Politics News

Roni Deutch asked:


Higher Taxes on Top Earning AmericansSenator Obama is a big believer in our progressive tax system – and he is not afraid to hide that. So one of the first things Obama is set to do is letting President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to selectively expire. He also advocates increasing the income cap on payroll taxes. This would essentially be a huge tax increase for taxpayers earning between $97,000.00 and $250,000.00, which goes against Obama’s prior commitment to not raise taxes on individuals making less than $250,000.00. Although higher taxes on the rich is a popular thought for many liberals, you cannot expect to only tax the rich and cut taxes for the poor. The American public is not likely to support unbalanced tax increases and this could harm his chances in the general election.Close Corporate Loop-HolesAnother major component of Obama’s tax plan is to close hundreds of corporate “loop-holes” that allow massive corporations to questionably reduce their tax liability. “Instead of having all of us pay our fair share, we’ve got over $1 trillion worth of loopholes in the corporate tax code,” he claimed. “This isn’t the invisible hand of the market at work. It’s the successful work of special interests.” This plan would be highly efficient at creating new revenue for the federal government, but at what cost? Huge corporations are already moving factories and offices to countries with cheaper labor and more favorable corporate taxes. If the tax rates increase too much, then more corporations would likely move out of the country and it could result in thousands of lost jobs.Senior Citizen Tax BreaksAlthough it seems like an attempt to get the attention of the “senior voters” and the AARP, Obama is hoping to provide relief to millions of seniors struggling to make ends meet. His plan would eliminate federal taxes on seniors making less then $50,000.00 per year, which would account for $7 million dollars in total relief. It seems quite unlikely that the country would get behind this tax plan. I also have my own reservations – what about single mothers making less than $50,000 per year – that I expressed in a previous entry.Make Work Pay Tax CreditWith his Make Work Pay tax credit, Obama is hoping to encourage Americans to take control of their lives, while providing tax relief to both low and middle income taxes. “I’d reward work by providing an income tax cut of up to $500 per person – or $1,000 for each working family – to offset the payroll tax that they’re already paying,” claimed Obama. “Because this credit would be greater than their income tax bill, my proposal would effectively eliminate all income taxes for 10 million working Americans.”Capital Gain Tax IncreaseObama’s desire to increase the Capital Gains rate is probably the biggest actual increase of his tax plan. The current tax rate on Capital Gains is 15%, and Obama hopes to raise it to 28%. But although the Capital Gains tax rate is much lower today than it was a decade ago, it is being levied on a lot more people. Investing is not only for the rich, as there are millions of middle income Americans investing in stocks, retirement accounts, and mutual funds. In a time of a looming economic recession, we should be encouraging sound investment and savings strategies. Raising the capital gains rate is not going to do that.Mortgage Relief for Homeowners”Ten of the country’s largest mortgage lenders spent $185 million lobbying Washington so they could keep engaging in destructive practices,” claimed Obama. “And they got what they paid for. To help fix this problem Obama wants to create more accountability in the mortgage industry. In addition, he intends to pursue more tax breaks for current homeowners. Specifically, Obama announced intentions to “create a 10 percent universal mortgage credit to provide homeowners who do not itemize tax relief.”Because it is a credit, individuals claiming the standard deduction would have access to it. Currently, mortgage interest is a deduction that can only be claimed by itemizing your deductions on your tax return. The credit would provide about $500 to 10 million homeowners in this country, mainly for individuals making less than $50,000 per year.Revamp the AMTAlthough Obama voted “nay” on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), he does support a revamp of the tax. The specific details of his plan are a bit hazy, but Obama has claimed he would like to index the tax according to inflation so that it does not affect middle-income Americans. However, with dozens of social plans that cost billions of dollars to operate, the idea of reducing a tax that generates so much revenue for the government seems unlikely.American Opportunity Tax CreditOne of Obama’s more popular tax views is to help make higher education more affordable for Americans by creating a credit to reimburse taxpayers for the costs of obtaining a college education. According to his plan, the credit would reimburse taxpayers on the first $4,000.00 they spend on a college education, and will cover two-thirds of the cost of attending a public college or university.Immigration Reform and Undocumented Immigrant TaxesObama wants to reform the way the federal government deals with undocumented immigrants. Obama’s plan does have tax consequences, as it would not only require illegal aliens to file tax returns and pay income taxes, but would also require them to pay back taxes and the associated penalties and interest. If this idea became reality, it could account for millions of dollars in additional federal revenue. And, by not including tax amnesty in his immigration reform, Obama preemptively “plucks” a feather from the anti-immigration reform movement. It also preemptively stops American citizens from lobbying for similar treatment for their own unfiled tax returns and IRS back taxes.

