McCain Campaign Playing ‘6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon’

[…] the PLO. Turns out McCain, in his role as the Chairman of the International Republican Institute, granted Khalidi $448,000 to carry out a study concerning peace in the Middle East. I think that’s money well spent. […]

All of this terrorist rubbish is just a cover for racists. It’s McCain/Rove giving anyone who won’t vote for Obama because he’s black a ready-made excuse, his ties to terrorism. That McCain would offer them this cover shows you what kind of hero he really is.

I actually worked at IRI. There’s a difference between Obama personally supporting and befriending a guy that at the very least has some terrorist connections and a group that McCain is basically a figurehead for and has almost no contact with giving money to a group that is HELPING TO BUILD DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST. Big difference. Personal association vs. a happenstance association with which McCain never had any say in, and the people that work at IRI probably had no idea this guy was affiliated w/ the group they gave money to.

repubes believe where theres smoke theres fire. sorry ….not this time. saying hello to someone does not a terrorist make. dumbass repubes. your going down in smoke and flames come next week.

@Kris:

How is it okay to give money to an organization that a person is in charge of, but not okay to have some (as yet undefined) relationship with said person? And how can you say IRI had no idea he was involved if he was the person in charge? Somebody must’ve known, or else it’s gross incompetence.

The point is that McCain participated in actively funding this person he is now calling a terrorist. If you’re going to question past associations how is spending some time with a terrorist worse than giving them money? And negligence is really no excuse there, as President he’s going to be overseeing a massive budget. If he’s blind enough to fund a terrorist from some charity, why wouldn’t he accidentally fund them with government money?

“And how can you say IRI had no idea he was involved if he was the person in charge? Somebody must’ve known, or else it’s gross incompetence.” you mean like Obama didn’t know about Rev. Wright?

It’s Obama who wants to take away your guns and devalue your money, whatever is left after he takes it away from you and gives it to his favored ones. Nowhere in the Constitution does it povide from each according to his ability to each according to his need as a government mandate. I believe that’s advocated by a fellow by the name of Marx, and for those who don’t know, it’s not one of the Marx brothers.

To MrsJ

You are misinformed and economics-challenged on so many levels, it’s scary.
“He does believe however that the people making the most money should also pay the most in taxes.”

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/10/top-1-pay-more-.html

Please follow this link. The top 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of the total tax bill in this country. FORTY PERCENT. Is that not enough? Not for Obama, because he wants MORE of their money to give it to the bottom 40% of taxpayers, who presently pay NO taxes at all. NONE. That’s called economic entitlement (i.e., welfare), and it is the cornerstone of Marxist Socialism. The fact that you choose to not believe that does not alter its truth. Take a helicopter flight over Mexico City, or Havana, or Caracas, or Smolinsk, or Viasma, for all the input you require on the previous and present successes of that form of government.

“He does not believe in giving huge tax credits to companies such as Exxon Mobile who again recorded the highest profits in their history…”
Did you also stop to consider that in the same quarter that bad old evil company made a profit of $14.2 billion, they paid taxes of $32.5 billion, or $3 of tax for every $1 of profit. Their revenue (i.e., our demand for what they sell) was approximately $138 billion for the same quarter. So that’s about a 10% profit margin. That’s less than Google’s, and probably less than your car insurance company’s. And a 24% tax rate? I don’t know how rich you are, but that’s a higher tax bracket than I am in. Why does it have to be more than that? Because they happen to be selling what Americans are buying so much of, and that makes you mad? Because that’s such a big number it ‘drives’ you crazy?
And as far as the price of gas is concerned, please keep in mind that in $ per gallon:
Natural Spring Water costs around $8
Mocha Latte costs around $42
Your favorite Cosmo? around $107
And with that, all I ask is - why in God’s name are you not DEMANDING something even more from Dannon, Starbuck’s and Chili’s? ITS TOO DAMN MUCH PROFIT!
Oh, and by the way - if Obama’s your man because “he’s going to lower your taxes”, then you have a serious season of life awaiting you. Because when the heavy tax burden gets put on that top tier (you know, those evil businesses that fuel the economy), one of three things will happen: 1) those businesses will significantly raise the price of their goods and services so that they still make that 10% evil profit; and/or 2) they will lay off employees to offset their tighter margins; and/or 3) they will take their businesses elsewhere and leave the US. SO - unless you own a business, or work for a business, or buy goods and services from a business, you’ll be just fine. And that $71 tax cut per year? That’ll be about one-sixth of how much more that year will cost YOU to live.
MrsJ, you’re probably a really nice person, but please understand - there just ain’t no such thing as takin’ water outta “their” side of the bucket without “your” side draining, too.
And that IS exactly what will happen if BHO enacts the type of government he wants. And if he does it sooner rather than later? Well, I’ll refer you to your history books - go look up what happened when Hoover tried the same thing with the economy looking very much like it does right now. I’ll ruin the suspense and just tell you. It was called the Great Depression.
Economics 101.

Beekay

For your information I have a Master’s Degree in accounting and am a licensed CPA in two states. I own an accounting practice, as I have for the past 25 years.

