The subtleties of media bias AP style

In a "news" story the AP shows the subtleties of bias.

So let me highlight for the purposes of education.
The first line begins the trail... "In a bold move brimming with confidence, Democrat Barack Obama broadened his advertising campaign ... by placing a commercial in the Republican presidential nominee's home state of Arizona." First the article starts with Obama...ok he is "ahead" but look at the adjectives, "bold", "brimming", "confident". What is this sentence would have been "In a move showcasing his over-confidence and huge sums of campaign donations, Democrat Barack Obama broadened his advertising campaign ... by dropping a commercial in the Republican presidential nominee's home state of Arizona." Different spin? Says the same thing does it not?

What about the first paragraph about McCain..."McCain was spending a second straight day touring economically ailing Ohio, a swing state with 20 electoral votes that McCain aides acknowledge is central to a victory on Tuesday. McCain was behind Obama in polls in the state." Again few changes in words and we get "McCain was spending a second straight day crisscrossing the swing state of Ohio, with 20 electoral votes the state is central to a McCain victory on Tuesday. In recent pools, McCain has closed to within 2 points in the state."

It does not take much to set the tone and still communicate the facts. And they know it.
Based on a read of the full article you can figure out the opinion the author wants you to leave with. I could sum up this authors view in a few words. "McCain is a total loser and does not have a chance. Even his own state may vote against him."

Next we move down to something a little less obvious then the adjectives (purposefully) used. Later in the article about McCain we have this... "McCain said. "He [Obama] wants to raise people's taxes — that's clear." Obama is proposing tax increases on families making over $250,000 and individuals making over $200,000 and tax cuts for the 95 percent of workers making less than $200,000. McCain also was to campaign Friday in Columbus, Ohio, with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. "

What was that... A Obama counter immediately after a McCain quote. Note that the Obama counter was not a quotation or stated as "The Obama campaign states". It was stated as fact. A fact that is disputed and refuted by every fact check source... except AP I guess. The fact of the matter is that it is not true. If it were to say "...and income tax cuts for the 95" then it would have been closer.

Subtle but effective.

Obama is not Robin Hood he is Prince John

Let's get something clear here. This Robin Hood, "Take form the Rich and Give to the Poor" babble is completely off base. It is dead wrong and insulting.

Dead-Wrong because Robin Hood did not take from the "rich" indiscriminately. He took from the elite insider class of the government to give it back to the peasants. He did not take from the store owner, the farm worker or the blacksmith. He took from those connected to the Prince because the Prince had created an unfair tax burden on the working class and was lining his and his friends pockets. This tax system created scenarios where people tried to hide their money to protect it from taxation. Obama is no Robin Hood. His eilite Harvard and Acedemic circles are not the working class.

The second and more insulting part of the metaphor is the notion that the "rich" in this country came into wealth by wringing the money from the poor working class by force. Companies that provide jobs, services and goods are the elite class separated from the people? In fact, these companies and individuals are from the people. They are construction companies, farmers, and service organizations of all shapes and sizes.

The metaphor is a joke both illustratively and literally. I do believe that it shows the underlying distaste of success now popular in today's Liberal thinking.

A clear difference in philosophy

I heard an explanation of the differences between Conservatives and Liberals that I thought was interesting. The comparison was something along the lines of ... Two Americans both have big dreams. The conservative wants to wrok for himself, create a company, provide for his family, grow the business and retire comfortably. The Liberal wants to make sure that others are provided for, that health care is afforable and poverty is reduced. What is so different is not these dreams but the way in which they are acheived. Unfortunately, the second man's dreams are accomplished by taking money from and destorying the dreams of the first.


I found this interesting at first and the more I thought about the better it fit. Looking at it from the other man's point of view. The dreams of the first man have no impact on those of the second. In fact his ability to grow the business does support providing others with employment, possible philtopic donations and the ability for employees to succeed and pursue their own dreams. Why can't the second man create a company, pursue business partners and provide for others on his own accord? Why is it necessary to require extraction of income from others? I find it very likely that there is a buiness opportunity in helping others. In fact if local companies were taxed less and incented in their philithropic efforts this business venture would be even more likely.

Update: 401k still at risk with Democrats control

This is an update the story posted October 9th.

If I were to say "pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration." You woudl say, "I already know about Social Security, so what?". Well you woudl be wrong. See this is the "new" retirement alternative being contemplated by the Democrats in the house.

The Theory goes... Since the Stock Market has taken such a hit, it proves the falsity of the idea of investing your retirement in US stocks. Therefore, we should use the money from the program to design a better program.

At least three major problems with this "theory".

First, there is not money in this system that the government has any right to. You see in the minds of a Liberal Democrat a tax incentive to invest in your own retirement (a goal set forth by the law) is money they don't have. It is counted as money the rotten-evil-tax payers of this country dare to keep to themselves. What "tax break" you ask? The taxes you did not yet pay on income placed in the 401k and the tax break for companies that match your investments. So they want to require that you put another 5% [on top of the 6%+6% that you and your employer put in today].

This leads me to invalid point number two. The tax break is a deferment of taxes until the need to extract funds. The belief is that your tax bracket may be lower at that point then it is today but there are no guarantees of that. It is hard to call that a tax break. IN fact with democrats in congress it is very possible that retirees in the coming years will find that they are withdrwing at a higher bracket then when they started putting in the money in the 1980s and 1990s.

The third and most reveling of the falseness of their arguments is that the new funds would be "invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year". Oh sooo many issues... "Special"... you mean like "Freddie Mac Mortgage Backed Securities special"? Or more likely "Special" meaning, "I won't tell you know because it is in the general funds and to be paid back by your grandchildren's grandchildren when I am long gone from Congress." I digreess. On to the main point. Three percent per year. I think I can beat that with guaranteed CDs without giveing over the money the feds. Well... I took a deep breath and opened up my recent 401k statment. Really, I did it. I took a look at my rollover 401k. This is a high risk stock (98.7%) 401k from an old employer. One that is not confused by current contributions, matching and dollar cost averaging. In the past year it is down about 35%. Ouch... In the past three years it is up a misely 1.2%. If I look back 5 years it is averaging...6% a year. Yep 6% a year over 5 years including a once (twice) in a century downturn.

Since that is an annualized return $20,000 would have grown by $3579 more in the last five years then via the "new" government plan. To be fair they are offering a $600 credit so their plan have returned only $579 less, assuming I qualify for the full tax credit against my $20,000 investment. So if my retirement savings were anything over the $20,000 (which it better be if I plan on living past that first year of retirement) their plan is an even bigger loser. Note that this is already a slight loser in comparison with what can be deemed the worst economic environment for stocks in recent history.

So why would Democrats want to capitialize on the current fear to "stabalize" your retirement when it is a quaranteed loser? The simple answer is that in their mind the 80 billion dollars we all get to right off for 401k contributions is their money and they want it back. The other side of this it the unasked question... what happens to the current dollars if the 401k laws are revoked? Does that mean full conversion and a captial gains tax windfall? Would they dare wait until Obama raises captial gains from 15% up to 28%?
We shall wait and see but the mathematical answer is still to allow for direct privatized investments by individuals.

Inventor of Super-Soaker working to solve the energy crisis?

Yes, is true but it is not the SuperSoaker but his years at NASA Jet Propulsion lab that are the basis for his concepts on clean energy.

I am sure the Democrats will take credit for Segregation, the formation of NASA and the EPA's Clean Water agenda (for use int eh SuperSoaker) that is the basis for this success. I believe that the man is just brilliant and was able to use profit (eww evil) from one business to pursue his dreams and employ others in that quest.

How to lie with statistics (politics II)

I have mentioned a few in a previous post and I now have a few more that are bugging me.


The income gap

One you have likely heard and may fall into is this...The income gap between the have and have-nots is widening. I do not deny that the gap is widening in fact if it was not the economy would likely be in serious trouble. It is just a function of simple math. Let's take some simple examples. One, let's say plumber, makes $40,000 a year. The second makes a clean $1,000,000. The plumber has a great year, things go really well and he increasing his income by a whopping 50% to $60,000 the following year. Now the millions did ok, his business was not growing as fast as he would like but he did out pace inflation and increased his income by 5%. This would take him up to $1,050,000. Yep there it is, the income gap is widening. In the first year the difference in income was 960,000 (1Mil - 40k) and this year it is over 990,000 (1.05Mil-60k). Everyone is making more money and the government would get more revenue... and this is BAD.

Now let's look at more realistic numbers. If employee making 40k got a more traditional 5% increase to 42k, the millionaire would have to make less then 1/5th of 1% to keep the gap from widening. I am not sure how you can make sense of changes in this number?


