"For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months." - President Barack Hussein Obama, narcissist, addressing the United Nations, September, 2009.

I'm sure glad Barry came along and fixed the character and cause of this nation after 232 years of American villainy, aren't you ? On the bright side, at least he didn't call pre-Obama America "The Great Satan." And our President spoke these words in front of an audience that included the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, Moammar Gadhafi, and a slew of other human rights violators (many of whom are on the Orwellian UN Human Rights Council).
===
"Since Americans can only be prodded into doing something with money, we need to tax crappy foods that make us sick like we do with cigarettes, and alcohol." - pot-smoking comedian Bill Maher, September, 2009.

Unbelievably, Maher calls himself a Libertarian. In reality, he's just another authoritarian left-winger. Someone should familiarize Maher with the words "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It's none of Bill Maher's business who smokes, drinks, or eats what, which Maher would quickly realize if someone took his weed away. Maher's "libertarianism" extends only to his desire to get high. What a hypocrite.
===
"Is capitalism a sin ?" - Leni Riefenstahl Award-winning, Castro-loving filmmaker Michael Moore, in a trailer from his forthcoming movie, Capitalism, A Love Story.

The answer from Moore's questionee is "yes," by the way, capitalism IS a sin. Hugo Chavez couldn't have said it better.
===
"President Obama didn't make much news on his round of five Sunday talk shows … with one notable exception. The President revealed a great deal about his philosophy of government and how he defines a tax increase. It turns out the President thinks a health-care tax is not a tax if he thinks the tax is for your own good. … Mr. Obama was asked by [ABC] host George Stephanopoulos about the 'individual mandate.' Under Max Baucus's Senate bill that Mr. Obama supports, everyone would be required to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty as high as $3,800 a year. Mr. Stephanopoulos posed the obvious question about this kind of coercion when 'the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't [buy insurance]. … How is that not a tax?' 'Well, hold on a second, George,' Mr. Obama replied. 'Here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's…' 'That may be,' Mr. Stephanopoulos responded, 'but it's still a tax increase.' (In fact, uncompensated care accounts for about only 2.2% of national health spending today, but that's another subject.) Mr. Obama: 'No. That's not true, George. The — for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore…' In other words, like parents talking to their children, this levy — don't call it a tax — is for your own good. … Mr. Obama complains that 'My critics say everything is a tax increase,' as if that is his political problem. His real problem is that the individual mandate really is a tax, but the President doesn't want voters to think of it that way, because taxes are unpopular." –The Wall Street Journal, September, 2009.

Yes, of course, Obama's penalty for not having health insurance is a tax, no matter what he wants to call it. Obama probably wouldn't consider his cap-and-trade proposal a tax either, but that's exactly what it is. The creative subterfuge being engaged in by Democrats these days is to pass tax increases without calling them tax increases. Instead, they are called penalties, mandates, fees, carbon allowances, etc. Does this stuff actually fool anyone ? (except for liberals, that is). I hope not. Obama isn't "helping the little guy" one bit, in case anyone hasn't noticed (and the media sure hasn't). He's only raising the little guy's expenses, through both direct and indirect means. This brings to mind Ronald Reagan's quote about the most terrifying words in the english language – "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
===
"We understand the gravity of the climate threat. We are determined to act. And we will meet our responsibility to future generations." - Barack Obama, speaking at the UN climate change conference, September, 2009.

"Responsibility to future generations," eh ? More than a tad ironic, coming from the President who is running up the debt faster than every other administration in history combined, thereby irresponsibly ruining the prospects of future generations.
===
"It doesn't smell of sulfur here anymore. It smells of something else. It smells of hope." - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, addressing the UN, September, 2009.

The "sulfur" smell was Bush, whom Chavez called "the devil" at last year's UN meeting. The "hope" smell is Obama. It's sure nice that we've won over Chavez, don't you think ? Yes, he may be a tyrannical nut who nationalizes industries, shuts down opposition media, and puts opposition political figures in jail, but that's the socialist way. Because Chavez's version of "hope" would be hope of a worldwide socialist revolution, I wonder what it is he likes so much about Obama ??? I can agree with Chavez on this much – something smells alright.

“Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.” – Thomas Jefferson

Allow me to construct a hypothetical set of circumstances. Let's say our country was in the midst of a severe recession, that unemployment was rising rapidly as millions of jobs were being lost, that average people were having an increasingly difficult time getting by, that our industries were having a difficult time competing, that the value of the dollar was dropping, that we were up to our ears in debt……

Okay, that isn't hypothetical at all. That's what is actually happening.

Now, in response to this not-so-hypothetical set of crisis circumstances, what would you think of our government if it passed legislation that would bring about massive tax increases, that would make it even more difficult for our industries to compete, that would cause more job losses, that would raise energy costs dramatically, that would increase the price of practically every product consumers purchase, that would put the average person much further in the hole, and that wouldn't even provide the desired benefit of said legislation ???? (link)

I'd call that government destructive to the ends of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'd want that government replaced for working against the interests of the American people. That's what I'm thinking today after the House of Representatives passed Cap-And-Trade legislation by a narrow vote of 219-212.

The Cap-and-Trade bill, also known as Waxman-Markey, also known as The American Clean Energy And Security Act, also known as the Let Them Eat Cake Act, is a 1,200 page monstrosity that nobody in the House had time to read, because the final version of the bill wasn't posted until the night before friday's vote, and a 300 page amendment was added at 3:00am on the day of the vote. I seem to remember President Obama saying something about having the most transparent administration EVAH !…….I guess Congress didn't get the memo on that, because they are operating like cat burglars in the dead of night.

Here's a quick rundown of the bad guys and the good guys in the House. The bad guys voting FOR the destruction of America included 211 Democrats and 8 Republicans. The good guys voting AGAINST destruction included 44 Democrats and 168 Republicans. You can find a complete vote tally here. I'd like to single out Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) for praise for standing against this bill. I've maligned Mr. Kucinich in the past, but I'm beginning to think I was wrong about him. He seems to be one of the few in the House who actually stands on his principles. That's noteworthy to me, even if I often disagree with him. The fact that 44 Democrats voted against this bill shows us that the Dems know Cap-And-Trade is a really bad idea, but lots of Democrats caved to pressure from the White House. El Presidente badly wants more control over all aspects of America, and this bill puts him in the express lane toward acquiring that control (but he believe in free markets ! lol).

"We've seen the example in Spain, it's a colossal mistake there, a political and an economic error. This could be the most colossal mistake ever made in the history of the United State Congress." – Congressman Steve King (R-IOWA).

I picked the above quote not only because a guy named King must be right, but because he mentioned Spain. What happened in Spain ?

Spain already implemented cap-and-trade, and has the most far-reaching renewable energy agenda in the European Union. The result ? Unemployment is at 18% in Spain (double the EU average), and there have been 2.2 jobs lost for every green job created. In addition, tons of subsidies are required for green energy initiatives to be competitive. The wind industry jobs created in Spain have come at a cost of $1.4 million PER JOB. (link)

Gee, who wouldn't want to emulate such "success" ???

But my favorite comment on the cap-and-trade legislation came from Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), who when asked why he spent an hour reading portions of the bill aloud on the House floor, said, "Hey, people deserve to know what's in this pile of s–t." (link)

Even those who are in favor of restricting carbon emissions know that this cap-and-trade bill is, um, crap. Here's one such person, billionaire Warren Buffet of Berkshire Hathaway:

"I think if you get into the way it was written, it's a huge tax and there's no sense calling it anything else. I mean, it is a tax. And it's a fairly regressive tax. If we buy permits, essentially, at our utilities, that goes right into the bills of the utility customers, and an awful lot of people in Iowa, in Oregon, and Utah, and places where we are, very poor people are going to pay a lot more money for electricity. So I think that can be improved." (link)

Speaking of restricting carbon emissions, which is the stated purpose of cap-and-trade (all it's negative and destructive effects are just icing on the cake), exactly how much of an effect on global warming will this cap-and-trade bill have ? (for the sake of brevity, I'm assuming here that man-made carbon emissions are a significant cause of global warming, an assumption that is itself a source of controversy).

Washington Post writer Martin Feldstein lays it out in an article called Cap-And-Trade: All Cost, No Benefit.

The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the resulting increases in consumer prices needed to achieve a 15 percent CO2 reduction — slightly less than the Waxman-Markey target — would raise the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year. Some expert studies estimate that the cost to households could be substantially higher. The future cost to the typical household would rise significantly as the government reduces the total allowable amount of CO2.

Americans should ask themselves whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2. Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent. Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States.

Waxman-Markey will have NO EFFECT on global warming, but it will have the "benefit" of further destroying our country.

In spite of all this, there are many American corporations ready to jump on the green bandwagon and profit from the carbon credit trading frenzy that El Presidente is trying to unleash on us. You're even familiar with some of these corporations – AIG, General Motors, Goldman Sachs, General Electric…you know, the GOOD corporations that we've all come to know and love so much during the recession. They are ready to jump on the manufactured energy bubble and rake in the big bucks. That these same companies are all recipients of government bailouts is just a big old coincidence, I'm sure. Too bad Enron isn't around any longer. Those guys knew how to run an energy bubble. I bet most of you didn't even know that General Electric got a bailout. Somehow, that hasn't been mentioned by the mainstream media very much. Not only did GE get a bailout, they got a $139 billion bailout, second in size to AIG's bailout. Yet somehow, the enormous GE bailout hasn't been mentioned or condemned by major television networks like……NBC, nor by NBC's retarded cable stepchildren over at MSNBC (aka, The Obama Channel). I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that General Electric OWNS NBC, or the fact that GE is deeply in bed with the Obama administration. I'm sure that can't be it. Everyone knows MSNBC is a group of highly dedicated professional journalists who would never compromise their integrity or ideals for…….LOL. Oh, man. I can't finish this sentence. Sometime I even crack myself up.

But make sure you contact GE for all your carbon credit trading needs. They are primed and ready for all their cap-and-trade lobbying to start paying dividends.

As for you, America, I hope you like cake, because if you don't rise up and stop this Cap-And-Trade disaster in the Senate, cake is all you'll have left. And maybe some government cheese to go with it, if you're lucky.

The political Left has two basic positions regarding business in America.

1) If a company is making a profit, they characterize the company as evil, and demand that their profits be taken away, so the government can use the money instead (this is known as THEFT in the non-socialist world, but you aren't supposed to think about that). It goes without saying that the bigger a company's profits grow, the MORE evil that company becomes. This means that Exxon-Mobil is the DEVIL INCARNATE.

2) If a company stops making a profit and loses money, the Left will subsidize the company (the Right tends to join in on this part too – Let's privatize profits, socialize losses, and join me on my yacht this weekend, old chum. Life is good).

The above is a twist on Reagan's old joke about government power: If it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; And when it stops moving, subsidize it.

A good example of #1 is Barack Obama traveling around the country telling everyone he wants to take the profits away from those evil oil companies (who, btw, enable our economy and society to function at a post-19th century level that keeps us off horseback and stagecoaches, but you aren't supposed to think about that. Just keep repeating to yourself – 'Oil Is Evil, Oil Is Evil', like Nancy Pelosi (D-Venus) and Harry Reid (D-Mars) do. It's easier than thinking about things.

A good example of #2 is the taxpayer bailout of the mortgage mess, which included bailing out faltering companies like Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Those are private companies, aren't they ? Sure they are. Sort of. But talk about connected. They're practically a branch of government.

As far as I can tell, the following industries comprise the liberal Axis Of Evil Corporations: Oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies. I provide this list as a public service, so you lay persons out there can know who you should hate. Financial companies used to be on the Axis of Evil list too, but they lost so much money recently that they are no longer evil. Now, they must be subsidized.

The mantra the Left uses to demonize profit goes like this: How dare those greedy so-and-so's at the (fill-in-the-blank) corporation make so much money, when that money could be used for a) a government program, or b) the children ? 'The children' is practically foolproof as an excuse for the government to steal money from the private sector. An autocrat can justify anything if it's 'for the children' You aren't supposed to think about the fact that business profits enable people to have jobs, get paid, and become prosperous. You aren't supposed to realize business profits are the reason you live in a house, have an automobile, a refrigerator, a stove, a television, a phone, electricity, heat, and food. You aren't supposed to realize those business profits earned in a free market made the United States the world's leading superpower. Again, thinking is your enemy. Just keep saying to yourself, 'Profit Is Evil, Profit Is Evil', like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama (D-Cuba) do – and Karl Marx did.

