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.

nicklemeout asked:


I would really like this question answered by the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates.

If there is evidence to point towards suspcion of a crime that has been committed, then that warrants an investigation. If the investigation does indeed find viable proof and a perpatrator, then that warrants prosecution of the perps. Regarding the large amount of evidence/suspicion/proof of the Bush administrations illegal dealings, should the next President investigate the current President?

Which is more important to you, the presidential candidates, restore the high honor of the American people and the laws of our nation and Constitution or is it more important to give the Bush administration the continued blanket of protection that they have so warmly gotten used to? Would you use the full power of the Executive Branch to investigate and prosecute the Bush administration?

Ernie Fitzpatrick asked:


Barack Obama swept the Louisiana primary and caucuses in Nebraska and Washington state Saturday night, slicing into Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s slender delegate lead in their historic race for the Democratic presidential nomination. He also won caucuses in the Virgin Islands, completing his best night of the campaign. Obama is still riding the Super Tuesday wave and yesterdays Saturday wave was: Obama 4- Hillary 0 for the day.

In sideline political news Bush # 43 tried to cast McCain as a true conservative. Why not! Bush even thinks that he’s a true conservative. But back to the big news.

Obama’s winning margins were substantia and impressivel, ranging from 67% of the vote in Washington state and Nebraska, 57% in the Louisiana Primary, to nearly 90 percent in the Virgin Islands. Pretty darned impressive. FOX News exit polling showed Obama won both high- and low-income voters and the majority of women, 54 percent to Clinton’s 45 percent. One in five Louisiana Democratic voters also live in a union household, and they picked Obama 56 percent to 41 percent for Clinton. Black voters picked Obama by more than 80 percent.

As in his earlier Southern triumphs in Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina, Obama, a black man, rode a wave of African-American support to victory in Louisiana. Hillary made no mention of the night’s contests as she appeared at a Democratic Party dinner in Virginia, site of one of three primaries this Tuesday. Instead, she criticized Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee in all but name. “We have tried it President Bush’s way,” she said, “and now the Republicans have chosen more of the same.”

She left quickly after her speech, departing before Obama’s scheduled arrival. But his supporters made their presence known, as chants of “Obama” floated up from the audience as she made her way offstage.

Has anyone heard anything from New Mexico yet?

In all, the Democrats scrapped for 161 delegates in the night’s contests. In initial allocations, Obama had won 31, Clinton 9. In overall totals in The Associated Press count, Clinton had 1,064 delegates to 1,029 for Obama. A total of 2,025 is required to win the nomination at the national convention in Denver. But when you subtract out the super delegates, Obama rules!

Well, at least he gets the nod of the people. The super delegates are another thing and the way things look, we’re headed to a Democratic convention that the “insiders” will choose- not the people. On to the Maine caucus today, for whatever that may count later this summer.

Maine Democrats are holding caucuses this afternoon and early this evening in 420 towns and cities across the state. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are making a play for the 24 delegates at stake.

Deleted asked:


First we hear that he blurts out the S word, and now there’s video of him manhandling the German Chancellor. When will the madness end?

Brett Nordin asked:


With an estimated $1 trillion in outstanding ARM loans set to adjust in 2008, the number defaults are expected to be catastrophic. On Thursday it was announced that the Bush Administration has negotiated a rate freeze for homeowners in subprime loans that are adjusting beyond affordability. The plan attempts to curb the number of foreclosures being caused by Adjustable Rate Mortgages. Here are some of the preliminary details of the plan:

1. The freeze would fix a homeowner’s initial interest rate that is attached to their 1st mortgage.

2. The freeze would apply to adjustable-rate mortgages originated between Jan. 1, 2005, and July 31, 2007, which would begin adjusting between Jan. 1, 2008, and July 31, 2010.

3. Only homeowners that occupy the home will be eligible. The program would not protect investors.

4. Those who have a 3 percent equity stake or more in their property also would not be eligible for the freeze.

The plan was developed through negotiations with the mortgage industry, led by the Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson. President Bush claims that 1.2 million people could be eligible for help under the plan, however, only a small percentage will be subject to the rate freeze. Others would get assistance in refinancing with their current lender and moving into loans secured by the Federal Housing Administration, Bush said. These remarks refer to the new FHASecure Act that allows delinquent homeowners to qualify for an FHA-insured refinance.

Although this gives some hope, the plan is only expected to help the fringes and not all consumers who are in trouble. It also appears that the freeze may be optional for the lender and not required, raising more
doubts about how effective it will be.

