• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Presidential election may be up for grabs

The median household income for 2007 rose 1.3% to $50,233.Here is a break down by state.The US enjoys far lower unemployment than the EU. Unions are far more powerful in Europe than in the US which I think explains Europe's economic doledrums.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/medincsizeandstate.html

The average US worker will not tolerate a lower standard of living which would be the result of an Obama administration.Why do I say this ? Higher taxes mean less discretionary income.Higher prices for goods and services mean that earning power is reduced. If NAFTA ends up being scrapped by a protectionist Obama administration we definitely will see the prices of goods go up.Couple this with current economic conditions and the future doesnt look very rosy.
 
Thus the overtures with the EU.....kinda hedging our bets...
 
Some contrarian opinion:

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzU2MDg2MzVhY2EyY2U0NmFmODdmNmE4MTBmMTQ4ZTE

Obi Wan: 'Believe me, there is someone in the Obama campaign who is deathly afraid of the 'McCain pulls even or goes ahead' poll.'

My mentor - who goes by the nickname Obi Wan Kenobi - has reappeared again, and remains generally optimistic about McCain's chances. He felt the final debate had worked for McCain because he had finally found themes that he kept coming back to in answer after answer.

Obi-Wan particularly noted McCain's observation that Obama keeps saying he wants to "look at" drilling instead of doing it — implicitly raising the question of whether the most eloquent and melodious talker is better than a guy who actually gets things done.  Even more importantly, the candidates spotlighted the clear and fundamental difference between the two on economics. Obama is clear that he will try to tax and spend his way out of a recession; McCain will cut both. Obama spoke to Joe the Plumber as if he was okay with raising taxes on those making $250,000, as if Obama presumed Joe thought he would never make $250,000.

Obi-Wan expected some sort of bump or goose for McCain after the debate, and thought we were seeing it with the Gallup poll's traditional model that had McCain only down by 2 percent. Today, that model now has Obama ahead by 5 percent. But just about every other tracking poll has shown a narrow Obama lead, too. (The RCP average has shrunk from 8.2 percent to 5.3 percent.)

Obi Wan is wondering about the timing of the Colin Powell endorsement, too. I had figured that Powell's nod would have been a bigger help to Obama earlier in the race - recall the rumors of Powell speaking at the Democratic Convention. Obi-Wan figures this was one of the best cards Obama had left to play, and he played it in the next-to-last weekend instead of the final weekend. He wonders if internal polling prompted the Obama camp to roll out Powell a bit earlier than planned.

"McCain had a very good week," he told me. "He looked presidential at Al Smith dinner and he had everybody talking Joe the Plumber and taxes the next few days. And the debate performance may have been as big as Kennedy in '60 — that important, because the undecideds were watching."

"We have just seen the greatest economic scare since the Great Depression and everybody is looking at polls as if they are business as usual. That's crazy."

I wondered aloud whether the media's day by day coverage could push people off those gut reactions - suspicion of "spreading the wealth around," relating to Joe the Plumber, etc.

"If so, the American people aren't the American people anymore," Obi Wan responded. "Believe me, there is someone in the Obama campaign who is deathly afraid of the 'McCain pulls even or goes ahead' poll." (And in Gallup, it was within 2 percent.) "That Obama strategist knows how much depends on the whole Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel approach —.work with the media to demoralize conservatives, and keep the perception of a juggernaut going. But a day or two of a few bad polls, and that strategy backfires. The conservatives know they've still got a shot at this."

Even if the poll numbers are true (and polling is more of a black art than a science), doesn't it seem strange that despite the wall to wall positive media coverage, the vast amounts of money to spend on advertising, the uncertain economic and national security environment unfolding and the unpopularity of the outgoing Administration Senator Obama's lead is so small? He had the same advantages against senator Clinton, and only squeaked by in the Democratic primaries as well. I suspect this will be very tight election right to the last moment, and a Democrat "Supermajority" is not a sure bet...
 
Joe Biden warns that America's enemies will test Barack Obama with an international crisis within six months if he's elected president

"Mark my words," Biden told donors at a Seattle fund-raiser Sunday night.

"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America.

"Watch. We're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.

"And he's going to need help . . . to stand with him. Because it's not going to be apparent initially; it's not going to be apparent that we're right."



McCain treated Biden's comments as a gift while stumping across Missouri yesterday.

"The next president won't have time to get used to the office. We face many challenges here at home and many enemies abroad in this dangerous world," McCain said. "We don't want a president who invites 'testing' from the world at a time when our economy is in crisis and Americans are already fighting two wars."

McCain said it was even "more troubling" that Biden suggested supporters stick by Obama if the actions he takes are wrong or unpopular.

"Senator Obama won't have the right response, and we know that because we've seen the wrong response from him over and over during this campaign," he said.

Full article: Article Link



 
Where exactly is the basis for suggesting that the average US worker will face higher taxes if Obama is elected? The GOP keeps claiming this but his platform doesn't talk about any tax increases for the average American worker.  They repeatedly make this claim, on what is it based though?

As for NAFTA, I don't think Obama would scrap it - it's too advantageous to the US - because if they tried to renogiate it later they would likely not get the same terms, I doubt Canada would ever agree to proportionality again.

tomahawk6 said:
The median household income for 2007 rose 1.3% to $50,233.Here is a break down by state.The US enjoys far lower unemployment than the EU. Unions are far more powerful in Europe than in the US which I think explains Europe's economic doledrums.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/medincsizeandstate.html

The average US worker will not tolerate a lower standard of living which would be the result of an Obama administration.Why do I say this ? Higher taxes mean less discretionary income.Higher prices for goods and services mean that earning power is reduced. If NAFTA ends up being scrapped by a protectionist Obama administration we definitely will see the prices of goods go up.Couple this with current economic conditions and the future doesnt look very rosy.
 
From what I gather, renegotiating NAFTA if more geared to get Mexico to accept environmetal and labour standards that are enforced in Canada and the US.  GOP is distorting that one IMO.
 
Redeye the Bush tax cuts are due to end shortly unless Congress acts to extend them. Obama doesnt support a renewal so that will mean across the board tax increases for everyone. Then of course there will be more tax increases to pay for Obama's $1 trillion in new spending. Experts predict taxes to return to Clinton era levels.One thing about democrats is that they always raise taxes and they spend like drunken sailors.At least $300b will go to the UN to be doled out to the worlds poor.This is expected to cost every American $2500 each.The bill is the Global Poverty Act.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56405
 
tomahawk6 said:
Redeye the Bush tax cuts are due to end shortly unless Congress acts to extend them. Obama doesnt support a renewal so that will mean across the board tax increases for everyone. Then of course there will be more tax increases to pay for Obama's $1 trillion in new spending. Experts predict taxes to return to Clinton era levels.One thing about democrats is that they always raise taxes and they spend like drunken sailors.At least $300b will go to the UN to be doled out to the worlds poor.This is expected to cost every American $2500 each.The bill is the Global Poverty Act.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56405

I'll check out the Bush tax cuts issue - because I don't know the details thereof.  However, given the massive amount of spending that the Republicans embarked on (remember in the Clinton years, the US ran budget surpluses), saying that Democrats spend like drunken sailors is a little bit rich.  The massive deficits and expansion of government that has occurred under Bush is hardly what I would consider fiscally conservative.  Bush spent like a drunken sailor - look at the Iraq War!  This is what I don't get about the Republican party, they talk about being the party of the little guy, they aren't (the middle class being those who make less than $5-mil a year, was it?  Come on!).  They talk about being fiscally conservative, and they aren't.  They talk about opposing small government, but government seems empirically to grow most under GOP presidents.  On top of that, I recently read a research paper briefing (I wish I had the link) that showed that stock market returns (as measured by the DJIA and S&P500 as I recall) are higher under Democratic presidents.  The folks who did the study even adjusted it to "blame" the tech wreck's impact on Bill Clinton (by subtracting the aggregate loss from growth in his terms, and the Democrats still came out on top.

The American government is clearly broken.  The debt that future generations are being saddled with has grown out of control over the last few years, with no end in sight no matter who wins the election.  Social security is broken.  Health care is broken (and yes, I know Canada's system is far from perfect, but my grandmother-in-law, who lives in GA on Social Security and is in failing health and totally dependent on Medicare would give her right arm to move to Canada to be covered by our system).  Bush squandered America's international good will, the prestige that Bill Clinton left for the USA on the global stage (and not all that prestige came from him, Bush 41 was probably part of it, even perhaps Ronald Reagan), and that's going to take a lot of work to recover.  Our neighbours, our good friends, have a lot of trouble to deal with.  I'm not sold on McCain being the man to do it (and neither are a lot of conservatives, it seems), and the thought of Sarah Palin somehow winding up leader of the free world, well, that is truly terrifying.
 
As T6 said, taxes will rise to pre 2000 levels as the tax cuts sunset in 2010. Proposed environmental legislation (AKA carbon tax or cap and trade) will add taxes to business (which is paid for by you, the consumer), and the idea that Senator Obama can generate a tax cut to 95% of the electorate or taxpayers (I'm not entirely clear on that one) is mathematically impossible. Caps on FICA and Medicare/medicade contributions are targetted as well by a putative Obama administration, so another tax burden is being imposed.

WRT President Bush, his domestic record is appaling, but I would argue that part of the issue was he did not use his Presidential powers and political capital in that arena. Social Security reform (the "ownership society") and reigning in Freddie and Fannie in 2003 or 2006 would have done a lot to prevent or at least limit the damage we are seeing today, while the prescription drug plan and No Child Left Behind is just economic and political crack to buy voters. As a BTW, if your grandmother thinks she will get better medical treatment in Canada, she should be willing to wait 6 months plus to see a specialist (and then wait 6 months plus for the tests the specialist ordered, and then 6-18 months for the medical procedure based on those test results) and perhaps be serviced in a hospital comprable to the ones highlighted in the VA hospital scandal.

WRT America's "international good will"; I can recall vulger displays of "good will" dating back to the 1980's, and I am sure older readers can also chime in with examples of "international good will. This idea is more of a myth than reality
 
Thucydides said:
As T6 said, taxes will rise to pre 2000 levels as the tax cuts sunset in 2010. Proposed environmental legislation (AKA carbon tax or cap and trade) will add taxes to business (which is paid for by you, the consumer), and the idea that Senator Obama can generate a tax cut to 95% of the electorate or taxpayers (I'm not entirely clear on that one) is mathematically impossible. Caps on FICA and Medicare/medicade contributions are targetted as well by a putative Obama administration, so another tax burden is being imposed.

WRT President Bush, his domestic record is appaling, but I would argue that part of the issue was he did not use his Presidential powers and political capital in that arena. Social Security reform (the "ownership society") and reigning in Freddie and Fannie in 2003 or 2006 would have done a lot to prevent or at least limit the damage we are seeing today, while the prescription drug plan and No Child Left Behind is just economic and political crack to buy voters. As a BTW, if your grandmother thinks she will get better medical treatment in Canada, she should be willing to wait 6 months plus to see a specialist (and then wait 6 months plus for the tests the specialist ordered, and then 6-18 months for the medical procedure based on those test results) and perhaps be serviced in a hospital comprable to the ones highlighted in the VA hospital scandal.

WRT America's "international good will"; I can recall vulger displays of "good will" dating back to the 1980's, and I am sure older readers can also chime in with examples of "international good will. This idea is more of a myth than reality

We agree on a lot.  NCLB was an epic failure, and the signs that there was trouble ahead with Freddic Mac and Fannie Mae were reasonably obvious.  Bush's tenure as president looks pretty disasterous.  Are you suggesting, with respect to Social Security, that you would support the "self managed" concept?  I think that's ludicrous personally.  Most "self-directed" investments are more aptly described as "self-neglected"- I'm a financial planner by day job, by the way.

As far as carbon tax/cap-and-trade concepts go, clearly something has to be done but I haven't formed an opinion on what.  Shifting tax burdens to "polluter-pays" systems make a lot of sense to me but implementing them will take time to do painlessly.  We have to, globally, wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and other non-renewable resources and actually start looking at sustainability.  Problem is that it isn't easy to persuade a developing nation that they can't enjoy the luxuries we have enjoyed as a result - but if enough focus is put on sustainability they may be able to jump past stages of development (as an example of what I mean, consider that developing nations have by and large skipped landline telephony - moving straight to more modern technology).  The USA should be a leader in this sort of thing - but really haven't shown any leadership at all.

