Obama: Boost Economy With Monopoly Money

bump

Uncle Money Obamags has joined Bernanke in the helicopter.

:facepalm:

Can't say I am surprised, though.

http://icanhazbailout.com... (Not my site.)

Another tidbit surfaces
http://www.redstate.com/b...

Obama Sought Endorsement of Marxist Third Party in 1996
By Warner Todd Huston

Here is some interesting as well as character confirming info about one of Barack Obama's former runs for office. Apparently, Obama actively sought and received the stamp of approval of a Marxist third party that operated briefly in Chicago between 1992 and 1998. The group was called the "New Party" and was started in 1992 by Daniel Cantor (a former staffer for Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign) and Joel Rogers (a sociology and law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison).

Read on . . .

The New Party was a Marxist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials -- most often Democrats. The New Party's short-term objective was to move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of new Marxist third party.

Most New Party members hailed from the Democratic Socialists of America and the militant organization ACORN. The party's Chicago chapter also included a large contingent from the Committees of Correspondence, a Marxist coalition of former Maoists, Trotskyists, and Communist Party USA members.

The New Party's modus operandi included the political strategy of "electoral fusion," where it would nominate, for various political offices, candidates from other parties (usually Democrats), thereby enabling each of those candidates to occupy more than one ballot line in the voting booth. By so doing, the New Party often was able to influence candidates' platforms. (Fusion of this type is permitted in seven states -- Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Mississippi, New York, South Carolina, and Vermont -- but is common only in New York.)

Though Illinois was not one of the states that permitted electoral fusion, in 1995 Barack Obama nonetheless sought the New Party's endorsement for his 1996 state senate run. He was successful in obtaining that endorsement, and he used a number of New Party volunteers as campaign workers.

In 1996, three of the four candidates endorsed by the New Party won their electoral primaries. The three victors included Barack Obama (in the 13th State Senate District), Danny Davis (in the 7th Congressional District), and Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in the 7th Subcircuit Court. All four candidates attended an April 11, 1996 New Party membership meeting to express their gratitude for the party's support.

The New Party's various chapters similarly helped to elect dozens of other political candidates in a host of American cities.

One of the more notable New Party members was Carl Davidson, a Chicago-based Marxist who became a political supporter of Barack Obama in the mid-1990s.

In 1997 the New Party's influence declined precipitously after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that electoral fusion was not protected by the First Amendment's freedom of association clause. By 1998 the party was essentially defunct. Daniel Canto and other key party members went on to establish a new organization with similar ideals, the Working Families Party of New York.

This news pretty much confirms that Barack Obama is at the very least a neo-Marxist and also confirms the claim that he is one of the most far left leaning Senators we have in office today.

This man is no "new" politician, no "centrist," and not interested in ever "reaching across the aisle." This whole "new way" line of bunkum is all smoke a mirrors.

Obama to be a great speaker either. He's ok... but I think it's just the fact that he says things that sound good... without really saying anything.

Is he a better speaker than RP? Yes.

Is he better than McCain? For sure.

Is he equal or close to a Ronald Reagan? NO.

This is a good speech from a great speaker...

http://www.youtube.com/wa...

None of these candidates are that great oratorically in my opinion.

That he gleaned his speaking style from watching many pastors and reverends.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history.
~Mahatma Gandhi

I have been wondering why congress and the states would ratify the 16th Amendment. How would the representatives and senators even imagine they would be reelected after voting for such a thing? Here are some ideas.

When originally proposed the income tax was relatively innocuous. There was a 1% tax on income over $3000 and a 6% surcharge on income over $500,000. There was one tax bracket with a surcharge on astronomical incomes. http://www.irs.gov/irs/ar...

Aside from the problem of wages being considered income instead of an even trade for services rendered, this might be a reasonable tax even today. Unfortunately the government has been allowed to take reasonable tax and increase it at will without truly indexing it for the inflation for which the same government is responsible. http://inflationdata.com/...

The government has looked upon income tax as a cash cow and a means for social engineering. Statistics show a 1913-dollar is now worth a nickel. If the income tax had been properly indexed for inflation and the government was not allowed to spend money like a drunken sailor there would now be a 1% tax on incomes over $60000 and a 6% surcharge on incomes over $10 million. Today in America, where the average hourly wage is less than $20/hour, the income tax as originally written would apply a reasonable tax on citizens who were well off and well over half the population would pay nothing.

So let’s get real. The problem is government spending. Instead of people requiring the government to take less they vote for candidates who promise to give them more. Now Obama is going to relieve seniors who make less than $50000 a year of the burden of income tax. In the spirit of the original legislation everyone making less than $60000 should pay no income tax.

Aside from Dr. Paul and possibly a few others I am unaware of, no incumbent should ever be reelected if they have not worked to correct the tax and borrow and spend policies of the government and no first time candidate should get a single vote for promising a government giveaway.

He is an excellent speaker. I can see why so many people are voting for him. He is promising the moon and the stars.

During this 40 minute speech he promised to end income tax for senior citizens making less than $50,000 a year, give free education to anyone that would serve the country for two years, and give out more rebate checks. He also is going to fix our educational system and save social security. I'm not joking.

Other then saying that the rich would be paying their fair share, there was no mention of where the money would be coming from to do all these things.

They could take ALL the money from every billionaire in the entire world and it would only put a small dent in the debt we are are facing. I've heard taking the tax cuts from the rich would produce $150 billion. That wouldn't even cover the amount of money we are taking out in loans from other countries every year.

___________

Lisa C.

http://www.women4ronpaul....

"Most of the important things in the world have been accomplished by people who have kept on trying when there seemed to be no hope at all."

-Dale Carnegie

I'm sure there's a bunch of idiots cheering obama on. Meanwhile, for those of us with a clue, we realize our money is about to become even more worthless.

Thanks, senator jacka$$...just what we need....LESS purchasing power for every dollar in a recession.

maybe this is what bilderberg wants??

WHAT AN IDIOT!!

yep, he really is an idiot.