More on Obama- the man no one knows

Obama is a completely worthless racial socialist, contrary to the moderate his campaign paints him as. His Senate record proves it (the most liberal). His personal associations prove it (racists, socialists, and terrorists). And, his own unhyped positions prove it (public funding of abortion, special rights for homosexuals, etc.).But, blessed1195, of those things you listed about Obama revealing his degenerate character and politics, McCain either doesn't hold positions much different or he doesn't consider those issues to be important. So, McCain is in no position to rip on Obama's history and I'm in no position to care that McCain is going to lose.There's an old joke, a man asks a woman if she'd have sex with him for a million dollars. She hesitates but says yes. He then asks, how about for 5 dollars? She becomes insulted, and so he explains now that he knows what kind of woman she is that he's just negotiating the price.If I vote for McCain, I'd be the kind of person I refuse to be. Besides, if Obama rates $5, McCain only rates $10, not a $million.

Amen Blessed you have made excellent points like McCain or not that is our choice its comes down to the fact that the liberal Democrats will have a majority in the House, Senate and the White house that means this country is run by Harry Reed, Nancy Peloski, Barak Obama, unopposed they can do whatever they want appoint who they want. There will be no checks and balances.

How come you did not post McCains record? You want four more years of Bush then vote McCain.......look around things are bad now they will only get worse.

(Jerusalem Junkie;60421)
How come you did not post McCains record? You want four more years of Bush then vote McCain.......look around things are bad now they will only get worse.
Obama is worst...he doesn't really care about morals.

As I always say, I am a Ron Paul man myself since I believe his ideology is closest to the founding father's. Well, I guess he's out.That being said, let's look at the antithesis of this thought--- I'm concerned about health care going governmental. Seems like many people are rallying around that thought, but since everything is messed up now, what will it be like when government tries to run the medical show as well?Needless to say, this will become more and more Orwellian as one's medical data can be used to scan personal information. The founding father's never intended it to be this way.But then again, I guess that's the Christian philosophy in me: I basically don't believe in medical science much anyway---- they may be good to mend a broken bone or operate on say an obstruction or something, but other than pluming work like that, their prevention philosophy is lacking with such erroneous ideas such as cholesterol causes heart disease, salt, eggs and meat are bad for you and other such nonsense. However, it would be interesting to see if we did have governmental healthcare if they would put an end to BIG PHARMA profits such as useless medication that basically lowers numbers that do not mean anything. In other words, if they have to help foot the bill instead of insurances and the little guy, they won't tolerate it.Thank God the Lord heals me. I'd probably do just as well without it.