Gurumurthy Kalyanaram asked:


The probability of Obama winning the Presidential elections in November appears to be pretty robust. Here is why –
(1) Based on public polls, it is becoming evident that Obama is most likely to hold all the states (Michigan appears close but it is trending Obama’s way) that Kerry won in 2004. That would give Obama 252 electoral votes. Add to this Iowa which is almost certain to go to Obama — 7 electoral votes. That gives Obama 259 electoral votes.
On the other hand, McCain — at this stage — is not likely to win all the stages that Bush won in 2004 (284 electoral votes.) McCain is almost sure to lose Iowa (7 electoral votes.) Add to this mix, Ohio (20 electoral votes), Virginia (13 electoral votes), Colorado (9 electoral votes), and New Mexico and Nevada (each with 5 electoral votes) — there is substantial doubt if McCain can hold these states. That puts McCain at about 225 electoral votes.
(2) The more compelling arithmetic is this. Repeatedly, in large numbers of public polls about 37-38 percent of the likely voters identify themselves as Democrats and about 30 percent as republicans. That leaves about 30 percent as independents. (The Newsweek preference measure which shows that about 55 percent of the voters identify themselves as Democrats and 36 percent as Republicans is an outlier.)
Assuming both Obama and McCain get 80 percent of their party votes, the differential gain for Obama would be about 6.5 percent. In the cross-over vote of 20 percent, Obama would lose about 1.5 percent leaving a net lead of about 5 percent for Obama. Assuming that Obama and McCain split the independents, Obama’s overall lead would be about 5 percent.
The only caveat is the potential Bradley-Wilder effect which accounts for about 5-7 percent.
(3) What adds to the odds of Obama’s victory are three other elements: the enormous enthusiasm among democrats and much muted demeanor of the republicans (enthusiasm translates into higher voting percentage and greater voter mobilization, in some cases the enthusiasm gap between the democrats and republicans is as high as 30 points), the extra-ordinarily low approval ratings (in low 30s) of President Bush and the perception that the country is heading in the wrong direction (over 64-70 percent of Americans say this.)

Ernie Fitzpatrick asked:


When the dust settles on this primary election cycle I think pundits and historians will mostly all agree that Bill Clinton was Hillary’s undoing. His game worked when it was him attacking them, when it was Bill versus the right wing conspiracy; however, when it is Bill versus “other Democrats” it is an abject failure. Democrats are now looking in the mirror and seeing the “Clinton myth” and it’s not a pretty picture at all. The latest Bill Clinton attack, as subtle as it was, didn’t go unnoticed!

What was the headline this past weekend from Bubba? “John McCain and Hillary Clinton love America. So wouldn’t it be great to see those two who love America vie for the presidential title? Surely you get the inference! And it is statements just like this that’s turning the Democratic party away from Hillary as much as for Obama- who is at least conciliatory in his comments.

Hillary is just barely holding on. To what?

Hillary Clinton has virtually no chance of winning. Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe.means the only way she wins is if Democratic super delegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency. Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote, which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle, and use that achievement to pressure super delegates (like Bill Richardson?), she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

The Clinton invincibility myth is dying a slow death, and with it the Hillary Clinton campaign.

The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe.The real question is why so many people believing that she has a chance, other than pulling off some back-room shady deal? The answer has more to do with media psychology than with practical politics.

Meanwhile, Bubba’s latest comments are causing the Hillary Clinton campaign to bob and weave, saying the comments were being misinterpreted and quickly posting a clarification on its Web site. But retired Air Force Gen. Merrill McPeak said he was disappointed by the comments and compared them to those of McCarthy, the 1950s communist-hunting senator.

Hey Bill. The fat lady is walking up the steps to take the microphone.

digitaldancer22 asked:


I live in PA and the cold is really starting to roar in. We just planted a beautiful rose bush in our yard this past summer and i am unsure how to winterize it so it doesn’t die.

thank you for your help!

Squarehead asked:


I have a huge raspberry bush. i have been cutting it down to the ground for the last 2 years and it hasn’t produced a half decent yield since about 3-4 years ago. What do i have to do to help get back to a healthy yield?

Carebear asked:


My mother in law told me that if you trim a lilac bush it wont bloom for seven years. I have some lilac bushes at my new house that are huge. They really need to be trimmed but, I’m afraid to do so now. Anybody know anything about this?

Breonna Isabela asked:


Imagine going for a drive on a smooth road, you can feel that you are in comfort and so is your car. Its tires are feeling good and its steering geometry is just excellent. And now imagine yourself in the same car on a rough road. You might feel doing tough labour and so your car. This is a normal situation that you feel good on the smooth road and bad on the rough road. But, can you imagine feeling yourself bad on a smooth road. It may happen, if the suspension bushes of your car fail.

This is true, the functions of suspension bushes are very important. In fact, these are small rubber made components of a car which are attached to the chassis of your car joining some of the moving parts of it. They work very hard so that your car can remain in good condition. They have a multi-faceted functions to do but the most special function of them is that they act like a noise and vibration absorbing barrier between the road and car. Car is made up of metal and it provides comfort due to its suspension system as it absorbs the outside pressure on a car.

Moreover, suspension bushes improve your car’s road holding and road grip and this they do to improve the chassis performance that ensures that the tires of a car have greater contact with the road at all times. This is necessary because without it the balance between tires and steering may get disturbed which would be bad for the proper alignment for your car. They keep the steering geometry constant and give it a positive response so that you do not need to exert extra pressure on it while driving. This function increases the life of tires.

Therefore, you need to take good care of suspension bushes and make it a duty to get them checked once after riding a car for 10,000 miles. And yes, always use best quality polyurethane made components.

James William Smith asked:


The media reaction to the recent ABC Presidential debate in Pennsylvania was almost unanimous. Television moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos were widely ridiculed for not asking a single question on an issue of political substance for more than the first fifty minutes of the Presidential debate. Indeed, there was not a single question on health care, the war in Iraq, the economy, illegal immigration, social security, or any other of the important challenges and issues facing America today.

Instead, for nearly the first hour of the debate, the voters heard questions concerning Barrack Obama’s recent dubious comments on small town America. In addition, the ABC moderators focused several questions on Obama’s relationship with his pastor, the controversial Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Another debate question concerned whether Obama loves the American flag and why he does not wear flag pins on his suit lapel. Still another question concerned Barack Obama’s relationship with the former radical leader of the “Weathermen“, William Ayers.

While some of the criticism of the coverage of the Democrats Pennsylvania debate is certainly valid (especially troubling were the continued camera shots of Former First daughter, Chelsea Clinton), the questions posed by the moderators in those first fifty minutes were exactly the types of questions that the American voter now needs answered in order to vote for or against Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama.

It is evident that the country is aware that Barack Obama is to the left of the American political center on most of the major issues. It also appears from the public opinion polls that much of the American public would currently support an inexperienced, liberal, Democratic politician in the 2008 Presidential election. In fact, the polls indicate that if an election between John McCain and Barack Obama was held today, it would certainly be very close.

So a pertinent question in the mind of the American voter is really just how far to the left of center are the politics of Barack Obama? The ultimate answer to that question will probably decide the 2008 Presidential election. Therefore, the questions in the first fifty two minutes of the ABC Presidential debate, while not about national issues, were certainly not frivolous and actually quite important.

Consider that Barack Obama is running for the highest office in the land on a very short political record. He has been a United States Senator for just three years. Prior to that he was a State Senator in Illinois. His political record is short and his voting record appears carefully designed with a future campaign for a high office in mind.

In announcing the reason for his candidacy for the Presidency, Barack Obama said: “What’s stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics, the ease with which we’re distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions”. His oratory sounds wonderful until one examines his actual record as an Illinois State Senator. That record indicates that he voted “present,” (effectively sidestepping many important issues) nearly 130 times. It is a political voting record that gives little insight into today‘s presidential candidate. It is also a voting record that is in conflict with the words of the man.

As a result, in the minds of the voters, there are really two distinct Presidential candidates named Barack Obama. Which of the two is the actual candidate is the biggest question the voters must answer between now and election day. The fact is that the Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate who secretly agrees with the diatribes of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. He also supports Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers, and other extreme activists of the American left. The Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate that makes elitist comments about small town America and its guns and religion. The Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate that continues to backpedal and apologize for gaffes and communication errors.

However, the Barack Obama who can win the 2008 Presidential election is the candidate who uses his considerable communication skills to unite the nation. Also, he must be a candidate who transcends partisan politics and wants real reform in Washington, D.C. He would learn quickly from his limited experience and cannot vote “present” on the major issues of the day. He may not be an elitist, but should be the candidate who has shown great skill in the management of his heretofore successful Presidential campaign.

Is Barack Obama a unique, thoughtful politician who can transcend party politics and use his considerable oratory skill to lead the country and reform Washington DC.? Or is Barack Obama a far left of center, elitist candidate who secretly admires the dubious diatribes of his radical pastor, and who condones the actions of a violent underground leader of America’s past?

Historically, American political reality concludes that the former Barack Obama can win the 2008 Presidential election, while the latter Barack Obama simply cannot. It certainly would be a lot easier for the voters during the next several months if the real Barack Obama finally stood up.

Jordan Christopher asked:


Well Hillary certainly did gain some degree of experience during the Bill Clinton years in the White House. She learned the art of media misdirection, the ability to double cross any bridge when she came to it, and the ability to deny the past if it is the politically expedient thing to do.

Where does her training come from, President Bill Clinton of course? Last night in his whirlwind tour of small town America in North Carolina on behalf of his wife he claimed that his Clinton years as President were the best years in “Modern American History.” I thought it was up to historians to make that determination but clearly Bill Clinton has already written the history books.

These were the best years in modern American history? If the Clinton years were the best years in modern American history then why doesn’t the public agree? In 1992 Clinton was elected with the smallest winning percentage in modern American history only 43% of the vote, tying Richard Nixon in 1968 for that dubious distinction.

By 1996 Clinton still failed to capture half of the vote winning 49%, but one half of the eligible voters were so disgusted with politicians they didn’t even vote. That means Clinton won with less than 25% of the eligible voters. Does that sound like the most successful presidency in modern history?

What happened during those Clinton years when Hillary was serving as assistant president according to her resume and campaign claims? It seems as if Bill Clinton had an epiphany and figured out how to out Republican the Republicans. Clinton became the first Democrat to be the darling of the business community as first the poverty stricken were victims of the Clinton epiphany, then the minorities, then the immigrants, and then labor unions, the core of the Democratic party.

Clinton slammed through the NAFTA Free Trade Agreement, with the help of his wife the First Lady, that led to the loss of millions of American jobs, a transfer of the production of American goods and services to foreign countries, and the failure to set in motion controls and testing that would protect Americans from poor quality, unsafe and dangerous foreign products.

Welfare and poverty programs were victims of budget cuts while immigrants, legal and otherwise, were denied benefits and legal representation. Prison populations increased rapidly from the law and order attitude of the president to the point that the death penalty was extended to cover many new crimes and actions such as the Waco FBI attack on a religious sect resulted in the deaths of 86 men, women and children.

Clinton ordered a bombing attack on Baghdad, Iraq just six months after taking office. Several times during the Clinton presidency Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the World Trade Center 9-11 bombings and worldwide terrorism network that would haunt us until this day could have been captured by the USA but each event was bungled by the administration. Is that a sign of the best presidency in modern American history?

Clinton maintained the military establishment although the Soviet Union was gone and there were no more wars. He courted the Republican business community with tax breaks, trade agreements, and other favors throughout his two terms. When it became necessary to cut government expenditures to balance the budget the Clinton White House approved eliminating $5 billion in educational spending to repair crumbling schools and rejecting a proposal to extend health insurance to 10.5 million uninsured children leaning on Congress to back his rejection.