So what we come to is this, the millionaires in this country would have to stop making money just to keep it fair. Suppose one of those millionaires instead was a founder of say...Google...and clears 100Million. Well then we are all toast they will outpace 100,000s of Americans combined. So to make it fair we need to take more of their money. Right? Raise their taxes to level the playing field... hold on... taxes do not change income levels. So in fact, to stop this gap from widening we have to stop them from making the money in the first place. What options do we have to stop millionaires from making more money? The most obvious one I can think of is slowing the economy and making it harder for businesses to turn a profit. I am sure their are others but this seems to be the one currently in practice.


Median incomes

Closely tied to the last is the median income argument. The next statistics you will hear about is "median income". This is the logical counter to the simple math used in the income gap analysis above. Again, I submit that mathematics and normal economics is the cause of such statistics.Remember that the median is not an average it is the middle salary of all employed Americans. It is used to approximate the expected income of a "normal" worker and from this aspect is a better indicator then the average.

In a given year, employees join and employees exit the work force. Other employees move up the brackets. In a growing economy it is likely that more people are entering the workforce as jobs open up then those that are leaving it. With the workforce always changing, all that is necessary to shift the median downward is to have more employees enter the work force under the median then above it.

Here is a simple example. We have a small company of 5 employees. They all make 50K a year. So the median is 50K. Let's say that 2 of those people are principles in the company and due to company growth they report 100k each on their taxes. The average moves up but the median (middle/third employee) is still 50K. This growth allows them to hire 3 new employees at 30K each. The average moves back down and the median is still 50K (30k,30k,30k,50k,50k,50k,100k,100k). But if they were to hire 3 more employees (at anything lower then 50K) the median would now move down. What does this statistic tell us about the health of our company? It is failing right? NOT MUCH of a useful metric on its own.

So, if the economy is growing, is it more likely to be hiring high-level employees and managers or staff level employees? Most corporations have more staff level employees then management level (at least they should). When they grow, the dominant trend would be to promote from within and hire junior staff. Since the overall number of Americans employed increases the median is likely to go down. Again, and this is somehow BAD?

So What really happened these past years?
My intent is simply to have you take the numbers going up and/or down with a grain of salt and think about them. Each statistic alone can mean many things. It is only when we combine multiple indicators that we can truly see the full picture. I attempt to combine more information from the IRS statistics to clarify the economic picture around the median income levels.

In 1999, There were 94.5 million tax returns that paid taxes. There were 30.5 million returns for Americans making under $25,000 which amounts to 32.3% of the returns from that year. The median income that year was $50,641 (2007 dollars). Just bank those numbers as comparisons.

By 2003, [after the beginning of the recession and the attacks on 9/11/2001], we [logically] seem to have slid back a bit. There were 89 million returns that paid taxes but a full 3 million more returns were filed than in 1999 (more returns; less tax payers). Of those returns 23 million of those were from Americans making less than 25,000. There were 3 million more returns filed but 7 million less low income tax payers. Is this proof the shrinking economy was hurting those at the bottom the most? The median income that year was down to $48,835 (2007 dollars). Or is it proof that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 eliminated more lower income people from the tax roles completely while adding 3 million new wage earners?

Slide forward to 2006. There were now 10 million returns that paid taxes. Of those 28 million were filed by Americans making less than 25,000. We were now are up another 8 million tax filers including almost 5 million of those under 25,000. I believe that this is proof that the economy is growing and more wage earners are joining. If this is the case depending on the type of jobs being created, it is very possible that an influx of lower paying wage earners would bring the median income down. Would this be good or bad? If you know please let me know. Well... the median income for 2006 was $49,568 (2007 dollars). So it moved up.

I am unconvinced that median income means much at all by itself. But in this more complete context of more tax returns being filed and more wage earners it would seem to indicate a growing economy.

Final Conclusion

For further confusion the median income in 2007 was now $50,233. So what do we now have. We have increasing tax filings, increasing median incomes, increasing revenues. I would think that this is proof of the value of cutting taxes to avoid recession. I would also think that this exemplifies "a rising tide lifts all boats". Simple proof of conservative principals in action for the benefit of all.

