I am wearing my McCain-Palin t-shirt as we speak--its covered in oil and dirt because as a small business owner responsible for the continued income of my employees I must stay involved in every part  of its operation.

I am eductaing my employees on tax matters, so that when I have to change their status to contract labor, they know what they can do to retain as much of their hard earned dollars as possible.

I feel it will cost one way or the  other (time or money) but which one is "cheaper" than the other???

I also don't like the fact that Obama says only 5% of small business gross more than 250K a year. Gross income and net worth over 250K will put severakl people in the new tax bracket of increased 3-4% income tax. Tax me on what I actually get to keep as a business not my overall income and net worth.

Atleast McCain is being upfront with his plan, the whole truth is out for all to hear. Obama says 1/2 of what he actually plans, then you have to read the fine print at the bottom for the other half.

Obewan- I have been reading Obamas tax plan trying to educate myself further. And what I am finding is that most of his tax cuts are within your tax return also

"Making Work Pay" credit will provide a refundable tax cut

$4,000 fully refundable tax credit to ensure that college is affordable for all American families

a 10% refundable credit to offset mortgage interest payments

reform the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit by making it refundable

so either way "more IRS paperwork to an already burdensome system"

I enjoy reading your posts as it seems you don't jump on someone for their opinions--so instead of me watching msnbc verses Fox to get "both sides of the debate" I am interested in your honest thoughts on Obama stances..

And still the challenge stands.
I'm gonna need a case of Snickers for this one. Pun intended.

    Do Facts Matter?

     by Thomas Sowell

   

Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time and
some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all
the time."

Unfortunately, the future of this country, as well as the fate of the
Western world, depends on how many people can be fooled on election day,
just a few weeks from now.

Right now, the polls indicate that a whole lot of the people are being
fooled a whole lot of the time.

The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back
into a substantial lead over John McCain-- which is astonishing in view
of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on
this crisis.

It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama's rhetoric and the
media's spin enough to make facts irrelevant?

Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher
Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years-- including the present
year-- denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that
could lead to a financial crisis.

It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who
for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an
agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years
pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting
subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial
crisis.

Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the
Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary
of the Treasury, five years ago.

Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration
"right-wing ideology" of "de-regulation" that set the stage for the
financial crisis. Do facts matter?

We also hear that it is the free market that is to blame. But the facts
show that it was the government that pressured financial institutions in
general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community
Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then Attorney
General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was
getting loans and who wasn't.

Is that the free market? Or do facts not matter?

Then there is the question of being against the "greed" of CEOs and for
"the people." Franklin Raines made $90 million while he was head of
Fannie Mae and mismanaging that institution into crisis.

Who in Congress defended Franklin Raines? Liberal Democrats, including
Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus, at least one of whom
referred to the "lynching" of Raines, as if it was racist to hold him to
the same standard as white CEOs.

Even after he was deposed as head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines was
consulted this year by the Obama campaign for his advice on housing!

The Washington Post criticized the McCain campaign for calling Raines an
adviser to Obama, even though that fact was reported in the Washington
Post itself on July 16th. The technicality and the spin here is that
Raines is not officially listed as an adviser. But someone who advises
is an adviser, whether or not his name appears on a letterhead.

The tie between Barack Obama and Franklin Raines is not all one-way.
Obama has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae's financial
contributions, right after Senator Christopher Dodd.

But ties between Obama and Raines? Not if you read the mainstream media.

Facts don't matter much politically if they are not reported.

The media alone are not alone in keeping the facts from the public.
Republicans, for reasons unknown, don't seem to know what it is to
counter-attack. They deserve to lose.

But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and
cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the
advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years
allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed
their hatred of America.

Nequ do oyu live in the US?

This is not original to me; just passing on food for thought!

This election has me very worried. So many things to
consider. About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I
have changed my mind three times since than. I watch all
the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say
this drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view
MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground
to work with. About six months ago, I started thinking
"where did the money come from for Obama". I have
four daughters who went to College, and we were middle
class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked
hard and there were lots of student loans.