Of course there is also the personal actions during the Clinton presidency like Jennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinski, Paula Jones and Whitewater to name a few that disgusted the public to the point of impeachment of the president. Only three times in our history have impeachment charges been brought against a president. Just twice in our history did the House vote for impeachment and send it to the Senate for trial. The two cases were Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999. Clinton was acquitted after the trial on a tie vote.

This was the Clinton presidency that Bill now calls the greatest of modern times and that Hillary says was her training ground for presidential experience. It also led to her election to the US Senate and to her failing to disclose $24 million in Bill’s income over a three-year period (2004-2006) not to mention their joint income of $109 million

In the eight years since he was president Bill and Hillary earned $109 million including lucrative consulting contracts and six figure speaking engagements, hardly a sign of the people’s candidate. What companies can afford to pay over $100,000 to hear him speak? It is doubtful many struggling non-profits are on his itinerary. This is what makes the Clinton presidency the best in modern history?

One can only hope the traditional Democrats will see how they have been duped, the labor unions, immigrants and minorities will see how they have been taken for granted, and the general public will see how they have been used. Can we really afford eight more years of double talk, double crossing and double dealing at the highest levels of our government? If this is the legacy of the greatest presidency of modern times then I believe the last thing we need is experienced people like Hillary who were running the country through those years.

tobocseo asked:


If Barack Obama becomes the next President of the United States of America, the country can assure that they will not fall short on one account, e-marketing. Demagogic run by Obama among the youth in the ongoing Democratic presidential primaries have stunned analysts and psephologists alike.

The curiosity led the experts to pry into how Obama was able to muster the positive vibes of the youth in favor of him. It was evident in the final lab report Barack camp extensively used social networking and video sharing sites to great effect in garnering votes of the youth. His success in using social medium as an electioneering tool clearly shows that a new guru has arrived in the world of e-marketing.

A survey showed that if one does not include social media in one’s election campaigns it would be hard to draw the attention of the youth. Majority of the youth interact through social networking sites since internet connectivity has increased to larger areas. Blog sites have virtually become e-diaries of today’s youth as outlets to vent their social and emotional feelings as well.

As a result, social media have supplanted televisions, radios and other advertising spaces for election campaigns. Hence, it has been proved, it would be preposterous to avoid employing social media especially, in a high voltage election campaigns such as, the US presidential primaries.

A statistics from a section of the press stated, immediately after the Second Super Saturday, Hillary Rodham Clinton had a comfortable margin of 15 percent lead over Barack Hussein Obama in Pennsylvania. But the same team of public opinion poll managers gave Clinton just 5 percent lead over Obama just two days before the same primary election.

Creating a huge 10 percent swing in favor of any candidate, that too in a month’s time, was unheard of in Pennsylvania. The credit goes to Barack camp, their stupendous game plan to engage with the youth through sublime tentacles of social suggestion has succeeded in gaining an all important 10 percentage points. If the alleged ‘terror tactics’ of releasing an Al Qaida video by Hillary camp would not have happened, Barack’s positive campaigning might have closed in the gap, and even he would have won the Pennsylvania primary. Still he has lost by only 10% as compared to the projection of 15% a month ago.

Comparative study on the usage of social networking and video sharing sites, one can see, again Obama winning hands down over his rival. Hillary uses the services of leading six e-communities where as Obama has made him available on 16 e-communities. On one hand, Hillary’s e-community spaces are sprawled with unpopular class room content, but Obama occupies his spaces with youthful jargons and related video contents on the other. Such measures have endeared Barack among the youth, which ultimately turned into votes all through the election, where Obama was trailing far behind Hillary before the start of the primaries.

Whether Barack Obama makes it to the White House or not, something is sure, his election strategy is here to stay for a long time. Hitherto, such marketing strategies were confined to e-commerce portals including Business to Consumer and Business to Business portals. For a successful business, one should know to market oneself well, and Obama has succeeded in doing so. Thereby, his business sense leaves a trail of new strategy in the field of election campaigning which could be replicated elsewhere. He also gives businesses a new lesson to use this social media to market one’s products or services which is until now used sparingly with stereo-typed content.