I probably would have agreed with Obama on a few of the issues you mentioned. There are at least three items there I would agree with, though probably for different reasons than Obama's reasoning. There is a fourth item that's questionable that I can't comment on at this point, since I don't know enough about it.Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)This refers to the Flag Desecration Amendment, which actually only failed in the Senate by one vote. We have an official US Flag Code that regulates what is and isn't allowed, with respect to the US Flag. Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 8(k) of the US Code states: "The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning." If burning is the recommended method of disposal for a flag, why should it be made illegal? Of course, the individuals involved in flag desecration are not burning it in a "dignified" way. I'm still not convinced it's appropriate to make flag burning illegal, however.Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006) I used to be for the Federal Marriage Amendment, but I've changed my mind in the last few years. I am not and have never been for gay marriage. However, I don't think the federal government should have anything to do with marriage, regardless of whether it is a homosexual or heterosexual couple. Perhaps I previously was more of a realist and am now more of an idealist. Realistically speaking, the federal government is currently involved in marriage, despite me wishing it wasn't true. Obviously being married has an impact on our federal taxes. Ideally speaking though, the federal government shouldn't know or care whether I'm married or single. It shouldn't be required information for our taxes. Likewise, it shouldn't be any of their business what race I am. If we pass a Federal Marriage Amendment, it reinforces the federal government's so-called "right" to know our business.Miscegenation a felony in 1960 when Obama’s practiced it. (Aug 1996) First of all, Barack Obama wasn't alive in 1960. He was born in August 1961. I'm not sure what the August 1996 date is referring to there, but the rest of the statement is referring to something Barack Obama's parents did. More specifically, it's referring to Barack Obama's conception (which occurred in 1960). "Miscegenation" is a borderline derogatory term used to refer to an interracial marriage or interracial sexual relations. Barack's mom was white, and his dad was black. Barack himself has no control over that, nor is there anything wrong with it. He does have control over how he treats his parents, but not over what race they are. The original statement is akin to someone saying, "Rosa Parks violated the law by refusing to give up her seat to a white bus passenger!" I am curious about the details of interracial relationships being a felony in 1960. I'm wondering whether that was a federal law, state law, or local law.Videotape all capital punishment interrogations. (Oct 2006) At first glance, I don't see anything wrong with this. Then again, I haven't researched it and don't know what the possible implications of it would be.I'm not an Obama supporter and will definitely not be voting for him this November. I just wanted to make a few points regardless. I have done a fair amount of research on Saul Alinsky and his books as well. It's scary stuff. I read just one page of Rules for Radicals and was shocked by the methods he advocates. He heavily promotes deceit, amongst other things. I did not see the episode of Hannity's America that you refer to, but I am not surprised if he didn't mention much about Alinsky. Obama is not the only liberal to show some degree of appreciation for Alinsky. Hillary Clinton personally interviewed Alinsky, and also wrote her thesis on the Alinsky model. In her thesis, she reportedly concludes that the Alinsky model is mostly ineffective. She does, however, speak of the man himself admirably. If I were to guess, I think there are probably a significant minority of liberals who admire Alinsky and his method. Just look at the reviews on Amazon.com for his book. Many republicans probably don't want to risk losing moderate votes over battling Alinsky.As for whether or not to vote McCain, that largely depends on whether you subscribe to the "lesser of two evils" philosophy. Do you believe the lesser of two evils is better than the alternative or, as Alan Keyes says, "The lesser of two evils is evil still."

What other choice does one have if one doesnt vote the other side will win because they are voting my vote is not for McCain as much as against Obama and his cronies. A vote for someone with no chance is the same as not voting. The other side still wins because they have the most votes. So what does one accomplish except self satisfaction at the cost of allowing the wrong side to win. And all will pay the price

(Christina;60446)
What other choice does one have if one doesnt vote the other side will win because they are voting my vote is not for McCain as much as against Obama and his cronies. A vote for someone with no chance is the same as not voting. The other side still wins because they have the most votes. So what does one accomplish except self satisfaction at the cost of allowing the wrong side to win. And all will pay the price
Which is a bit extremely sad. This world makes me sad. This world also ticks me off...ALOT. It would be nice to see McCain and Palin to win.

Which is a bit extremely sad. This world makes me sad. This world also ticks me off...ALOT. It would be nice to see McCain and Palin to win.
Jordan:Speaking of McCain and Palin, they were in Bethlehem Pa today at Stabler arena exactly 7 miles west of my house.I was tempted to get tickets, but there were no more to go around (so it was said). This area has a high McCain support (and also Ron Paul when he was in the primaries --- something like 16%).

