Economic Bailout - Truth, Fiction and real question

Obama says bailout a step in the right direction

According to AP WASHINGTON — Ahead in the polls with less than a week before the election, Barack Obama is taking to the air waves to promise a rescue plan for the middle class in troubled times.

In a 30-minute TV ad he bought on three networks, the Democratic presidential nominee said Wednesday night that the $700 billion bailout was "a step in the right direction." But he promised tax cuts and business credits to help more.

At White House, McCain Plays Bailout Spoiler

According to Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/25/at-white-house-mccain-pla_n_129438.html:

Inside an intense White House meeting over the financial crisis on Thursday, where nearly every key player came to an agreement on the outlines of the bailout package, Sen. John McCain stuck out. The Republican candidate, according to sources with direct knowledge, sat quiet through most of the meeting, never offered specifics, and spoke only at the end to raise doubts about the rough compromise that the White House and congressional leaders were nearing.

McCain's reluctance to jump on board the bailout agreement could throw the entire week-long negotiation into a tailspin. Sen. Chris Dodd, after leaving the White House, suggested on CNN that the tenuous process could be derailed by what he viewed as McCain's political motives... and so and so on......

Most of the Blogs, News papers, Discussions, TV channels talks and talks around this bailout.. no one seems to tell you truth.. neither John McCain's Campaign is providing the explanation why McCain was no supporting the bailout. Every one took it for granted like Sen. Chris Dodd... McCain's political motives... and republican policy to be against government takeover...

But I had recently got chance to read some article in some law Journal - and that had open my eyes. I am trying to give justice to put content from there:

The real question - that no one is asking - Is the Bailout Constitutional?

In the current crisis, bank runs and other forms of financial panic could lead to the collapse of the country's or even the world's economic edifice. Extraordinary measures might be in order. In extremis, it may seem quixotic to question the constitutionality of the federal bailout-but it's essential nonetheless. one might say, "Save your ivory-tower doubts for the law journals.", "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." Douse the flames first; then repair the bad wiring. But a declaration of unconstitutionality, if justified, serves three vital purposes. It imposes a heavy burden on proponents of the bailout to explain why the Constitution can be violated with impunity. It reinforces the case for abandoning the program once any true emergency has passed. And it helps establish a presumption against adopting similar measures that might be proposed to resolve future "emergencies.". and as you can see, one after the other bailouts are keep coming - latest in series as on today's news is Detroit carmakers.

Some experts, believe that alternative proposals (perhaps even constitutional proposals) could achieve the desired ends without socializing the financial sector and without establishing statist precedents that could haunt us for decades or longer. Opponents of the bailout are unconvinced when media pundits and presidential candidates carp about the failure of deregulation, the need for immediate government intervention, and the final days of capitalism. According to bailout skeptics, government created this crisis-with everything from artificially low interest rates to political pressures for "affordable" housing, quick loans for bad credit risks, and the subsidization of agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (See my previous articles) The predictable result of those perverse incentives: greater leverage and more risk. Heads, the private sector wins; tails, the taxpayer loses. Critics ask why a solution to the problem should now be entrusted to the bureaucrats who got us into this mess. On that question, I concede insufficient expertise. More important, events on the ground seem to have superseded the policy debate. The bailout moves ahead, never mind that many economists and public finance specialists insist it is more invasive than required and unlikely to address root causes. We embark on this adventure notwithstanding the controversy regarding its necessity and effectiveness. I turn, therefore, to the threshold question that should have, but has not been, adequately examined: Is the bailout constitutional?

No Authority

No Sir... The federal government has no constitutional authority to spend taxpayers' money to buy distressed assets, much less to take an ownership position in private financial institutions. And Con­gress has no constitutional authority to delegate nearly plenary legislative power to the Treasury secretary, an executive branch official.

Congress can proceed only from legitimate authority, not from good intentions alone. That means we must find a constitutional pedigree for each proposed law.

One possible rationale for the bailout is the all-encompassing commerce clause. As the country grew and some people came to believe that most of its problems required national regulatory solutions, Congress sought to find a specific constitutional power that would justify an ambitious federal agenda. The commerce clause became the vehicle of choice.

Yet that is not why the clause was written into the Constitution. Under the Articles of Confederation, the national government lacked the power to regulate interstate commerce. Each state was free to advance local interests and to create barriers to trade without regard to possible prejudice to out-of-state interests. That process devolved into what Justice William Johnson, concurring in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), characterized as a "conflict of commercial regulations, destructive to the harmony of the States."

