Obama and his affordable housing "pals"

I, as well as most Christian Americans, can closer relate to Palin, than to Obama and Reverend Wright's radical racist Black Liberation theology.

We have looked at the Keating Five. Recap:

Keating Five- The Senate Ethics Committee conducted a lengthy investigation into 4 Democratic Senators and John McCain. McCain was exonerated while 3 of the 4 Democrats were found to have "substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings.

The Senate Ethics Commitee stated that McCain did not break any laws or violate any ethics.

Excerpts of Statement By Senate Ethics Panel
SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: February 28, 1991

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE2D71539F93BA15751C0A967958260

These are my comments previously posted in two other threads this topic was discussed.

I stand by my statement. Why do you think the Keating issue was not pressed by the Democratic party? In this year alone, Obama has accepted more than TWICE the campaign contributions from some of these banks than McCain has accepted in his entire political career.

Example of bank contributions:

Goldman Sachs
Obama 2008- $799,821
McCain Career- $327,015

Lehman Brothers
Obama 2008- $403,624
McCain Career- $145,100

JPMorgan & Chase
Obama 2008- $529,012
McCain Career- $253,445

CitiGroup
Obama 2008- $523,948
McCain Career- $356,801

www.opensecrets.org

I don't think that it is acceptable for either candidate to accept contributions from "individuals" of these corporations, but what do you think is the intent of significantly funding one candidate over the other? The likelihood that the candidate well put policies in place that be of financial advantage to the corporation? More of your taxpayer bailout dollars will end up in their pockets?

 

Nor has it found that Obama has violated any Senate ethics rules, federal or state, and nor has obama been convicted of breaking any laws. Your whole premise was that merely associating with a felon was enough to damn obama.

In McCain's case, the association was much closer (including vacationing together), and Keating is equally unrepentant. Keating caused much more damage than Ayers, who by the way, was never convicted of anything. I believe Keating WAS convicted.

Seems to me you have a double standard. Time heals all for McCain's actions, which took place at the same time the crime was being committed, while time is flat in obama's case, and despite the fact the criminal acts were committed when obama was 8, he is somehow tainted by those acts.

BULLSHIT!

As for Palin, I used to be in the pentecostal church. It's a lot worse than Black Liberation. Catholics are going to hell according to them. they go into trances and speak "in tongues". they believe in demons. demons everywhere, whispering in your ear. They are fucking nutjobs.

 

I have never claimed that he has.

Correct.

Ah yes, but Ayers is not the only individual I mentioned. When I brought up felons, I was referring to Rezko. Do you want to compare McCain's relationship with Keating and Obama's relationship to Rezko?

You're not paying attention. You are confusing issues. The time issue I was comparing McCain accepting political contributions from Keating twenty years ago, compared to the campaign contributions that Obama is accepting today. And, I did condemn McCain for that (in at least three threads now). The fact that Obama was 8 years old when Ayers was blowing shit up doesn't mean a thing to me. What does, is that Ayers is still a radical, does not regret his terrorist actions, and has recently stated that he wishes he would have done more. This is not a rehabilitated man. He was and is a radical, and Obama was recently involved with Ayers and accepted political contributions from him (albeit small). I understand his position as Professor, and I don't expect others to agree with me, but I don't care if Ayers is the Pope, his attitude towards his terrorist actions has not changed.

I have more of an issue of Obama attending Wright's church for 20 years and listening to that racist radical rhetoric, and then repeatedly lying about it. What does Wright say about Obama?

Also, not to get totally distracted from the original topic, but aside from me getting facts from The Boston Globe, what do you think about Obama's relationship with the "affordable housing developers" and the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been distributed to them for....to say the least....questionable improvement in low income housing?

 

I really don't give a shit, because it's the side show, and a whole lot of actual important shit is going on.

Obama came out of Chicago politics. He played the game and has shown incredible talent clawing his way to the top. If there weren't questionable people in his past, i would be incredulous. It's most impressive, and it's the kind of person I want working for me as president. We are not voting for a saint, we are voting for someone who can get shit done. This guy, he gets shit done.

All these distractions are playing in Obama's favor, by the way, despite your "internet experience".

Even if all you say about Obama were true, I would still vote for the guy rather than get screwed by the stuff McCain actually claims he is going to do. Not all of us have rich parents and good healthcare. People like me are becoming the norm, and as we experience medical disaster resulting in bankruptcy, our country will experience a downward slide.

As for you cultural differences, all I can say is most people don't share them, and as a white man I am not offended by Black Liberation. Blacks have been fucking screwed in this country for 200 years. Let them have their incendiary church pastors. What the fuck would you do? As it is, you probably celebrate how "blessed" you are at church. That's nice, but these guys are still looking for Cannan.

 

Character and past are important. The fact that he funneled tens of millions of dollars to individuals that were convicted of embezzlement, fraud, bribery, etc.. I think that is important. To each his own I guess.

I've heard this arguement before. It's the Chicago way right? Because he is black he needed to associate with these people to make up for his racial disadvantage? I think if you looked at Obama and his associates from Chicago, a crafty lawyer could probably have a RICO case. I am sure people have been convicted on less.

And if he throws a couple hundred million to his criminal buddies, who cares.

I would bet that Obama's questionable activities mentioned in campaign ads have cost him more votes than it has cost McCain. What has hurt McCain is his lack of substance in his campaign. 75% attack ads. People want to hear how he is going to fix the economy and why they should vote for McCain, not just why they shouldn't vote for Obama. Obama has also led a brilliant campaign. His use of the internet and social networking sites to raise money is genious. I would be surprised if McCain even knows what "surf the internet" means. The massive amount of campaign funding has allowed Obama to saturate every media outlet known to man. This is a tremendous advantage. And a little media bias doesn't help.

Yes, the apologist in you.

Haha. What race do you think I am?

 

Of all of the people i've ever met that this might have been true for, YOU take the cake, pal:

Wacky (and anyone else who tries to discuss anything with you that doesn't agree EXACTLY with your big, fat ideas of reality) = RUBBER

You = Glue

Everything you say about them, bounces off and sticks on you!

Now, that's a childish saying, granted. But it came from wisdom. You go around, accusing people of this, that and the other, and it's YOU that is actually DOING this, that and the other.

Folks ask you, almost to the point of begging, that you would just open your mind ~ pretend everything is just the opposite, for starters. You won't even give reason and logic and natural curiosity a CHANCE.

Is it truly THAT important that you be 'right?' If it is, you're in for a heck of a life...

 

Wacky, it didn't occur to me to ask what race you are. it's beside the point, but tell us your "race" and religious sect if you like. It doesn't grant you any special authority either way. I'd be more interested to know what your economic status is, your age, and the economic status of your parents.

And the chicago way is not right or wrong. It's the reality you face if you run for office there. When you get to the white house, you face a new reality, internal and international. Obama has shown he can steer a course through the worst obstacles.

As for your claim that the negative ads are working? Look at the analysis. I think you spend too much time with your republican buddies. Sounds to me like you suffer from the same lack of judgement as McCain. Extremists tend to be more extreme when they hang out with the like-minded.

 

I am doing just fine. I have spent several years in a very dangerous occupation that paid well, and that experience has allowed me to work in a sector now that the only danger is my laptop will get a virus, or my firewall breached. My age is just right, not too young, not too old. I will tell you that I do not want to see my inheritance taxed anymore than it already would be. If my parents worked their asses off to provide wealth to the following generations, and they have been already taxed heavily on that, why should I have to pay 55% tax on that like Obama is proposing? It's bullshit.

You read, but I don't think you pay much attention. Read what I said again. I said "I would bet that Obama's questionable activities mentioned in campaign ads have cost him more votes than it has cost McCain." What you call lack of judgement, may be a different understanding of political tactics. I agree that extremists tend to be more extreme according to their company. Where did you learn yours? ACORN?

