Heritage Objects to Obama Ad

Why do people still insist the the current administration is the cause of our recent economic and credit woes. Just a week or so before Fannie Mae/Mac went under, Barney Frank, chair of the House Banking committee with oversight of Fannie Mae/Mac, commented that both were solid. And the issue to allow low income families to obtain mortgage loans was pushed by then President Clinton.

Ah.. so quoting a reporter that lies, is not a lie.. interesting

Power2people, the U. S. Constitution gives Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..." Taxes are imposed to provide services NOT redistribute the wealth.

Sen. Obama advocates taxing the wealthiest 5% and giving that money directly to the middle class. THAT IS a major tenant of Socialism. Sen. Obama is the most radical presidential candidate to run for a major party in American politics. Sen. Obama makes President Carter, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis look like neocons.

Name me one tax... Just one, that does not redistribute wealth. Thats what taxes do.

The old "redistribution" started by Reagan, the average CEO now brings home 300 times that of the regular guy compared to 25 timees in 1980, and the worker has actually experiecned a DECREASE over the same time period. The collapse of the financial institions must be the "trickle down" he promised.

The Republicans have been horrible for this country and they can't even see it becasue the leaders of the conservative movemtn keeps them blinded by non-issues.

We need a Roosevelt distribution not a Reagan distribution. Build America from the groud up, trickles don't do it.

Thank GOD we have Barack Obama! He is coming in, and will win by huge margins. America has woken up.

So the Obama campaign is telling a lie?

Dog bites man.

Ya poor little McCain-Palin-Bush crybabies. Obama this and Obama that. But Obama on the right side of the issues. Republicans are on the right side of chagrined complaining 'cuz that's all they got now. Big difference guys.

Common Sense, you can deny it all you want but the fact is there were 5 million jobs created in the 52 consecutive months from September 2003 through December 2007. And during much of that time the unemployment rate was between 4.5% and 5.5%. Those are historically VERY GOOD numbers. In fact, GDP actually grew in the first two quarters of 2008 (0.9% in the 1st Q and 2.8% in the 2nd Q) in spite of the economic downturn.

It was President Bush's domestic polices that got us through the previous hits to our economy (i.e., 2000-01 Recession, 9/11, corporate scandals, 2004-05 hurricanes and other natural disasters) NOT CAUSED them. It was the Democrats and their obsession with forcing banks to lower their lending standards and give mortgages to individuals who were unable to make the payments, coupled with the pushing of the flexible subprime mortgage rates and greed that caused the financial crisis. And now you want to give the Democrats the White House and a super majority of Congress. You won't believe what I say. You will have to see it all for yourself. So go ahead, ignore the warnings. Then you will see what "massive" unemployment is really like.

We get it Obama.
Or at least some of us do.

Redistribution, Economic justice, Civil rights.

This spread the wealth scheme is simply a way to pay us back for slavery, stick it to the evil white man(think Rev Wright).

It's a devious way to get reparations
and call it tax cuts or spreading the wealth, because BO knows he would lose if he called it reparations.

Granted many white people will benefit but that is the only way he can sell this.

He can keep his $500 bribe--there is no amount of money worth making this deceptive man president.

Deena Rockefeller - So you are willing to vote for a plan that is going to irreparably harm this country?

James Danley,

You are again wrong.

"Now then, it is the top 5% that create jobs. So I ask you which would you prefer: A job with a weekly, bi-weekly or monthly check OR just one check of about $1,500 to last you for a year (if not four years)?"

Ahem... First, the top 5% did NOT create jobs while sucking down those tax breaks American taxpayers gave them. They insourced and outsourced our jobs. They suppressed wages. Unemployment has been massive over the last 8 years. Foreclosures and store closures are direct proof that the top 5% has failed to create the jobs which could sustain basic American lifestyles.

Second, citizens working two to three jobs to survive decreases the number of jobs available to others who are also trying to survive. That forces the middle into survival at the expense of others similarly situated, ultimately pushing more and more people into poverty. Republicans cause infighting by pitting citizen against citizen to survive!

You have not shown how it is beneficial to support giving tax breaks to those who don't create jobs instead of giving those tax breaks to "Joe the Plumber".

If you haven't heard McCain/Palin lying that Obama will raise taxes on people making $42K, you haven't been keeping up with the news. Information is available via tv, radio, internet, cell phone and paper.

Obama/Biden 08!

Common Sense:

It's interesting that you call my pointing out facts as an attack! And then you say that my arguments don't hold up. What arguments? I only pointed out the facts. You are very much like Sen. Obama. When you are corrected, instead of acknowledging your mistake you just move on to the next topic.

One of the roles of the federal government is to promote the general welfare. Letting our financial system crash would not be promoting the general welfare. To the contrary, had we allowed the financial system to fail unemployment would have skyrocketed to levels not seen since the Great Depression (23.6% in 1932)--if not even worse.

Now then, it is the top 5% that create jobs. So I ask you which would you prefer: A job with a weekly, bi-weekly or monthly check OR just one check of about $1,500 to last you for a year (if not four years)? Sen. Obama may be advocating raising the top federal income tax rate from 35% to 39.6%, but the Democrats in Congress will almost certainly seek to raise the top rate to 45%-50% or even higher. That will cause layoffs! And when the Democrats attempt to implement the $1 trillion worth of new entitlements that Sen. Obama is advocating (and possibly even more of which he is not advocating), they will quickly realize that they will have to raise taxes on everyone in order to pay for these entitlements.

Oh, PAHLEEZE! The Obama response to their letter CLEARLY clears the Obama Camp of the purported mis-information. Obama was not wrong by quoting/doing this in his advertisement!!!

Get over it!

Obama/Biden 2008!!!!!!