But for my liberal friends, I have a statistic to help you out...it is listed within these numbers and you might have even heard it before..."Median incomes are down during the past eight years of the Bush presidency." Yep down from $50,641 to $50,233 over the eight year period. Of course, you have to ignore the facts of the recession of 1999-2000 and the attacks of 9/11 and the fact that the major drops all occurred before the Bush tax plan was fully in place. But hell, if you are going to use a confusing statistic in the first place, no need to burden it with the truth.

I am sure you have all heard Republications are violent racists at rallies.

Have any of you heard the Secret service has interviewed their own agents, police and attendees and noone actually heard what Singleton claims he heard. But you see it must be true because the media is always truthful and there is no way he misheard it or had any bias. I am sure all of the news outlets that ran with the stories for days, spent at least some time (a blink of an eyelash) to follow-up on the Secret Service agents investigation.

Do you think Singleton will be investigated as deeply as Joe the Plumber? I would like to know how he is registered? What his religious affiliations are. I forgot that is only important to exposes the "crazies on the right wing" and not for these high minded press-folk.

Media bias is so obvious at times... but since that is "Right Wing fear mongering", no sense in basing an opinion on the facts at hand. Have you seen the "outrage" over the verbal abuse of McCain supported in New York or the beating of a female McCain supporter with the stick of her own sign?

Pending breaking story, might be too sensational... Or the robber that scratched a B into the face of his victim because she had a McCain sticker on her car?

Update 10/24: I know what the B stands for "B...h". She lied. Stupid people on both sides. This does not help.... This is going to allow the media to concentrate on her as the "represnative" of McCain supporters and ignore the truth about the nuts on both sides. This may change the dynamic away from Joe the Plumber and over to the Vast Right Wing ConspiracyKooks.. Let me say that I think "SB" fits better.

It's hard to reach out to workers while punitivly taxing the employer.

In response to 'Joe the Plumber and GOP 'Authenticity'

I hope your were not completely serious. I do appreciate a Liberal that actual understands how they are viewed and is willing to put forth an argument that does not start with “Well, Bush…” You are dead-on correct that the cities are viewed as cesspools of humanity that are no longer based on the American dream [ but on holding people in depravity and dependence ..author's addition]. I only wished someone had the guts to back up their talking points with the fact that the Anti-American thoughts come from years of being squeezed about the neck by long-term Democrat control that continues to drive companies out of town and the value of the homes (dare I say the standard of living downward). That the dreams and goals of these Americans have been crushed under Liberal philosophies that fail year after year and have turned them into … dare I say… Bitter Americans clinging to their government handouts and class envy. Those are not the true American values and what was the American dream.

I do not believe that companies and free markets are foolproof. In fact I believe that they are driven by greed. But greed can be understood and directed. That is the role of government. The role of referee to watch over the game and make sure that each team plays by the rules. But when the referees work for the team you are playing, it is hard to keep the game fair. You now have a game where government bureaucrats set the rules of the game in their own favor. I put to you that Liberals (an you... regardless of affiliation) confuse Conservatives and Republicans with free market Libertarians. Yes, we are cut from the same cloth but Republicans believe in the limited role of government to assist the free market. To control and direct the free market and to then jump into and compete against the free market ,no, that takes Liberals.

Obama's statements on taxes explained

Having the benefit of years of pouring through data and trying to correct entrenched assumptions about what that data is telling us, has been far more useful in this election than in the past. I find it fascinating to listen to the "words" and "speeches" of Oabama and the ease at which he uses statistics and statements to back up false arguments. It is not surprising that many fall for it.

Statements like 'tax cuts for 95% of Americans" leaves out the little fact the close to 40% of Americans do not pay taxes so their "tax cut" is actually a check based on someone else's tax payments. That didn't uses to be called a tax cut. It used to be called welfare or socialism. But "tax cut" sounds so much better and 95% is such a high number. The Wall Street Journal went in to this as well yesterday. Un fortunately their numbers are worse then I thought, they say under Obama 44% of people will n0t pay taxes. Then others will get a refund check that pay very little taxes. We are approaching the 50% mark when all Liberals will have to do to retain full power in blame the rich Republicans for trying to tax you. 50% of the population will do almost whatever it takes to vote themselves money out of other peoples pockets. An economy built on those principles will not last. Can we make it even 2 or 4 years under this model? Will it ever be reversed? I fear the incline of the slippery slope just got higher and Obama is greasing the skids. In fact I see that the Wall Street Journal just hit on this point today. This is far more scary then any tax policy could ever be.