The basic premise of the proposal is that those who currently have the financial ability to make their payments but would struggle to pay a higher reset rate could qualify for refinancing. However, with property values plummeting in areas with a high concentration of subprime mortgages, most homeowners can’t get financing because their home value is lower than their mortgage balance.

Homeowners who have an ARM that adjusted prior to Jan. 1, 2008 but can’t refinance for numerous reasons, are not eligible for the freeze. What the Bush Administration doesn’t understand is that these ARM loans adjust every 6 months until they reach a “cap”. The cap is typically between 11-14%, doubling the mortgage payment in 12 months. So there is a group of homeowners that might survive the first wave of their ARM reset but eventually they will fall behind.

The process for determining eligibility is manual and a homeowner must ask for help. The Home Ownership Preservation Foundation is handling consumer counseling free of charge. Thousands of borrowers who are falling behind on their payments have been sent letters about the options, and Bush also urged people to call a new hot line: 1-888-995-HOPE. Online the foundation can be reached by searching for the Home Ownership Preservation Foundation.

Claudia Beckford asked:


It is Election Year in the United States of America! It will be the 56th consecutive presidential election and a very peculiar one as the Democrats’ party race for the White House has elected the first woman to run for president; Mrs. Hillary Clinton; former US First Lady; and the first African American, former Illinois State Senator; Barack Obama.

As the process starts to dig deeper there are more politics attacks on both sides; especially now that Obama leads with about 130 delegates after capturing Wyoming on March 8th followed the win on March 11th during the Mississippi primary. Despite his solid campaign representation and ideas to the American people many believe Obama is the eye-centre of a race issue exampling his 90 percent win of black votes in Mississippi and just one quarter of the white vote; a common pattern seemed in the southern states.

Clinton assures that if Obama was not who he is he will not be running for the office; a remark which is being polished due to the possible consequences in the remaining 10 contests in Indiana, North Carolina (May 6th), and the West Indies (May 13th). Let’s not forget the disqualification of the 366 delegates in Florida and Michigan due to unmistakable anomalies as Obama’s name was not on the ballot; therefore, Clinton won both primaries. It is very likely this voting will be repeated via regular mail with a higher than expected multi million cost.

On the other hand; there is the Republican candidate John McClain who many believe is the big winner of this controversial contest as he still has a good chance to win if the Democrats don’t get their act together and show the people what they could do for the United States and the countless problems the country is currently facing among which there is an eminent recession.

A recent nbc News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 76 percent of voters claim for a president who will shift the current path President Bush has kept over the years and that only a 17 percent will be content with the way things are right now. Additionally, 43 percent claim their situation has worsen in the past four years and a 34 percent states they are better off than 4 years ago. Without a doubt; this is golden opportunity for either Clinton or Obama if they know what to do with it.

The controversial Obama – Clinton / Clilnton – Obama presidential nominee election will soon be decided for the first time in two decades by the North Carolina voters during the May 6th, 2008 primary; this win will ensure a number of delegates and a pattern of who could lead in the rest of the cities to vote. Then on November 4th we will encounter the two strongest US parties and the people make a final resolution.

WORD UP G asked:


Bush Seeks Help on North Korea, Trade

Sunday November 19, 2006 9:16 AM

AP Photo VNMD123

By JENNIFER LOVEN

Associated Press Writer

HANOI, Vietnam (AP) - President Bush sought Chinese President Hu Jintao’s help on dual fronts Sunday, aiming to rein in North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and encourage the Chinese people to buy more U.S. goods.

Capping a three-day stay in Vietnam’s capital, Bush also asked for help from Moscow in the North Korea nuclear dispute and celebrated a deal allowing Russia to join the World Trade Organization.

david singer asked:



President George Bush delivered a severe rebuff to the Arab League in remarks made by him at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on 10 January 2008 (“the King David Declaration”).

The President had already made it clear in April 2004 that the Arab League needed to abandon its long standing demand that millions of Arabs be allowed to go and live in Israel when he stated :

“It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.”

The Arab League has failed to embrace this suggestion as the solution to the refugee issue.

The King David Declaration has now raised the diplomatic bar even higher with the President stating :

“I believe we need to look to the establishment of a Palestinian state and new international mechanisms, including compensation, to resolve the refugee issue.”

These well chosen and carefully crafted words make it clear that President Bush is proposing additional “international mechanisms” to solve the refugee issue - other than resettlement in the proposed new Arab State. One of those “international mechanisms” will be “compensation” - and Israel won’t be the only country asked to pay it.

The President has thereby tacitly acknowledged that Israel cannot be held solely responsible for what befell the Arab residents who left Palestine in the wake of the Arab- Jewish conflict in 1947-1948.

Other countries - including members of the Arab League who have perpetuated the refugee issue for the last 60 years - will also be expected to contribute generously to an internationally administered and funded compensation package.

Any other “new international mechanisms” contemplated by the President were unidentified by him. The possibilities however are ominous and they do not bode well for the Arab League.

One could involve a demand that the refugees be given the option of being granted full rights of citizenship and equality in the Arab states where they have been kept stateless and in refugee camps for the last 60 years - dependent for survival on hand outs by the United Nations Works and Relief Agency (UNWRA) running into hundreds of billions of dollars.

Generations of dysfunctional human beings have been the end result of this inhumane policy - resulting in bitterness, hatred and despair as persons of all ages turn themselves into human bombs - choosing to kill Jews and achieve martyrdom as their way out of this pitiless existence.

The denial of citizenship and equality by their own Arab brethren has been buried in Foreign Office and State Department filing cabinets as nations have bent over backwards in their desire to maintain good relations with despotic Arab oil suppliers and cashed up Arab buyers for military equipment - tangible benefits flowing to these nations for their continuing silence or just looking the other way.

Now with oil hitting US$100 a barrel, the US economy facing recession and the Arab League having done nothing to endorse the President’s 2004 proposal for solving the refugee issue, President Bush has been forced to rethink this earlier policy - which had left the Arab States relatively free of any responsibility for solving the refugee issue.

That problem had been caused initially by the Arab League decision to refuse to accept partition of Western Palestine between Arabs and Jews pursuant to United Nations Partition Resolution 181 on 29 November 1947 followed by the subsequent Arab League decision to invade Palestine on 15 May 1948.

The grounds for that invasion - as contained in the declaration issued by the Arab League on the actual day of the invasion - still remain dominant in Arab League thinking today and have acted as the major cause for the refugee problem remaining unresolved 60 years later :

“The Governments of the Arab States emphasise, on this occasion, what they have already declared before the London Conference and the United Nations, that the only solution of the Palestine problem is the establishment of a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries, and the holy places will be preserved and the right of access thereto guaranteed.”

The King David Declaration reiterated once more for the benefit of the Arab League that the President’s Roadmap envisioned not one but two States - Israel and Palestine - living side by side in peace and security and that there will be no withdrawal by Israel to the pre -1967 armistice lines.

This message - and warning - was conveyed to the Arab League by President Bush from the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on 10 January:

1. Wake up to reality and abandon the idea of a unitary state - unequivocally and without reservation - and get the PLO to explicitly excise this objective from its Charter.

2. End the conflict by agreeing to the creation of an Arab state between Israel and Jordan in that part of the West Bank which leaves Israel with secure, recognised and defensible borders.

3. Accept resettlement of the refugees in this new State or alternatively receive compensation from an internationally sponsored and supported fund if they are not willing to emigrate there.

4. If you fail to endorse this solution over the next twelve months then you can say goodbye to a new 23rd member State called Palestine joining the Arab League. My successor will certainly not want to be publicly humiliated by the Arab League as has happened to me over the last 5 years.

5. Expect that it will then become your obligation to solve the refugee issue and the ongoing conflict without any further diplomatic or financial support from the United States.

6. Don’t be surprised if the United States then calls on you to resolve the refugee issue by demanding that you grant citizenship and equal rights to all refugees living within the borders of your member States and that you pay for their rehabilitation out of your own oil-bloated revenues.

This is the legacy President Bush has bequeathed to the Arab League for 2008 - and beyond.

pjay asked:


I am appalled by President Bush’s behavior with Prime Minister Merkel before the G8 Summit! I wonder why NO ONE IS CRY FOUL over his behavior. I realize that a few media outlets talked about the story, but no one really spoke to HOW INAPPROPRIATE HIS BEHAVIOR WAS & HOW HIS COWBOY MENTALITY AND ARROGNANCE PLAYS OUT TO THE WORLD AT LARGE! I saw a news shot of Condi Rice speaking with Kofi Annan & I couldn’t help but think….what if Kofi Annan did the same thing to Secretary of State Rice that President Bush did to PM Merkel? I can only picture the American Republican Moral Outrage to this situation. What if it was French Prime Minister Chirac and not Kofi Annan? Another thought crossed my mind and that was…..WHY DOESN’T PRESIDENT BUSH DO THIS TO THE MALE HEADS OF STATE…LIKE POOTIE POO (PUTIN), SCHROEDER, CHIRAC or does he feel he can only be inappropriate if it’s a woman? It is clear to me Mr. Bush doesn’t respect other countries, women or morality! I wish PM Merkel had slapped him!

david singer asked:



President Bush appears to have abandoned any hope of creating a new Arab State between Israel and Jordan.

