It took me a long time to understand why the youth in this country have so readily embraced Sen. Barack Obama's vague promises of "hope" and "change."
It took me a while, but I think I know part of the reason for your unyielding admiration for this man: many of you have never been disappointed by a politician before.
A large number of you are following a political race closely for the first time. You have never seen a politician make promises or instill faith only to see those promises ignored and that faith broken.
Many of you were not yet born to witness Richard Nixon's crimes and cover-up.
You did not hear Jimmy Carter's similar pledge of hope and change yield one of the most ineffectual presidents in our country's history.
You may have been only infants when conservative icon Ronald Reagan got involved in the Iran-Contra scandal.
You could have been in grade school when we all read George H.W. Bush's lips only to see him raise taxes anyway.
You were not paying attention to Bill Clinton's promise of middle-class tax relief only to see him institute the largest tax increase in this country's history -- a tax increase that hit virtually every tax payer.
You might not have heard George Bush announce his "compassionate conservative" credentials, only to build a liberal-leaning administration of bigger government, expanding programs, and nation-building.
To the youth in this country, please do not fall for Obama's shell game, his pyramid scheme of an economic policy that will hurt this nation.
You did not see H.W. Bush's tax increase have no effect on the recession of the late 1980's/early 1990's.
You did not see Clinton's massive tax increase continue to stretch that recession for a few further years.
Raising taxes and restricting free trade during a recession will hurt this economy; it will not help!
Reagan instituted a massive tax cuts package (slashing the capital gains tax) that finally kick-started the Ford/Carter recession into an economic bump we are still in today.
The U.S. Congress in 1995 cut income taxes and reversed Clinton's capital gains tax increase to eradicate the Bush/Clinton recession, finally.
It is true, these tax cuts did go to the "wealthy" more than others; but the cuts also helped stop two recessions and everyone benefitted in the long run.
I graduated college in 1990 and stepped into a recession. I took my honors degree to a job at a gas station and as a security officer at a local hotel. It wasn't until after the tax cuts in the mid-1990s did the economy come back and I was able to find a job where I could use my degree.
Do not fall for Obama's used-car salesman techniques. If he implements his plans, the economy will suffer, and you will too.
You do not need to vote for McCain, vote against Obama and his policies that are doomed to fail and will doom this country.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Obama Changes His Tax Plans Yet Again!
Obama has already changed his tax plan, sliding the income level down.
In his glowing, but ineffectual, 30-minute political ad last night, Obama told us that people with incomes below $200,000 will get a "tax break."
Last week, that number was $250,000.
Sen. Joe Biden, earlier on the same day, announced that the level would be $150,000 in order to get a tax cut. Of course, the Obama campaign and the news media decided that it was just a "Biden gaffe," not a reflection of Obama policy.
But, one has to (or should) ask, if he is already dropping the level at which you are "wealthy," how low will that threshold go after the election?
According to some reports, Obama has supported increasing taxes for incomes as low as $42,000.
The good news, I guess, is that you are getting closer to being rich every day; I'll bet you didn't even know it.
Like McCain said, when watching a television "infomercial," let the buyer beware.
In his glowing, but ineffectual, 30-minute political ad last night, Obama told us that people with incomes below $200,000 will get a "tax break."
Last week, that number was $250,000.Sen. Joe Biden, earlier on the same day, announced that the level would be $150,000 in order to get a tax cut. Of course, the Obama campaign and the news media decided that it was just a "Biden gaffe," not a reflection of Obama policy.
But, one has to (or should) ask, if he is already dropping the level at which you are "wealthy," how low will that threshold go after the election?
According to some reports, Obama has supported increasing taxes for incomes as low as $42,000.
The good news, I guess, is that you are getting closer to being rich every day; I'll bet you didn't even know it.
Like McCain said, when watching a television "infomercial," let the buyer beware.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Is this a Preview of Things Under President Obama?
Argentina recently elected a new president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. The parallels between President Fernandez and Sen. Barack Obama are interesting.
Fernandez, like Obama, is a short-term politician, serving time as a local politician before serving in the country's senate. During only her second term, Fernandez ran for president.
Fernandez started her public life as an activist; similarly, Obama started his political career as a "community organizer", an activist activity to be sure.