Our Glorious Exalted Leader Obama has even taken it a step further. He has proposed a windfall profits tax on the Devil Who Is Called Exxon and the other oily devils, and wants to hand $1,000 of the Devil's profits directly to each American, so Obama can literally buy your vote, er, help you combat the high costs of energy this winter, costs that Obama and friends won't do anything to help lower for maybe 20 years, and only then if the requisite alternative energy miracle happens in the meantime (except for that nifty 'inflate your tires' tip. That was quite helpful. Thanks, BO. If you were running for gas station attendant, you'd definitely get my vote).

The Left hates profit because America isn't perfect. There are still problems here, unlike all those other utopian socialist paradises, like, um, well, uh……….er, never mind. There must be some somewhere. I just can't think of their names right now. Even though we spend nearly $2 trillion each year on some type of entitlement program, the Left reasons that just isn't enough. Not even close to enough. Ever more and more and more money must be spent by the federal government, and ever more and more and more of your money must be stolen through taxation. Then someday, when NOBODY has any money left and the government is our supreme overlord and master of all things, that perfect socialist utopian nirvana will be achieved. I think it says exactly that on Obama's website, because his answer to absolutely everything is for big government to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on it. I guess that's easier than thinking too.

Color me skeptical. It seems like $2 trillion per year should be plenty enough to keep people out of poverty, to keep them from starving. Yet somehow, it isn't. Could the problem be the government itself ? Nah, that can't be it. Impossible ! It must be the Republicans fault. Dick Cheney must be taking that money and giving it to Halliburton or something. It's a conspiracy of some sort. I know it, even though I have no proof whatsoever. I mean, c'mon, that Cheney guy just LOOKS evil. He's all old and corporate and white and stuff. Who needs proof ? And Cheney shot his buddy on that hunting trip. Don't forget that. What more is there to know ?

An old and very wise saying about democracy goes like this:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal responsibility, always followed by a dictatorship.” – John Tyler

That was written in 1770, but it sounds pretty relevant to what's going on today.

Think of that when Barack Obama vows to steal someone else's money to give it to you, or to tax the hell out of the rich as if that won't affect you. It certainly will. We are just finishing with one president who didn't care much about fiscal responsibility, Dubya. Dubya was irresponsible on the spending side. Why on earth would we elect another president of "loose fiscal responsibility", but this time, on BOTH the taxation and spending sides ? $3 TRILLION per year should be plenty enough to run the federal government. Far more than enough, in truth. The tax and spend buck must stop here, or we will suffer serious consequences, the very ones John Tyler warned about back in 1770. Barack Obama wants to declare war on profits. I want to declare war on Barack Obama and all of his socialist/communist/totalitarian ilk, before it's too late.

In the political wars, Democrats like to paint Republicans as white male chauvinist christian bigots who are in the pocket of rich people and don't give a single crap about the poor. Democrats paint themselves as the compassionate good people who are fighting for the rights of the little guy against those same evil Republicans. On this battlefront, the Democrats are winning (though not as much as they were when they controlled ALL the media), because that perception is pretty widely accepted. But who really helps the poor the most ? Painting with the broad brush, and granting that there are many exceptions, the solutions of the two parties to poverty are these: Republicans believe economic growth leads to expanded opportunity, for the poor along with everyone else. It's the principle of the rising tide that lifts all boats. The Democrats believe in more government intervention in the form of government programs to assist people out of poverty. I'd say both sides believe education is key to lowering poverty.

In 1965, president Lyndon Johnson launched the War On Poverty. 17.3% of americans lived below the poverty line in 1965, according to the poverty tables of the US Census. In 2006, 12.3% lived below the poverty line. So, poverty dropped by 5% over 41 years. It's good poverty dropped even a little, but I'm not sure whether I should laugh or cry, because a 5% drop doesn't sound like a real victory in the War On Poverty to me. That sounds like it's gone about as well as the War In Iraq the last few years, only marginal improvement. Plus, since we have more people now than we did in 1965, we actually have MORE people living in poverty. In 1965, there were 19,141,300. In 2006, there were 29,645,000. That's over ten million more people living in poverty than when the War On Poverty started. I'm also thinking that the estimated 12 million illegals aren't all showing up in the Census data either, which would drive the poverty number higher yet.

The question to ask is: Did all those Great Society social programs have any effect on poverty, or was it the opportunity in the Land Of Opportunity that caused the percentage drop ? Of note is the fact that the numbers of americans in poverty was dropping sharply before the big government Democrats began their 1965 round of big government programs. According to the same Census poverty tables, in 1959, 22.4% lived below the poverty line, so in the six years BEFORE LBJ's Great Society program began, the poverty rate dropped by 7.1%, more than it has in the four plus decades since. To me, those numbers say that it was the opportunity from economic growth that decreased poverty the most, not any big government anti-poverty programs. I would explicitly exempt educational and job training programs from that judgement, because those ARE valuable. Education IS the key.

We all know what was accomplished by those other types of government programs that were supposed to help the poor by subsidizing them with our tax dollars. The welfare state was created, which not only didn't help people out of poverty, it kept them mired in it for generation after generation. We gave the poor food stamps, virtually free housing, assistance with utility bills, a monthly stipend. We increased the stipend for each child the poor had. In short, we removed individual responsibility, promoted irresponsibility, destroyed the work ethic of many, and it wreaked havoc. The family unit disintegrated, out of wedlock births soared, crime became rampant, drug use skyrocketed. Those 'compassionate' Democrats had created an unmitigated disaster. The Democratic response to the nightmare they had unleashed on the poor communities ? Why, MORE government programs, of course. Some people never learn.

Finally, in 1996, something positive happened. Bill Clinton, after twice vetoing welfare reform packages from his Republican congress, reached a compromise agreement with them and signed welfare reform into law. It was Clinton's greatest achievement, and to accomplish it, all he had to do was agree with what Republicans were saying all along. Liberals widely denounced Clinton at the time for being a sell-out, because, well, they're liberals, they're wrong about almost everything. Immediately, the poverty rate began to drop, particularly among black people. In 1995, the poverty rate among blacks was 29.3%. By 2001, it was 22.4%. In 2006 it still stood at 24.3%, and that was after a recession, 9/11, Katrina, and war. Now that the success of welfare reform has been so obviously displayed, liberals like to pretend they were in favor of it from the start, because in addition to being nearly always wrong, they are also shameless liars. Liberals also never mention that it was the Republican congress that initiated welfare reform. They like to pretend it was all Clinton's doing, since he's a Democrat. Like I said, liars. Shameless. They never met any history they couldn't try to reinvent.

In the end, what is best for the poor is also what is best for the rest of the country. A strong economy, a good educational system, low taxes. That leads to opportunity, and opportunity is what lifts people out of poverty. The endless attempts of the left to foment class warfare and division among us in order to consolidate their political power and push socialism is counterproductive. Everyone believes in a safety net for the poor and unfortunate, but that safety net shouldn't become a way of life, it should be a transitional period. We should always take care of the disabled and the elderly. I don't think anybody disagrees with that either. But if the big government cradle-to-grave nanny state policies were going to cure poverty, it would have already happened. They aren't going to, so let's try to minimize them as much as we can, leave people's money in their own pockets rather than the government's pockets, and go about the business of creating good jobs and prosperity. That will be more effective than any of Hillary's million hare-brained wealth redistribution schemes.

Now that Bush's veto of the Democrat's S-CHIP expansion has been upheld, and the Democrats have had their hissy fit on the floor of congress yesterday, with one highlight (lowlight) being nutjob Pete Stark (D-Cal) making absurd comments about Bush "killing innocent people for his own amusement", maybe now the Democrats can quit playing political games and a reauthorization of S-CHIP can be worked out. I'm pretty tired of the Dem's tactic of using families that are already covered under S-CHIP as human shields to prevent any real dialogue from taking place on the issue. This vote on the veto override should have taken place two weeks ago, but the Democrats wanted to play the 'Republicans hate children' card for all it was worth, so they delayed the vote. I can see why the Dems mantra for S-CHIP has been 'For The Children', because their behavior has been totally infantile.

Democrats were so busy calling Republicans mean and hateful, that they pretended not to notice that Republicans are announcing an alternative S-CHIP plan today. The tenets of the Republican plan follow:

- Reauthorize SCHIP for eligible children. The bill would continue to cover kids in families with incomes at or below 200% of the federal poverty level.

- Enact a child health care tax credit. Rather than putting more people on a government-run program, the bill would offer tax credits to families with incomes between 200% and 300% of the poverty level. This would cover the population targeted by liberals with their bill, but instead of forcing them to drop their current coverage, it would provide assistance to keep their current insurance plan.

- Adopt a "federalism" health-care initiative. The bill encourages greater experimentation at the state level to expand health-care coverage.