His closest confidante - the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice - suggested as much when she made this blunt observation after her visit to the Middle East this past week:

“I spent a lot of time on security issues, not on-the-ground today security issues, but how would you envision the security of two states living side by side, because they’re going to have to come up with a security concept between them. It’s one of the problems that we’re dealing with, frankly, in the Israeli population. And I heard it not just from the Israeli officials but from a broad range of Israelis. They had the withdrawal from Lebanon and it brought instability in Lebanon. They had the withdrawal from the Gaza, and look what happened in Gaza.

If, in fact, they’re going to be asked to withdraw from the West Bank at some point, what does that mean for the security of Israel? That’s a fair question. It really is. And so one of the things that I take back is that we are going to need to spend a lot of time thinking about how this state, if we are fortunate enough to be able to bring it into being, how it is going to relate to the security of its neighbor and vice versa.”

This marks the first time that the Secretary of State has so forcefully come to grips with the security guarantees that Israel needs to receive before the President’s two state vision can ever get off the ground.

It would be inconceivable that she would make these momentous comments without first having discussed them with the President.

Ms. Rice would be well aware that when President Bush first spoke of his two state vision on 24 June 2002, he laid down two preconditions necessary for its achievement:

1.The Palestinian people must elect new leaders not compromised by terror

2.These new leaders must build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty.

These conditions remain substantially unfulfilled more than 5 years later - and present indications are they are going to be a long time coming - if ever at all.

It was his recognition of this reality that inspired President Bush to call his planned international meeting in Annapolis next month - which he designed essentially to try and advance the fulfilment of these fundamental preconditions. His concern was well founded.

Both persons currently claiming to lead the Palestinian Arabs - Ismail Haniyeh and Mahmoud Abbas - are compromised by terror.

Haniyeh heads Hamas - a movement that openly calls for the destruction of Israel. Abbas - one of Yasser Arafat’s closest advisors - is now the Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation which is no less vehement than Hamas in its desire to wipe Israel off the map. They only differ in the strategy they wish to employ to achieve their common aim.

A practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty are mere mirages on an invisible horizon.

The Arabs have totally rejected President Bush’s agenda insisting that their attendance at Annapolis be conditioned on substantive agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority being reached before the meeting even begins concerning the core issues of Jerusalem, refugees and borders

Significantly Ms Rice has rebuffed the Arabs attempted hijack of the President’s agenda stating:

“So I know we get very focused on, you know, what will be said about borders, what will be said about Jerusalem, what will be said about the refugees. In fact, a lot has been said over a long period of time about those issues and more will have to be said. But I’m also quite convinced that one of the really crucial pieces that has to be filled in are these concepts of how the states will relate to each other in practical terms concerning security and in practical terms concerning economic issues”

Perhaps the penny is slowly dropping and the realisation is dawning that the Arabs are totally disinterested in Israel’s security concerns and in meeting the very conditions laid down by President Bush as essential if his two state vision is going to be achieved.

The abandonment of the President’s vision does not necessarily mean that the conflict in the West Bank need continue unabated until a democratic nirvana is achieved there under a leader not compromised by terror.

The Arabs have already publicly signalled they would be prepared to consider Israel swapping some of its vacant land in return for keeping those parts of the West Bank populated by 450000 Jews.

Satisfying Israel’s security needs in the context of a territorial resolution that does not involve all of the West Bank remaining under Arab control can be achieved very quickly if Israel and Jordan divide the West Bank between them.

Jordan’s peace treaty with Israel already contains the following guarantees concerning Israel’s security that have stood the test of time for the last 12 years and remained rock solid through several crises:

“1. They recognise and will respect each other’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence;

2. They recognise and will respect each other’s right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries;

3. They will develop good neighbourly relations of co-operation between them to ensure lasting security, will refrain from the threat or use of force against each other and will settle all disputes between them by peaceful means;”

Negotiations between Jordan and Israel within the framework of this existing peace treaty offer the hope of a better life and prosperity for the Arab residents of the West Bank, will free them from Israeli occupation and achieve a measure of peace stability and security in the region not enjoyed for 60 years.

Such negotiations will not resolve the issue of refugees. No plan can ever hope to do so whilst the Arabs insist on millions of refugees and their descendants becoming citizens of Israel.

Stay with the vision or accept the reality? President Bush at last appears to be succumbing to the reality.