The other statements about "taxing the rich" or that "most small business make under $250,000" . I had heard (maybe seen) that 2/3 of the tax returns in the top 5% are s1 corporations and small businesses. How can these two be reconciled. Let me add in this simple fact, "most small businesses fail". So since most fail and only a few succeed, Barrack Obama is right. Most small businesses due make under 250,000. The problem is that those that succeed and make money and want to grow and hire people are the ones he wants to tax an additional 10%. Those that succeed created 80% of the jobs in the last five years. Guess what... The Wall Street Journal hit on this yesterday.

I am glad to know I have this much influence over their reporting. Or maybe it is that they too have a bit of common sense. I am sure I will have more lying through statistics soon.

So what of McCain's idea of a "Spending Freeze"

We all hear how big the national debt is. They even have Debt Tickers that attempt to show it. The National Debt is currently at 10Trillion dollars. But what of the yearly impact on this number. From 2005-2007 the Debt rose by just under 1.1Trillion dollars. Or about 550 billion a year.

Tracking the growth of the federal budget from 2001-2007. We can see that the budgets grew from 1.9Trillion in 2001 to 2.77 Trillion in 2007. Each year it grew between 5 and 10%. During that same time Revenues were 2.1Trillion in 2001 and grew to 2.7 trillion in 2007.

Looking at the year by year numbers a single year hold in expenditures and a traditional year in GDP growth would put the budget back in balance for the short term. So in a general sense the point is valid. In fact this is exactly how we were able to turn deficits into surpluses in the Clinton years. Under the last four years of the Clinton Administration the Federal budget grew 100 billion dollars and tax receipts grew 500 billion. In some of those years the budgets did not grow at all. All it takes is someone with enough discipline to put it in place.

Since tax revenues are limited by GDP (as my previous blog explains) then the only options available are really to cut taxes, get the economy moving and limit spending. Since we are tasked with an ever increasing requirement for Entitlement Spending we will likely have to cut other items to get back in line. By "Freezing" the federal budget in total or at least in overall scope for a single year we can get ourselves back in line.

Democrats make this plan sound extreme and completely impossible. Many companies and individuals around this country have had to mange without a raise (or worse a cut in pay) at least once in their lives. Do we not think that government employees and agencies can do the same thing for a year? I think they can, in fact I think it is time we all expect from them what they have always forced upon us. I believe that until the impacts and returns of this financial crisis aer known we should hold all spending at current levels. If we could have the discipline to do this every other year and maintain a 5% growth rate we could be in a far better place in 4-8 years. But if instead we are to add another trillion in spending and raise taxes, slow the economy and lose revenues we dig even further into this hole. The impacts of that are likely to limit any possible return from the bailout and compound the problem.

The choice is so clear. If it is not made this November it will be made in the congressional elections of 2010 and again in 2012 but the climb out will take just that much longer. I would like to start now.

Invalid Tax Theory Abounds

I heard it yet again twice today. This time clearly state don Lou Dobbs Tonight and eluded to on Hannity and Colmes. It is the seemingly honest statement that the Bush tax cuts are the cause of the current deficits. The problem is that this common opinion is absolutely false. It is a perfect example of repeating a lie so often that you being to believe it and it becomes truth. But how hard would it be to verify this fact. Relatively simple if only the IRS published such details... oh wait they do.

What do these numbers tell us. They tell us that the economy was shrinking. The recession of the late nineties had been compounded by the terrorist attacks of 2001. So the first stage of tax cuts were passed. Revenue from individual income receipts was down by 140billion from 2001-2002. 2003 dropped another 50 billion. This alone would seem to prove the point that revenues were dropping because of the Bush tax cuts. But the economy was beginning to turn.

Looking at corporate taxes in those years reveals an interesting difference. Taxes from corporate revenues had also dropped by 50 billion dollars from 2000-2001. A year prior to personal income receipts dropping. ...I feel, based on the assumed misconceptions, I must connect the obvious dots. Corporate profits were dropping in 2000, unemployment was on the rise, the impact of millions of Americans out of work is then seen in 2002 personal returns...The year following the tax cuts [even if assumed only for the rich] the revenues from corporate taxes was up by 30 billion dollars. That was short-lived and in 2003 they dropped back again by 30 billion dollars. Am I still contradicting my own point? Well let's move forward.