Like Obama, Fernandez is often complimented on his looks, receiving compliments for her "striking physical appearance." Many believe they both got votes based on their appearance alone.
Both politicians are lauded for making history in their respective countries: Fernandez is the first woman elected to the country's presidency; Obama, of course, is aiming to be the country's first black president.
Their politics and attitudes also have some overlap.
According to a October 2007 Boston Globe article, Fernandez stated that "she is not against business profit."
This comment is eerily similar to Obama telling "Joe the Plumber" It's not that I want to punish your success... Both politicians seem to be apologizing for policies that do harm business profits and do punish success.
Fernandez continued in her conversation to "urge companies to be socially responsible."
Again, this attitude mirrors Obama's comment that paying taxes higher taxes is akin to neighborliness, and Joe Biden's call that paying higher taxes is patriotic.
I make these comparisons as I wonder if Fernandez' presidency is a preview to an Obama administration.
One of Fernandez' first acts as president was to increase the tax on farm exports. Like Fernandez, Obama wants to raise taxes and restrict trade.
Instead of helping the economy, Argentina's increased farm tax caused major problems in the economy, leading to protests, higher prices, and inflation. According to a USA Today article, had the taxes not been increased, the (tax) windfall could have financed needed utilities and energy sector infrastructure or funded programs for the country's 10 million poor.
Fernandez justified the tax increase because farmer's profits "should be spread to help the poor." Similarly, Obama has been preaching the notion of "spreading the wealth."
More recently, Fernandez just announced plans for Argentina to take over private pension systems in her country. The move, not yet enacted, has already sent the Argentine stock market tumbling, inciting double-digit percentage declines in stock markets.
But, Obama would never let that happen in the U.S.A., now would he?
According to James Pethokoukis in USA News and World Report: House Democrats recently considered ideas that would eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, (the plan) would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker, which would yield a shockingly low 3%, and set mandatory saving requirement.
While this is just an idea being floated before the house, the lawmakers seem serious about killing 401K tax incentives; because, in the words of Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), the tax breaks are not "generating what we now say it should."
Part of the concern in Argentina is that there are no limits on how the government can use the seized funds; although lawmakers in the country are trying to limit how the government uses and invests the money.
Do you feel comfortable that the U.S. government would keep those funds apart from the general funds and not spend the money on other programs, considering that social security funds are used for other purposes?
I have to wonder, are we about to elect a man whose politics mirror the avowed socialist president of Argentina?
Scary times, indeed.
Fernandez, like Obama, is a short-term politician, serving time as a local politician before serving in the country's senate. During only her second term, Fernandez ran for president.Fernandez started her public life as an activist; similarly, Obama started his political career as a "community organizer", an activist activity to be sure.
Like Obama, Fernandez is often complimented on his looks, receiving compliments for her "striking physical appearance." Many believe they both got votes based on their appearance alone.Both politicians are lauded for making history in their respective countries: Fernandez is the first woman elected to the country's presidency; Obama, of course, is aiming to be the country's first black president.
Their politics and attitudes also have some overlap.
According to a October 2007 Boston Globe article, Fernandez stated that "she is not against business profit."
This comment is eerily similar to Obama telling "Joe the Plumber" It's not that I want to punish your success... Both politicians seem to be apologizing for policies that do harm business profits and do punish success.
Fernandez continued in her conversation to "urge companies to be socially responsible."
Again, this attitude mirrors Obama's comment that paying taxes higher taxes is akin to neighborliness, and Joe Biden's call that paying higher taxes is patriotic.
I make these comparisons as I wonder if Fernandez' presidency is a preview to an Obama administration.
One of Fernandez' first acts as president was to increase the tax on farm exports. Like Fernandez, Obama wants to raise taxes and restrict trade.
Instead of helping the economy, Argentina's increased farm tax caused major problems in the economy, leading to protests, higher prices, and inflation. According to a USA Today article, had the taxes not been increased, the (tax) windfall could have financed needed utilities and energy sector infrastructure or funded programs for the country's 10 million poor.
Fernandez justified the tax increase because farmer's profits "should be spread to help the poor." Similarly, Obama has been preaching the notion of "spreading the wealth."
More recently, Fernandez just announced plans for Argentina to take over private pension systems in her country. The move, not yet enacted, has already sent the Argentine stock market tumbling, inciting double-digit percentage declines in stock markets.
But, Obama would never let that happen in the U.S.A., now would he?
According to James Pethokoukis in USA News and World Report: House Democrats recently considered ideas that would eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, (the plan) would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker, which would yield a shockingly low 3%, and set mandatory saving requirement.While this is just an idea being floated before the house, the lawmakers seem serious about killing 401K tax incentives; because, in the words of Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), the tax breaks are not "generating what we now say it should."
Part of the concern in Argentina is that there are no limits on how the government can use the seized funds; although lawmakers in the country are trying to limit how the government uses and invests the money.
Do you feel comfortable that the U.S. government would keep those funds apart from the general funds and not spend the money on other programs, considering that social security funds are used for other purposes?
I have to wonder, are we about to elect a man whose politics mirror the avowed socialist president of Argentina?
Scary times, indeed.
Monday, October 27, 2008
No Media Bias Here -- Part III
No Media Bias Here
Well, no there is....I read this 2002 piece for Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting by some fellows named he mainstream media are no more liberal than the conglomerates that own them or the advertisers that pay their bills.
They cite as absolute proof two surveys done by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting -- their employer! (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting is neither, from what I can tell.)
The article reads like parody. One laughable charge involves a CBS Evening News report on a flat-tax proposal. The story was one-sided, giving no time to flat-tax supporters, but was it really proof of liberal bias?
A story with flat tax opponents and no flat tax supporters is not biased? This is what the writers consider "fair" and "accurate"?
I think I would put more stock in Michael Malone's piece on ABCNews.com:
Meanwhile, I watched with disbelief as the nation's leading newspapers, many of whom I'd written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page. Personal opinions and comments that, had they appeared in my stories in 1979, would have gotten my butt kicked by the nearest copy editor, were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S.
Should I take the word of a man who has worked at Wall Street Journal, the Economist, Fortune and Forbes? Or from two guys who wrote books bashing Rush Limbaugh and Fox News' Bill O'Reilly...
Obama: Free Speech Under Attack
First, we saw what happened when "Joe the Plumber" deigned to ask Obama a tough question.
We know that Obama and the Democrats want to shut down talk radio using the "Fairness" Doctrine.
We know that Obama has turned to the Justice Department to criminalize campaign speech from Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin.
Now, Barbara West, a reporter at WFTV in Orlando, Florida, is feeling the wrath of the Obama campaign for asking tough questions.
West asked simple but tough questions of Sen. Joe Biden relating to Obama's own words, Biden's own words, and Obama's own policies.
She brought up issues that many people, including myself, have wondered about Obama and his policies.
Did Biden answer the questions? Yes, but not truthfully.
Is Obama a benefactor to ACORN? How is he a benefactor? quips Biden. Namely, Obama helped ACORN by giving $830,000 to the organization for "lighting" and "staging." Lie #1. (This answer by Obama was a lie, too; he "corrected" the record to show the money was for get-out-the-vote efforts.)
Is Obama practicing Marxism in his desire to "spread the wealth"? Are you joking? Is this a joke? He is not talking about spreading the wealth, retorts Biden. Lie #2. He said those very words a few weeks ago, and made inferences to this back in 2001 also.
You said... the world will test Barack Obama. Everyone has acknowledged...the United States is going to be tested, whether it's John McCain or Barack Obama. Lie #3. In his own words, the world will test Obama; he has says nothing about testing McCain.
John McCain was wrong on Iraq, Biden challenges. Obama was right. Lie #4. Obama opposed the surge and said it was not working. So far, the surge has been working. McCain supported it; Obama opposed it. (Good luck finding his opposition to the surge on his Web site.)
What do you say to the people who think that Barack Obama wants to turn the US into a socialist country. I don't know anybody who thinks that... Biden reports. You need to get out more, Joe, and get among the "real" people out there.
For her efforts, the Obama campaign has canceled any future appearances from the campaign, including a scheduled appearance by Biden's wife.
I ask again, why does Obama want to stifle free speech? Why does Obama want to avoid answering questions?
If Obama and his associates will not answer simple questions about his policies -- and the candidates' own words -- what will they do if Obama gets into a scandal? How forthcoming will Obama be if he gets tough questions about a real crisis.
We know that Obama and the Democrats want to shut down talk radio using the "Fairness" Doctrine.
We know that Obama has turned to the Justice Department to criminalize campaign speech from Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin.Now, Barbara West, a reporter at WFTV in Orlando, Florida, is feeling the wrath of the Obama campaign for asking tough questions.
West asked simple but tough questions of Sen. Joe Biden relating to Obama's own words, Biden's own words, and Obama's own policies.
She brought up issues that many people, including myself, have wondered about Obama and his policies.
Did Biden answer the questions? Yes, but not truthfully.
Is Obama a benefactor to ACORN? How is he a benefactor? quips Biden. Namely, Obama helped ACORN by giving $830,000 to the organization for "lighting" and "staging." Lie #1. (This answer by Obama was a lie, too; he "corrected" the record to show the money was for get-out-the-vote efforts.)
Is Obama practicing Marxism in his desire to "spread the wealth"? Are you joking? Is this a joke? He is not talking about spreading the wealth, retorts Biden. Lie #2. He said those very words a few weeks ago, and made inferences to this back in 2001 also.
You said... the world will test Barack Obama. Everyone has acknowledged...the United States is going to be tested, whether it's John McCain or Barack Obama. Lie #3. In his own words, the world will test Obama; he has says nothing about testing McCain.
John McCain was wrong on Iraq, Biden challenges. Obama was right. Lie #4. Obama opposed the surge and said it was not working. So far, the surge has been working. McCain supported it; Obama opposed it. (Good luck finding his opposition to the surge on his Web site.)What do you say to the people who think that Barack Obama wants to turn the US into a socialist country. I don't know anybody who thinks that... Biden reports. You need to get out more, Joe, and get among the "real" people out there.
For her efforts, the Obama campaign has canceled any future appearances from the campaign, including a scheduled appearance by Biden's wife.
I ask again, why does Obama want to stifle free speech? Why does Obama want to avoid answering questions?
If Obama and his associates will not answer simple questions about his policies -- and the candidates' own words -- what will they do if Obama gets into a scandal? How forthcoming will Obama be if he gets tough questions about a real crisis.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Massachusetts is Suppressing Military Voters
According to WTKK FM talk show host, Michael Graham, officials in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are engaged in knowing and intentional voter suppression.
Reports Graham: Secretary of State, Bill Galvin, has been ignoring federal law designed to protect the voting rights of uniformed military personnel deployed to Iraq and elsewhere.
According to a news release from the U.S. Department of Justice, Galvin's office has been in violation of the Uniformed Overseas Citizen Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) since its inception in 2002.
This violation, Graham challenges, indicates that Galvin refused to obey the law and make sure Massachusetts military members got their ballots and had their votes counted.
While no such assertion was stated in the DoJ complaint, the DoJ did state that: Without (UOCAVA compliance), Congress and the public cannot determine whether states are fulfilling their obligations to let uniformed service members and overseas citizens fully participate in our elections.
Galvin, it appears, is not reporting accurate and complete information about whether our uniformed service members and overseas citizens are being given an effective opportunity to have their votes counted.
While we cannot prove that Galvin is truly suppressing military votes, his office cannot prove that they were not.
This transgression seems odd from someone who lobbied for ballots in Boston to be translated into Chinese to protect the rights of Chinese-speaking voters.
Could Galvin, a Democrat, have reason to prevent the military from voting in the fact that the large majority of soldiers are planning to vote for Sen. John McCain? Recall that Al Gore and the Democrats tried to suppress military votes in Florida during the 2000 election.
He won't say.
When confronted by Graham, who called Galvin's office, Galvin's spokesperson refused comment. Later, the spokesperson called Graham's producer, demanding that the talk-master stop talking about the subject. According to Graham's blog, The Secretary was filing a complaint against me with the Federal Communications Commission because he didn't like what I was saying.
Not unusual that a Democrat would try to shut down dissent.
Could it be that Galvin would not allow the people defending our democracy participate in our democracy?
Reports Graham: Secretary of State, Bill Galvin, has been ignoring federal law designed to protect the voting rights of uniformed military personnel deployed to Iraq and elsewhere. According to a news release from the U.S. Department of Justice, Galvin's office has been in violation of the Uniformed Overseas Citizen Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) since its inception in 2002.
This violation, Graham challenges, indicates that Galvin refused to obey the law and make sure Massachusetts military members got their ballots and had their votes counted.
While no such assertion was stated in the DoJ complaint, the DoJ did state that: Without (UOCAVA compliance), Congress and the public cannot determine whether states are fulfilling their obligations to let uniformed service members and overseas citizens fully participate in our elections.
Galvin, it appears, is not reporting accurate and complete information about whether our uniformed service members and overseas citizens are being given an effective opportunity to have their votes counted.
While we cannot prove that Galvin is truly suppressing military votes, his office cannot prove that they were not.
This transgression seems odd from someone who lobbied for ballots in Boston to be translated into Chinese to protect the rights of Chinese-speaking voters.
Could Galvin, a Democrat, have reason to prevent the military from voting in the fact that the large majority of soldiers are planning to vote for Sen. John McCain? Recall that Al Gore and the Democrats tried to suppress military votes in Florida during the 2000 election.
He won't say.
When confronted by Graham, who called Galvin's office, Galvin's spokesperson refused comment. Later, the spokesperson called Graham's producer, demanding that the talk-master stop talking about the subject. According to Graham's blog, The Secretary was filing a complaint against me with the Federal Communications Commission because he didn't like what I was saying.
Not unusual that a Democrat would try to shut down dissent.
Could it be that Galvin would not allow the people defending our democracy participate in our democracy?
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Obama: Is This the Change You Counted On?
Sen. Barck Obama has not won the presidency and he is already changing his tax plan.
Obama has promised large tax cuts and tax credits to help the less-fortunate by increasing taxes on the "wealthy."
However, it seems that Obama is ready, willing, and able to change his tax plan to reduce the number of people on the receiving end. Specifically, Obama has changed the requirements for eligibility in his $13 billion-a-year Universal Mortgage Credit.
From the Obama website:
Obama and Biden will create a 10 percent universal mortgage credit to provide homeowners who do not itemize tax relief. This credit will provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners, the majority of whom earn less than $50,000 per year.
Apparently, Obama is now requiring recipients of the tax credit to have worked "sometime in the last year."
Why, according to Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee, did Obama add a work-requirement to the tax credit? Because it was the right thing to do? So that the credit would be more fair? So that the credit did not reward people for not working?
Well, not exaclty:
"(McCain) started saying this was welfare," said Goolsbee. "So, just so they would absolutely not be able to say that, we decided that...we'll simply add a work requirement."
Because McCain was criticizing him, Obama changed the plan, affecting millions of people. Wow...
True leadership on display.
But wait! Not so fast! The work-requirement was always there, says Goolsbee:
"Our thing has never been welfare. It was always our intention that there was a work requirement."
You see, they always planned to require recipients to work, but just never told us.
Just what other "change" has Obama not told us about?
When you consider Omaba's plan to cut taxes for "95% of all Americans," keep this in mind. That number will certainly "change" and it won't go higher, that's a promise.
Obama has promised large tax cuts and tax credits to help the less-fortunate by increasing taxes on the "wealthy."
However, it seems that Obama is ready, willing, and able to change his tax plan to reduce the number of people on the receiving end. Specifically, Obama has changed the requirements for eligibility in his $13 billion-a-year Universal Mortgage Credit.
From the Obama website:
Obama and Biden will create a 10 percent universal mortgage credit to provide homeowners who do not itemize tax relief. This credit will provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners, the majority of whom earn less than $50,000 per year.
Apparently, Obama is now requiring recipients of the tax credit to have worked "sometime in the last year."
Why, according to Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee, did Obama add a work-requirement to the tax credit? Because it was the right thing to do? So that the credit would be more fair? So that the credit did not reward people for not working?
Well, not exaclty:
"(McCain) started saying this was welfare," said Goolsbee. "So, just so they would absolutely not be able to say that, we decided that...we'll simply add a work requirement."