Here’s what I do know:

I have one client, we will call him John the Painter. He nets, after expenses, $100,000. He has a wife and a son. He has to pay 14% of his income in Social Security tax, because he is self-employed. That comes to $14,000. Then he pays another $11,000 in income tax for a total of $25,000, or 25% of his income. He has $75,000 left out of which he has to $1,875 a quarter, or $7500 a year for health insurance.

Now meet George The Rich Man. His income comes from investments, therefore, he does not pay Social Security tax. His net income is $400,000. His total tax is $103,459, or 26% of his income.

Personally, I hate earned income credit. I agree with you that it is a give away program tantamount to welfare. The credit was initiated under Gerald Ford, a republican. In 12 years of the Bush Administration it has never been challenged, in fact it has been increased. I also disagreed with the “stimulus payment” that sent money to people who had paid no taxes and nothing to those who had paid the most. It completely eliminated college kids between the ages of 17 and 23 if they were claimed on their parents tax returns. It increased the deficit and did not help the economy. And, I hear George Bush wants to do it again before he leaves office.

These are hard economic times. You claim to be afraid of socialism, and yet we have just socialized the banks and that is somehow alright. We have a record high deficit and are involved in two wars. Someone has to make sacrifices. Do we ask John the Painter, who is trying to choose between paying his health insurance or making his truck payment, or do we ask George the Rich Man, who just bought a $500,000 villa in the Bahamas and wants to know if he can write it off on his tax return? I think George the Rich Man is the one that needs to step up to the plate.

Do you think we were living under Marxism when Bill Clinton was president? All Barack Obama wants to do is let the tax credits instituted under George Bush expire. He is not proposing the highest taxes ever known to Americans. He simply wants to roll back the clock 8 years when our budget was balanced and the economy was strong.

Mrs. J I like to correct the record that Senator Obama did support not only the ban of hand guns, but those rifles (semi and auto), and shotguns. Senator Obama supported the DC Gun Law, District of Columbia v. Heller. The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, and determined that handguns are “Arms” that may not be banned by the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.), also striking down the portion of all firearms including rifles and shotguns. The DC Gun Law prohibition against rendering any LAWFUL firearm in the home operable is unconstitutional. Handguns, rifles, auto or semi, and shot guns are lawful hand guns in this country. States differ in their regulation of hand guns, but owning a “gun” regardless of it classification is an individual right granted by the 2nd Amendment. Of course the High Court did not stuck down the common sense gun restrictions ” the right should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Senator Obama supported the DC Gun Law that had legislative language far reaching into individual rights in their OWN HOME and allowed DC regulators to even use the law to dictate how gun owners should keep their guns IN THER OWN HOME (unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock), “like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional.” Mrs. J I know that Oil Corporations and the amount of tax cuts they are getting is a hot button issue, but I have to mention that Oil Corporations ARE NOT the only corporations in this country. We are in a Recession, Senator McCain proposed a corporate tax cut of ALL corporations so that productivity and expiation will be stimulated and the economy would grow. In order Obama to stay on message that McCain is providing tax cuts for the wealthiest corporations he when in the “cherry picking business.” The Center for American Progress Action Fund grabbed the five largest U.S. oil companies from Fortune Magazine’s list of the Fortune 50. Then they obtained financial statements for those five companies from the Securities and Exchange Commission and listed the reported current and deferred taxes paid in 2007 to the federal government for income earned from U.S. operations. Based on those figures, they calculated how much less those companies would pay if the corporate tax rate were dropped from 35 percent to 25 percent. The total savings to the five oil companies, $3.8 billion; $1.2 billion Exxon Mobil alone, Obama cited these same numbers in a speech on June 24th, 2008, in Las Vegas. “He’s willing to spend nearly $4 billion on more tax breaks for big oil companies,” Obama said, “including $1.2 billion for Exxon alone.” Obama is cherry-picking here. The corporate tax rate reduction would apply to ALL corporations. Yes, Exxon Mobil, but also to Wal-Mart, General Motors and Home Depot, to name a few of the other Fortune 50 biggies. Even everybody’s favorite, Starbucks, would get the same tax break. Senator Obama singles out Oil Companies to suggest to the American people McCain ONLY targets oil companies for tax breaks, a gross misrepresentation. Selecting ONE tax form of Obama and say he will not raise taxes on the middle class is not the whole picture. Senator Obama wants to raise Corporate Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Dividends Tax, Social Security Tax, Marginal Tax, and Income Tax. Lets look at Capital Gains: In 2006, 47% of all tax returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000, and 79% came from households with incomes below $100,000.” (Editorial, “Obama Gains,” The Wall Street Journal, 4/30/08). In 2006 just 13.4 million out of 138.3 million taxpayers reported taxable net gains (net long-term gains in excess of net short-term capital losses and capital gains distributions, which are taxed at favorable capital gains rates) on Schedule D, and another 4.6 million reported capital gains distributions from mutual funds on their Forms 1040. Now Marginal Tax: Senator Obama’s new and expanded tax credits for low-income taxpayers will certainly cut taxes for low-income people, but the credits are mostly recaptured from middle-income taxpayers. During this phase-out range, marginal tax rates shoot up, causing economically damaging side effects. As a result, for example, a family of four in the $30,000-to-$43,000 range would discover that for every additional dollar they earn, they pay more than 50 cents in income tax” (The Tax Foundation, http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ff150.pdf).