The idea of a health care tax credit is far preferable to signing up millions of kids into an expanded government program funded on the backs of smokers (the Democrat plan). A tax credit offsets the cost of health care insurance for working families, plus it puts worker's wages back in the hands of workers where they belong. The idea in health care is NOT to fill the government coffers and then have the government decide how to spend it. The idea is to make health care insurance affordable. The tax credit helps. I think it would be a good idea if all health insurance and out-of-pocket medical payments were tax deductible. Hopefully, the Democrats will go along with this idea IF THEY CARE ABOUT THE CHILDREN, as they claim to. We'll see if they care about the children as much as they care about consolidating power unto themselves by taking all our money.

One more thing I should mention with all this 'Republicans hate children' crapola being thrown around by the Democrats regarding S-CHIP. The S-CHIP program was started in 1997 as part of the Balanced Budget Act. Two of the Act's three sponsors were Republicans (Gramm and Rudman. Hollings, a Democrat, was the other). The S-CHIP program was passed by THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS, and then Clinton signed it into law. So, the next time you hear Democrats lying through their teeth about this issue, let them know you are onto them. The next time you hear the Democrat's propaganda arm, the mainstream media, distorting the truth, let them know too.

On John Edwards website, he says he wants to get rid of those Two Americas he's always talking about. The site says "Building One America will take strong, bold steps, not incremental steps and half measures. Edwards has proposed detailed plans to put Washington back on the side of regular families".

Okay. So what are these "detailed plans" ?

Here are Edwards' proposals to eliminate poverty and make schools better:

– Force every american to buy health insurance, and
have the government subsidize those who can't afford it.
– Increase the minimum wage to $9.50 per hour.
– Triple the earned income credit.
– Eliminate the marriage tax penalty
– 'Invest' in rural community colleges
– Create a new Labor Taskforce to oversee business
– Create a million voucher for low-income people to move into good neighborhoods
– Phase out housing projects
– 'Invest' in refurbishing decaying neighborhoods
– Create a new $500 tax credit for low-income people
– Expand the child care tax credit up to $5000 per year
– Subsidize bank accounts for working families (I have no idea what this means)
– Create a home rescue fund for borrowers that get behind on their mortgages
– Shed 'excessive' mortgage debt through bankruptcy
– Create a new Family Savings and Credit Commission to protect families from abusive
financial products
– Create a late charge penalty grace period for credit cards
– Cap interest rates on payday loans
– Encourage low or no-interest loans
– Create a million jobs for the poor
– Enact universal government preschool
– Shrink classroom size
– Pay teachers more
– Make curriculum more challenging (finally !, something that doesn't cost taxpayers or
the business sector money)
– Giving bonuses to middle class schools that enroll low-income students
– Double federal magnet school funding to attract middle-class suburban students to
high-poverty urban neighborhoods
– Create second chance schools for high school dropouts
– Enact a College for Everyone program to pay public-college tuition, books and fees for
students who agree to work part-time during their first year at a school
– Encourage father responsibility by increasing child support collections
by $8 billion over the next decade
– Fight teen pregnancy
– 'invest' in home visits by registered nurses to low-income parents
– 'invest' in family literacy programs
– enact the Employee Free Choice Act to increase union membership

And how is Edwards going to raise the trillions and trillions of dollars
required to do all this ? Well, let's go to his tax reform plan and find out:

Edwards will:
– Raise the capital gains tax to 28%
– Repeal the Bush tax cuts for the highest income people
– Keep the estate tax
– Crackdown on offshore tax havens
– Improve IRS service
– Audit corporations and wealthy people more
– Increase taxes on hedge funds, private equity firms, and executive pensions

Wow. I guess those million new jobs for the poor will all be government jobs, because this would be the biggest government increase since the Russian Revolution. When I think of the net effect of all Edwards' policies on our economy, one word comes immediately to mind: CATASTROPHE. Edwards' policies will increase the price of every good that every consumer buys, stifle investment, raise unemployment, drastically expand government spending, drastically increase government bureaucracy, make US business less competitive……….If you wanted to draw up a recipe to destroy the US economy, I doubt you could do much better than John Edwards has, unless your last name was Castro, or maybe Kucinich. Now I understand why Edwards pays $1200 for a haircut you can get anywhere in the country for $20. That adds up about the same as his economic designs for the rest of us. Keep your hands on your wallets, and don't elect John Edwards.