(blessed1195;60402)
1)I know Senator McCain isn't perfect, and unfortunately, it is hard to go by his voting record since he voted no on many issues because of the excessive pork added to the bills. Senator McCain is an honest and straight shooting man.
I find McCain to be every bit as dishonest as Obama.
2)You also have to decide if you want more in your paycheck for you and your family or more of your hard earned money going to the government. Under Obamas' plan, he leaves out the fact that the elimination of Bush Tax cuts will increase taxes by $3500 down to an income of $30K.
Looking at this, Obama will cut taxes on everyone making less than 227,000. Somebody's wrong. But, I don't really care about taxes, at least not relative to some other things.
3)Also, people forget we have the 2nd highest corporate tax rate (35% ) in the world
Most companies subjected to the 35% rate pay practically no income taxes, so that figure is meaningless.
4)No candidate is ever perfect,
I'm not expecting perfection. But, I am expecting someone who doesn't make me puke.
5) it is also a choice between liberal judges with Obama or conservative judges under a McCain Presidency. What kind of America do you want: a perverted one or a conservative USA?
This is one of the most compelling reasons to vote for McCain. But, Republican appointments have controlled the Supreme Court for decades. It hasn't done much good. McCain won't appoint conservatives. All I expect is that he won't appoint the same extreme liberals that Obama would try to appoint.
6) Obama told us to inflate our tires and get a tune-up also that we would have to conserve on energy. McCain wants to drill now, pay less!
For the one thign McCain will do to lower gas prices, he promotes 10 things that raise gas prices.
Voting for a third party unfortunately, is like giving your vote to the opposite side.
Voting for a 3rd-party lets me go home without feeling like I need to take a shower.
I pray that God will lead you to make a decision and stand up for America, the country GOD has blessed us with and Stand up for Freedom!
I know you're sincere and Obama is frightening, but McCain isn't half the man you think he is. If McCain wins, what am I doing to do in four years?