 

I've never been involved with Acorn, and you would likely find me more reasonable than you think given a conversation removed from the heat of the political moment.

And thank you for being honest. The truth is, you have a personal interest in making sure wealth stays concentrated at the top. Those of us who are never going to inherit have a personal interest as well, in making sure that all transactions are properly taxed, because without the protection of the government, that transaction's security would have to come out of the value of the transaction. I'm not interested in subsidizing your inheritance transaction. We are also faced with a not so unlikely chance of financial catastrophe because we can't afford health insurance, or when we can, the industry plays by such loose rules that we still face financial catastrophe. How long do you think you can insulate yourself from that? Eventually, the catastrophe will flood up to reach even rich people like you.

And you need to read some level headed analysis. McCain's constant rehashing of supposedly nefarious connections and actions has bled his party of moderate support, and independent voters. They are moving in doves towards Obama. People like Colin Powell are a symbol of that. Perhaps you should read David Brooks's latest editorial, and perhaps peek at some poll numbers. may I suggest realclearpolitics?

 

That is not true. I just do not believe that you should unfairly tax the middle-upper to upper class in order to supplement the lower to lower-middle. I also believe that the Obama tax plan at this point is going to slow economic growth.

Properly taxed as in taking 55% of my inheritance? My grandfather was dirt poor growing up. His father died when he was 9 years old, so he and his brother were responsible for feeding the family. He working his way through college and earned himself an engineering degree. After he graduated college he married and fathered three children, and devoted his life to work. He sacrificed time with his wife and children so that he could provide them with a better life than he had growing up. He taught his children the value of hard work, and his life lessons helped my father become successful. These lessons were passed onto myself. Everything I have I have worked hard for. Our family takes pride in working hard and striving to become successful, often at personal costs. We feel these sacrifices are necessary to build family and personal wealth that will help our future generations also become successful.

My family has paid its dues for the assets that we have earned. Why should wealth that has been accumulated for 100+ years continue to be taxed at extraordinary rates? How many times should the same asset be taxed?

Please explain.

I am not rich. I consider myself financially stable from years of hard work, conservative spending, and wise investment choices. If and when hard times come my way, I have blanketed myself in a manner than will allow me to survive relatively comfortably. I lived for quite some time by the simplest means known to man. Surviving with only basic food, clothing, and shelter doesn't bother me. If times get really bad, and I mean really really bad, I know that I can survive. Experiences in life have taught me to always have a Plan B, which just may entail "heading for the hills". Funny thing is, the thought of a major catastrophe that would cause me to flee does not even scare me. The plan I have in place often temps me into the challenge of surviving from the simple things in nature that God has put on this earth. No TV, no Blackberry, no internet, etc.. A simple life, where the struggle of survival occupies your time. Doesn't sound too bad eh? Do you have a plan? If not, if you prove your worth I may allow you a place in my colony.

 

ok wacky, I feel you've asked an honest question, but it will take a minute to answer, so i'll only answer this one question, on the topic of inheritance. I will give two answers, one from the social perspective, the other from a macroeconomic perspective.

On the social side, think about what makes any transaction as we know it possible in this country. You need a secure infrastructure. In order for person x to give any fungible asset or real asset to person y, what essentially happens is that the rest of the world recognizes the new owner. Let's say I have a bag of cash, and a property, and I die and leave it to you. What stops any random person from coming after my death and grabbing the gold and living on the land? In our society, the full faith and protection of the government.

But what is the value of the government's protection? Imagine for a second that instead of relying on the government, I have to provide security so trustworthy and strong that the land and the bag of cash are guaranteed to go to the intended recipient.

In both cases I would lose a percentage of my assets. In both cases, the more you have, the more you have to spend to keep it. I would say that in the latter case, you would suffer very high rate of loss. It's called feudalism. It's not an efficient way to live.

My point, is that the value provided by the government, in terms of security, is worth more to those who have more. A progressive tax that asks those who have more to pay more for the security that allows them to have even more should understand that it sure beats feudalism, and do their part. Perhaps we will forever argue about how the scale should slide, but I believe those who have are getting a plenty good deal compared to those who have not.

Now to the economic side. Do you know what made this country great? Innovation. Invention. Hard work. The story of people like your family. Do you know what made Europe stagnate at the same time? Aristocracy. That's why someone like Warren Buffett would only give his children "enough to do whatever they want, but not enough to do nothing". We need no perpetuities in this country. Passing on what you earn to make life better for your children is good, and we should encourage that, but establishing perpetuities that concentrate wealth upwards into fewer and fewer families will only weaken us in the end.

 

I understand that estate taxes are required to pay for the courts time to recognize the legal documents that allow the transfer of ownership, but 55% is completely out of line. If my grandparents purchased land and built a house, passed it to my parents, and my parents pass it to me, let's say the value of the house and land are $1 million. You tell me it costs $550,000 for the courts to transfer that deed to me? What if I could not afford to pay the tax on that estate? My only option would be to sell the property that has been in my family for generations because I could not afford to pay the tax on it. Do you think that is fair?

 

I'm telling you it would cost you more than 55% without the courts and the police around.

You're getting a deal.

A single full time guard, at 50k a year, is 500k over ten years, and 5 million over 100 years.

For the price of just over the cost of a cheap security guard for 10 years, you get a whole lifetime of protection for that asset.

Ask yourself if you can trust a 50k a year security guard with your child's inheritance.

 

and yes, I think it's fair for you to have to sell your property if you can't afford the taxes. If that's the case, maybe you should innovate and become a rich entrepeneur. It's what your Republican buddies tell the poor they should do.

 

Can't say I agree with your analogies. Perhaps you would feel different if your family had any hard earned assets that they were passing to you.

The thing is, there are quite a few loopholes that we can take to avoid a lot of these taxes, but it will require paying a blood sucking lawyer to help so that we don't get caught. We shouldn't have to jump through those hoops damnit!

 

Aha! So we can look forward to NO MORE POSTS by you? (Thank you, Lord!)

As usual, the rest of what you have to say is just so much manure, so i won't even bother with addressing it.

Goodbye, MJ. Don't let the door hit you in the heiny on your way out!

:rofl: :rofl:

And THIS, folks, is how your typical Obaminite responds to all the questionable relationships Barrack Hussein Obama has forged over his political career, and anything we might question about this (evidently) Holy Man ~

'I QUIT!'

Yeppers. That an appology if ever i heard one!

 

what about my analogy doesn't work? you think everyone owes you protection just because your grandfather and father accomplished something? That doesn't make you shit. except maybe a spoiled whiner. There are no free lunches. welcome to the social contract.

i hope you do get caught, and if you do i'll thank god some of my hard earned money helps pay for IRS.

 

I think you are putting to much emphasis on how much "protection" I am getting for my money. If the only asset your parents pass on to you is a ghetto crackhouse that is only worth $20k, well that transfer of wealth does not require any more government resources than my family's $1 million dollar house. Right? Why should there be such a massive difference in tax paid?

We won't. Our lawyers are the best! Thank your liberal lawmakers for that one. If the tax was reasonable, the government would probably see more tax revenue from my family.

 

By the way, I'm not spoiled yet. All the loot is tied up in trusts, IRA's, offshore accounts, safety deposit boxes plum full of cash, blah blah blah.

 

Well, let's just see, here...

Wacky isn't spit, just because his grandfather fought in WWI.

Your grandfater fought in WWI.

YOU aren't SPIT, pal ~

by your own reasoning, that is!

Hey! Thanx for pointing that out to us! We actually thought you were SOMETHING, but now that you've cleared that up for us...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: