Do we really want "CHANGE"?
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: Do we really want "CHANGE"?

  1. #1

    Do we really want "CHANGE"?

    Not Obama's kind of change!


    AMERICA WANTS CHANGE!!!
    Randy Harris - Suarez International Staff Instructor

    Do we really want "CHANGE"?

    This election year is possibly the strangest I have ever seen . Normally in an election year there is a lot of talk about change by who ever the party out of power in the White House is. That is just natural. If the other side were doing a good job then there would be no reason for your candidate to even run against them. So we expect some discussion of change. But rarely is a political platform built solely on an ill defined idea of "change" like Barak Hussein Obama's .

    If you go out and ask the man on the street what Obama's core values and beliefs are you generally get something about "He's for the people, he believes in change". They say it like change is Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Something that you either choose to believe in or not like it might not be real. But then when asked to elaborate on what in Obama's platform is so enticing and exactly WHAT change they are so all fired up to have happen they suddenly look confused and begin to throw out the tired old lines "Republicans are for the rich, they hate old people, they don't want people to have health care" and a litany of other ridiculous shibboleths that make up the core beliefs of the liberal mindset.

    But they never seem to get back around to defining what it is that Obama exactly stands for. We know what he stands against. The status quo. He wants "change"! Great. What kind of "change". And what will be changed? One thing that he has mentioned is ending the "Bush tax cuts" and moving the lowest income tax bracket to 37%. He also wants a 7% increase in payroll tax. With those combined with all the other tax we pay the average American would be paying more than 50% of their annual income in taxes. That would certainly "change" what I was able to buy or spend money on.

    Another thing Barak wants is a 7% increase in Social Security tax. You know, Social Security, the third rail of American politics. That money that senior citizens get back that they have already paid tax on back when they worked to put that money into the social security program? So now the candidate of the party that is "for the working man" is going to raise the working man's payroll tax 7 more percent and take 7 more percent from the elderly that they claim to look out for?

    For those of you who are not aware retirees who make $32,000 per year or more pay back 85% of their Social Security benefits in Social Security tax. Al Gore cast the deciding vote on that during the Clinton administration.The vote was tied 50-50 but since the Vice President is the President of the Senate he gets called on to break tie votes. So people who worked their whole lives to retire and were fortunate enough to have a pension that paid them just enough to be barely considered middle class have to give back 85% of their social security money to the government. Many of those elderly people probably spend much of that $32,000 in medical bills each year.So how does this "help the elderly"? It doesn't. And Now Barak wants even more of it.How does raising taxes on the elderly who are the hardest hit by the economy slowdown going to help them? They are the ones suffering the most from the rising prices of fuel and food. Barak wants change. But is it really for the better?

    Barak has been all over the TV saying he wants to raise taxes on oil companies. He wants to keep oil companies from gouging the honest hardworking American people. Great. How is raising taxes on oil companies going to do that. The oil companies, like every other company in the world exists to generate profit. If their taxes go up, the price they charge will go up too so as to maintain their profitability. So unless he plans to repeal the law of supply and demand his "tax 'em until they lower their prices" plan will be ruinous to the already shaky economy. Does Barak want six dollar per gallon gas? Does he want 8 dollar per gallon milk? That is what we will get (or worse) if he goes ahead with his plan to increase tax on oil companies.The price of gas effects the price of every other commodity because it has to be taken to market. That uses gas. So the prices go up. While I am certainly not happy with paying four dollars a gallon for gas I will be even less happy when it is six or seven dollars a gallon due to tax increases! Paying two more dollars a gallon for gas and fifty more dollars a week for groceries would certainly be a "change", but it would not be a welcome "change".

    These are just two instances that I encounter everyday. I have become more aware of the Social Security issues and how the rising price of food and gas effects things. My Mom passed away in January and my Dad , while not destitute by any means has to really pinch pennies to make it every month on just his Social Security without having to dip into the savings for which he worked his whole life . He could be just a medical emergency away from having to sell the house I grew up in . And every time he goes to the grocery store, like many Americans, he spends more each week to buy less groceries than the week before. So how is raising his Social Security tax 7% going to help him and the millions of other seniors who are having trouble making ends meet now? "Change". Sometimes it hurts.

    So where exactly is all this tax revenue that our "economic savior" is raising going to go? Maybe it is going to go to fund the increase in the size of the Peace Corp he is calling for. Maybe it is going to go to fund the "Civilian Security Force" to fight terrorism with the same size and capability of the US military he has talked about creating. Why is no one in the media asking what that means and what function it will serve? Why? Because he is their darling and whatever "change" he wants is surely good because whatever it is it will be a welcome "change" to eight years of GW Bush. Asking questions would imply they do not trust him. But history is full of examples of people (and media) trusting politicians only to find out later that the change they got was not what they bargained for.