(Follower;60458)
Looking at this, Obama will cut taxes on everyone making less than 227,000. Somebody's wrong. But, I don't really care about taxes, at least not relative to some other things.
Here's the deal. Obama and McCain are adding things up differently, when they make the general statements you see them making in debates. The two campaigns are comparing apples to oranges, without actually explaining that. When Obama says he plans to cut taxes on everyone making under $250,000 (that's the specific number, despite the odd range that CNN chose to quote), he is being honest about the plan. He's only talking about personal income taxes, however. When McCain says he's lowering everyone's taxes, he's also correct. He's at least referring to personal income taxes, but may be referring to a bit more. When he accuses Obama of raising taxes on people with an income less than $250,000, he's adding in the effect of corporate taxes. In general, McCain wants to lower corporate taxes while Obama wants to raise them. Corporate taxes do matter for anyone who buys goods made in the USA, or is employed in the USA.Here's how it works. Take a regular product made in the USA, like a hamburger from McDonalds. I'm going to just make up some numbers for the purpose of my illustration. Let's say it currently costs McDonalds about 45 cents to make a hamburger they're selling for a dollar. After some corporate tax cuts, let's say it now costs them 35 cents to make the same hamburger. McDonalds now has a few options for what they can do:1) They can lower their hamburger price to 90 cents. This lets them maintain the same profit per hamburger. The customers benefit due to the drop in price, and McDonalds benefits due to the increase in demand. This strategy of lowering prices is actually somewhat common during a recession. Nearly 10 years ago during the Japanese recession, McDonalds cut their hamburger prices in half for a summertime promotion in Japan. Their total sales rose by 30% during that period. (Source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_/ai_53905047)2) Instead, McDonalds could choose to keep their hamburger price stable for longer than they otherwise would have. We're in a period of inflation due to the Federal Reserve creating dollars out of thin air. With it costing businesses more to produce the same goods, it's hard for them to still make a profit without increasing their prices. This is a benefit for your average American, because it still costs them a dollar for that hamburger instead of $1.10.This is a simplified approach that doesn't deal with all the factors. This doesn't include a discussion of other benefits, such as the fact that McDonalds can avoid laying off workers so long as they are able to keep making money. They can even expand their operations and hire new employees if they are really making a profit. This is really important during a recession. This applies to all sorts of industries and companies, not just McDonalds. For other industries, it's easier for them to relocate out of the US if the corporate taxes are too high, thus resulting in a decrease of US jobs.I know you weren't necessarily looking for a discussion on that topic, Follower. I just felt like throwing that out there anyways. (Follower;60458)
Voting for a 3rd-party lets me go home without feeling like I need to take a shower.
So true! (blessed1195;60442)
I just can't believe with your ID name, you would even consider Obama unless you just haven't researched the truths about OBAMA that mainstream media covers up.
Then again, you are talking to a person with a picture of Marilyn Manson as their avatar. (blessed1195;60442)
The crisis in our Economy has been caused by the Democrats, not President Bush. Review Carter and Clinton, and the CRA.
Yes, much of it was caused by democrats. Moderate republicans are not without blame though, including Bush. There are other things at play besides the CRA, such as the American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI). See this link for a partial YouTube audio of Bush promoting the ADDI in October 2002, plus the full transcript below the audio. It was signed into law over a year later, in December 2003.The basic premise of the ADDI is that it uses a portion of our federal tax dollars to pay for the downpayment and partial closing costs of a low-income person purchasing a house. I believe this is the same bill that allows Section 8 vouchers (also funded by federal tax dollars) to be used for mortgage payments, rather than just monthly rent. Section 8 itself has all sorts of flaws, including its lack of a time limitation. A person can continue to receive Section 8 vouchers to pay for their mortgage for their entire life, so long as their income remains low enough. (blessed1195;60442)
In 2005 , Sen John McCain also tried to get more regulations on the agencies and was once again told by the Democrats that these GSE's were fine.
To me, this is a mark against McCain. Pieces of legislation like the CRA and government agencies like the FHA are a form of regulation. Those regulations are what caused the problem in the first place. It sounded like you felt this way earlier in your post, when you mentioned the CRA by name. The problem is that both the Democratic candidate and Republican candidate keep perpetuating this idea that more regulation is the solution. The appropriate solution would be to repeal all those existing regulations like the CRA, so that the market can correct itself. It's not that the free market didn't work. It's that the market wasn't free. People like Ron Paul predicted the housing crisis back when no one was listening.(Christina;60446)
What other choice does one have if one doesnt vote the other side will win because they are voting my vote is not for McCain as much as against Obama and his cronies. A vote for someone with no chance is the same as not voting. The other side still wins because they have the most votes. So what does one accomplish except self satisfaction at the cost of allowing the wrong side to win. And all will pay the price
As long as republicans continue to vote along party lines even if they consider the candidate to be too moderate, they are reinforcing the idea that it's ok for a candidate to be that moderate. We're at a point where a moderate republican candidate can gain more moderate-leaning democrat and independent votes than what they lose in votes from conservative republicans who will choose not to vote with their party. As a result, the entire party shifts left a bit. If this continues, the republican party may well cease to be a conservative one. So far, their official platform is still conservative. It may not always be that way.There's another way to look at it. What happens when a moderate republican gets into office, and then supports some liberal legislation that blows up in his face? Republicans get blamed for it, and more voters turn democrat. While Bush isn't entirely responsible for the housing/financial crisis, he certainly helped push the bubble to its bursting point by pushing things like ADDI. ADDI is really the type of legislation democrats are historically known for, not republicans. If you'd like a more Christian perspective on why it doesn't make sense to vote for the "lesser of evils," check out this article by Alan Keyes. It's long, but he's trying to thorough. It also includes a discussion of some of McCain's stances, most notably McCain's belief that the issue of abortion should be left up to the states. I don't agree with everything Alan Keyes says here, but he makes some great points. I myself am still undecided as to whether I will be voting for McCain or a third party.

Quote)There's another way to look at it. What happens when a moderate republican gets into office, and then supports some liberal legislation that blows up in his face? Republicans get blamed for it, and more voters turn democrat. While Bush isn't entirely responsible for the housing/financial crisis, he certainly helped push the bubble to its bursting point by pushing things like ADDI. ADDI is really the type of legislation democrats are historically known for, not republicans. (quote)Of course thats the danger I agree with you but the facts are the facts Alan Keys isnt going to be Elected and you have at least a chance with a Mod republican with letting the Liberal Dem win you dont even have a chance so again what have you gained isnt a little check and balance better than none. We can not like our choices all we want but they are the choices.