In 2003 the Bush Administration said that the economy was not recovering fast enough and they did what? They cuts taxes again...and revenue from both corporate and personal income taxes rose; by 35 billion and 3 billion respectively. A modest rise for personal incomes but companies were growing again. So in the following year (2005) corporate tax receipts were up another 77billion dollars and personal up 117billion. They continued to rise in 2006 (C:+73billion, P:+199billion and 2007 (C:+15billion, P:+140Billion).

In total, this amounts to over 1.5 Trillion more dollars of tax revenue to the federal government over the years from 2004-2007. I know this contradicts conventional thinking... or at least what your have been told over and over again. But the facts are the facts. Revenue to the federal government is based almost solely on the GDP of the economy (growth or contraction) and had little to nothing to do with tax rates. This has been tracked by Kurt Hauser since 1950.

It may take some time to let is soak in and for some it never will.

So know the economy is in trouble again. Companies are losing money... the next step should be obvious to all... higher unemployment... and less revenue to the federal government. So what is the next step raise taxes in the hopes that those revenues can be gathered in a slowing economy, or drop taxes rates...especially on companies to get the economy back in gear and let revenues follow as they always do.

Obama tax plan: $1000 Tax credit to replace your job

The fundamental stupidity of the Obama tax plan is that he will increases taxes on companies that actually make profits in these tough times. The impact of those taxes will be two-fold. He does not just want to increase the corporate tax rate but also the capital gains taxes on anyone that happens to want to invest in that company (individual shareholder, mutual funds, 401ks) So when many companies struggle to turn a profit and have to let people go, just who will be left to employ them? Not so many. Even those that are hiring are likely to stretch out those decisions over multiple months or quarters. Compound this slow hiring over 100,000s of companies and millions of jobs; the overall unemploymment rate will climb rapidly.

So how does Obama's plan counteract that impact. You will get the $1000 tax credit that Obama is setting up. Looks like a lot of people will be needing that credit. Maybe he will extend the time at which you can collect unemployment benefits. At least he is trying to help out. I am guessing that regardless of your job you can outperform that $1000 tax credit over the course of a year. If not let me know and I will find someone to help you out.

Many think that there is no way Democrats would let this happen, that this makes absolutely no sense to let the economy spiral downward. But those people are looking at this from the perspective I out forth on tax revenue and the impact on jobs. I submit that you are looking at this from the wrong angle if you want to understand the motive. Obama and his ilk look at this as creating more fairness. Revenue and jobs do not matter in that contect. The fact that is also creates more dependent people is a "pleasant" side-effect. Their reaction to the inevitable impact is to direct the angry unemployed people to lash out against anyone that still has a job and those companies that dared to try and profit from "their pain". They will demand more government intervention and more fariness to help them out and the spiral continues.

Sounds almost unbleiveable, but pull your head from the sand and truly look at the programs put in place (or tried) by Democrats since the great society.

Date Line Washington DC: Feb 14, 2009

President Obama, appearing in the Rose garden, after his emergency economic summit with the Democratic leaders of Congress, today announced emergency action to help resolve the economic crisis. "Today I asked Congress to act quickly to enact my tax proposals. Unfortunately, due to the depth of crisis started by the failed policies of the Bush administration, we must move quickly to address the coming budget shortfall. I am asking for an across the board 10% tax rate increase. Because we cannot wait any longer to resolve this crisis, this rate increase will be retroactive to 2008 ." The President did not take questions following this press conference. Tomorrow the president will be hosting meetings on universal health care proposals and increased funding for education.

Kurtz has read the facts and connected some dots.

I originally thought that the fact that they sat on a board together for a few years was a questionable relationship. One that really required us to wait on Obama and see just what kind of legislator her will be. I think that is even more evident after reading the Kurtz article today.

The now connected dealings between Obama, Ayers, Wright and anti-American, anti-capitalist ideas are downright scary. All of those relationships are protected by the shroud of racism. Since the majority of Americans and journalists did not grow up as black men, how can they judge such things? Most of them would not dare try.

These tighter connection gives even more credence to the idea that Ayers helped Obama write his first book while both serving together. I figured this was fun reading and a interesting technical conspiracy theory but the ties seem to be pretty tight.

I have a simple answer on how to answer these questions fully and completely... time. Give us all time to see if these are "political relationships"" from Chicago politics or weather these are truly the "belief system" of this man.

