October 11, 2012 10:46PM
Updated: November 13, 2012 6:07AM
Obama sold his soul first
Roderick Padilla’s Sept. 21 column, “Romney owes soul to billionaire backers,” was an attack on the integrity of Mitt Romney, without mentioning the fact that President Barack Obama sold his soul to billionaire backers first.
Padilla made some sweeping assumptions and unsubstantiated attacks on some of America’s free enterprise corporations. Doing business with the government does not mean you’re a crook. Everyone knows the office of government procurement is usually the place where fraud originates.
Many of the corporations Padilla links, in a shady way, to Romney are reputable and supply valuable products and services, unlike Solindra, the Obama contributor who went bankrupt after receiving a $500 million taxpayer loan. Padilla accuses Marriott Hotels of hiring illegals. I’d like to see some proof.
Of course it’s a moot point, since Illinois welcomes and shelters illegals, living here at taxpayers’ expense. Obama hopes they will vote in November.
Padilla, where do you think Obama got his billion dollar campaign fund from, his fairy godmother? Here’s a few of Obama’s corporate donors from 2008 election data:
Goldman Sachs, $1,013,091 (bailed out, $10 billion); Microsoft Corp., $852,167; Google Inc., $814,540; J. P. Morgan Chase, $808,799 (bailed out, $25 billion); Citigroup Inc., $736,771 (bailed out, $45 billion); Time Warner, $624,618; National Amusements Inc., $563,798; Skadden, Arps et al (law firm and lobbyist), $543,539; UBS AG (Swiss banking), $532,674; IBM, $532,372; General Electric, $529,855; U.S. government, $513,308; Morgan Stanley, $512,232 (bailed out, $10 billion).
It’s great to expose government corruption and waste but Padilla failed to do that with his biased opinion piece.
Wayne Matulis
New Lenox
It’s class warfare
There seems to be some confusion in the recent national discussion about taxes, with many believing the tax rates need to be raised on the rich to pay for more social programs, create jobs and close the gap between how much money the government collects and how much it spends.
Raising taxes would seem to be a good solution to the government’s need for more revenue. However, the effects of taxation can be very dynamic. If you look at the result of tax cuts over the past few decades, you would notice revenues actually increased each time the tax rates decreased. It seems lowering taxes spurs economic activity, businesses have more money to invest — to grow their businesses and hire more workers.
President Barack Obama has resisted eliminating the Bush-era tax cuts, citing the disastrous effects a tax hike would have on our fragile economy. He knows raising taxes has a negative effect — not only on those being taxed, but on the average wage-earner, as well.
So, why does the president continue to promise so called equity to all, by making the rich pay more taxes?
And, it’s not just Obama. The issue of taxing the rich has been the mantra of the Democratic Party for time immemorial. Statistics would tend to show that increased tax rates hurt everyone, dragging down the economy, killing jobs and bringing less revenue into the government coffers.
I understand the appeal of shifting the tax burden onto someone else’s shoulders. The more I can make someone else pay, the better off I should be. The idea is very appealing, but the premise is just as false as it is appealing. While I would like to think otherwise, I am afraid it all boils down to class warfare.
David Erzinger
Elwood
It’s not all about you
A letter that recently caught my eye was written by Claris Van Kuiken, New Lenox, titled: “Our Freedom is at Stake,” (Sept. 16). In this letter, Ms. Van Kuiken asks, “How many people, I wonder, vote without researching and understanding what and whom they’re voting for?” And at the conclusion of her letter, she challenges us to research the United Nations Agenda 21. So I did.
Agenda 21 is a proposition that aspires to not only save our planet, but actually reverse the damages caused by humanity. Below is an abbreviated press summary.
From the Aug., 1992 United Nations Department of Public Information: “In Dec., 1989, the United Nations General Assembly called for a global meeting that would devise strategies to halt and reverse the effects of environmental degradation … Agenda 21 was adopted by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development on 14 June 1992 … Underlying Agenda 21 is the notion that humanity has reached a defining moment in its history …
… We can improve the living standards of those who are in need. We can better manage and protect the ecosystem and bring about a more prosperous future for us all.”
I would like to know how conserving oil, recycling trash, finding alternative energy sources, conserving water, cleaning our air, reducing poverty and addressing world hunger is a bad thing? President George H. W. Bush signed Agenda 21 in 1992! I’m thankful to those who have championed Agenda 21, and to you, Ms. Van Kuiken, who have challenged me to research it.
I suggest you and other radical right-wing conservatives, stop thinking about yourselves. It’s not about you! It’s about all of us. And please choose another news outlet besides Fox News! You’ll be better informed.
Ken Yanko
Joliet