The solution: a constitutional convention at which, "If there was any one object riding over every other in the adoption of the Constitution, it was to keep the commercial intercourse among the States free from all invidious and partial restraints.

Instead of serving as that shield against interference by the states, the commerce power has become a sword wielded by the federal government in pursuit of a boundless array of regulatory programs. That financial markets are interstate does not authorize the federal government to do anything and everything to manage those markets. The commerce power is to "regulate," but commerce is not regulated by eliminating private risk and substituting tax-funded handouts to favored economic actors. The Framers who crafted the commerce clause could not have intended to empower Congress to give an executive official virtual carte blanche over all financial institutions.

Moreover, it is not a commerce clause argument to say that Congress created the mess and, therefore, Congress can do whatever it wants to fix the mess. Legislators' misdeeds do not ipso facto justify the socialization of private banks, brokers, mortgage companies, and insurance companies, Car companies -and who knows where it stops. Even if Congress could defend the bailout as a means of preventing interstate impediments to commerce, that would not legitimize any and all means.

Necessary or not, temporarily effective or not, the bailout is unconstitutional.

To legitimately invoke the commerce power, Congress must show not only that a federal program is necessary, but also that it is proper-that is, the program does not violate other foundational principles, such as federalism, separation of powers, and limited government. Congress has not made that showing.

Indeed, the bailout quite clearly violates the Constitution's separation-of-powers principle-in particular, what has become known as the non-delegation doctrine, which states that Congress may not delegate its legislative power to any other entity, including the Cabinet departments of the executive branch. Article I, section 1 of the Constitution states, "All legislative Powers ... shall be vested in a Congress." A plain reading of that text shows that lawmaking is for the legislative branch, which does not include the Treasury Department. Yet when Congress authorized the bailout package, it gave Secretary Henry Paul son Jr. unprecedented power to act as a super-legislature.

True enough, the Supreme Court, in a series of cases beginning in 1928, condoned some forms of delegation. Legislators may delegate their authority, said the Court in J.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928), so long as Congress "shall lay down ... an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized ... is directed to conform." What, then, is the intelligible principle to which Henry Paulson must conform? No one knows-least of all the taxpayers, who will bear the cost. "Make things better" is not an intelligible principle. These days delegation has become a formula for irresponsibility. Congress gets to claim credit for the supposed benefits of the bailout, yet dodge culpability for the associated costs.

But Congress itself, not an executive official, must be accountable for the consequences of laws that Congress puts in place. That tenet has been a cornerstone of our Constitution for more than two centuries. John Locke got it right in his Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690): The separation-of-powers principle means that "the legislative [branch] cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands." The legislative power, wrote Locke, is "to make laws, and not to make legislators."

Despite that sound advice, the Treasury secretary is now the one calling the shots as he partially nationalizes a significant sector of our economy.

Final Words...

Maybe the bailout is necessary. Maybe it will even work. But necessary or not, temporarily effective or not, the bailout is unconstitutional. And constitutionality is not restored merely by the invocation of "emergency" by the administration and Congress.

Conservatives should have learned that lesson when the Great Depression drove the New Deal expansion of government. Liberals should have learned it more recently when civil liberties were compromised in pursuit of real and imagined terrorists. To preserve the rule of law, we must condemn all legislation that offends the Constitution-no matter how unlikely the prospect that courts will invalidate the offending acts; no matter how unwise, from a policy perspective, court intervention might be.

When policy is allowed to trump constitutionality, three choices are available to honest citizens. We can abandon the proposal and try to accomplish the desired ends using alternative but constitutional means. We can change the Constitution so that the proposal is no longer unlawful. Or, at a minimum, we can acknowledge the truth-that we are violating the Constitution in pursuit of demonstrably necessary ends, which could not be otherwise attained.

But we have chosen none of the above. Instead, we have proceeded with the bailout despite few, if any, cautionary words about its unconstitutionality. That's a recipe for lawlessness, not to mention a precedent that will rear its ugly head every time there's serious trouble that the federal government thinks it can fix.

Who Are the Villains of the Mortgage Mess?

I know by this time everyone has forgotten the Mortgage mess and the big bailout issue, to discuss other bailouts that came after that, but while browsing I came across this article from LA times on Oct 14, 2008, author: Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow specializing in tax issues and author of The Flat Tax: Freedom, Fairness, Jobs, and Growth. In his words...

 

In this current mess, one problem is identifying the heroes and villains in Congress. Many analysts conveniently dodge this question and instead make the rather novel claim that the turmoil in financial markets somehow is the result of deregulation. Yet the financial services industry is probably the most heavily regulated sector of the American economy, saddled with hundreds of laws, thousands of regulations and a plethora of government agencies. If red tape were the answer, this problem never would have happened.

Many lawmakers want more rules and regulation governing disclosure, ostensibly to protect consumers. But the existing policies already have created a jumble of legalese that even highly sophisticated borrowers have trouble grasping, so it is far from apparent how this would help. A far better approach would be sweeping deregulation, replacing all the current clutter with a simple, easy-to-understand disclosure form, such as the one proposed by Alex Pollock of the American Enterprise Institute (PDF).

Back to identifying the heroes and villains. To assign blame, it is first necessary to understand what caused the problem. At the risk of oversimplification, let's touch on three main causes of the financial turmoil and identify the culprits in the political world:

Problem No. 1-- easy-money policy from the Federal Reserve: In an ideal world, the Federal Reserve provides the liquidity needed to enable commerce but avoids excess liquidity to avoid either rising prices (which happens when excess money bids up consumer prices) or bubbles (which happens when excess money bids up asset prices). The Fed clearly failed in this regard, as evidenced by unsustainably low interest rates earlier this decade.

Culprits: Almost every single politician deserves a share of the blame. The political class likes easy money. In the early stages, inflation feels good. Voters feel like they have more money in their pockets and borrowers (who always outnumber lenders) like the artificially low interest rates. And that is why very few voices were raised against the Federal Reserve's policy.

Problem No. 2 -- corrupt subsidies from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: These government-sponsored enterprises were created explicitly to distort the flow of capital and encourage over-investment in residential real estate. Responding in part to campaign contributions (a clear conflict of interest), politicians dramatically expanded the power of Fannie and Freddie in recent years, thus creating widespread systemic risk because of the implicit (now explicit) government guarantee.

Culprits: Many politicians from both parties were recipients of campaign contributions from the Fannie and Freddie slush funds, though Democrats had their hands much deeper in the cookie jar. The Bush administration has a very dismal economic record, but the White House does deserve some credit for having tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie earlier this decade. Opponents, led by Democrats Barney Frank in the House and Chris Dodd in the Senate, blocked reforms that would have saved huge amounts of money for taxpayers.

Problem No. 3 -- the Community Reinvestment Act: Politicians imposed numerous regulatory burdens on financial institutions, but "affordable lending" requirements such as those imposed as a result of the Community Reinvestment Act were among the most perverse. In effect, banks were extorted into making loans to people who were not credit worthy. This added to the bubble and expanded systemic risk. It's also worth noting that poor people were victimized by this government policy, because many of them were lured into houses they could not afford.

Culprits: President Carter presumably deserves some of the blame because many of these policies were first imposed during his dismal reign, primarily with support from Democrats. But the so-called affordable-lending requirements were expanded during the Clinton and the current Bush administrations, so the GOP is not without blame.

And Obama is complaining falsely on Debate about people shout kill him

This is the second article in the same chain... of the article I had written on "Kill him"

 

While looking LA times today I found this article.. I request everyone to read and look complete video also. It shows not only the truth on left but also double standard existed for this anointed one and as usual decide yourself...

 

here is the link: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-palineffigy28-2008oct28,0,541630.story

 

In the video - the person being interviewed told clearly - what she is seeing is ok to have - but if it would have been Barack Obama - she would light the house for doing it - and accepted that its her double standard.

 

and here is some content:

 

A West Hollywood Halloween display showing a likeness of Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin hanging by a noose has caused a furor among some residents who reported it as a hate crime, authorities said Monday.

But Los Angeles County sheriff's officials said the mannequin sporting a beehive hairdo, glasses and a red coat does not rise to the level of a hate crime because it was part of a Halloween display.

The home's decorations also feature a doll of John McCain surrounded by decorative flames in the chimney, and other more typical Halloween items, such as skeletons and spider webs.

 

 

Obama connections are getting thicker

It seems like I keep reading article after article about Obama having some connection with some foul minded terrorist.  Well, if the media hasn't been on his side since the beginning… what more proof do you need than this?

 The L.A. Times is now refusing to release a video of Obama praising a man who is the mouthpiece for the PLO.

 I will cut and paste the article here to ensure that it does not disappear.

 The original article can be found here: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/la-times-refuses-release-tape-obama-praising-controversial-activist/

The Los Angeles Times is refusing to release a videotape that it says shows Barack Obama praising a Chicago professor who was an alleged mouthpiece for the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was a designated terrorist group in the 1970s and '80s.

According an LA Times article written by Peter Wallsten in April, Obama was a "friend and frequent dinner companion" of Rashid Khalidi, who from 1976 to1982 was reportedly a director of the official Palestinian press agency, WAFA, which was operating in exile from Beirut with the PLO.

Click here to read the original LA Times story: 'Palestinians See a Friend in Barack Obama.'

In the article — based on the videotape obtained by the Times — Wallsten said Obama addressed an audience during a 2003 farewell dinner for Khalidi, who was Obama's colleague at the University of Chicago, before his departure for Columbia University in New York. Obama said his many talks with Khalidi and his wife Mona stood as "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases."

Khalidi is currently the Edward Said professor of Arab Studies at Columbia. A pro-Palestinian activist, he has been a fierce critic of American foreign policy and of Israel, which he has accused of establishing an "apartheid system" of government. The PLO advocate helped facilitate negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in the early '90s, but he has denied he was ever an employee of the group, contradicting accounts in the New York Times and Washington Times.

The LA Times told FOXNews.com that it won't reveal how it obtained the tape of Khalidi's farewell party, nor will the newspaper release it. Spokeswoman Nancy Sullivan said the paper is not interested in revisiting the story. "As far as we're concerned, the story speaks for itself," she said.

The newspaper reported Tuesday evening in a story on its Web site that the tape was from a confidential source.

"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," the Times' editor, Russ Stanton, said. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."

In recent months Obama has distanced himself from the man the Times says he once called a friend. "He is not one of my advisers. He's not one of my foreign policy people," Obama said at a campaign event in May. "He is a respected scholar, although he vehemently disagrees with a lot of Israel's policy."

But on the tape, according to the Times, Obama said in his toast that he hoped his relationship with Khalidi would continue even after the professor left Chicago. "It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table … [but around] this entire world."

A number of Web sites have accused the Times of purposely suppressing the tape of the event — which former Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn reportedly attended.  

Sullivan said she would not give details of what else may be on the tape, adding that anyone interested in the video should read the newspaper's report, which was its final account.

"This is a story that we reported on six months ago, so any suggestion that we're suppressing the tape is absurd — we're the ones that brought the existence of the tape to light," Sullivan said.

The Los Angeles Times endorsed Obama for president on October 19.

"Kill him" - False allegation from Obama - Clear lying in Debate

I was seeing Third and final Debate and i heard this. here is link of Transcript of debate and part i am refering: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/15/debate.transcript/index.html?iref=mpstoryview Obama: I mean, look, if we want to talk about Congressman Lewis, who is an American hero, he, unprompted by my campaign, without my campaign's awareness, made a statement that he was troubled with what he was hearing at some of the rallies that your running mate was holding, in which all the Republican reports indicated were shouting, when my name came up, things like "terrorist" and "kill him," and that you're running mate didn't mention, didn't stop, didn't say "Hold on a second, that's kind of out of line." Here is what Secret Service found:

The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled "kill him" when presidential hopeful Barack Obama's name was mentioned during Tuesday's Sarah Palin rally are unfounded. The Scranton Times-Tribune first reported the alleged incident on its Web site Tuesday and then again in its print edition Wednesday. The first story, written by reporter David Singleton, appeared with allegations that while congressional candidate Chris Hackett was addressing the crowd and mentioned Oabama's name a man in the audience shouted "kill him." News organizations including ABC, The Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann reported the claim, with most attributing the allegations to the Times-Tribune story. Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment. "I was baffled," he said after reading the report in Wednesday's Times-Tribune. He said the agency conducted an investigation Wednesday, after seeing the story, and could not find one person to corroborate the allegation other than Singleton. Slavoski said more than 20 non-security agents were interviewed Wednesday, from news media to ordinary citizens in attendance at the rally for the Republican vice presidential candidate held at the Riverfront Sports Complex. He said Singleton was the only one to say he heard someone yell "kill him." "We have yet to find someone to back up the story," Slavoski said. "We had people all over and we have yet to find anyone who said they heard it." Hackett said he did not hear the remark. Slavoski said Singleton was interviewed Wednesday and stood by his story but couldn't give a description of the man because he didn't see him he only heard him. When contacted Wednesday afternoon, Singleton referred questions to Times-Tribune Metro Editor Jeff Sonderman. Sonderman said, "We stand by the story. The facts reported are true and that's really all there is." Slavoski said the agents take such threats or comments seriously and immediately opened an investigation but after due diligence "as far as we're concerned it's closed unless someone comes forward." He urged anyone with knowledge of the alleged incident to call him at 346-5781. "We'll run at all leads," he said.

Where to Cut Government Expenses

Same document mentioned in my previous post has this great detail on Page 11:
Nowhere To Cut?
• The federal government made at least $55 billion in overpayments in 2007.
• The Pentagon recently spent $998,798 shipping two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas and $293,451 sending an 89-cent washer from South Carolina to Florida.
• Washington spends $60 billion annually on corporate welfare versus $50 billion on homeland security.
• Suburban families are receiving large farm subsidies for the grass in their backyards—subsidies that many of these families never requested and do not want.
• Over half of all farm subsidies go to corporate farms with average household incomes of $200,000.
• Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them—costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion per year—fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.
• Congress appropriated $20 million for “commemoration of success” celebrations related to Iraq and Afghanistan.
• Examples of wasteful duplication include: 342 economic development programs; 130 programs serving the disabled; 130 programs serving at-risk youth; 90 early childhood development programs; 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities; and 72 safe water programs.
• Federal auditors estimate that $4 billion in Iraq-related spending is lost to corruption each year.
• Homeland Security employee purchases include 63-inch plasma TVs, iPods, and $230 for a beer brewing kit.
• The CBO published a “Budget Options” book identifying $140 billion in potential spending cuts.
• Two drafting errors in the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act will add $2 billion to its total cost.
• The National Institutes of Health spends $1.3 million per month to rent a lab that it cannot use.
• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration billed taxpayers for its 30th anniversary celebration in 2000 and then for its 200th anniversary celebration in 2007.
• Members of Congress have spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars supplying their offices with popcorn machines, plasma televisions, DVD equipment, ionic air fresheners, camcorders, and signature machines.
• The Defense Department wasted $100 million on unused flight tickets and never bothered to collect refunds even though the tickets were refundable.
• Medicaid fraud and abuse are estimated to cost $15–$25 billion annually.
• Over one recent 18-month period, Air Force and Navy personnel used government-funded credit cards to charge at least $102,400 on admission to entertainment events, $48,250 on gambling, $69,300 on cruises, and $73,950 on exotic dance clubs and prostitutes.
• Congress recently spent $2.4 billion on 10 new jets that the Pentagon insists it does not need and will not use.
• Lawmakers diverted $13 million from Hurricane Katrina relief spending to build a museum celebrating the Army Corps of Engineers—the agency partially responsible for the failed levees that flooded New Orleans.
• Fraud related to Hurricane Katrina spending is estimated to top $2 billion. In addition, debit cards provided to hurricane victims were used to pay for Caribbean vacations, NFL tickets, Dom Perignon champagne, “Girls Gone Wild” videos, and at least one sex change operation.
• Auditors discovered that 900,000 of the 2.5 million recipients of emergency Katrina assistance provided false names, addresses, or Social Security numbers or submitted multiple applications.
• Medicare officials recently mailed $50 million in erroneous refunds to 230,000 Medicare recipients.
• The Commerce Department has lost 1,137 computers since 2001, many containing Americans’ personal data.
• Audits showed $34 billion worth of Department of Homeland Security contracts contained significant waste, fraud, and abuse.
• Washington recently spent $1.8 million to help build a private golf course in Atlanta, Georgia. • Congress recently gave Alaska Airlines $500,000 to paint a Chinook salmon on a Boeing 737. • Congressional investigators were able to receive $55,000 in federal student loan funding for a fictional college they created to test the Department of Education.
• The Advanced Technology Program spends $150 million annually subsidizing private businesses; 40 percent of this funding goes to Fortune 500 companies.
• The Conservation Reserve program pays farmers $2 billion annually not to farm their land.
Source: Dozens of public studies and reports compiled by the Heritage Foundation.

Now here is my Question: Do we run our household budget like this? If no, than why the country?

Over all Budget Trends

Hey Guys, look at this document :

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/upload/federalspendingbythenumbers2008.pdf

Page 2:

I was shocked - hearing Last 8 years of failed economic policy argument - i was wondering it must be really bad, well it's feelign bad - no doubt about it..

Being a statistician - when i have looked this, few facts jumped at me:

Look at Revenue line...

1. Frm yr 1992 to yr 2000 (President Clinton's era) government icome started rising - How? i need to check, if its due to higher tax, which i will not be surprised if that comes out true.

2. It kept going up until 2001 (First year of President Bush)

3. Sharp decline little after 2001 until 2003 (9/11 incident and war)

4. Revenue stabilized and again started going up until 2006 (President Bush)
5. Revenue going down sharply just after 2006 until 2008 (Both Houses with Democrats)

Look at the Spending line...

1. Stedy but increasing pattern until 2001

2. bigger increase after 2001 until 2005 (War)

3. Stedy line for a yr and half until late 2006 (War)

4. Sharp increase 2007-2008 (War and Democrats in House)

My Impression...

- Bush policies were not that bad... (I cant believe i am saying this.. )

- 9/11 has caused temporary revenue to go down

- War has caused spending go up

- Democrats control houses has caused situation worse...

And Obama is telling everyone its Bush policy has caused this Economic Crisis - I am not buying this.

And Did I mention, even with the declined Revenue - it was over all time high... the problem is expenditure went higher... so i guess, the best solution i think is control spending going out of control...

Joe the Plumber

Last Presidential debate for Election 2008 is over. And only thing most of the people will remember probably will be "Joe the Plumber"
The Guy worked long hrs every day for past several years and now dreaming about buying the small business he work for, now figure under Sen. Obama's plan is going to have to pay more Taxes. And only thing Sen. Obama could reply to him in Ohio was - "we need to spread the wealth". Democrat mantra... Isn't it sounds like, what Joe the Biden said "It's time to be patriotic"
Now Let us analyse the situation: Per Obama and I quote "We have last 8 years of failed economical policy" and still Joe the Plumber could put together enough money to buy business, which he think he will make enough money that if Sen. Obama become President, he has to pay more taxes than if he is not.
So What it tells you - or should i say the Mccain way - I get it:
- Last 8 year's bad policy and people were still be able to put together money for American dream of owning business.
- Sen. Obama's Tax plan will kill Small Business as they have to pay more tax, the dream they work so hard for

I quote, 'if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.'

Obama said. "His campaign actually said, and I quote, 'if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.' "

I have heard so many times this exact sentence over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...
I went on internet and try to figure it out myself, who could be the idiot enough to say that in public even if its true.. Found none, zilch, nada...
all I found is:
1. On October 4, the Washington Post wrote an article in which several Republicans signaled a change in McCain's strategy. The article quotes an unnamed "senior Republican operative"
2. An October 6 article in the New York Daily News quotes "a top McCain strategist" another unnamed quote

Can someone please help please who exactly quoted this quote coming out of Sen. Obama's mouth again and again... or it is just his strategy to tell lie again and again and full the people.

Looks like even CNN is not able to find proof for Obama and put this as disputed..

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/15/fact-check-did-mccains-campaign-say-it-needed-to-shift-focus-from-the-economy/

Heartless Mccain in Last Debat

Soem one sent me this email:
"How can you ever vote for a candidate - who thinks that allowing abortion for mother's health - is a stretch and "just eloquence" - shame."

I am sorry Mr. Democrat - I bag to defer here - Have you really watch the Debate or heard the talking point or just read on millions of blogs telling lies today.

here is real quote as I remember:

Again…just again, an example of the eloquence of Senator Obama, health of the mother. You know that’s been stretched by the pro-abortion movement to mean almost anything.

This was in response to Obama saying - that he didn't vote for the late term abortion ban because it had no provision for the health or life of the mother

The point if some one has little of mind - was eloquence of Obama - telling pro-abortionist stretch the meaning of the word 'Health of Mother' to almost anything. If Pro-Obama media wants to misinterpret and make issue out of it.. which I see they already have 1000's of blogs today are telling McCain heartless...

because, you know, there are so many women running around and deciding after being pregnant for six or more months that being pregnant is no longer convenient for them


Come out of the talking point and use your mind...

Racism in Election affecting Obama

That day i was reading article in USA today. discussion racism may affect Sen. Obama this election. Bull****

They had whole nice table and graph for Obama Vs McCain supporters with respect to Race. I wish i could get that poll some how - i tried and so i actually am late putting it here.

as I remember 44% white supports Sen. Obama while 48% supports Sen. McCain. While 98% Blacks supports Sen. Obama vs. 2% supports Sen. McCain.

It was clear like day light to me - But no where in whole article, they were telling - Where is Racism here?

Is it in Whites? or In Blacks?

You decide...

My numbers may not be exactly right (bad memory) - but i can gurantee it has not been scewed just to present the fact, and they should be almost right

You are entitled to call me Racist, which i am not - am just presenting fact here