Obama's own campaign convicts him for Fannie Mae collapse

Wow this is this most tainted twisted story I have ever seen! The narrator should lose all credibility and his job (if he has one beyond being a shill for the campaign).

The arguments layed out here absolutely set up Senator Obama for an investigation. The campaign contributions by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac implicate him in a plot to stop regulation of those companies. No different then the allegations against Senator McCain at the time.

McCain was exonerated after the investigation and 3 Democrats were indited. Somehow this was missed. This investigation set John McCain on the path to clean up corruption and undue influence in Washington and his record proves it.

I say it is now time to bring Senator Obama in front of the congress and the American people to answer for his campaign donations. As this video sets forth, he woudl have demanded no less from John McCain. Let us see if he too can come out clean.

Thanks for opening the door to fair play.

Democrats not done with ruining stocks...They want your 401k

They now want access to the tax dollars sheltered by our 401k deposits. Listen to the words "We've invested $80 billion into subsidizing this activity". They believe we are stealing from them. How dare we try and save for our own retirement! It is unbelievable that any money you keep is "being subsidized" by the government.

Watch out for the "fixes" being put in place. I think they guys must have the easiest jobs ever. They do what they want, create problems through mandate, then convince us we need then to step in and fix it. I fear the American people are this gullible.

Can we please learn a lession from California?

We knew this was coming. California is the most expensive state in the union. It was only a meeter of time before the other states worked out ways to entice companies away. That way is tax policy allowing companies to have tax breaks to move their businesses into states and bring the jobs, associated businesses and increase tax revenues with them.

California's response was not to lower taxes but to try and raise them in 2006 to fund state run preschool. But it was ok because it was take from the rish and give to the poor. The Robin Hood feel good policy of the uneducated. (and well educated socialists). Those policies were consider ed risky in 2006 because they may create a greater incentive to leave the state.

Well another incentive came to pass, a shrinking economy. You see Democrats never look that far ahead. They don;t look at the side effects of policies. They see growing companies and profits and see money that they should take. They do not see new employees, service industries and the additional tax revenue. So they go after the companies and the ownership class within them. They did that so well that the companies where deciding if they should leave. Then the economy slowed, budgets got tight and the decision was made. They left, taking the tax base with them and California plunged into a recession.

The good here is that some states get it and those states are benefiting from the arrival of these companies. The problem is that California's policies are likely to spread to Washington and California's problems to th rest of the country. You see other countries have figured out the same thing as these states, cut corporate tax rates, bring in businesses and the tax revenues will follow.

Someday we will learn. I fear that day is a multi-year recession in front of us. But on the other side of that "malaise" will be fiscal responsibility and growth. At least I hope so.

Can someone educate me on just when it is communism?

In a call to Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings on Tuesday, for example. Obama spoke of how President Obama could revisit bankruptcy laws to give judges more leeway to restructure residential mortgage payments when threatened with foreclosure. Obama didn't need to lay out a quid pro quo because the message was clear. And Cummings, a no vote Monday, told Obama he was “open” to changing his vote but wasn’t there yet. "I have to look beyond [the bailout] to a rainbow called Obama," he said. "When you bring in the Obama factor, that's very very important."

Dear John...I hope we can work this out (page 2)

Continued from Page 1

Dear John... (Page 2)

2. I said I would get back to tax policy. I understand the fears about cutting taxes with the current deficits. But their are a few facts that I think are not being considered. First item is that tax rates are not the measure with which we should concern ourselves. It is tax revenues that really matter. This was evident in the tax cuts passed in 2003. The economy was in recession and jobs were being lost. We has lost over 500billion in revenue in 2001 and 2002 and continued to trend downward. After the tax cuts this trend was reversed and revenues increased. We gained back that 500billion in losses and are now have well over a trillion dollars more revenue then we would have had without those tax cuts. It bears repeating, we have INCREASED REVENUE to the federal government by over ONE TRILLION dollars since those tax cuts were put in place four years ago. This can be easily confirmed by the IRS's own published numbers.

Secondly, through the growth period of 2003-2008 we were able to get this revenue with lower effective rates because the economy was growing. New and growing companies hired millions of people and those people and companies paid taxes. An important fact in this is that 80% of the new jobs where from companies with less than 10 employees. Small companies, who often pay taxes as individuals. In fact, two thirds of those "individuals" Senator Obama includes in his tax increases are those small companies.