I started looking into Obama's life.

Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in
California. He is very open about his two years at
Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his
time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply
himself to his studies. "Barry" (that was the name
he used all his life) during this time had two roommates,
Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan.
During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college,
he made a "round the world" trip. Stopping to see
his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three
weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his
roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his
father's family. My question - Where did he get the
money for this trip? Nether I, nor any one of my children
would have had money for a trip like this when they where in
college.. When he came back he started school at Columbia
University in New York. It is at this time he wants
everyone to call him Barack - not Barry. Do
you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It's not
cheap! to say the least. Where did he get money for
tuition? Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to
Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000. a
year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living
in New York.

By "chance" he met Antoin "Tony"
Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in
Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this
year. Rezko, was named "Entrepreneur of the
Decade" by the Arab-American Business and Professional
Association". About two years later, Obama entered
Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is
for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law
School? More student loans? After Law school, he went back
to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down.
But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill &
Galland. Guess what? They represented "Rezar"
which Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first
major financial contributors when he ran for office in
Chicago. In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama
which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was
instrumental in providing Obama with "seed money"
for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new
home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking
price). With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the
money for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife,
Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The
London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born
Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before
Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi
many times with Rezko.

Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett,
was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief
advisor and he does not make any major decisions without
talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for
this? Shiraz, Iran! Do we see a pattern here? Or am I going crazy?

On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor
to Obama was "sacked" after the press found out he
was having regular contacts with "Hamas", which
controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week,
buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers
reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked
their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is
elected, and he will "Take care of things".

Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that
where born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those
"small" Internet campaign contribution for Obama.
Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class
in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East?

And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The
Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on
"This Week" with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on
talking about his religion said, "My Muslim faith". When
questioned, "he make a mistake". Some mistake!

All of the above information I got on line. If you would
like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama;
Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited
Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008;
The Times May 10, 2008.

Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information
on my own, Why haven't all of our "intelligent" members of the
press been reporting this?

A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - "Beware of the
enemy from within!"

Sounds to me like some one, just wants some one, to say what he wants to hear.

The president's office is not the worst of our problems, most of the time he is just a "Scape Goat". They will get right because you right isn't my right.

Like Jay Leno says "That's how you get the CON in Congress."

I worry about Obama. I worry about McCain also. I will have to make up my mind in the voting booth. They should make them work like slot machines

Who ever gets the office, remember to read their lips so you know to expect the opposite?

I really do not care influence anyone's opinion but check your source before you expound on things you hear. Now don't try to say other wise because most of you were not born when a lot of this got started and some of it started long before the canidates ever got in to politics...

When the FICA (Social Security) was enacted it was for sole the purpose of taking care of old foggies like me. When you think about it it's a hell of a good scheme. The population keeps growing and the old farts keep dying so you always have more people contributing than using. 

Where did it go wrong? How could it fail? I think I know. I guess there was just too much money sitting there and too many eyes watching it. Locks will only keep honest people honest.

The Unions required employers set money a side for retirement funds in a separate account. When times got bad employers would tell their employees they needed to tap in to that money or have a lay off. So they used the retirement money and still laid people off. Wadda gonna do?

A law was passed making that practice illegal, So now a different element see's all that money just sitting doing nothing and decided they wanted in on the action.

A few years ago we had a very one sided Congress and one of the first things they tried to do was repeal the law preventing corporations from tapping in to retirement funds.

I won't point fingers for it would be a pointless gesture. If you care to do the research beware you may have a change of heart or rhetoric. The point is we are going to have to work with who ever gets the office so BOHICA.

I didn't need to do a lot of research on this I seen some of it 1st hand and my folks lived all of it.

There doesnt seem to be right or wrong about it it just depends on who's doing the talking so "Just name your poison hope for the best"

My $.002 toward another diamond.

Both candidates are like john wayne toilet paper. They leave your A$$ raw.