    The following is a letter to the editor of the Richmond Times Dispatch on July 7, 2008.. It is written by someone who experienced "change" a half century ago. He says it better than I can so lets hear his story...

    This appeared on the Editorial Page of the Richmond Times-Dispatch July 7, 2008.

    Editor
    Times-Dispatch

    Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30, I celebrate my independence day and on July 4, I celebrate America's. This year is special because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.

    On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba and a few months later, I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.

    I've thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950's, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.

    When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said "Praise the Lord." And when the young leader said, "I will be for change and I'll bring you change, everyone yelled, "Viva Fidel!"

    But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent, the people's guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education, it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented, Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over, more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world most fortunate Cubans. And now I'm back to the beginning of my story.

    Luckily, we would never fall in America for a left-leaning young leader who promises change without asking, "What change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?"

    Would we?

    Manuel Alvarez, Jr
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  2.   
  3. #2
    These are some of the many reasons I will not vote for him. But the press and the young people are treating him like some sort of a rock star.

  4. change please

    Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    Not Obama's kind of change!


    AMERICA WANTS CHANGE!!!
    Randy Harris - Suarez International Staff Instructor

    Do we really want "CHANGE"?

    This election year is possibly the strangest I have ever seen . Normally in an election year there is a lot of talk about change by who ever the party out of power in the White House is. That is just natural. If the other side were doing a good job then there would be no reason for your candidate to even run against them. So we expect some discussion of change. But rarely is a political platform built solely on an ill defined idea of "change" like Barak Hussein Obama's .

    If you go out and ask the man on the street what Obama's core values and beliefs are you generally get something about "He's for the people, he believes in change". They say it like change is Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Something that you either choose to believe in or not like it might not be real. But then when asked to elaborate on what in Obama's platform is so enticing and exactly WHAT change they are so all fired up to have happen they suddenly look confused and begin to throw out the tired old lines "Republicans are for the rich, they hate old people, they don't want people to have health care" and a litany of other ridiculous shibboleths that make up the core beliefs of the liberal mindset.

    But they never seem to get back around to defining what it is that Obama exactly stands for. We know what he stands against. The status quo. He wants "change"! Great. What kind of "change". And what will be changed? One thing that he has mentioned is ending the "Bush tax cuts" and moving the lowest income tax bracket to 37%. He also wants a 7% increase in payroll tax. With those combined with all the other tax we pay the average American would be paying more than 50% of their annual income in taxes. That would certainly "change" what I was able to buy or spend money on.

    Another thing Barak wants is a 7% increase in Social Security tax. You know, Social Security, the third rail of American politics. That money that senior citizens get back that they have already paid tax on back when they worked to put that money into the social security program? So now the candidate of the party that is "for the working man" is going to raise the working man's payroll tax 7 more percent and take 7 more percent from the elderly that they claim to look out for?

    For those of you who are not aware retirees who make $32,000 per year or more pay back 85% of their Social Security benefits in Social Security tax. Al Gore cast the deciding vote on that during the Clinton administration.The vote was tied 50-50 but since the Vice President is the President of the Senate he gets called on to break tie votes. So people who worked their whole lives to retire and were fortunate enough to have a pension that paid them just enough to be barely considered middle class have to give back 85% of their social security money to the government. Many of those elderly people probably spend much of that $32,000 in medical bills each year.So how does this "help the elderly"? It doesn't. And Now Barak wants even more of it.How does raising taxes on the elderly who are the hardest hit by the economy slowdown going to help them? They are the ones suffering the most from the rising prices of fuel and food. Barak wants change. But is it really for the better?

    Barak has been all over the TV saying he wants to raise taxes on oil companies. He wants to keep oil companies from gouging the honest hardworking American people. Great. How is raising taxes on oil companies going to do that. The oil companies, like every other company in the world exists to generate profit. If their taxes go up, the price they charge will go up too so as to maintain their profitability. So unless he plans to repeal the law of supply and demand his "tax 'em until they lower their prices" plan will be ruinous to the already shaky economy. Does Barak want six dollar per gallon gas? Does he want 8 dollar per gallon milk? That is what we will get (or worse) if he goes ahead with his plan to increase tax on oil companies.The price of gas effects the price of every other commodity because it has to be taken to market. That uses gas. So the prices go up. While I am certainly not happy with paying four dollars a gallon for gas I will be even less happy when it is six or seven dollars a gallon due to tax increases! Paying two more dollars a gallon for gas and fifty more dollars a week for groceries would certainly be a "change", but it would not be a welcome "change".