As it stands currently, my grandmother-in-law has faced a lot of waiting time to get tests and procedures done.  Incidentally, based on the most recent reports I've read, your quotes of wait times are right out to lunch, at least in Ontario.  According to the Fraser Institute, "The median wait time for Canadians seeking surgical or other therapeutic treatment dropped to 17.3 weeks in 2008 from 18.3 weeks in 2007."  Not great, but at least there is improvement.  On Medicare she has to wait and gets only very basic care.  I'd also like to know which hospitals you're comparing to VA hospitals in the US as you cited.

As for goodwill, the Americans have never been perfect, and no country has, but it seems there's a lot more palpable hostility to the US now than there was in previous years - at least on a broader scale.  Now, part of that may well have to do with increased proliferation of media and access to news of global events, and other factors - so I guess I'll leave that be until I get bored enough to find more empirical data.
 
Are you suggesting, with respect to Social Security, that you would support the "self managed" concept?  I think that's ludicrous personally.  Most "self-directed" investments are more aptly described as "self-neglected"- I'm a financial planner by day job, by the way.

Please show me in the US Constitution where it defines one of the roles of the Federal Government as ensuring people plan properly for their retirement. As a financial planner, you must know that even a small amount of money regularly set aside from earnings (especially pre-tax) can result in a pretty substantial retirement "nest egg". If people choose not to do that, that is not my problem. I also trust myself (along with my financial planner) to invest my money more effectively than the government can.
 
muskrat89 said:
Please show me in the US Constitution where it defines one of the roles of the Federal Government as ensuring people plan properly for their retirement. As a financial planner, you must know that even a small amount of money regularly set aside from earnings (especially pre-tax) can result in a pretty substantial retirement "nest egg". If people choose not to do that, that is not my problem. I also trust myself (along with my financial planner) to invest my money more effectively than the government can.

Nowhere does it say it is an obligation - but every industrialized country has some sort of public pension system.  Small amounts set aside from earnings can result in a substantial retirement nest egg, yes, if invested well and managed well.  I'm not entirely sure on how the SSA in the USA is managed but all I have to do is look at the management of plans like CPP, OTPP (the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan), the Caisse in Quebec, etc, to see that they can manage a lot better.  Building the nest egg is the easy part anyhow, it's converting it to income that is difficult.  Further, how many Americans really have the time or inclination to manage their investments on that scale - some do, sure, but the masses I would wager (by seeing how so many invest) don't really.  That's why a public pension works well.
 
Where exactly is the basis for suggesting that the average US worker will face higher taxes if Obama is elected?

I guess it depends on where the "average US worker" falls into the equation...

Assuming of course that you consider the Wall Street Journal to be credible....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463231048556587.html

What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in taxes? Economists Allan Meltzer and Scott Richard posed this question 27 years ago. We may soon enough know the answer.

Barack Obama is offering voters strong incentives to support higher taxes and bigger government. This could be the magic income-redistribution formula Democrats have long sought.

Sen. Obama is promising $500 and $1,000 gift-wrapped packets of money in the form of refundable tax credits. These will shift the tax demographics to the tipping point where half of all voters will receive a cash windfall from Washington and an overwhelming majority will gain from tax hikes and more government spending.

In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million -- 40% -- paid no income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute), this will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama's cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What's more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes -- less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually.

In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama's plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.

The plunder that the Democrats plan to extract from the "very rich" -- the 5% that earn more than $250,000 and who already pay 60% of the federal income tax bill -- will never stretch to cover the expansive programs Mr. Obama promises.

You can read the full article at the link above...
 
He's been chatting with Jack Layton again, huh?
 
I don't know where the Fraiser Institute is getting their data or methodology, but my figures are real, since they come from my family and personal associates. I am in fact the lucky one in the bunch, I only had to wait three months to see the specialist and three more months for surgery; a rather painful 1/2 year to be sure. The spread of SARS in Ontario was a result of the poor conditions and management of our hospitals, especially in Toronto; read Mark Steyn to see how the entire affair played out.

Self directed plans are neither good or bad, that depends on the time and energy the owner chooses to put into it. US Social Security is currently structured as a Ponzi Scheme, which will come under great stress as the ratio of workers to retirees becomes smaller, but US Federal civil service personnel do have a self directed plan where a portion of their earnings are invested in a series of index funds (from what I understand, the owner can choose to split the investment between one or more different types of funds, i.e. NASAQ, Fortune 500, bonds, Treasuries). Since these are Index funds, the investment is largely passive, the owner mostly decides on the level of risk they are comfortable with and selects accordingly. The argument that "all civilized nations" have pensions is not a good argument for having them, "all civilized nations" also allowed their banking industry to overleverage debt (many far more then the United States) with the results we see today around the world.

Finally, the "goodwill" the United States managed to accumulate after intervening in Bosnia, Kosovo, sending the fleet to save the Tsunami victims, President George W Bush providing billions of dollars to combat AIDS in Africa etc. is..............nil. Why worry about what other people think of you (I thought that was a particularly Canadian affliction), when the most important job of any government is to see to the National Interest and protect their citizens, something the United States has done under this administration.


 
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/08/Stubborn%20Ignorance.htm

Stubborn Ignorance



Here's what the U.S. Constitution says: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." How many times have we heard politicians, pundits and guardians of our news media say that President Bush cut taxes, or Obama is going to raise taxes? The fact of the matter is that presidents have no power to raise or lower taxes. They can propose tax measures or veto them but it is Congress that has the ultimate power to raise or lower taxes since they can, with a two-thirds vote, override a presidential veto. The same principle applies to spending. Presidents cannot be held responsible for budget deficits or surpluses. A president cannot spend a dime that Congress does not first appropriate. Given these plain facts, are politicians, pundits and media people -- who persist in talking about a president cutting or raising taxes, or creating a budget deficit -- ignorant, stupid or deceptive?



Did President Clinton create more jobs, or did President Bush? Let's look at it. In 1996, I landed a job at Grove City College team teaching a course with one of its faculty members, Professor Dirk Mateer. I would like someone to tell me how President Clinton created that job for me. Did he call the college president and say, "Hire Williams"? Did he give Grove City College, a private college, resources to hire me? He surely didn't call me up and say, "Williams, there's a job waiting for you at Grove City College." So what precisely do people mean when they say this president or that president created jobs? You might argue, "You're right when it comes to a president creating jobs, but Congress can create jobs through appropriating money for infrastructure such as highways and bridges."



That's true in one sense and false in another. You can see this by asking, "Where does Congress get the money to create the jobs?" They won't get it from the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus; they must get the money from taxpayers. That means if Congress collects $100 from a taxpayer for highway construction, he cannot use that $100 for some other expenditure that would have created a job. If Congress borrows the money for highway construction, it causes interest rates to be higher and therefore less job-creating investment. The bottom line is that Congress can only shift employment or unemployment but cannot create net new jobs.



Many politicians and pundits claim that the credit crunch and high mortgage foreclosure rate is an example of market failure and want government to step in to bail out creditors and borrowers at the expense of taxpayers who prudently managed their affairs. These financial problems are not market failures but government failure. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 is a federal law that intimidated lenders into offering credit throughout their entire market and discouraged them from restricting their credit services to low-risk markets, a practice sometimes called redlining. The Federal Reserve Bank, keeping interest rates artificially low, gave buyers and builders incentive to buy and build, thereby producing the housing bubble. Lenders were willing to make creative interest-only loans, often high-risk "no doc" and "liar loans," in order to allow people to buy more housing than they could afford. Of course, with the expectation that housing prices will continue to rise, it was no problem for lenders and borrowers but housing prices began to fall, leaving some people with negative home equity and banks in trouble.



The credit crunch and foreclosure problems are failures of government policy. In fact, what we see now is a market correction to foolhardy government policy. Congress' move to bailout lenders and borrowers who made poor decisions will simply create incentives for people to make unwise decisions in the future. English philosopher Herbert Spencer said, "The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools."



Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
 
An interesting look at the campaign; if Senator Obama were Govenor Palin:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/2008_10_23_A_day_in_the_life_of_Palin:_One_wonders_if_Obama_could_be_so_resilient/

A day in the life of Palin
One wonders if Obama could be so resilient

By Michael Graham  |  Thursday, October 23, 2008  |  http://www.bostonherald.com  |  Op-Ed
I have a dream for Sen. Barack Obama.

I have a dream that one day, for just 24 hours, he could be Sarah Palin.

OK, maybe that’s less of a dream and more a plot point from a bad Lindsay Lohan movie (redundancy alert!).

But imagine the Democratic nominee’s day as Barack Palin Obama:

He wake up and reaches for a secret cigarette and a copy of The New York Times [NYT]. Instead of the usual partisan puff pieces (“Obama Health Care Plan Pledges Miraculous Healings For All”), the Times is running exposes about his family.

Does his spouse have extremist political views? Who pays when his kids travel to Washington? And how do we know one of them isn’t really his grandkid?

Opening the editorial page Palin-Obama finds column after column filled with personal attacks and insults. Comments about his looks, how much his clothes cost, his speaking style - even suggestions that the radical teachings of his church might be a legitimate topic for discussion.

He clicks on MSNBC and sees the spittle-flecked face of Chris Matthews.

“Obama says he’s cutting taxes for 95 percent of taxpayers, but he’s not. He’s just sending them checks! No cut in their tax rate AT ALL! IT’S A LIE, A LIE! AAARRGGHHHH!

As the MSNBC medical staff fires yet another tranquilizer dart into Matthews’ thrashing body, Palin-Obama gets ready to face the day.

At the airport, Palin-Obama is under siege from the traveling press. “Why are you hiding, Sen. Obama? You haven’t taken questions from us since last month. Joe Biden hasn’t held a press avail since Sept. 7! Afraid he’ll make another ‘guaranteed crisis’ comment? How many more screw-ups before you dump the guy?”

A crowd of thousands gathers to hear him speak. When Palin-Obama mentions the “destructive foreign policy of George W. Bush,” someone shouts “murderer!” Another cries, “off with this head!”

By lunchtime, the cable news headline is: “Obama Whips Up Angry Mob, Some Fear Campaign May Inspire Violence.”

That afternoon, Palin-Obama sits down with a CNN reporter who spends the first half of the interview asking variations of the question, “How can a half-term senator with zero executive experience and no record of achievement be president? Shouldn’t you be ashamed of yourself for even running?”

“Let’s talk energy independence,” Palin-Obama asks hopefully. The reporter instead demands to know why Obama won’t release his medical records, his original birth certificate or the names of about half his contributors.

“You’re the most secretive candidate since Nixon,” the reporter insists. “And besides, the guy who plays you on ‘Saturday Night Live’ is way hotter.”

The day grinds on. False stories repeatedly corrected by the campaign continue to air. One Palin-Obama supporter - a plumber who asked John McCain a tough question at a campaign stop - had his private medical files hacked into, and found Candy Crowley hiding in his dumpster.

One more campaign stop, more questions about his wife’s politics, his children’s travel schedule and his clothing budget - and Palin-Obama finally reaches his hotel for a night’s rest.

His nightmare of misreporting, mean-spirited negative attacks and blatant media bias is over. For Gov. Sarah Palin, it’s going to last at least 12 more days.

Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1127193
 
When I titled the thread "Presidential election may be up for grabs" i meant in the sense that the race was actually wide open. Now it seems it is up for grabs in the more mercenary sense of for grabs by the highest bidder:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021856.php

Who is John Galt?
Share Post  PrintOctober 23, 2008 Posted by Scott at 6:52 AM

We've previously noted the gusher of illegal campaign contributions flowing into the Obama campaign from contributors such as "Doodad Pro" and "Good Will." More recently, incidents have been reported in which people have seen credit card charges surface suggesting they donated to Barack Obama when they did not. Matthew Mosk and Sarah Cohen noted one such incident earlier this week:

Now comes the story of Mary T. Biskup, of Manchester, Missouri. Biskup got a call recently from the Obama campaign, which was trying to figure out why she donated $174,800 to the campaign -- well over the contribution limit of $2,300.

The answer she gave them was simple. "That's an error."

Is the Obama campaign knowingly receiving illegal contributions? Yesterday one of our readers reported the results of an experiment he conducted:

I've read recent reports of the Obama campaign receiving donations from dubious names and foreign locales and it got me wondering: How is this possible?

