John McCain and Barack Obama on Whether to Spread the Wealth

I have deduced a disastrous result of Senator Obama's economic plan, which no one seems to have explored in the media or via the Internet. It is as follows....

1- Senator Obama purposes to raise taxes to those making yearly over $250.000 by 3%.

The overlooked problem with his proposal, that unfortunately no one has dove into is, Family's with Children.

What if Family A - Who makes $250.000 yearly, has four small children and a

$400.000 dollar mortgage.

Compared to

Family B - who makes $250.000 yearly, has no children and a $100.000 mortgage.

Senator Obama's plan is not factoring children who require school costs, larger living quarters, higher insurance's, food, clothing, daycare and so forth. While those without children, a low mortgage and living in a smaller home, can possibly survive this plan a bit further.

With this Spread the wealth plan, Senator Obama is jeopardizing more than small businesses. It is everything he is saying he will protect. Education, Insurance's, Children and Home Mortgages.

Will Senator Obama's plan be different for a bachelor without any children at

$250.000 yearly?

Compared to

A Family of 5 earning $250.000 yearly.

It would take Trillions of dollars yearly to deduce how Senator Obama's plan would differ from ...

A - A Business who's owner was a self supportive Bachelor.

Or

B- A business who's owner has children and more costs in which to raise them adequately.

The main discussions of Senator Obama has been spreading the wealth to those less fortunate in their small businesses or endeavors. The term "Taking food from my children's mouth." Does seem to apply to his Spread the wealth proposal.

The costs are astronomical when you have children. Being he has two children of his own, I am very surprised that this plan left out what I have entitled

the "Family Clause ."

If you are interested in contacting me with comments, please do so.

metalviolinist@aol.com

My name is Skyler James and I am a student of Psychology, Music Teacher, Writer and Inventor.

I am not a Democrat nor Republican. I am a proud American and concerned home owner.

Please email me your thoughts.

Skyler James of CT 2:58AM October 31, 2008

McCain has his interpretation of "spreading the wealth." Well, here's MY interpretation!

I am one of those hard working people he talks about, and I am tired of the fact that even though the productivity of the American worker steadily increases, our wages stagnate or decrease - while at the same time, the incomes of the richest in this country have increased to a point that is far beyond obscene.

When I was a kid, my dad worked for a company where everyone got profit sharing checks a couple times a year, and a nice Christmas bonus too. When's the last time you talked to someone who got a profit sharing check from their employer? Ten years ago? Twenty? Today, most people have never even heard of a profit sharing check because "profit" is something reserved for corporate executives and shareholders - NOT the rest of us.

All that new wealth that our increased productivity helped create goes straight into the pockets of CEOs and their fellow executives.

So yeah - damn straight - I want a redistribution of wealth!

McCain says "let's create new business and new wealth." Why? Just so we can have another batch of overpaid CEOs who get rich off their employees and pay them just enough to keep them from revolting?

I'll be the first to admit that the solution to this issue shouldn't have to involve taxes - people should just do the right thing. Unfortunately the rich and greedy don't tend to do the right thing. So if it takes a change in the tax plan to make things right, then so be it.

The vast majority of people don't want "welfare" - they just want a fair share of what they EARNED!

David of IN 4:16PM October 27, 2008

Those that say if you don't have redistribution of wealth, you have concentration of wealth are thinking in black or white not reality. In the past, and I believe one of the basic foundation blocks of our country, we all worked hard to the best of our abilities and enjoyed the fruits of our labor. We paid taxes to give our children schools, to insure interstate uniformity of purpose and to protect both our local communities and our national shores. We have grown into the world's greatest country with this backbone principle. As a "great country" we have expanded our government to provide for those, both in our country and without, who do not have, for whatever reason, the ability to "work hard and enjoy the fruits of their labor." Unfortunately, this process has gone on for so long that now, those that are receiving - and some of those who have- believe they are due MORE. Why is it that this "more" must come from the government (read "taxes")? Seems to me, the "more" should come from our hearts - not from mandated taxes. Democracy (the free marketplace)demands that individuals determine their social priorities and respond accordingly. This should NOT be a government mandate. Stop mandated "contributions" - mandated redistribution of wealth is NOT democracy.

Marie Peterson of FL 12:22PM October 27, 2008

RNC: Obama 'Outside Law' on Donors

Thursday, October 23, 2008 10:40 PM

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman Article Font Size

The Republican National Committee on Thursday supplemented its Oct. 6 complaint to the Federal Election Committee and — citing new revelations by Newsmax and other news organizations — called on the FEC to “immediately conduct a full audit” of the Obama campaign accounts.

The RNC complaint asserts that the Obama campaign had demonstrated a “lack of compliance with the law” because of its acceptance of prohibited donations from foreign nationals, excessive contributions from individuals, and donations from unknown sources.

At the same time, RNC officials said they recognize that the FEC has “no authority” to freeze campaign accounts or to take other actions that would actually prevent the Obama campaign from spending money illegally obtained from foreign nationals to influence the U.S. presidential election.

“The system isn’t designed for actors who are going to ignore the law,” RNC chief legal counsel Sean Cairncross told Newsmax.

A Newsmax analysis of the Obama campaign’s campaign finance disclosures found 60,000 donations in unrounded amounts that fundraising experts said clearly suggested were “foreign currency transactions” translated into U.S. dollars.

The Obama campaign claims that many of these donations were purchases of T-shirts from the Obama store. However, when asked by Newsmax to provide an accounting for receipts and expenditures of the Obama store, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt could only name a single supplier who sold merchandise worth less than $500,000, according to campaign records.

[Editor's Note: See "Obama Donations Enshrouded in Mystery."]

RNC chief counsel Sean Caircross commended Newsmax for reporting that helped to break open the secretive fundraising schemes used by the Obama campaign.

“The Newsmax articles constitute some of the exhibits to our original complaint,” he said. “We commend Newsmax and other media organizations who are doing a good job in looking into what seems to be a rather large issue for the Obama campaign.”

Reporting by Newsmax and others of fictitious donors such as “Family Guy” and “King Kong” made it “clear that the Obama For America campaign is operating outside of the law,” Cairncross said.

“The complete and total lack of any control mechanisms within the Obama campaign’s fundraising operation has undermined any confidence in their ability to curtail excessive, foreign, and fraudulent contributions and demands immediate attention from the Federal Election Commission (FEC),” he added.

The RNC now believes that the Obama campaign violated federal election law by “accepting contributions resulting from third party fraud, and possibly accepting contributions made in the name of another,” the complaint asserts.

Such contributions — made in the name of “Saddam Hussein,” “Osama bin Laden,” “OJ Simpson” and others — are the only violation of federal election law that carries a criminal penalty, RNC sources and outside campaign finance lawyers said.

While the Obama campaign has said repeatedly that they have procedures in place to screen out possible illegal donations, the spate of news reporting to the contrary shows that they have failed, the latest RNC complaint asserts.

“Developing a large donor base and raising enormous sums of money” — excuses commonly cited by the Obama campaign for the influx of illegal donations — “is not an excuse for ignoring the law.”

While the Obama campaign claims that it has “bent over backward” to root out illegal contributions, it has ignored contributions that were explicitly made by foreign nationals, the complaint says, citing an August 2008 report from the Associated Press.

The AP report identified Australian citizen Richard Watters, who contributed $1,000 to the Obama campaign via the Internet “by entering a fake U.S. passport number and checking a box stating that he was a U.S. citizen living abroad.”

In another case, a Canadian donor named Tom Sanderson gave $500 to the Obama campaign via the Internet, and included a note in one of the address fields stating, “I am not a (sic) American citizen!”

“From the moment it was made, the Sanderson contribution was clear on its face that it was coming to a foreign national,” the RNC complaint states.

Given that the Obama campaign couldn’t detect such an obvious violation of law, “it is unsurprising that (Obama for America) was also unable to detect contributions from unknown sources with blatantly fictitious names,” the complaint says.

The RNC complaint cites the “now infamous” cases of “Good Will” and “Doodad Pro,” which Newsmax helped to expose.

[Editor's Note: See "Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign."]

The New York Times exposed contributions from other fictitious donors such as “Test Person,” residing in “Some Place, Utah,” and “Jockim Alberton,” residing at a fictional address in Wilmington, Delaware. They also cited donors giving the names “Derty West” and “Derty Poiuuy,” both residing in “rewq, ME.”

The Los Angeles Times found a series of contributions from “Mong Kong” that gave a nonexistent address. The Obama campaign said they were unaware of the illegality of these contributions until the press reports appeared.

Other contributions were comprised of randomly selected letters. The Obama campaign took 37 separate donations of $10 each from “Jgtj Jfggijfgi,” $7,497.59 from “Dahsudhu Hdusahfd,” and $11,900 from “Uadhshgu Hduadh.”

The RNC says it believes that while some of the contributors using fictitious names may have done so “in order to remain anonymous… Many of them may have been using fictitious names to skirt the law,” since their contributions were “far more than the $4,300 legal limit.”

Not only has the Obama campaign “accepted contributions from unknown sources, but it also may have accepted contributions made in the name of another,” the RNC said.

“A Newsmax investigation reports the existence of a growing trend to purchase disposable “gift” credit cards to make donations,” the complaint says, citing a report that appeared earlier this week.

[Editor's Note: See "Obama Turns Blind Eye to Credit Card Donation Fraud."]

“These 'gift' credit cards can only be tracked by the numbers, so there is no way of knowing who made the contribution,” the complaint states.

A Newsmax informant said he had made a series of $5 donations in less than an hour, each time using “a different name and address, all of which were obviously fictitious and some even including foreign addresses,” the RNC complaint states.

Among the fictitious donors were “Daffy Duck,” “Bart Simpson,” and “Raela Odinga.”

In addition, the RNC cited several media reports that said both personal and corporate credit cards had been charged with unauthorized contributions to the Obama campaign.

Ms. Patricia Phillips, a Virginia resident who also is a candidate for the State Senate, discovered a $5 charge on her corporate credit card statement for a contribution to the Obama campaign.

“Ms. Phillip’s situation is troublesome for two primary reasons,” the RNC complaint states. “First, OFA accepted a contribution from a corporate credit card,” which is illegal. “Second, OFA accepted a contribution that was fraudulently made.”

The Washington Post uncovered that donation, as well as a $2,300 contribution made to OFA that was charged to the credit card of Steve and Rachel Larman of Missouri without the couple’s knowledge.

As Republicans, they were surprised to receive their credit card statement and discover the donation to the Obama campaign.

The RNC complaint noted that, by all appearances, the Obama campaign had disabled standard security features on its fundraising website.

“For example, online merchants usually match the cardholders’ provided name and address to the credit card number to protect against fraud,” the RNC noted. But “given the high number of fictitious contributor names linked to credit card contributions, OFA appears not to be consistently following this practice.”

Even more troubling than these cases appearing in the Obama campaign’s itemized contributions is the $270 million that the campaign has taken from undisclosed sources.

“The RNC believes that widespread illegalities may exist among these un-itemized contributions and requests that the Commission immediately investigate both itemized and un-itemized contributions in both the OFA primary and general election periods to ensure a fair and open election.

“The American people deserve to know the origin of the over $600 million that may help elect a President of the United States,” the complaint concludes.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_foreign_donors/2008/10/23/143619.html?promo_code=2A89-1

Candy of PA 10:34AM October 25, 2008