Well, get ready. If Obama wins this is the kind of deceit and misrepresentation that will be part and parcel of the administration, and and resistance like the letter mentioned from the Heritage Foundation will spur on an Obama Administration's efforts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine to quiet any and all such dissent. There's already clear evidence in light of the "truth squad's" the Obama campaign has used to threaten and cut off media outlets that don't tow the line.

God help us!

So Obama is caught lying again and using false endorsements?

What is suprising about it?

'Hello', read the letter above, read the NYSun article. I'm implying the Heritage Foundation are liars based purely on the fact that the letter above makes claims about the NYSun article that are untrue.

They claim that the reporter's summary of Hederman's position is erroneous, but they also claim that this is evident from the actual quotes in the article. It is not. The direct quotes in the NYSun article do not make clear, as the Heritage Foundation claims, that 'Mr. Hederman believes [Obama's] tax plan would be bad not only for the country but for the middle class.' At most, Hederman quibbles with the method ('Instead of a grab bag of tax credits, lower the marginal rates').

That's not all. The WSJ letter doesn't relate to the quote used in this ad, and the quote used is hardly a summary, it's more of a second hand account of a quote: "Mr. Hederman said the middle class would likely pay less under Mr. Obama's plan than Mr. McCain's ...". It's hard to see how that could be an erroneous summary. It's a pretty basic statement.

The only way the Heritage Foundation's claims could be true is if the NYSun article was basically entirely made up. But they don't say that. Indeed, they suggest that the 'actual quotes' are entirely accurate.

I get the strong impression that the NYSun article (and consequently Obama's ad) are largely accurate and the Heritage Foundation's problem, as a conservative organization, is that they don't want to be seen to be complimentary of any aspect of Obama's tax plan at all. Hence their attempt to recast Hederman's comments.

The Heritage Foundation has a Web Memo and an analysis by J.D. Foster, Ph.D. regarding Obama's and McCain's tax plans.
The analysis emphasizes that:
- Obama's tax proposals exemplify his view that redistributing income among citizens is more important than increasing their earnings and creating jobs.
- Obama's preference for punitive redistributionism over economic growth is also apparent in his proposal to raise the capital gains and dividend tax rates.
Conclusion: Under the McCain tax plan the economy would be expected to be about $320 billion greater, and average household income about $2,600 higher than would be the case under the Obama tax plan.
Geez, I'm just so tired of Obama twisting the truth.
This is just like the lie he told senior citizens that McCain is going to cut their Medicare benefits.
Do you have no shame, Senator Obama?

James Danley,

"Common Sense wrote: "Only if you get John McCain and Sarah Palin to stop lying that my tax plan is socialist." Taking money from the wealthy and giving it directly to the middle class is wealth redistribution. Wealth redistribution IS a tenant of Socialism.

Common Sense wrote: "Only if you get John McCain and Sarah Palin to stop lying when they say my plan raises taxes on people making $42K." You are misrepresenting the McCain/Palin rhetoric. They have never said that Sen. Obama's plan raises taxes on those making $42K. What they have consistently stated was that a vote that Sen. Obama cast in the Senate would have raised the taxes on an individual who is making $42K.

Common Sense wrote: "Obama's tax plan will help 95% of ALL AMERICANS." That is NOT what Sen. Obama is advocating. He says that the bottom 95% of WORKING individuals/couples will receive a tax cut. That is not the same as 95% of ALL Americans"

Reagan created the earned income credit. It provides checks to the people that the employers didn't pay enough to sustain a normal living standard in the U.S. although they are not lazy welfare recipients. Was Ronald Reagan a socialists? I recall Ronald Reagan was the biggest fear-monger against socializing medicine.

Your arguments don't hold up politically. Besides, I and so many other Americans just gave Wall Street the biggest welfare check in U.S. history. Please let me know why our redistribution of wealth to those making millions deserves your attack when all I'll potentially get is less than $1k.

If you can't, I'll assume you are like Joe the Plumber who doesn't pay taxes and doesn't know what law-abiding citizens actually go through. You could just be "out of touch" like McCain, but I'll give you the benefit of doubt if you can explain why I shouldn't get maybe $1K while Wall Street gets $700B.

Obama/Biden 08!

Common Sense wrote: "Only if you get John McCain and Sarah Palin to stop lying that my tax plan is socialist." Taking money from the wealthy and giving it directly to the middle class is wealth redistribution. Wealth redistribution IS a tenant of Socialism.

Common Sense wrote: "Only if you get John McCain and Sarah Palin to stop lying when they say my plan raises taxes on people making $42K." You are misrepresenting the McCain/Palin rhetoric. They have never said that Sen. Obama's plan raises taxes on those making $42K. What they have consistently stated was that a vote that Sen. Obama cast in the Senate would have raised the taxes on an individual who is making $42K.

Common Sense wrote: "Obama's tax plan will help 95% of ALL AMERICANS." That is NOT what Sen. Obama is advocating. He says that the bottom 95% of WORKING individuals/couples will receive a tax cut. That is not the same as 95% of ALL Americans.

At least Obama has a plan.....

When the top 5% cannot produce the wealth/growth that they received our tax breaks for, we fire them and move forward with the next plan. When the healthcare industry refused to budge, we the people moved towards a government solution that will also allow freedom of choice.

Note that gas prices are down because Obama will become President and the oil-producing nations know that once Obama's initiaves take off (alternative energy, biofuels, wind-technology and other renewable energy sources), there will be limited wealth potential available to those same foreign nations.

We will become their competitors instead of their dependents. We won't even need to create fake wars to steal their oil any more, so the world is potentially safer.

The race is on, though. If McCain/Palin get elected, we will simply rely on same old stale oil drilling while the foreigners create what Obama has proposed and thereby create a new American dependency on their resources/technology.

Obama/Biden 08!