I run a small Internet business and when I process credit cards I'm required to make sure the name on the card exactly matches the name of the customer making the purchase. Also, the purchaser's address must match that of the cardholders. If these don't match, then the payment isn't approved. Period. So how is it possible that the Obama campaign could receive donations from fictional people and places? Well, I decided to do a little experiment. I went to the Obama campaign website and entered the following:

Name: John Galt
Address: 1957 Ayn Rand Lane
City: Galts Gulch
State: CO
Zip: 99999

Then I checked the box next to $15 and entered my actual credit card number and expiration date (it didn't ask for the 3-didgit code on the back of the card) and it took me to the next page and... "Your donation has been processed. Thank you for your generous gift."

This simply should not, and could not, happen in any business or any campaign that is honestly trying to vet it's donors. Also, I don't see how this could possibly happen without the collusion of the credit card companies. They simply wouldn't allow any business to process, potentially, hundreds of millions in credit card transactions where the name on the card doesn't match the purchasers name.

In short, with the system set up as it is by the Obama camp, an individual could donate unlimited amounts of money by simply making up fake names and addresses. And Obama is doing his best to facilitate this fraud. This is truly scandalous.

Our reader was not yet done. He tried the experiment on the McCain site: "I tried the exact same thing at the McCain site and it didn't allow the transaction." He then repeated the experiment at the Obama site:

I went back to the Obama site and made three additional donations using the names Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Bill Ayers, all with different addresses. All the transactions went through using the same credit card. I saved screenshots of the transactions.

Our reader reports, incidentally, that he was using his MasterCard for the contributions. We submit this report in the spirit of inquiry and would especially appreciate hearing from readers who can illuminate how credit card procedures might (or might not) allow this to happen.

UPDATE: Readers have replicated the experiment reported in this post. We will have to revisit the issue tonight or tomorrow and appreciate any information you can provide in the meantime.

CLARIFICATION: Many readers point out that the Obama campaign would exercise some control over the security level required to verify small dollar transactions and that no collusion with the card issuer or bank is therefore required. Mark Steyn elaborates here. Mark explains the question of security settings and then adds:

As the Powerline reader has noted, if "John Galt" of "Ayn Rand Lane" attempts a contribution at the McCain campaign, it gets rejected. Which is just as well. If the Republican candidate's website were intentionally set up to facilitate fraudulent donations, it would be on the front page of The New York Times. But, as it's King Barack the Spreader, we can rest assured the crack investigative units will be too preoccupied with Governor Palin's shoes over the next two weeks.

It is a point that needs making and that could be made every day.

To comment on this post, go here.
 
Like the extremist voters of the GOP base who called Obama as a "terrorist" in a Ohio rally presided over by Palin.

I wonder if this is considered "extremist"?

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/17789356/detail.html

PITTSBURGH -- A 20-year-old woman who was robbed at an ATM in Bloomfield was also maimed by her attacker, police said.

Pittsburgh police spokeswoman Diane Richard tells Channel 4 Action News that the victim was robbed at knifepoint on Wednesday night outside of a Citizens Bank near Liberty Avenue and Pearl Street just before 9 p.m.

Richard said the robber took $60 from the woman, then became angry when he saw a McCain bumper sticker on the victim's car. The attacker then punched and kicked the victim, before using the knife to scratch the letter "B" into her face, Richard said
 
muskrat89 said:
I wonder if this is considered "extremist"?

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/17789356/detail.html
PITTSBURGH -- A 20-year-old woman who was robbed at an ATM in Bloomfield was also maimed by her attacker, police said.

Pittsburgh police spokeswoman Diane Richard tells Channel 4 Action News that the victim was robbed at knifepoint on Wednesday night outside of a Citizens Bank near Liberty Avenue and Pearl Street just before 9 p.m.

Richard said the robber took $60 from the woman, then became angry when he saw a McCain bumper sticker on the victim's car. The attacker then punched and kicked the victim, before using the knife to scratch the letter "B" into her face, Richard said

Sounds like a good chunk of the story is missing, in particular if they actually caught the guy and he admitted that he did all that because of a McCain bumper sticker.

As for taxation, I found this on the Washington post website

GR2008061200193.gif


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/12/GR2008061200193.html?referrer=facebook

Obama and McCain Tax Proposals
According to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are both proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families. Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy. For the approximately 147,000 families that make up the top 0.1 percent of the income scale, the difference between the two plans is stark. While McCain offers a $269,364 tax cut, Obama would raise their taxes, on average, by $701,885 - a difference of nearly $1 million.
 
Back
Top