(Mel;60488)
Here's how it works. Take a regular product made in the USA, like a hamburger from McDonalds.
Most Companies In US Avoid Federal Income Tax. So, that 35% corporate tax rate is meaningless. Individuals pay four times as much income taxes as commercial sector. Additionally, employment taxes, which falls on the back of individuals, are twice what businesses pay in income taxes. Additionally, there are many billions of dollars in excise and other federal taxes which fall on the backs of individuals, not companies. So, contrary to what the Republicans are telling you, it's not federal income taxes that are causing American businesses to suffer. In simple terms, it's a lie. McCain is making no effort to change the things that do put American companies at an international disadvantage.Speaking of lies, federal income taxes is a red herring being thrown to conservatives. Under Bush, government spending has grown much more rapidly than under Clinton (even excluding the unnecessary Iraq war, and now this insane trillion+ in bailouts). McCain is worse than Bush. McCain has no interest in cutting government growth. When he tells us that he he will veto bills with pork, he's lying to our faces. McCain has lied to us about the cause of the mortgage crises. He has lied about the need for the bailout. He has even lied about the cause of the falling stock market. Not only has McCain lied and pushed for this government waste, he has done so with more effort than anyone else. One of those causes of the mortgage crises is McCain and others in Congress pushing for easy mortgages for Hispanics. McCain wants to increase Hispanic immigration to the US, and he sees promoting home ownership as a way to do it. I, for one, don't want to have my vote diluted by socialist immigrants. I don't want to have to learn Spanish. And, I don't want to pay extra taxes to subsidize them (2% of them are picking vegetables, and not paying nearly enough in taxes to make up for what they suck up). Which brings me to another lie by McCain, Hispanic immigrants are good for America.The bailout will allow this treason and looting against the American taxpayer to continue.
It also includes a discussion of some of McCain's stances, most notably McCain's belief that the issue of abortion should be left up to the states.
McCain's statements on such things as abortion and same-sex marriage are is his way of saying that he supports these abominations, knowing that most Republicans do not.Here's my deal. I'm going to vote for a true conservative and Christian, Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. I'm going to vote conservatively on every issue on the ballot and for any Republican who is not a RINO. I'm going to be relieved when Obama wins because it means that Republicans will be sent a message that they need someone who is more friendly with mainstream America if they want to win. By the time Obama figures out the office and builds some influence, Republicans will have taken over Congress and Obama's plans will come to an end. And, then in 2012, we'll have a chance to start over. If McCain wins, we'll have a traitor who signs whatever the Democrats send him. And, he'll explain each time that he didn't want to but he had to because it would be the destruction of America if he hadn't. Half the time he'll be the one pushing these treasonous bills through Congress. As America gets worse, the media will be pretending that it's all the fault of Bible-thumping conservatives. In 2012, Obama will get to run again, or someone worse. And, our Republican choice will be McCain.

People like Ron Paul predicted the housing crisis back when no one was listening.
A person after my own heart. I wish he was in this race yet.... I voted for him in the primary and he did rather well all considering....16% here.He would not have done nearly as well if he ran on the Libertarian ticket which only goes to show that the masses think by the name only like Burger King or McDonalds. I guess they aren't worthy to go to a classy restaurant and that's why we are in the mess we are in--- we do it to ourselves and blame the next guy.

(Christina;60492)
Of course thats the danger I agree with you but the facts are the facts Alan Keys isnt going to be Elected and you have at least a chance with a Mod republican with letting the Liberal Dem win you dont even have a chance so again what have you gained isnt a little check and balance better than none. We can not like our choices all we want but they are the choices.
I never said I was voting for Alan Keyes. Alan Keyes wasn't even running until less than a month ago, after losing both the republican and constitution party primaries. This does not bode well for him. I also somewhat disagree with his decision to spin off separately this year, rather than throwing his weight behind Chuck Baldwin after the constitution party primary. I don't see the differences between Chuck Baldwin and Alan Keyes being significant enough to warrant an entire additional political party. Their biggest difference seems to be their tax strategies. Alan Keyes wants to replace the federal income tax with the Fair Tax. Chuck Baldwin wants to replace all federal taxes with a tariff. Overall, the two candidates are far closer than the wide range we saw in the republican primaries.When I said I was thinking of going third party, I actually meant Chuck Baldwin. Besides, he's Ron Paul-approved. Alan Keyes is still on my list of the three candidates I'm considering, however.(Follower;60505)
Most Companies In US Avoid Federal Income Tax. So, that 35% corporate tax rate is meaningless. Individuals pay four times as much income taxes as commercial sector. Additionally, employment taxes, which falls on the back of individuals, are twice what businesses pay in income taxes.
I wasn't referring to corporate income taxes, nor do I understand why you would assume I was. The example I gave involved a hamburger costing 35 cents to produce, instead of 45 cents. Corporate income tax doesn't effect how much it costs to make a hamburger. It effects what percentage of profit the company gets to keep after they sell the hamburger. The cost to produce a hamburger is affected by payroll taxes, however. I assume this is what you are calling employment taxes. You seem to be alleging that payroll taxes are only paid by individuals, but unfortunately that is not the case. Individuals pay a portion of payroll taxes, but the majority of payroll taxes are actually paid by the corporation. I have a family member who is an accountant who deals with corporate taxes. I called him after I first read your response, to make sure I had my facts straight. He said that corporations pay a higher total percentage of payroll taxes than employees, and even more types of payroll taxes than employees pay. Employees pay two types of federal payroll taxes and one type of state payroll tax. Corporations pay three types of federal payroll taxes and one type of state payroll tax (with the state tax being a combination of two parts, in California at least). The employee and their employer both pay the exact same amount for both the social security tax and the medicare tax on the employee's wages. The corporation also has to pay both federal and state unemployment taxes, which are two separate payroll taxes. The state unemployment tax is also a combination of two different figures, at least in California. The employee has to pay state disability insurance on their wages. This tax is only calculated on the portion of an employee's wages under $8,000 a year, and has a cap of around $200 per year. When an individual files their federal tax return, their state disability amount actually counts as an itemized deduction for their federal tax liability. Overall, corporations pay somewhere in the neighborhood of 3% to 7% more payroll taxes than an employee pays. If you ignore the effect of state payroll taxes, you're talking about probably 1.5% to 3.5%. The range is due to a corporation's unemployment payroll taxes fluctuating every year depending upon how many workers they had to lay off the prior year. If the company isn't doing well and needed to lay off workers, then they are taxed more. (Hit 'em while they're down!) Since you mentioned income taxes, I'd like to discuss those as well. First, I'll address the idea that most US companies "avoid" paying federal income taxes. The study referenced by ABC is really lacking in detail. It doesn't indicate how many of those companies didn't even do business during those years. You'd be surprised how many people, like me, have officially incorporated and then never actually done business in those corporations. I'm still filing zero'd out tax returns for companies "started" years ago. There's also the high early failure rate of small businesses to consider. In an entreprenuerial class I took in college, they taught us that something like 91% of small businesses fail within their first year. Even if that was a gross exaggeration by our textbook, it's still probably true that most small businesses fail within their first year. Clearly those businesses wouldn't be having a profit.The study also doesn't indicate how many of the companies lost money each year. Having sales doesn't mean that a company actually made a profit. Look at General Motors' information for last year. They had $181 billion in sales, yet their EBIT was -$4.4 billion (a loss). Their EBIT is their sales minus their expenses (with the exception of interest expenses and income taxes). If a company's EBIT is negative, they do not pay income taxes because they made no profit. In the case of GM, they had so many loans that their net loss was -$38.7 billion after paying their interest expenses. GM is not an isolated case. The study you referenced occurred between 1998 and 2005. Consider how many dot-coms may have had a negative EBIT during that time. The study referenced by ABC doesn't really give enough data to draw a conclusive conclusion from it. That said, on to a discussion of income taxes themselves. The idea that the corporate income tax rate caps out at 35% is incredibly misleading, yet it's a number probably propagated by the presidential candidates due to it being easier to understand. Most corporations are subject to tax brackets, just like we are as individuals. Personal Service Corporations (PSC) are subject to a flat 35% income tax, even if they only make a single dollar of profit. A regular C corporation or other company is classified as a PSC required to pay the flat tax, if at least 95% of employee time is spent within eight categories of services. These services are health, law, engineering, architecture, accounting, actuarial science, performing arts, and consulting. So really it doesn't matter unless your corporation has a bunch of nurses, doctors, accountants, engineers, lawyers, actors, architects, scientists, etc. Sure sounds like a number of non-manufacturing and non-retail companies might fall under this flat tax.While 35% is the rate for the top corporate income bracket, it is not the highest rate. If a company makes $15 million to $18.3 million in profit, they are taxed at 38% instead. If a company makes $100,000 to $335,000 in profit, they are taxed at 39% instead. You can see the full chart here. The federal corporate income tax is just one of the taxes that falls under that category. The federal government also adds an additional 15% tax on top of the income tax, if the corporation retains their profits rather than distributing those profits to shareholders. This is the Accumulated Earnings Tax. Regular corporations have to pay this on any accumulated taxable income over $250,000 (or $150,000 for PSCs). The intent is to encourage corporations to issue dividends to their shareholders. Dividends, however, are subject to double-taxation. After a corporation pays its corporate income tax on profits and then issues dividends to shareholders, those shareholders then pay personal income taxes on those same dividends.Personal Holding Companies (PHCs) are also subject to an additional 15% federal tax on top the federal income tax, if they don't distribute the profit. A corporation is considered a PHC if over 60% of its income is due to personal holding income (mainly investments such as rent, dividends, annuities, license fees) and if at least 50% of the company is owned by five or less individuals. The tax law is incredibly long, as you know. I'm not going to bore you with details on all the ways corporations actually pay more than 35% federal tax on their income. I'm just trying to show that if a company chooses to keep their profit, they're probably paying over 50% in federal taxes on it. That doesn't even include state income taxes, which are around 11% here in California. If your statement is true about individuals' employment taxes being twice what corporations pay in income tax, then individuals are actually paying the government more than what they're being paid! Wow, I've only addressed the first third of your first paragraph so far. I guess I just felt the need to be thorough since you felt the need to use the word "lie" (or its derivatives) eight times in your post. I know you weren't accusing me of lying, but you were saying that my beliefs are a lie. I will gladly provide even more detail than I already have on these topics, if you are interested.(Follower;60505)
Additionally, there are many billions of dollars in excise and other federal taxes which fall on the backs of individuals, not companies.
You mentioned federal excise taxes by name. Individuals aren't the only ones who pay federal excise taxes. Here's an article about Congress ending the long distance phone excise tax after the government was sued by Ford Motor Company, Amtrak, and some other companies. The companies sued because the wording of the excise tax made it illegal for the government to continue to enforce the 100+ year old tax. Companies are not exempt from excise taxes. They have to pay all those airline excise taxes for their business travellers, just like you and I pay them.Some excise-type fees are almost exclusively paid by companies. Regular broadcast radio stations have to pay FCC regulatory fees. Since individuals don't typically own radio stations or advertise on them, these fees are usually paid by corporations. The FCC regulatory fees on various communications companies amounts to a $269 million tax on that one industry this year. There are a myriad of other excise taxes and fees just like this, such as the federal excise tax on vehicles weighing over 55,000 lbs (mainly 18-wheelers, buses, and other large trucks used by companies). Let me know if you'd like more examples.(Follower;60505)
So, contrary to what the Republicans are telling you, it's not federal income taxes that are causing American businesses to suffer. In simple terms, it's a lie. McCain is making no effort to change the things that do put American companies at an international disadvantage.
I'm not sure what you mean by "international disadvantage." Are you referring to a trade deficit? Are you referring to certain types of business (like call centers) relocating outside the United States?

(tim_from_pa;60551)
A person after my own heart. I wish he was in this race yet.... I voted for him in the primary and he did rather well all considering....16% here.
Ron Paul has endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.
He would not have done nearly as well if he ran on the Libertarian ticket which only goes to show that the masses think by the name only like Burger King or McDonalds.
That's a good way to put it.