.

Small businesses have a tough time offering health insurance to employees now. If McCain’s plan is passed, small businesses will have an out, they will be able to say to employees that it is their responsibility to pay for their own health insurance. Young families will sign up for high deductible plans with tiny HSA’s, and will steadily bankrupt themselves with small illnesses and the occasional multi-thousand dollar operation until they stop going to the doctor at all, and then have to rush to the emergency room for what might have been an easily preventable disease that eventually kills them. That’s John McCain’s America.

Richmond K. Turner said...

Uhm, Ed? Doesn't every last one of us want to "discourage and eventually eliminate employer provided health insurance". Isn't that exactly what single-payer universal coverage would do?

Many small businesses have already eliminated coverage, and even more of them will be doing so with every passing year. It just costs too much, they just can't swing it, and they can't pass those costs onto their customers when so many of their competitors have already eliminated this cost.

Eventually, only those of us who are employed by the largest organizations will have employer-provided health coverage. And even there, the co-pays and deductibles will go way up and those things which are covered will be so buried in bureaucratic barriers that getting access to them will border on the impossible.

Whether we all end up purchasing our own insurance policies, or whether we shift to having the government pay for it, the end result is -- and probably should be -- the end of employer-provided health coverage.

Anonymous said...

"Did the Young Republicans/Libertarians Anonymous Reunion not go well last evening?"

Whoa. Leave the libertarians out of this.

EdHeath said...

Richmond, I’m so glad you commented. One of the big factors in the cost of health insurance is whether you are in a group or not. When you are in a group, the cost of any one person’s illness can be spread among many people. It helps when the group is working age adults, getting health insurance from an employer. The bigger the employer, the better. They are among the healthiest people generally (they are healthy enough to work). For the insurer too, it is nice to know that they are backed by a big employer, someone the health insurance company can go to if need be.

A single payer universal health care plan, coordinated by the government and paid for by taxes, is the ultimate group. It is perhaps too large (health insurance companies prefer only insuring working adults, and if they have to, their offspring), but it solves one problem of spiraling health care costs by eliminating health insurance companies (even while other problems may arise). Mostly politicians, if not everyone, agrees this solution is too radical for the US at this time, although healthcare professionals and others advocate it, and the rest of the industrial nations use it.

John McCain is advocating the opposite. He would have no groups. We would have the tax credit I mentioned, and shop in the market place of health insurance companies for individual or family insurance. The thing is, health insurance companies would have no one for us to share our risk with, so their calculation of premiums would have to include the risk that we would not be able to pay a sky high bill. They would have to ask us invasive questions about pre-existing conditions, they would want any and all previous medical records, they would penalize us if we didn’t have enough medical records, and they would worry whether we were going to keep our jobs. Either they would not be able to list rates on their websites, or the rates they listed would be so high, because they generalized their calculation of risk based on nearly worst care scenarios. The process for getting insurance would be arduous, probably so difficult for some people that they would not get the insurance, and rely (as many do now) on emergency rooms not to turn them away.

Obama’s plan keeps group insurance (including its favorable tax treatment) intact, but also offers health insurance at a subsidized rate to those who don’t have it now. It can be argued that his program uses the market in an intelligent manner, without up ending the current system, or that his program is in fact inferior to John Edwards’ or Hillary Clinton’s proposals. But at least Obama’s does not change health insurance for every one, in a scary way.