So as the economy is shrinking and jobs are being lost again, should we really be increasing the burden on those companies and individuals that create jobs? Or should we rather give them more freedom to create jobs and trim the size of the federal government? Since the federal budget is slated to increase by more than 10% each year, regardless of inflation, I propose we hold the current levels (save that 10%) and reevaluate where that revenue is best spent.

Senator Obama and his running mate argue that this would not be fair. That those with most need to pay their fair share. Today those top 5% now pay almost 60% of all taxes which is up over 5% from 2001. The top 10% pay more than 70% of all taxes and a full 40% of Americans pay no income tax what-so-ever. In light of these simple facts, I think it is only fair to ask, "Senator Obama, just how much is 'Their fair share.'?" If 60% is not enough, how much is enough? Based on his plan he will give tax refunds to 95% of Americans. This includes the 40% of Americans that do not pay income taxes. This cannot legitimately be called a "tax refund"... it is called "redistribution".

Dear John: I hope we can work this out (page 1)

Dear John McCain,

Please stop "I can reach across the isle" platitudes. Everyone knows you have and everyone understands. What you have to do is explain where you stand and where you believe Obama stands. Gov. Palin started on a few points but missed the clarity that is required to convert the undecided. It is time to walk people through the conversion and pin Obama down.

Based on last weeks debates and stump speeched since, here are a few points I think need clarification. No spin just straight talk and facts.

1. Where does Obama stand? He says that he will only raise taxes on the top 5% and you say that should not be trusted. Not enough...step us through.

"Obama says that he will only raise taxes on the top 5% of wage earners. Though I fundamentally think that is wrong-headed, I understand the concerns others may have with the deficit. I will get to that a bit later. I would like to take Senator Obama at his word as many Americans would as well. But looking at his very short senatorial record he has voted 94 times against the taxpayers and for higher taxes for individuals with income as low as 42k (earning him a lifetime rating of 14% in favor of taxpayers). With a record as short as his, it is possible that this does not represent the full view of the man. Let's look back at his state legislative record. That too is a bit murky with a large number of votes of "present". Hard to gauge that. That's OK, let's take one more step. We can look at his community service and the character of the people with which he surrounds himself. Well... there is that work with Acorn...maybe that series of board meetings and work with Bill Ayers... well at least his is attended church regularly.

There is nothing in his background at all that would indicate that he is nothing but a far left liberal that would raise taxes on everyone. But again, I do not want to call him a liar. If he says he won't, then maybe we should take him at his word. For example, he said he supports our troops...but then voted to cut off their funding. He said he would accept matching funds... but then decided not to. He says he understands the middle class and then says that they are bitterly clinging to their guns and religion.

I am sorry my friends, his background and the facts simply do not support his words. I am a man of action and my record on that is clear. The difference is also just as clear."

Continued on Page 2

This is what we get when burocrats get involved in the stock market

On Behalf of toyman:

You might find this interesting. Harry Reid opens his mouth and starts a reaction prior to the Senate vote.

“We don't have a lot of leeway on time. One of the individuals in the caucus today talked about a major insurance company. A major insurance company -- one with a name that everyone knows that's on the verge of going bankrupt. That's what this is all about,"

Dumba**. I like the way he put it “one with a name that everyone knows” . . . like that would soften the impact. Instead it necessitates a number of insurance companies to make statements to the contrary.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/02/news/companies/insurance_stocks/?postversion=2008100214

Isn’t about time he retire?

Liberals and Communists what is the plan?

For those that think the Liberals in Hollywood and Congress are communists. Here is the background you needed.

It is a fascinating interview with an Russian defector about the KGBs infiltration of countries prior to overthrow of a country. I know that they were working on this in the 70s and figured most of it had died away. Maybe not...?

Update: Take this into consideration as you read the details about the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and the funding of education.

Is Gwen Ifill in the tank for Obama?: Michelle Malkin discusses

Toyman would like you to know...

This is commentary from Michelle Malkin on tomorrow’s debate between the veep candidate’s. Speaking about the moderator of that debate and who she is.

A look back at the root cause of the mess caused by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

This should be required viewing by all before they are allowed to vote.

Congressional hearings 2004 on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae bad accounting practices.

FoxNews Timeline of events with quotes and video.


I know that facts sometimes get in the way of emotion and cause confusion in the minds of the brainwashed. But facts are facts.