You know something is afoot whenever you hear any tax-and-spend liberal talking about tax cuts.  While Obama has proposed a tax cut for 95% of Americans, the Republicans have not him at all for the obvious.  It's an illusion.  You cannot raise spending by $1 trillion over 4 years and not raise taxes.  He's proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the 5% of Americans, but demagoguery seems to always go unanswered in politics.  The other catch is that 40% of Americans do not pay taxes.  That means they will be getting government handouts, which cannot be coined as anything but welfare and redistribution of wealth, although Obama has called it tax credits.

Here's the WSJ article on the issue:

"Obama's 95% Illusion"
Editorial
The Wall Street Journal
October 13, 2008

One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.

The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.

It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.

There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.

Of course, the McCain campaign has let a lot of things slip in this campaign.  How and why they have not attacked the obviously socialist rhetoric of Obama is beyond comprehension.  Maybe it is because McCain has also been joining the parade of socialist government.  See the housing bailout.

        

Here's the video:


Libs claim that these stories are distractions from the real issues.  Actually, they are right.  These stories distract us from protecting the free market and individual liberty, but that's Obama's fault, and that's the problem.

        

Here are the videos:




I would expect the heat to come on thickly with more of these types of ads as we get closer to November 4.  Maybe the Media will ask questions about Obama's past?  Doubtful.

        

Here's the video:



You mean the Messiah from Hope and Change, Illinois lies?  One of those scenes was from the first Presidential forum in which Obama denied having supported withholding medical care from infants who have the misfortune to have survived a botched abortion.  His campaign had to admit the next day that it was the folks who were lying but The One.  That's change you can count on.

        

Here's the video:



I'm sure CNN did this report very enthusiastically.  The question is why it took so long to get to this report.  I think we all know why.  Also, if it's true that this relationship is not an issue, then why is Obama working so hard to suppress knowledge of the relationship?

        

Here are the videos:





So, he didn't write a blurb about Bill Ayers' book.  Maybe that's true.  He actually wrote a review of the book.

FLASHBACK: In 1997, Barack Obama Wrote A Review Of A Book By Bill Ayers

In 1997, Barack Obama Wrote A Review Of Bill Ayers Book. "Barack Obama State senator ... A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court by William Ayers (Beacon Press) 'A searing and timely account of the juvenile court system, and the courageous individuals who rescue hope from despair.'"

So, Obama didn't know about Wright, didn't know about Ayers.  Just what does Obama know?

        

First, here's the video:


Here's the fact check, though:

FACT CHECK: Axelrod Has Said Ayers And Obama Are "Certainly Friendly," And The Obama Campaign Has NEVER BEFORE SAID Obama Didn't Know Ayers' Radical And Violent History -- But Has Referred To Him As "Respected Advisor" To Chicago Mayor

When Politico First Reported On Obama's 1995 Meeting At William Ayers' Home Reportedly Launching His Campaign, The Obama Campaign Never Said He Didn't Know Ayers' Radical History. "In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district's influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they're better known nationally as two of the most notorious -- and unrepentant -- figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement. ... I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers' house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,' said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the informal gathering at the home of A yers and his wife, Dohrn. [Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.' Obama's campaign dismisses the notion that his relationship with Ayers should be seen through the lens of the latter's violent past, or his present lack of regret for the bombings. ... He described Ayers as a professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago and a former aide to Mayor Richard J. Daley,' referring to printed reports that he had "advised" Daley on school reform. Dr. Young and another guest, Maria Warren, described it similarly: as an introduction to Hyde Park liberals of the handpicked successor to Palmer, a well-regarded figure on the left. When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn,' Warren wrote on her blog in 2005. They were launching him -- introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.'" (Ben Smith, "Obama Once Visited 60s Radicals," The Politico, 1/22/08)

When Senator Hillary Clinton Made Similar Attack, Obama Campaign NEVER Made Argument That He Didn't Know About Obama's Radical And Violent Past. (Obama For America, "Fact Check On Obama And Ayers, factcheck.barackobama.com, 4/17/08)

Obama Campaign Argued That Ayers Was "Respected Advisor" To Chicago Mayor Daley, And That "Charges Against Ayers Were Dropped And He Served No Time." (Obama For America, "Fact Check On Obama And Ayers, factcheck.barackobama.com, 4/17/08)

Axelrod Has Previously Said Obama And Ayers Are "Certainly Friendly." AXELROD: "They're certainly friendly, they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school together." (Ben Smith, "Ax On Ayers," www.politico.com, 2/26/08)

Two Years After Meeting Ayers, Obama Published "Rave Review" Of Ayers' Book In The Chicago Tribune, And Jointly Appeared On Academic Panels Together. "The two men were involved in efforts to reform the city's education system. They appeared together on academic panels, including one organized by Michelle Obama to discuss the juvenile justice system, an area of mutual concern. Mr. Ayers's book on the subject won a rave review in The Chicago Tribune by Mr. Obama, who called it a searing and timely account.'" (Jo Becker and Christopher Drew, "Pragmatic Politics, Forged On The South Side," The New York Times, 5/11/08)

Soon this line of attack will be a racist, smear campaign as well.  At least, according to the Messiah and his sheeplet disciples.

        

Here's the video:



Of course, we're at the point in the election when any criticism will become racist.  The Democrats have tried to spin their anti-surge positions and use the success of the surge to their advantage, saying even George Bush supports their position now.  The truth is we wouldn't be where we are to even spin it that way without the surge.  How sick are these people?

        

Here's the video:



It is somewhat funny to hear liberals running around acting like conservatives.  "I'm gonna cut taxes, cut spending, etc."  Or is that just their shift to the middle until inauguration day?  Then will the massive spending and taxes begin?

        

Here's the video:



I have to say that is an effective ad.  I just wish Palin would have been able to fact check him on stage, but I realize that is a difficult thing to do.

Update:

Biden apparently mentioned a restaurant in Delaware that has been closed for years.

"Joe gives Delaware shout-outs | 10:49 PM

During the debate, Joe Biden gave several Delaware shout-outs, including Wilmington's Union Street...

Maybe, I heard this wrong, or misunderstood, but I think he mentioned Katie's restaurant......

Wilmington used to have a Katie's restaurant - way back in the day - and it was in Little Italy, as is Union Street, but I'm almost positive Katie's wasn't on Union Street.

And it hasn't been Katie's in, well, years. Maybe he said Kozy's - as in Kozy Korner?"

Oh, say it ain't so, Joe!