    These are just two instances that I encounter everyday. I have become more aware of the Social Security issues and how the rising price of food and gas effects things. My Mom passed away in January and my Dad , while not destitute by any means has to really pinch pennies to make it every month on just his Social Security without having to dip into the savings for which he worked his whole life . He could be just a medical emergency away from having to sell the house I grew up in . And every time he goes to the grocery store, like many Americans, he spends more each week to buy less groceries than the week before. So how is raising his Social Security tax 7% going to help him and the millions of other seniors who are having trouble making ends meet now? "Change". Sometimes it hurts.

    So where exactly is all this tax revenue that our "economic savior" is raising going to go? Maybe it is going to go to fund the increase in the size of the Peace Corp he is calling for. Maybe it is going to go to fund the "Civilian Security Force" to fight terrorism with the same size and capability of the US military he has talked about creating. Why is no one in the media asking what that means and what function it will serve? Why? Because he is their darling and whatever "change" he wants is surely good because whatever it is it will be a welcome "change" to eight years of GW Bush. Asking questions would imply they do not trust him. But history is full of examples of people (and media) trusting politicians only to find out later that the change they got was not what they bargained for.

    The following is a letter to the editor of the Richmond Times Dispatch on July 7, 2008.. It is written by someone who experienced "change" a half century ago. He says it better than I can so lets hear his story...

    This appeared on the Editorial Page of the Richmond Times-Dispatch July 7, 2008.

    Editor
    Times-Dispatch

    Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30, I celebrate my independence day and on July 4, I celebrate America's. This year is special because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.

    On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba and a few months later, I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.

    I've thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950's, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.

    When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said "Praise the Lord." And when the young leader said, "I will be for change and I'll bring you change, everyone yelled, "Viva Fidel!"

    But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent, the people's guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education, it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented, Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over, more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world most fortunate Cubans. And now I'm back to the beginning of my story.

    Luckily, we would never fall in America for a left-leaning young leader who promises change without asking, "What change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?"

    Would we?

    Manuel Alvarez, Jr
    eloquent, now how many voters are smart enough to pick up on this when all the media can talk about is "The Second Coming of Change"? Chew on this....I clearly remember asking a female co-worker with a college education why she voted for Bill Clinton over George H W Bush and this in no way was a political statement...Her answer, "Because he's better looking". Funny at thetime. But who is that woman going to vote for this time?

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by NRA UR2 View Post
    eloquent, now how many voters are smart enough to pick up on this when all the media can talk about is "The Second Coming of Change"? Chew on this....I clearly remember asking a female co-worker with a college education why she voted for Bill Clinton over George H W Bush and this in no way was a political statement...Her answer, "Because he's better looking". Funny at thetime. But who is that woman going to vote for this time?
    Sometimes I think there should be an I.Q. test before a person can vote.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    All I can say is, "be careful what you wish for; you just might get it." These same Bush haters who are benefiting from his tax cuts are the same people who are going to be cheering when Obama takes away more of their income in taxes, under the guise that he is looking out for the working man. What a crock!

  7. #6

    "Change"

    If Obama gets in, we will not HAVE any change. It will be more like "Buddy, can you spare a dime?" Let's see;
    little to no experience, cut and run mentality, time tables, no matter how many are killed in the process, NO carry permits, D.C. and Chicago gun bans are fine, but he supports the 2nd amendment. Tax small businesses into bankruptcy, even though they provide 70% of the jobs in the U.S. Dictate how, when and IF you will get "free" medical care, ... Sounds like a real winner to me! Any presidential presumptive nominee who has the support of Fidel Castro and his Marxist friends and flaming pastor are good enough for me. Even Michelle Obama had a stirring Thesis at Princeton that identified she was a separationist. Wow, THAT would be great for race relations and a great pulpit for the First Lady. So far to the left, the Obamas are on the left of Clinton and Ted. WOW! I sure am looking forward to a hard left turn. Not.

  8. #7
    Sadly, very very sadly, the U.S. will see him in the Oval Office.

    I wish it wasn't going to happen, but the young people believe he is the Messiah... they aren't smart enough to see he's actually the AntiChrist.

  9. #8
    Here's what I will say about Obama's 'change'.
    What kind of change is he talking about?Will it be good or bad change.
    Remember,'out of the frying pan and into the fire' is a 'change'.
    Give everybody guns.
    Natural selection will cull out the idiots.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Sounds like the typical politician to me; you know, the ones who make all these promises, yet refuse to give straight answers to anyone who sees through their smokescreen.

  11. #10
    I am afraid the kind of change he has in mind is to see us all in chains.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast