A No Jobs Bill And Occupy Wall St. Since We Don't Occupy Working

Unlike most of the media I've taken my time and let things play out for awhile before taking on President Obama's no-jobs bill and the Socialize Wall St. protests. Before we get into that I'd just like to say I'm glad Gaddafi is dead but, like Egypt, maybe we should pay closer attention to whose going to be in charge now. Egypt is in many ways worse now than when Mubarak was in office and the peace with Israel he at least maintained is all but shattered. If Libya ends up following the same path then you can expect the media to do what it's done with Egypt, ignore the story. Think about it, have you heard much about Egypt since Mubarak's fall on the news? Maybe you should start wondering why. Enough about that now let's move on.

I'm going to focus on two things here. One is the bogus so called jobs bill Obama is trying to fear-monger us into passing. The other is the Occupy Wall St. protests that have broken out over the last few weeks. I'm also going to show you an example of how typically well-meaning but misinformed Liberals are falling for the misrepresentations of the protesters.

Let's start with the so called jobs bill. I'd like to start with the name and give you an example of how names can be deceiving. Just because it's called a jobs bill doesn't mean it'll do squat for jobs, just because it's a stimulus bill doesn't mean it'll stimulate anything, and just because it's a health care bill doesn't mean it'll fix problems within the health care system. The devil is always in the details and that's why the bills are so often made into difficult to understand, multi-thousand page messes sold to us under the pretext that if we don't pass it there will be all kinds of catastrophe.

What if I proposed a bill called the Care For The Homeless and End Homelessness Now Act. Sounds great doesn't it? I'd get to demonize anyone who criticized this bill as not having any compassion for the homeless and would make sure that it was some 2,000 page mess that nobody could understand. What if you found out that on page 1575, section 7, sub-section 3, line 6-Aa it said that the plan included shooting homeless people in the head and disposing of the bodies to get them off of the streets? Well, the bill would take care of the homeless wouldn't it? However, all of a sudden it doesn't look so good despite the feel good name I gave it. This is the king of scrutiny we need to start giving all of these so called jobs bills regardless of the feel good name associated with it.

President Obama is giving us the same old BS he gave us when he pushed for the stimulus bill. We'll have to fire teachers, there won't be any cops, we'll have no firefighters, more will fall into poverty, etc. Keep in mind these are the same people who called Bush a fear monger over terrorism related issues. Aren't they playing the same game with all of these catastrophic scenarios being presented regarding what will happen if we don't pass the bills they ask for? How is it any different? You may believe that Bush did this with the issue of terrorism and that's fine if it's your opinion, but doesn't Obama seem to use that tactic with everything? Whether it's health care, jobs, education, or any other aspect of our economy in general. Despite 3 years of absolute failure with regard to economics, (who saw that coming), all of a sudden you're expected to think that this magic Obama fix is just what we need.

Take Joe Bidens warning about rapes and murders increasing without the jobs bill, (talk about fear-mongering).

"Murder will continue to rise. Rape will continue to rise. All crime will continue to rise." - Joe Biden

Let's take this quote seriously for a moment because there is truth here but you have to know how to analyze it. It's true that in times of recession and depression crime increases. It's natural to understand that as people become more hopeless and desperate many turn to crime. You've probably heard the story of famous robbers Bonnie and Clyde who robbed banks during the depression and were eventually gunned down by police in May of 1934.

During the early years of the Great Depression after the crash of 1929 the banks were in trouble as you'd probably expect. If a bank was robbed in the early 1930's it pretty much meant the collapse of the bank. Protection from bank failure gave rise to the FDIC in the wake of such problems. The FDIC didn't really take effect until after the robberies of Bonnie and Clyde and because of that banks that got robbed were pretty much screwed at the time. As a result so too were the people whose money was invested in that bank. Perhaps the Wall Street protesters who aren't full blown Socialists and Communists might want to remember that in the wake of their calls to collapse the system.

Now back to Biden's comments. If you want to deter crime it's no surprise that having a capable police force is important. An even bigger deterrent though is stability within ones own life. If you have a job, can pay you're bills, and live at least a somewhat comfortable middle class-esque life then the chances of you turning to crime are fairly low.

This is important because it shows that jobs are a good deterrent to crime as is a healthy economy. This again must make you wonder why Obama has spent the last 3 years only pretending to care about jobs and he's proving that by trying to sell this new jobs bill exactly as he tried to sell the last one called stimulus.

The truth of the matter though is that President Obama has absolutely no interest in creating jobs and he never did. His supporters will of course call me crazy for insisting that and say I'm wrong so I'll have to go a bit more into detail than that. That leads us to the protesters involved in Occupy Wall St.

Obama hates capitalism, that much is pretty obvious. The problem is that when the economy is good it's hard to get people to rise up against it. This is why, despite the clear signs of looming recession from the day Obama took office he's made few, if any, historically right moves on turning this recession around. From bailouts, started by Bush, then massively continued by Obama, to focusing on health care, to emphasizing spending money rather than making money. Almost every move Obama has made has been designed to prolong the recession rather than reversing it. The question is why?

Occupy Wall St. is why. We hear the cries about how capitalism has failed but the truth is that America hasn't acted capitalist in quite some time. Capitalist countries don't bail out bad business. Capitalist countries don't focus on growing government employment rather than private sector employment. After all, the government doesn't have money, it only takes and spends money. Every government paycheck comes from money taken out of private sector paychecks.

Obama needed people to believe capitalism is a failure and that explains most of his economic actions since taking office despite the obvious proof that it's condemned more people to poverty and government dependence than ever before. The fact that more people rely on food stamps than ever before throughout the history of the program is a good example of this.

I'd like to show you something. It's a debate I had with a friend of mine who is a die-hard liberal and supports the protests. I've edited only bits and pieces for the sake of privacy etc. but this is very telling about how misguided some people have become.

"The cops have been attacking these people clubbing them and if you haven't noticed they have been peaceful from the very start what they are doing represents how a free society functions and its directly related to our constitution. When the government infringes upon individual rights it is the right of the people to alter and abolish it. The fact that right wing media like fox news is attacking this so much while supporting the tea party is so revealing of corporate dominance in our society and is a reminder why this has become so big because we're sick and tired of the nonsense.

This isn't collapsing America, America has been collapsing since ever since Reagan granted corporations with the rights of people literally taking the rights from people and giving them to business instead to ensure that the private sector is protected and the hell with everyone (including you) who makes it all possible. This is about what America has turned into in the last 30 years and America has been collapsing because government has been owned by people like Soros and Sachs so this isn't about collapsing America its about saving it you think its just some stupid radical stoner movement no these are people of all walks of life with genuine concern and its true patriotism these people care about the country, they care about the citizens and they want to put an end to the political gangsterism and these are things you care about too, Ive heard you mention all these things lobbyists, bonus' for executives and for the (*name edited out) while regular workers wages stagnate and yet your so brainwashed by business propaganda like from (*name edited) that you shoot yourself in the foot your against the general population and support a tiny fraction of the population of which you will most likely never be a part of.

Makes no sense Brandon, you gotta re read your history and from the point of view other than those who have unlimited wealth and power over you. These movements aren't about destroying all of wallstreet or doing away with capitalism completely its about enabling the decision making process to be of the people. Isn't that what a free society is supposed to be;of the people by the people and for the people, you know that's not what it currently is and if that's what you really think than that's just silly of you.

If you knew your history you would know whats happened to our politics in the last 30 years is exactly what Thomas Jefferson warned about and is in fact his worst nightmare that has come true. I'm absolutely thrilled that this is happening I hoped that it would happen within my lifetime and now its happening just within weeks and globally.. amazing. Its reminiscent of the movements in the 60 in which our culture was significantly civilized and improved thanks to activists. If you disagree with that then you admittedly taking sides with the racists who opposed civil rights, you take sides with the chauvinism that opposed feminism, the greed that opposed better working conditions for workers and so on.

By opposing this movement which is similar you are siding with the very same fascists that opposed the cultural revolution of the 60s and if so you certainly should never try and champion someone like Martin Luther King because that would be completely hypocritical this is Martin Luther Kings struggle his dream never came true but it could now. I would hope that people would want to tell their children someday that they were on the side of those who made America a more free society."

These are the kinds of debates I get into with Liberals all the time and I'd like to point out that this is a friend of mine whom I actually get along with very well. We just obviously see the world through very different ideological lenses. The truth is that there are many on the left who see things very similarly, but they are being used by those with much more nefarious purposes. The radicals are using people who think in this way to achieve an agenda far more dangerous to America than most realize. He went on to say that he meant Paulson, not Soros. He also added:

"Oh yeah I forgot .. a couple days ago a cop drove into a guy with a motorbike.. I just think its incredible that (name edited) and others are making these people out to be savages while the police are being unnecessarily brutal and theres no outrage about that."

I began my reply with this.

"Actually soros is more accurate, George Soros made over 7 billion dollars last year, why aren't they protesting him? Because he funds much of these movements. He's also using his hedge funds to try and collapse the system which will leave him rich and the rest of us poor. GE paid no taxes under Obama, why aren't they protesting GE?"

And ended with this: (*I left out only some of the beginning again because of names):

"Van Jones and others behind this movement openly talk about hating the cops and supported cop killers back in the 60's as they do now, remember the compassion for Tookie Williams? Of course not. What's happening is the protesters are antagonizing the cops, unlike the tea parties, and forcing a reaction from the cops. Then the edited video of only the cops actions are filmed and spread over the Internet in order to gain undeserved sympathy for the rowdy protesters. The Constitution grants the freedom to peaceful protests. Pay attention to the capital letters here.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1 - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You have the right to peacefully assemble, but you don't have the right to turn parks into sewers, (which is true of the wall st protests), you don't have the right to disrupt non-protesters right to live in peace, which is true of anyone who lives there. You don't have the right to antagonize police and block roads etc because the Constitution itself notes that protests must be peaceable. Protests like the Wall St. ones turn into riots because of those who don't understand that the right to protest also includes the need to maintain order and peace and that responsibility falls on the protester, when they fail in that responsibility then it is the responsibility of the cops to maintain order, don't forget that. The police are being set up by those in this protest who aren't peaceful and people like you are falling for it.

You say that America started collapsing when Reagan blah blah but this is again and as usual false. Corporate lobbying is where corporations really started controlling individual politicians and therefore began getting favor within the law and that's true of both sides. Do you know when Lobbying started? Probably not so I'll tell you, it was under Liberal hero FDR in the 30's and FDR started using certain aspects of the new deal government bureaus to benefit political allies. This was done using things like the WPA to benefit unions. The problem is that you don't learn things like that in school anymore because you're too busy learning falsehoods about big bad evil Reagan.

Your thoughts about corporate political gangsterism aren't unfounded but the problem rests in what you support not what I support. The problem is that you believe that all businesses are bad and that everyone on wall st is bad, or that nobody who created something and became rich deserves to keep their money. Logically that argument can't be true. There are workers on wall st, many in fact, that aren't corrupt. There are many businesses that aren't corrupt, you are condemning many who aren't guilty for the actions of a few, how is that liberal? What about due process, do liberals no longer believe in the right to a fair trial?

If you believe a business is bad or a Wall St. investor is guilty of something then why aren't there trials. Why haven't people like you who want the rich to "pay their fair share" called for an investigation into GE by Obama for paying nothing in taxes this year? There is video of actual antisemitic rhetoric against jews from the wall st protesters, where's the outrage from the left?

The tea parties were called racist by folks like you even thought there was absolutely no video evidence to back it up. (*name edited), like it or not, has actually showed racism in the wall st protests and yet you proudly support the movement. Let's say that there was a racist at the tea parties, why was it ok for the left to condemn the entire movement as a racist movement, like Janine Gerofolo did, because of the unproven actions of the few. Under that rational wouldn't I be justified in calling everyone in this protest a racist because of the actual racist video I've seen. If not, then Liberals are hypocrites, if yes then they are racist, you can decide.

You think that collapsing capitalism will return power to the people. How can you honestly believe that? You are promoting giving all of the power to left wing politicians. Do you honestly think that giving all of the power you say corporations have to a handful of politicians will be better. You say that I support those who have all of this power over me but again this isn't true. Corporations don't control me but why is it that I'm calling for letting bad businesses fail and it's the left that was supporting bailing them out. No Liberal, including you, have been able to answer that. I say let bad businesses fail and good businesses will pick up the slack, you support bailing them out and keeping them closely tied to political favors through those who bailed them out. I'm not on the side of corporate corruption, you are.

You're also right about it being reminiscent of the 60's because it's many of the same radicals behind the movement that were calling for communism in the 60's like Francis Fox Piven, Van Jones, and Cornel West. They are perverting the message of Martin Luther King and it's sad that you're falling for that. I set the message straight about Martin Luther King but apparently you need a refresher. Martin Luther King wanted people to be given an equal chance, not equal possessions. Taking from someone who has actually honestly earned everything they have, like Bill Gates, and giving it to people who've done nothing but think they expect it isn't a message of equal opportunity, it's a message of oppression. Half of the country pay no income tax and the rich pay most of it. That's a fact ignored by those on your side laughably calling for equality.

At the same time it's the left wing socialist policies of Obama that have pushed millions more into poverty, as always happens with socialism if you'd actually study accurate history. Twist facts all you want if it makes you feel better but the facts are undebatable. Under Ronald Reagan millions came out of poverty and under Obama millions have fallen into it.

Have you heard about Florida's drug testing? The left was against this as well. Florida passed a law that says if you want to get welfare etc. you have to pass drug tests. I hope you think this makes sense as I do. Why should we pay for druggies to live for free thus giving them more money for drugs? HALF OF THE PEOPLE REFUSED TO SHOW UP FOR THE DRUG TESTS AND WELFARE THEREFORE WAS REDUCED BY HALF. This further proves something Conservatives have been saying forever to be true.

Liberals always claim to support civil rights, who opposed the rights of women to vote? Liberal Woodrow Wilson, Republican Theodore Roosevelt supported them. Who opposed the civil rights act of 1957 that would have given rights to blacks before the movement of Martin Luther King? Liberal LBJ who filibustered it in the Senate even though that history is ignored and he's instead given a pass because of the civil rights act of 1964.

Who supported the Nazi movement in the 20's? College campuses and other liberal groups including socialist and racist groups like unions and the KKK, (also started by Democrats by the way).

Who supported the oppressive Ayatollah Khomeni in the Iranian revolution of 1979 leading the the oppressive regime currently in power there? Socialist and Communist groups, which is why the regime currently supports this wall st protest because they also want to collapse America. The Nazi's in Egypt support occupy Wall St. The communist Chinese support occupy wall st, Vladimir Putin of Russia supports occupy wall st, the Iranian regime supports occupy wall st. That's all the evidence I need not to. Be a useful pawn with your refusal to face the facts if you insist but you're right that one day we will have to explain to our children where we stood and why. I'll know where I stood and why. I'll be proud of my answer and show them where I stood. Are you really sure you'll be able to say the same?

Fun as always."

For the record, my figure about half in Florida failed to show up is incorrect, however, it was 1,600 out of about 8,600, which is still a very good reason to support the drug testing for welfare.

As for other facts, Woodrow Wilson was elected in 1912 and again in 1916, women didn't receive the right to vote until 1920.

As far as the Civil Rights Act of 1957, you may not even know such a thing existed but you should read this. Especially this part:

The Democratic Senate leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, which was at the time made up of anti-civil rights and pro-civil rights members. Johnson sent the bill to the judiciary committee led by Senator James Eastland, an anti-civil rights senator from Mississippi. Eastland changed and altered the bill almost beyond recognition after the very public outburst by Senator Richard Russell from Georgia who claimed that it was an example of the Federal government wanting to impose its laws on states. Johnson sought recognition from the civil rights advocates for passing the bill while also receiving recognition from the mostly southern anti-civil rights Democrats for "killing the bill.

Funny what you can learn when you study accurate history, huh?

Pro Nazi rallies in the U.S. in the 30's?!! Yes. Remember, Hitler himself called the Nazi Party the "National Socialist" they were socialists, not conservatives, take that historians.

As for some of the others:

Here's some good old fashioned Nazi support for Occupy Wall St. Check it out.

"It has been pointed out to me that many protesters are non-white and/or “communists.” Well my answer to that is: “WHO CARES?!” They are against the same evil, corrupted, degenerate capitalist elitists that WE are against! Instead of screaming, “6 million more!” The pro-white movementites should be JOINING this Occupy movement and supporting it!"

What about China? Here.

"When Occupy Wall Street first happened, the Chinese government perceived this movement as a big victory for communism over capitalism," said Wen Yunchao, a prominent Chinese blogger based in Hong Kong

Russia also likes the Occupy Wall St movement because it helps make Communism appear to be a more mainstream ideology. Good job protestors.

Then we, of course, have Iran. The Ayatollah Khomeni supports Occupy Wall St. because it symbolizes bringing down the U.S. even if many mainstream Liberals deny that to be true.

I suppose I've said enough. Feel free to look up the racist comments from the protests on youtube if you want and remember what was said about the tea party movement. At least Nancy Pelosi isn't crying anymore. Of course she cried claiming there was violence when there wasn't any. Now there actually is violence and she's cool with it.

Believe me if you want but I've said enough. Line up with the sheeple and ignore the truth if it makes you feel better. I've done my part to show the truth, it's up to you to accept it. Watch out though, word on the street is that I'm a dangerous right winger. If the weapon you fear is the truth then I'm glad to be criticized by those who don't even realize how dangerous what they are trying to accomplish truly is. Thanks for sticking around until the end, see you next time.

Read more...

Another Debate

Mitt Romney and Rick Perry suck and Republicans would be fools to listen to the media and nominate either one of these sucky candidates. Now that you're paying attention let's get into the first issue on the agenda today, the last debate for the Republicans on October 18 in Nevada.

Of course as usual a good chunk of the debate focused on attacking Herman Cain's "9-9-9" tax plan. The reasons for this is obvious, it's simple and whether or not you support the plan one thing that's obvious is that most people understand it because of it's simplicity. Understanding the plan is one of the biggest reasons why it's so supported. After all, do you really understand Romney's 59 point plan or the tens of thousands of pages that currently make up our existing tax code?

Also, as usual Mitt Romney took a good deal of heat regarding his support of Romneycare in Massachusetts. Romney pointed out a statistic that I think most people are misunderstanding the significance of. Romney stated, "3 to 1 in Mass like the plan". Now, why is that significant? First of all I don't believe that's accurate but if it is then we can't forget that Mass is also nearly 3 to 1 Democrat to Republican. Congratulations Mitt, Democrats in Massachusetts love the big government plan you enacted here. The 3 to 1 statistic you champion should be a red flag to Republicans that you shouldn't be the nominee for the party. We'll see if Republicans realize that in the end, the recent rise of Herman Cain gives a glimmer of hope that Republicans are paying attention to who seems like the better candidate as opposed to who looks the most presidential.

Gingrich also nailed Romney with some facts about his big government plan here in Mass but Romney then hit back with Newt and the Heritage foundation's previous support of mandates during the Hillarycare debate back in the 90's. While it's no surprise at this point that Newt and Herman Cain are the dream ticket for me personally that criticism deserves to be looked at. However, one thing I find fascinating about criticism of Newt Gingrich is that it all stems from things that happened over 10 years ago.

All of Newt's actions in the last 10 years and throughout most of his lengthy career are positive and his knowledge and debate skill stands second to none. Sarah Palin after the debate also stated that she'd like to see Newt get the nomination because of how embarrassing for Obama a debate would be. It's also worth mentioning that Newt has challenged Obama to the "Lincoln-Douglas standard" of seven, 3 hour debates with no moderator. Obama would be a fool to accept that challenge as Newt would destroy Obama with history and facts but unfortunately he may not have to because Newt faces such an uphill climb in the run for the nomination. One positive thing though is Herman Cain's rise. Herman Cain said in a previous debate as a hypothetical that Newt would be his pick for vice so if Herman Cain manages to secure the nomination against the mainstream media's wishes then the ticket I support could also become a reality and we can say bye bye Biden and Obama. I'd just like to repeat that Perry and Romney suck.

Speaking of Perry let's focus on him for a second. His presidential prospects are all but over because of his immigration stances. To be fair most presidents suck when it comes to securing the border because they are so afraid of backlash within the Latino vote. In fact, I used to have a Bush/Cheney '04 sticker on my bumper until a speech where Bush pretty much stated that he'd do nothing about the border and immigration. Newsmax magazine reported a few years back that Bush's "virtual fence" of sensors etc. was all but a complete failure and that's what Perry seems to be pushing for more of. The problem is getting more dangerous as the various gangs and even terrorist organizations now realize that planes aren't our weakness, our political correctness and failures on our own border are.

On immigration Rick Perry claimed that a fence was impossible because it would take, "10 - 15 years and 30 billion dollars". Of all people it was then Michelle Bachmann who pointed out that benefits, incarceration, etc. for illegals currently cost much more than that. That was one aspect of why Perry called for more technology but as I said before so far that hasn't worked.

Here's another point about immigration and while it hits Perry more than most other candidates the point you are about to read you've probably never seen before. Think of this since the politicians from both sides won't get you to.

We've been told for years that we need illegals here to do the jobs Americans won't do, right? If that's the case then why do we push so hard for educating illegals and giving them breaks on getting into college, as Perry has done in Texas with in-state tuition? Wouldn't giving illegals a college education then qualify them for the jobs Americans would do? Think about that one and good luck ever getting a politician who supports illegal immigration, (or is soft on it), to answer that question.

There was a question asked about "anchor babies" and the 14th amendment of the Constitutions:

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 14 - section 1:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Herman Cain and Rick Perry deflected the answers to this question and began talking about jobs instead. Here's the answer that should be given and that I would give, politicians are too afraid to say this.

The 14th amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868. At that time, there was no food stamps, no medicaid, no welfare, no in-state tuition. Anchor babies are a problem in this country. The 14th amendment was never intended to draw illegals to get pregnant and run across the border to have a baby, (not to mention that all hospital care related to that birth will be paid for by taxpayers), just so that baby can be a U.S. citizen and you can then stay and collect benefits. This should stop and we wouldn't have to repeal the entire 14th amendment just propose a simple new amendment to change only the first sentence of the 14th amendment to this:

"All persons born to United States citizens or naturalized citizens in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Of course, this will never be done or even proposed but it'd be interesting to see the amount of support it would gain. That said my thoughts of the candidates haven't changed due to this recent debate.

Romney and Perry still suck and can't be trusted to maintain a Conservative message and policies.

Santorum is pretty good on social issues but unelectable and likely not good enough in debates to really take Obama to the cleaners. Also his refusal to take a serious look at cuts we could do within the military that would eliminate waste and not harm national security doesn't match reality.

Ron Paul's foreign policy views, while much of it does face reality, his support of cutting aid to Israel and other true allies and isolationist foreign policy make him typically unelectable within the Republican Party.

John Huntsman jr. and Gary Johnson....wait, who? Yeah, exactly, forget about them.

Michelle Bachmann is a fantastic congresswoman and is very likable among Conservatives but I'm sorry she lacks the experience and knowledge to be president, (It's nothing personal but it's the truth).

Herman Cain is great and the only reason that I'd rather see him as vice president instead of president is because of his lack of foreign policy experience. That could be learned throughout a term or two as VP thus making him ready for the top slot after serving as VP.

Newt Gingrich is clearly my pick for President. His knowledge of history and foreign policy issues are the only reason I'd prefer him to Cain at the top of the ticket. Republicans should wake up and make Gingrich/Cain the ticket. This would not only make the defeat of Obama and Biden, (you know a debate between Cain and Biden would be fun to watch but Cain would have to put some emphasis on researching foreign policy issues more), all but certain but the debate between Gingrich and Obama would show just how ignorant Obama truly is about damn near everything.

I was going to add my thoughts about the Obama non-jobs spending bill and the occupy Wall St. socialist protests but because of length and switching issues I've instead to turn those into another blog post that will be up shortly. No later than tomorrow.

Read more...

The Hope To Change...Ourselves

So over the last few weeks I've been watching the stories of the day and sometimes it's difficult to come up with where I want to begin. I feel I'd be wasting your time if I just took the headlines of the day and threw them up here regularly with a touch of commentary and called it a blog. I try to make it a little more interesting since if you bother to read blogs such as this you probably already know most of the headlines of the day to some degree.

I will cover some of the important issues of the day throughout this blog but that's really not what this is about today. It seems we can't get away from the same old games when it comes to politics. One the one hand it's pretty much expected that most politicians are going to let us down but on the other hand we always head into election day thinking, (hoping is probably a better word to use), that the candidates will deliver on the promises they make.

The problem is seems for each of us is that rather than accept that a candidate we've believed in before is incapable of delivering on empty promises we want to play the blame game. It's easier to play the blame game than it is to admit being wrong. For several years we saw this with President Bush and it's our current situation with many who want to still believe in Obama.

Let's take some of the issues facing black Americans today, (I don't use hyphenated terms when discussing Americans like African-American, it's not to offend it's to point out that we're Americans end of story, you're an American who is black just as I'm an American who is white, I'm not a Caucasian-American, if any of that offends you....tough, because you're unreasonable). On the one hand it's easy to understand the faith black Americans have in President Obama, can you blame them?

I'm not going to go in depth on the history here because I've covered that before and if you want to take the time to read my previous thoughts on this feel free to, (warning: it's not a quick read so grab some coffee). I will say this though, what if the tables were turned on race? What if every previous president in American history was black and the civil rights movements or MLK jr., (who would be white in this hypothetical), were because of segregation and oppression against whites. Wouldn't most whites, (who would be a minority in this scenario), give a pass to many failures of our first white president out of pride?

Looking at the situation under those circumstances I can understand why so many minorities are willing to give a pass and make excuses for President Obama's failings. Take a look at this and let me highlight a few things. The first thing I'd like to point out is the fact that this article is from September 15, 2008 when President Bush was still in office. Keep that in mind as you read it.

"Young Black adults and recent college graduates (25 to 29-year-olds) are finding it difficult to find work. Their unemployment has risen from 5.1 percent in August 2007 to 6.9 percent last month"

"Perhaps for reasons of race or systemic economic justice, Democratic and Republican presidents have made the real unemployment statistics almost impossible to find in the media"

So in other words "perhaps" both Republican and Democratic presidents are somewhat racist and the media is helping them. Give credit for the willingness to hit both sides here but remember that President Obama has made things worse and the media is still helping hide the real statistics yet he's largely given a pass. We'll get more into that later but let's keep analyzing this story for now.

"People are rightfully suspicious of what the media now tries to pass off as “official” jobless statistic."

Do you understand now? Nothing has changed here this quote is 100% accurate in the current context. In 2008 under Bush it was fine, yet now the very same truth is treated like propaganda against Obama, funny isn't it?

"What makes the object — or the true jobless rate — so important is that it affects the social fabric of the African-American community.

A high unemployment rate can determine the quality of family life and education, crime, housing, how long people lives, how sick they are and many other vital factors."

I highlighted certain words here for a reason. If high unemployment is bad for all of these things, (and I agree that it is), then why was health care and bailouts the #1 priority of President Obama? It seems that had his priority been real job creation, (which he doesn't understand), then it would help with many of the problems within the black community.

"These social ills require special programs ranging from Food Stamps, AID to Dependent Children, unemployment compensation, housing support, energy assistance and Medicaid"

Record number of Americans now on food stamps, housing crisis, 3 years of unemployment. The vast expansion of these programs are directly tied to the lack of jobs. We need to reform these programs to eliminate fraud while at the same time follow smart economic policies that will have the effect of reducing the dependence on these programs. When both of these things happen it's good for everybody but if you say you want to reform these very programs your labeled as lacking compassion, or worse. I contest that it's not compassionate to put ideology ahead of logic thus condemning people to depend on these programs as a way of life, especially within the minority community.

"In the 1950s, the federal, state and local governments paid $23.5 billion for these program. By 1990, the cost for these programs hit $1 trillion — no small sum by any measure."

Look at that from this perspective. Between 1950 and 1990 we faced wars, recessions, political corruption, economic booms and busts, just like now and look how large the cost of these programs have grown. On our current course, how much do you think it will cost by 2030? Reforming these programs aren't just a matter of smart policy, they are a matter of our very survival as a nation.

"Some economists argue that the national Black jobless rate or employment-population ratio (the proportion of the working age population with a job) for African Americans is 42 percent of all those of working age. The translation: Almost half of all African Americans who can work aren’t working."

Remember, this is 2008, we aren't even talking about our current situation, which is worse.

"The social consequences of such a high unemployment rate are astounding. Policymakers and social science contend that they have resulted in overcrowded jails, failing schools, deteriorating housing and a broken health care system."

President Obama talks about all of these problems as most politicians do, yet he continues to follow failed policies in terms of job creation and reducing unemployment even though high unemployment is directly tied to many of these problems in the first place.

"since 1960 both Democratic and Republican presidents have rigged the numbers and the media has played along"

So much for change huh?

"He says even the Clinton administration, which was widely praised for its policies toward African Americans, helped push the real statistical realities of Blacks under the carpet.

According to him, the Clinton administration redefined the workforce as people seeking work for less than a year, so that those who were out of the job market for more than a year were not counted in the unemployment statistic.

The Clinton administration also thinned the household economic sampling from 60,000 to 50,000 by dropping mostly inner city households, resulting in a count that reduced Black unemployment and poverty levels."

So, simply put, Clinton lied, what a shock, but at least he didn't have sexual relations with that woman Ms. Lewinsky, right? Never mind, let's get back on track and look at today.

Let's analyze a more current story to see just how much of a hero President Obama has truly been for the poor and minorities since enacting his progressive platform of deception. Read this from August 17, 2011. Just 9 days ago.

"The poverty rate is 14.3%, the highest since the mid-1990s. A record 45.8 million people receive food stamps"

Think about that statistic for a second. How is this possible after nearly 3 years of President Obama, 2 of which the Democrats also controlled the entire congress? If you know about the past then this really wouldn't come as a surprise. This always happens when the government strays from the Constitution and becomes entrenched in issues it shouldn't be involved with. Big-government socialist policies always lead to massive increases in poverty and government dependence and that never works out well for those most vulnerable, the poor and minorities.

"There’s no major Washington lobby for the poor"

That right there is key. President Obama is currently out on the west coast going to expensive dinner fundraisers and trying to rally voters. All politicians and presidents especially do this so I'm not criticizing him for it. The point is that while there's no lobby for the poor, the poor also aren't where the major campaign cash comes from, hence no lobbyists.

"Earlier this year, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, released a study questioning the plight of the nearly 44 million Americans whom the Census Bureau categorizes as impoverished, but also own appliances such as air conditioners and TVs."

Not to mention homes, (even though many have fallen into foreclosure due to the housing market crash), cars (where the cost of gas hurts), and cell phones (which amazingly also has a government subsidy program now. That's great now people can become dependant on the government for their phones also).

Speaking of the cost of gas. Do you remember in 2004 when President Bush was being hammered for gas reaching over $2.00/gallon? While it's true that during Bush term 2 gas peaked at over $4.00/gallon, we now seem to accept the "new normal" as gas is averaging about $3.50/gallon and rather than hear complaints all over the place I actually heard more praise for the fact that gas had come down 12 cents. Don't high gas prices also disproportionately hurt poor people? Where's the outrage?

"At a Decorah, Iowa, town hall meeting on Monday, President Obama repeated his argument that “a rising tide does lift all boats” – in other words, economic policies that aim to benefit all Americans are sufficient"

The rising tide lifting all boats quote is actually a JFK quote originally and the only problem here is that JFK and modern Democrats, like Obama, have completely different views of taxes. Most Democrats fail to mention that.

"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is between two kinds of deficits, a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy, or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, produce revenues, and achieve a future budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness, the second reflects an investment in the future" - JFK

You see, the rising tide lifting all ships was a reference to how low taxes and a booming economy are good for everybody, especially the poor. The only problem is that after JFK was assassinated it fell to racist liberal LBJ to actually pass the tax cut. He did so, but coupled it with his massive government social engineering expansion often referred to as the "great society". The massive expansion of government led to a massive increase in government spending and diminished the gains of the JFK tax cuts, (which adjusted for inflation were actually larger than President Bush's). Isn't history fun? It's a shame that while President Obama like to use quick quotes of JFK he refuses to look at his economic policies when it relates to taxes as he travels the country calling for tax increases rather than spending reduction.

"But Smiley and West say the Obama administration has ignored the plight of blacks and the poor while focusing heavily on business interests."

Remember, as I said before, poor people don't raise a lot of campaign cash for either party, "business interests" do. That's the key. Much of the insight here is very telling as we always see progressive liberal politicians run on the platform of caring about the poor and attacking conservatives like myself for not having any compassion for the poor. Yet when they get into office the plight of the poor seems to increase under their policies while folks like me still get criticized for lacking compassion.

"In the 1990s, Smiley criticized President Bill Clinton for toughening penalties for crack-cocaine possession."

How dare President Clinton toughen penalties for crackheads, where's his compassion? Sorry, but I couldn't resist.

"Blacks still have deep affection for Obama. In a recent Washington Post poll, 86% of blacks approved of Obama’s job performance. But just 54% approved of his economic policies in the Post poll, down from 77% last fall"

Remember earlier when I talked about how I can understand why the black community wants the first black president to succeed to the point where he'll be largely given a pass on his failures? This proves that to be true. He's down to a 54% approval with black Americans on his handling of the economy yet still enjoys a 86% approval in his job performance. My point being correct is the only explanation as to how this is possible.

Earlier I stated how this post is really about you and that's what I'll get into now. I recently explained how Obama deserves to be re-elected if a majority of Americans fall for his rhetoric rather than looking at his results. Washington and the politicians can't fix our country, only we can.

We need to stop looking at every damn issue as being about black and white, or left and right. Everything comes back to a fight between Democrats and Republicans. It's the same fight over the same issues every single election and it blinds us from being objective.

We are the key to saving our own future. If we don't engage in educating our kids, teaching them about the importance of a strong work ethic, and respect for other people, then how can we expect them to grow up with anything less than an attitude of greedy expectancy?

If we can't be honest, then we can't be saved. I understand why so many people aren't engaged and are therefore more easily duped by the routine promises of the political elite. As Americans we have the Constitution to remind us that we have to have a natural distrust of politicians as they will always be inclined to abuse power if we give it to them. You see this with things like the EPA.

When a politician proves to be incapable of improving our country then we have a responsibility to hold them accountable. The problem is that far too many of us refuse to hold them accountable because we don't want to feel like traitors by voting for a Democrat if we're a Republican or voting Republican if we're a Democrat.

Many minorities feel the same way about President Obama. Electing America's first black president is quite an accomplishment. However, now many minorities feel as if they are traitors if they don't support him. Turning so much of our political discussions into arguments about class warfare or racial bias blinds us from discussing what's really important. A future of freedom and success for our children.

Look, I'd rather be playing Gears of War 3 on my XBOX than spending hours researching and engaging in politics but I have a responsibility to try and help ensure that my children have a chance to live in freedom as I have. The more we ignore the wrong steps taken by our politicians and the more power we give to the elite political class under the pretext of taking care of us then the more we deny that freedom to the next generation. Which we all claim to care about regardless of party or class.

Let's be honest with ourselves first and foremost since most of the politicians aren't going to be. Let's get it right and correct the One Big Ass Mistake America (OBAMA). He had his chance and he failed. There's no shame in that, many have failed in the past and most politicians have failed to deliver on campaign promises. The presidency isn't an easy job, but when a president proves he isn't up to the task we have an obligation to not overlook bad policies for the sake of saving a political party, saving the future for our children is more important.

Gingrich/Cain 2012!....or Cain/Gingrich 2012! Doesn't matter to me. Think about it. See you next time, thanks for reading.

Read more...

The Return Of Candidate Obama

As we get ready to remember and reflect on the 9/11 attacks 10 years later it's interesting to see and be reminded of who candidate Obama was back in 2008. It's hard to believe that it's been 10 years since that tragic day. For today, I'm going to address the jobs speech and perhaps set a context up as to why, perhaps, Obama does deserve to be re-elected. I'm sure those words shock many coming from me but keep that point in mind. By the end of this story you'll understand what I mean. Let's start with the jobs speech.

One thing I've never denied President Obama is that he is a gifted, inspiring speaker, (it may be scripted off of the teleprompter but he's still effective). Those of us who've followed politics for a long time may remember when President Obama spoke at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 when Kerry was trying to defeat President Bush. Obama gave the best speech of the convention and I recognized his ability to give a speech then and have never forgotten that.

The thing we have to analyze is whether an inspiring speech that makes you feel good is worth ignoring the results of the speaker. We as Americans are always being tested by politicians when in fact we should be the ones testing them. The problem is that far too many of us get wrapped up in supporting a party, a speech, or even the race of a politician in a way that makes us ignore results in place of belief in intentions.

President Obama talks about hard work and paying fair share, yet his ideology advocates neither. Progressive Liberals, socialists really, believe that if you don't work hard you deserve to be subsidized by the government out of compassion. Many progressive Republicans, (often referred to as neo-cons), agree. Don't forget that President Bush increased social welfare programs out of compassion.

He talks, as many liberals do, about paying a fair share, yet he's okay with 42% of Americans paying nothing. How is paying nothing a fair share? We all agree that the rich should pay more in taxes but it seems that the anti-capitalist left ignore the fact that the current system is exactly that.

President Obama and other Liberals have not problem demonizing the evil rich corporations, oil companies, and "fat cats", yet they ignore the pass given to unions and liberal organizations through lobbyists etc. They criticize Conservatives like myself as being in the tank for big business yet they are the ones who support bailing them all out.

They don't criticize the unions who can't afford the pensions of the workers they claim to stand up for because those unions use their money to donate millions of dollars to Democrats in the hopes that they'll then receive a government kick back to bail them out of the pension funds they'd have been able to better afford had they not given the money to politicians in the first place.

Explain this one to me, during the jobs speech President Obama talked about reforming Medicare, yet Paul Ryan was attacked for trying to do exactly that. When talking about reforming entitlements they attack Rick Perry for calling Social Security a "ponzi scheme" in order to scare senior citizens away from Republicans. Let's talk facts for a moment though.

What would you say if I asked you to give me money out of every paycheck until you're 62 years old. Then when you turn 62 I'll start to give you regular checks in your retirement. What would you say if you knew that the average life expectancy at the time was 59? Wouldn't that look like a scam? Especially if you knew that I was spending the money you were giving me anyway. That is exactly the case with Social Security. Look up the average life expectancy of the 30's for yourself and you'll see it's true regardless of what the fear mongers on the left say.

I support Newt Gingrich for president as I've said before but the heat Rick Perry is receiving for his attacks on the socialist security system are nothing more than an attempt to scare senior citizens, (which are a huge chunk of voters), away from Republicans in favor of President Obama. If our senior citizens are gullible enough to fall for that then we deserve another term of Obama. Personally, I have more faith in our seniors than that. I don't believe senior citizens are that dumb but apparently those on the left, who claim to have so much compassion, do.

He talked about making us the most innovative, educated people in the world. How do you expect to pull that off with the feeling of entitlement in so many people and an education system driven by a government bureaucracy partisan agenda rather than being driven by learning actual facts and life lessons?

President Obama talked about passing the trade agreements but this makes no sense. The trade agreements have been waiting for his signature since day one. He's let them sit there without sending them to congress for 2 1/2 years and all of a sudden he trying to make it seem like Congress is the reason it hasn't been done. Funny how I didn't see the Democrat controlled congress pushing for those deals to be signed for the 2 years they were in charge. Makes you wonder why? Especially since President Obama is now telling us that they would boost American manufacturing and help with jobs. Are we supposed to believe that that is the fault of the Republicans is congress as well?

He talked about agreeing with cutting spending and regulation and how he could say that with a straight face is impressive. All he's done since taking office is massively increase both spending and regulations. Therefore you have to ask yourself this question. Do you believe President Obama or candidate Obama? Here's one point where the two couldn't be more different. Candidate Obama, who gave the jobs speech, had to literally disagree 100% with President Obama in order to even talk about cutting spending and cutting regulation as President Obama has done nothing but massively increase spending and regulation since taking office.

Obama says he rejects the notion that stripping collective bargaining rights are necessary to compete in the global marketplace. Oh yeah, well try telling that to China. Tell that to the bankrupt postal service that can no longer afford benefits for retirees. Tell that to the bailed out unionized car companies that despite being given billions of dollars are still in trouble. Tell that to the right to work states, like Texas, that are crushing all of the progressive states on private sector job creation. He may reject stripping collective bargaining from union workers but I reject bailing out unions that donate millions to his campaign and then claim they are in financial trouble. I also reject using the power of the federal government to give an edge to unions over non-unions and it's funny how Progressive liberals constantly talk about "fairness" yet ignore this very real point.

President Obama says he'll listen to all parties and asks for people to speak up. Yet when the Democrats controlled the legislature 100% he ignored the Republicans and even ridiculed the tea-party which was an example of people doing exactly that. I say again, do you believe smooth talking candidate Obama or the real Obama you've seen leading this country for almost 3 years?

Obama doesn't want his jobs plan to pass, the plan isn't going to work but that's not what it's about. Let me give you another ludicrous point about his jobs plan. He claims that he'll give a tax credit to businesses that create new jobs or increase the pay of workers. Let me ask you something, how big would that tax credit have to be for it to be worth hiring another worker? Hiring another worker, especially a full-time worker isn't cheap.

Think of this, let's say you pay a new full-time worker a crap poverty wage of $20,000/year. Now you have to give health care coverage to that worker and we still don't even know how much that will cost under Obamacare but I think it's safe to assume it's at least a few grand. Let's say it's $4,000/year and I'm probably being nice setting it that low but let's continue with the example. Now, the cost of that worker, (who's basically making a poverty wage), is $24,000/year for the business. Do you expect Obama's tax credit per worker to be more than $24,000/year? Of course not, therefore, his tax credit for new employment sounds good in a campaign speech but doesn't match reality in the business world.

After all, the tax credit would have to be massive to entice worker employment simply for the sake of receiving the tax credit and how then would the left be able to resist criticizing the tax cuts for rich corporations? His tax cut per worker is a joke and economically unfeasible and ignorant.

He talks about our schools being in such rough shape and the need for infrastructure spending for new roads etc. Well, simple question there. What happened to the trillion dollars you got last time in stimulus that you said was paying for those very same things? We're supposed to believe that this smaller stimulus will take care of all those things when the much larger stimulus didn't? If Americans are willing to accept that nonsense then you do in fact deserve re-election President Obama.

It's on us as Americans now to stop treating politics like some American Idol contest. There are real problems facing our country and the truth is that it's our fault. We allow ourselves to ignore history in place of feeling better about ourselves. We make excuse after excuse for our party, ourselves, and our children. We're told not to discipline our kids because we don't want to hurt there self esteem but then wonder why they are turning into disrespectful, entitlement driven asses.

We are afraid to reform the government entitlement programs out of fear of being labelled as lacking compassion. It's time to grow a pair and make a stand for the truth. I applaud Rick Perry for being honest about socialist security being a scam. If the elderly fall for the rhetoric of the dishonest groups like Moveon.org and ignore the problems the system faces even though it's the children, (you know, the children that the progressive left always claim to care about), that will suffer when the system does collapse due to our inaction on the necessary reforms needed to the government entitlement programs.

You may recall in a recent post I talked about the Reagan tax plan and his thoughts of social security. It's funny how the disingenuous folks on the left love to quote Reagan about saving socialist security in 1983, (which he in fact did), but they fail to inform people of what he said was in store for the long term future of the program. I've used this quote before but it's relevant and worth repeating. Hey MSNBC, take a break from calling people like me morons and listen up, you might learn something true for once.

From a letter from Ronald Reagan to Mr. Austin Trimmer Jr. dated July 24, 1981.

"If I may, let me explain the situation and what it is we're trying to do with Social Security. I have reneged no pledge. I said during the campaign that we would do nothing to hurt those presently dependent on Social Security checks-that we would not pull the rug out from under those people so dependent. I did say that I would try to restore the integrity to the program. As it is now, the program without change will run out of money for paying benefits to the present recipients sometime late in 1982. Beyond that, however, there is a long-range actuarial imbalance which means that down the road in the next century, but within the lifetime of younger workers today, the program will be several trillions of dollars out of balance.

Our proposal was intended to resolve both the short-term problem and that long-range imbalance. We did not, in any way, affect the benefits of those presently dependent on the program."

Are you still convinced that those of us who advocate reforming the Social Security program wouldn't have the support of Ronald Reagan? He warned us this was coming and he understood that people already dependent on the program have to continue receiving benefits. This is exactly the position all of us who see and admit the need for reforming the system advocate. The media can keep insisting that we'd be too far to the right for Reagan but his own words prove otherwise.

It's on each of us now to stand up for the truth and if that means I have to be criticized for lacking compassion by those desperate to save the Obama presidency for another term then so be it. If seniors are scared off by the lies being launched by those who would stand by and do nothing to reform the socialist security system then they are free to make the same mistakes other special interest liberal groups keep making.

It's time for the rest of us to grow a pair and stand up to our ignorant critics. One other point I found interesting after the Republican Debate. This is a little off topic but important. Fake Rev. Al Sharpton was talking to Herman Cain after the debate and he was of course confused as to how a black man could dare to be a Republican. Sharpton likes to reference the 3/5 clause in the Constitution where slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person for the census. He uses that to make the bogus claim that Tea party advocates and those of us who want a return to the principles of the Constitution want to return to slavery.

What ignorant Al fails to understand, or else flat out lies about, is that the 3/5 clause gave LESS representation to slave states then they otherwise would have had and therefore Fake Rev. Al's speaking out against the 3/5 clause is in fact a statement to the effect that he wishes the pro-slave states had more power and influence in Washington. He takes that position while calling Conservatives like me morons, I can't help but laugh and at the same time feel bad for his ignorance.

Even Frederick Douglas, who I'm sure Rev Al would claim to support originally thought the Constitution was a pro-slavery document.....until he read it. He then pointed out that it was an anti-slavery document. It's a shame Rev Al is so smart because apparently if he was a moron like he would say I am then he'd realize that.

It's time to make a real choice America. Either endorse the lies and fall for the celebrity charm of President Obama and his lying supporters, or make a stand for the truth and fight to save America from a future of Socialist government dependency and failure. It's a choice for each one of us as individuals, screw all of that collective talk. Will you prove you actually care about the children and teach the truth? Or will you doom them to a life of dependency and debt out of compassion? I've made my choice. In 2012, you will make yours.

Perhaps this 9/11 you can remember why America is worth saving. On 9/11 we united in tragedy, perhaps in 2012 we can provide real hope for our children. It takes more than using the word hope in a smooth speech. Candidate Obama will sound inspiring but we now know that President Obama is depressing. We will find out next year if we care more about smooth speeches that sound good, or necessary action that sounds tough. This is our country and this will once again be your choice. You know where the ideologues stand, now it's time to decide where you stand. You can choose to be in a group of sheeple and be told what you should believe, or you can look at the reality all around you and make a stand for what you believe.

We all know President Obama's going to blame Bush and the Republicans in congress for all of his problems and we all know the Republicans will do the same. Given the results of the last few years you have a pretty simple question to ask yourself. Does President Obama deserve another term or not? Just remember that a campaign is when politicians tell you who they want you to think they are. The actions they take while in office tell you who they really are.

You have more than a year to think about it but on Sunday think about how much your life can change in one day. Think about how much the world can change in 10 years. Think about the path you want to follow in the next 10 years, and think about whether or not that is truly the path you are on. Take care and never forget.

Read more...

I Was Right, Deval Patrick Was Wrong, What A Shock

While I sit here in Mass preparing for Hurricane Irene I'd like to provide a little update on a couple of stories I've done in the past. There are some older stories on this blog that you should read in preparation for this one. In the search box, upper left corner of this blog, type Deval Patrick, you'll get some stories from the past where I've taken on Mass governor Deval Patrick over various issues.

You'll see, or you'll remember if you're a long time viewer of this blog, the stories about the town hall meeting I attended with the Deval and the e-mail response I received after the youtube question his staffers took from me after the event was ignored and never posted online. His response cited "technical difficulties" but never e-mailed an actual answer.

I cited 2 main points in my question, the first being about taxes and the other being about private sector growth in Massachusetts. I pointed out in my question that was never answered that all of the growth he mentioned in the town hall meeting was paid for with federal stimulus dollars and therefore there wasn't in fact any real growth, besides government, here in Mass.

I asked him how he planned to grow the private sector in mass after the stimulus money ran out because if we kept on track with the growth he was citing then the next year he'd just be right back at the government's doorstep asking for more stimulus dollars, which is probably the bulk of Obama's new jobs plan to be revealed next month. I asked that 2 years ago in '09.

Here's why I'm bringing this up. I'm grazing through the headlines of some of the papers a few days ago and a front page headline from The Boston Globe on Monday, August 22 caught my eye. It read:

"Anxiety rises as stimulus dries up - Federal cuts may stall state recovery" - by Casey Ross

I can't exactly quote the article without permission from the globe but the title tells you enough, I will give you dollar figures to think about from the article though.

It points out that in 2009, what year was my town hall meeting with Deval, let me think......oh yeah, that's right 2009, as you'll see I prove if you did the search of the past stories as I pointed out in the beginning of this post. Anyway, it points out that in 2009 Mass received $7.4 billion in stimulus and Mass is down to the last $300 million. Maybe Deval should have taken my youtube points more seriously, huh?

I told Deval this would happen and he ignored me. Not exactly surprising but it should make you think. Imagine if Deval took me seriously, he'd have been able to spend the last 2 years preparing for this instead of just giving propaganda speeches to ignorant people in order to get re-elected. Now, we're about to enter full blown panic mode as Deval's failures are about to be exposed as he can no longer shift all of the costs of his failing policies to the federal government. However, there's another factor that no one could have prepared for.

Hurricane Irene, it's due here tomorrow and any significant damage to the state will only make things worse, too bad we still don't have that $7.4 billion. Now, a state of emergency has been declared for Mass by President Obama and that will provide federal money to help with whatever this storm ultimately costs. I don't disagree here. This is the type of thing the government can help with and it'd be in better shape if it didn't try bailing out everything for the past few years. Problem is that the federal government is so damn broke that they aren't in good shape for these types of problems.

I hope the damage from this hurricane is as minimal as possible in terms of dollars and deaths but after the wind and rain calms down we have another problem. Hurricane Economy is still ravaging many states including Mass and that isn't going away when the wind dies down the way the stimulus money is. Maybe Deval will finally start listening but I doubt it.

Read more...

Warren Buffett's Insomnia

It's been about a month since I last wrote anything so we have some catching up to do. As you all know Rick Perry is now in the race for the presidency on the Republican side and that must be making the media favorite Mitt Romney pretty upset. I've said before that I don't trust Romney as a conservative and when he ran for president back in '08 he had the worst spending to vote ratio of any candidate, Mike Huckabee had the best. We'll see how this all shakes up in the months to come but I'm glad Tim Pawlenty left the race as few cared that he was ever in it to begin with.

I haven't changed my stance as I still think Newt Gingrich is the best candidate for the job this time around but I don't expect the Republican party at large to agree and unfortunately he'll most likely lose the nomination much to my dismay. That's enough about all of that so let's get down to business with what this article is really about.

Apparently Warren Buffett hasn't been able to sleep well lately because he feels so guilty about how little he is paying in taxes. He's out there with President Obama talking about how we should raise taxes so that Buffett and other rich guys, like Bill Gates can stop feeling so guilty about being rich and get back to paying their fair share.

Buffett, chairman of the conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway, said his federal tax bill last year was $6,938,744, the equivalent of 64 shares of Berkshire Class A stock.

"That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income -- and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent," he said.

This makes me wonder about a very basic and simple question. If Warren Buffett and other rich liberals really want to pay more in taxes then why do they need the government to raise taxes on everyone, including small business owners who fall into the $250,000+ category? Sure to the average folks all of them are rich but they also create a majority of the jobs. Why doesn't Buffett and company simply write a check to the government with no change in tax rates needed? You may have noticed that George Soros, another billionaire who destroys currencies around the world in order to massively enrich himself seems to agree with Buffett on taxes. Of course without Soros money then groups like MoveOn.org and many others wouldn't even be able to exist.

Let's use an example with simpler math figures as the questions above won't be addressed by folks like Buffett and I'll get to why in a bit. Well use the figure of $1,000,000 dollars to keep things simple. Buffett says that he paid 17.4% to federal income taxes and he should have to pay more. If we use the million dollar figure that percentage would work out to $174,000. Now since we don't know exactly how much of a percentage would help Buffett sleep better at night let's just say he'd rather pay 25%.

This would, again to keep it simple using our million dollar figure, push his taxes from $174,000 to $250,000. If Warren Buffett would like to pay more in taxes then why can't he write a check to cover the difference from his 17.4% up to 25%? If you had the million dollars that I've been using as an example then you'd simply have to write a check to the government for $76,000. Warren Buffett is a billionaire investor and yet it seems he hasn't been able to figure that out, that seems strange to me.

Of course in truth he has figured it out but as usual there's something more sinister behind his motives here. He's trying to give credibility and justification to Obama and other progressives call to raising taxes on the rich. The real problem is that the mega-corporations and mega-rich aren't going to be hurt by the higher taxes the way the smaller competitors will. This is what happened during the New Deal, which most professors won't actually teach anymore, using the NRA, (the blue eagle government regulatory rules not the gun guys), to control prices and having a high tax rate led to the crushing of smaller businesses to the advantage of larger ones as well as maintaining a roughly 20% unemployment rate during the socialist new deal, which most liberals still refer to as an astounding success due to their ignorance of the factual results of the New Deal policies.

Keep in mind that much of the "new jobs" during the new deal were just giving government jobs from FDR's many new government agencies to unemployed in order to create the illusion of jobs and prosperity even though the private sector was being destroyed. Sounds an awfully lot like our current president doesn't it, keyword being awful.

Obama's policies have thus far failed and most Americans are beginning to come to and admit at least that much. As usual there's plenty of finger-pointing going on in order to shift blame but that's the norm for political failures in our time. Plenty of Republicans would probably still defend Bush as a conservative even though he proved that he wasn't especially in his second term in office. (Bush 43 even defended the failed bailouts in his book Decision Points).

It'll be very interesting to see if Obama looks like he's headed for a Reagan vs. Carter-esque defeat whether Hillary Clinton will re challenge him in an attempt to save the Democrats from another ass-kicking like the congressional one they received in the 2010 mid-term elections. Hillary would most likely have no problem defeating Obama in the nomination this time around and while she probably realizes that she may avoid running for office over fear of the divide it would place within the Democratic party.

Those who continue to defend socialist liberal policies are trying their best to find a way to justify why Obama's government centralized economic planning isn't working. The fact of the matter is that it isn't about application as many tend to believe, even though there is practically no evidence of socialism working out well for the people and prosperity, it's a matter of the principles of socialism.

Socialism, even if you don't want to call it that, we'll call it total government control over the economy, can't work for one very simple reason. Government is naturally inefficient and corrupt. The amount of things that government has to monitor in a socialist society are simply too many and too large for it to handle well. Politicians are naturally inclined to want to help political allies and friends from both parties and that is only made worse by our lobbyist which are so entrenched in Washington that both parties would never pass a simple law making lobbying illegal. Regardless of the fact that it would most likely have widespread support from a majority of the people.

There is no doubt as it's proven that throughout history lower tax rates help with employment. Liberals love to talk about the Clinton 90's as a great example of high tax success but they ignore some major factors, such as welfare reform, which Clinton vetoed twice, even though he didn't mind taking credit for it after it was proven to work. This is another reason for Republicans to nominate Newt Gingrich, just throwing it out there. Liberals also tend to forget something else...

In 1997, the Republican-led Congress passed a tax-relief and deficit-reduction bill that was resisted but ultimately signed by President Clinton. The 1997 bill:

Lowered the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent;

Created a new $500 child tax credit;

Established the new Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits to reduce the after-tax
costs of higher education;

Extended the air transportation excise taxes;

Phased in an increase in the estate tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million;

Established Roth IRAs and increased the income limits for deductible IRAs;

Established education IRAs;

Conformed AMT depreciation lives to regular tax lives; and

Phased in a 15 cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax

Notice the first thing which I put in bold, wait a minute....!! Is that an evil capital gains tax cut for the rich I see.......why yes, yes it is. Do you remember how horrible the economy was from 1997 through 2000? Actually it's liberals who love to point to that economy as great. Don't you remember all of the criticism of that evil conservative Bill Clinton cutting taxes for the rich? Of course you don't but never mind just keep listening to Obama and Buffett talk about how we need to increase the capital gains taxes.

For the record it was Ronald Reagan who cut the capital gains tax rate down to 28% which Clinton then lowered again to 20%. Remind me what happened in the 80's and 90's.....oh yeah that's right, economic booms.

So the next time you see President Obama and Warren Buffett talking about how Buffett feels guilty because his capital gains taxes are too low, send Buffett a memo reminding him that he can write a check anytime. If he refuses to write one then be sure to ask him why not? Maybe there's more than meets the eye with the case he and the President are making. Never forget that in politics much is not as it seems.

Read more...

Reagan vs Obama On The Debt Ceiling Debate

Here we go again. It's a debate that happens again and again in congress when we get into debt. Raising the debt limit for the country. Raising the debt ceiling can be important and I wanted to look at the differences and similarities regarding the debt ceiling back throughout the Reagan administration. Perhaps you saw President Obama mention Reagan's debt limit increases in order to justify why he needs congress to raise the debt limit yet again. There's one quote from recent debt talks that I'd like to address. Start by reading about the breaking down of the debt limit discussion.

"Would Ronald Reagan be sitting here," he reportedly asked. "I've reached my limit. This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this." - President Obama

Let's start with the facts. True, Ronald Reagan did raise the debt limit several times throughout his presidency. However, he also criticized BOTH Republicans and Democrats for playing games with the debt ceiling increase. Just as the modern Congress uses earmark, "pork barrel", special interest spending measures hidden in bills to get special favors for their districts etc. the same games were played back in the 80's. Some things never change.

Take the following entries from President Reagan's diary, notice that both Republicans and Democrats are criticized here:

Feb 5, 1981

"Lots of phone calls - Sen Robert Byrd is playing games with bill to raise the debt ceiling. Has held vote over until tomorrow."

Notice that this was less than 1 month after Ronald Reagan took office. Don't think for a second that this was only a problem with the Democrats:

November 3, 1983

"Met with Conservative Republican Senators who are playing games trying to come up with amendments to the debt ceiling bill. We must have that bill or government checks will start bouncing."

Are you starting to understand? These debates are nothing new and Congress using what should be simple bills to pass horrible aspects of legislation seems never ending. Just wait until I get to the criticism from Liberal groups about Reagan raising taxes. That too was because of a game played with the debt limit. I'll get to that in a bit. Here's another example:

May 11, 1987

"Dem's are playing game hoping to trap me into tax increase. We have to have an extension on the debt ceiling by May 28 or face default."

Remember this one because it becomes important. It was the Democrats using the debt ceiling debate to force tax increases on Reagan. That way future Democrats could criticize Reagan as a tax increaser. Also, any agreement to tax increases other than the debt ceiling were for specific purposes.

The Highway Revenue Act of 1982 for example which raised the gas tax from 4 to 9 cents and was set to expire after 5 years. The additional revenue from that gas tax was supposed to be specifically used to fix roads. However, those who criticize Reagan for his tax increases which are for the most part very specific like the example I've just given. They tend to forget that before any of these tax increases went into effect Reagan passed one of the biggest tax decreases in history but spread it out over 3 years because it's the only way Congress would go along with it. This in part explains the recession of 1982, when Democrats were accusing Reagan's economic policies of being a failure, as the complete tax cuts didn't take effect until 1983 and the economy was booming by 1984.

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981

Individual income tax reductions. Reduced marginal tax rates 23 percent over three years; reduced maximum rate to 50 percent and maximum capital gains rate to 20 percent; indexed income tax brackets, personal exemption and standard deduction for inflation beginning in 1985; and provided new deduction for two-earner married couples.

Capital cost recovery provisions. Replaced facts and circumstances and the Asset Depreciation Range guidelines with Accelerated Cost Recovery System. Faster write-off of capital expenditures under simplified rules. Most equipment written off over 5 years, structures over 15 years. Allowed liberalized safe-harbor leasing rules, which effectively allowed companies to sell tax losses.

Savings incentives. Extended eligibility for IRA's to include active participants in employer pension plans. Increased Keogh annual contribution limit to $15,000.
Estate and gift tax provisions. Permitted unlimited marital deduction: increased estate credit to exempt from tax all estates of $600,000 or less; and reduced maximum estate tax rate from 70 to 50 percent.

Accelerated corporated estimated tax payments and tightened rules on tax straddles with mark-to-market rule.

Source

Now, let's get back to the debt ceiling debate. Obama wants to pretend that after using the former Democrat controlled congress to pass trillions of dollars worth of new spending, (over 1 trillion for stimulus with omnibus earmarks, health care, etc), he supports cutting spending as part of a compromise. Do you think he'd pretend to support the same if the Republicans hadn't taken the house majority thanks to the tea party movement?

Now we have former president Bill Clinton saying that Obama should just go around congress using the 14th amendment to avoid default. This is one of the most bogus arguments attempting to make the case that the president has the authority to increase the debt limit without congress using the 14th amendment to the Constitution, let's see if you agree:

U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14, section 4:

"The validity of the public debt fo the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

I'd say the print I've highlighted is the base of Clintons argument:

"The validity of the public debt shall not be questioned."

Fair enough but he has a problem. The very next part of the U.S. Constitution states:

U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14, section 5:

"The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article"

Notice it says the Congress, not the president, has the power to enforce the 14th amendment through legislation. Therefore, Bill Clintons argument is wrong. If he were right then Ronald Reagan would have had no need to worry about the games being played by Congress in the 80's. I'm not all that surprised that a liberal ex-president doesn't understand the Constitution and hopes that you don't either. He forget another provision in the Constitution that also denies Obama the right to increase the debt limit without Congress:

U.S. Constitution, Amendment 10:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

At first you may not see how this amendment applies but I'll explain. The government only has the authority to do what the Constitution gives it the power to do. Meaning the government is supposed to maintain limited power only gaining the powers the Constitution grants it. The government doesn't start out with all the power and is then limited by the constitution. It starts out with no power and then is only supposed to be allowed to follow the guidelines provided by powers granted by the Constitution itself. As I showed you with Amendment 14, the Constitution gives Congress the responsibility of handling the debt issues, not the president. Therefore Bill Clinton is wrong and Obama has no authority to increase the debt limit without the consent of the Congress. Nice try progressives.

Now let's continue with the problem's Ronald Reagan was having with the Congress.

July 10, 1987

"Discussed how to deal with Congress efforts to cut defense budget to ribbons. They're planning to add things as amendments to Debt limit bill which I must sign or create a world wide financial panic."

Follow this and the next few quotes because I have a theory to consider. You'll understand in a moment but I don't want to get ahead of myself so let these next few quotes sink in and remember that the Liberals love to criticize Reagan as a tax increaser, even using it in a new ad about the debt limit debate.

July 21, 1987

"Debt ceiling will be an important item with what the Dems are attempting to do to it. Then the same individuals are trying to make our catastrophic illness proposal into a budget busting expanded program which will actually impose costs on senior citizens."

July 22, 1987

"Debt limit & Dem. games main subject of 1st meeting. Then Catastrophic Health program & here too they are distorting it to be a costly budget buster."

Here are some details as to what he's talking about.

"President Reagan, ending more than two months of Administration bickering, today endorsed a Medicare catastrophic illness plan to give 30 million elderly Americans "that last full measure of security" against the grim choice of bankruptcy or death.

Under the plan, the government would cover all hospital and doctor expenses under Medicare after a patient had paid $2,000 out of his own pocket"

This provided care specifically for elderly Americans to avoid going broke because of a catastrophic diagnosis. What's funny is how at the time the criticism was about how we couldn't afford it. You would swear that this article was written about the health care debate with Obama. The article is from March 9, 1987 yet it says things such as:

"A government program that would really save the elderly from catastrophic health care bills, however, would mean adding another open-ended entitlement program to the red-inked federal budget"

"almost any hospitalization or long illness can be a financial disaster for the 37 million Americans who have no health insurance at all. Now that the issue of catastrophic medical costs is on the national agenda, it will be politically difficult to limit any new programs just to the elderly."

"It may be tempting to make political capital out of catastrophic health insurance, but the nation will pay a price for it--one way or another. Congress still has time to explore other possibilities--such as broadening private coverage and sterner controls on costs--before it gets any deeper into the entitlement morass"

Hard to believe this is from a 24 year old article, huh? How little we seem to learn. The debt limit debate is very much the same. It's the same political games being played by the politicians that are no different from the games played in the past.

Now let's get back to the debate over the debt limit, I had to go off track to address that health care article because it related to the Reagan quote I used and it need an explanation. Remember the last quote I used was:

July 22, 1987

"Debt limit & Dem. games main subject of 1st meeting. Then Catastrophic Health program & here too they are distorting it to be a costly budget buster."

Now that you understand what he was talking about here we can move on. This is where it gets very important that you pay attention.

September 22, 1987

"a very disturbing meeting with Jim Miller, OMB [office of management and budget], Will Ball, Cap Weinberger, Jim Baker & of course our staff. The subject was the bill to extend the debt ceiling which expires tomorrow. They have loaded that simple bill with a cut in Defense so great we'd have to kick 400,000 out of the service. I'd have to agree to billion's in new taxes & on & on. Jim Baker says if I veto we could conceivably have a world crisis financially because we'd be defaulting on $24 Billion worth of bonds. I have to come up with a decision on - do I sign or do I veto. Everything in me cries out veto."

READ THAT AGAIN RIGHT NOW!!

The Congress, controlled by Democrats, loaded a debt limit increase with Billions in new taxes, (think of it as what in today's context we refer to as "pork" spending), as well as a bunch of other horrible things that Reagan disagreed with in order to force him to sign or default.

All of a sudden the Democrats using Reagan in their new ads don't look so credible. Remember how much the Democrats of today and groups like MoveOn.org etc. like to criticize Conservatives labelling Reagan as a tax increaser. Well this bill being referred to above to increase the debt limit is why. It wasn't that Reagan supported tax increases and didn't fight hard against them, it's that the Democrats forced this on him in 1987 and then decided to shift blame and use it against his legacy in the future.

As you can see the above quote is from September 22, and here's what he wrote 2 days later:

September 24, 1987

"I have decided to sign the debt extension bill but with a hard statement to the effect that it's probably the worst legislation ever sent to me. But I must sign to keep us from defaulting on $24 Billion worth of Bonds."

September 26, 1987

"Did my radio show on Dem. blackmail in connection with debt limit extension."

Maybe we should ask Bill Clinton why Reagan didn't just increase the debt limit without congress using the 14th amendment, oh wait that's right, I already took care of that issue, nevermind. Don't you think if the president actually had that authority Reagan would have had a damn good reason to use it here?

Remember how I said that I had a theory? Reagan signed that bill in September of 1987. October 19, 1987 is known as "Black Monday" due to a significant market dive. Wikipedia presents several theories as to the causes of Black Monday. I'm not saying this legislation was so much of a direct cause but I think it's safe to say that it couldn't have helped, just saying.

There's another point I'd like to use here in closing. Reagan signed legislation he was completely against over $24 Billion dollars in 1987. We used to think $24 Billion in default would be catastrophic. Now because of our spending and programs like stimulus making 24 Billion look like chump change we have truly dug a hole we can't get out of. Obama as well as many others in Congress have neither the brains, nor the balls to do what must be done. As for the rest of us there are still too many Americans who simply don't have the stomachs for it.

We don't need a new debt limit to know we are already in default, do you really think that the rest of the world, including those who hold our bonds, (like China), have any confidence in being paid back by the cowards who run our country? We did this to ourselves.

We allowed ourselves to forget or to simply never learn about what history could teach us. How we've face these issues before yet we keep electing the same jackasses who fail to acknowledge it. Fixing this will require sacrifices that no politicians will make, and unfortunately many Americans can't seem to stomach it much either.

Everyone claims to care about the children yet we refuse to sacrifice in the present to save their future. When I was younger I used to hear older people talk about how they're glad they are old because they pity our generation's future outlook. Unfortunately, I feel the same way about our children's future if we don't change our ways, and fast. I didn't even get to become old before I felt that way. Do you really care about the children's future as so many bleeding heart liberals claim to? Then how can you not understand these points? I've never written anything that I found to be all that complicated or confusing. If you're so damn smart and you can piece together 2,000 page pieces of legislation with a bunch of your corrupt friends, then why can't you understand the simple reality presented in a blog such as this?

The sophisticated elites would tell you that I'm the one who's a crazy right wing conservative tea party lunatic. Who do you think makes more sense?

"we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it?" - Nancy Pelosi

Read more...