Because McCain was criticizing him, Obama changed the plan, affecting millions of people. Wow...
True leadership on display.
But wait! Not so fast! The work-requirement was always there, says Goolsbee:
"Our thing has never been welfare. It was always our intention that there was a work requirement."
You see, they always planned to require recipients to work, but just never told us.
Just what other "change" has Obama not told us about?
When you consider Omaba's plan to cut taxes for "95% of all Americans," keep this in mind. That number will certainly "change" and it won't go higher, that's a promise.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Gen. Powell's Non-Endoresment of Obama
This is an endorsement?
On the recent economic crisis:
I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this...period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this...
Wow. Intellectual curiosity. But, again, no experience in handling "problems like this."
Powell said of John McCain:
I found that (McCain) was a little unsure as to deal with the economic problems that we were having and almost every day there was a different approach to the problem.
At least McCain had an approach. Let us not forget, Obama offered no solution whatsoever!
Not a single word about Obama's accomplishments, experience, or prior successes. That's because there aren't any to mention!
When you evaluate Powell's endorsement, consider this endorsement from the Republican National Convention in 2000 from Powell:
Dick Cheney is one of the most distinguished and dedicated public servants this nation has ever had. He will be a superb vice president. The Bush/Cheney team will be a great team for America. They will put our nation on a course of hope and optimism for this new century.
Those words sound eerily similar to his comments on Obama, no?
(Obama) is a new generation coming into the world–onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I’ll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.
So, Gen. Powell, you're voting for Hannah Montana?
From a transcript of Colin Powell's Meet the Press "interview" on Sunday Oct. 19:
And I come to the conclusion that because of (Obama's) ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities;and we have to take that into account;as well as his substance;he has both style and substance;he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president.
He has style and substance! That qualifies him to be President of the United States? I don't think that qualifies someone to be High School class president!
On foreign policy:
...he has educated himself, as he has become very familiar with these issues. He speaks authoritatively. He speaks with great insight into the challenges we’re facing...
He talks a real good game. I will sleep better at night knowing that Obama "educated himself." Great.
I’m confident, with people who’ll be able to give him the expertise that he, at the moment, does not have.
Let me repeat Gen. Powell's own words, "the experience Obama does not have."
Hardly an endorsement of Obama's ability (or lack thereof) to handle a crisis.
And I come to the conclusion that because of (Obama's) ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities;and we have to take that into account;as well as his substance;he has both style and substance;he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president.He has style and substance! That qualifies him to be President of the United States? I don't think that qualifies someone to be High School class president!
On foreign policy:
...he has educated himself, as he has become very familiar with these issues. He speaks authoritatively. He speaks with great insight into the challenges we’re facing...
He talks a real good game. I will sleep better at night knowing that Obama "educated himself." Great.
I’m confident, with people who’ll be able to give him the expertise that he, at the moment, does not have.
Let me repeat Gen. Powell's own words, "the experience Obama does not have."
Hardly an endorsement of Obama's ability (or lack thereof) to handle a crisis.
On the recent economic crisis:
I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this...period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this...
Wow. Intellectual curiosity. But, again, no experience in handling "problems like this."
Powell said of John McCain:
I found that (McCain) was a little unsure as to deal with the economic problems that we were having and almost every day there was a different approach to the problem.
At least McCain had an approach. Let us not forget, Obama offered no solution whatsoever!
Not a single word about Obama's accomplishments, experience, or prior successes. That's because there aren't any to mention!
When you evaluate Powell's endorsement, consider this endorsement from the Republican National Convention in 2000 from Powell:
Dick Cheney is one of the most distinguished and dedicated public servants this nation has ever had. He will be a superb vice president. The Bush/Cheney team will be a great team for America. They will put our nation on a course of hope and optimism for this new century.
Those words sound eerily similar to his comments on Obama, no?
(Obama) is a new generation coming into the world–onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I’ll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.
So, Gen. Powell, you're voting for Hannah Montana?
Is Obama Ready for a "Crisis?"
As I mentioned yesterday, and has been discussed in the partisan press (though not nearly enough), Sen. Barack Obama's vice presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden all but promised a "generated international crisis" after Obama's presumed election.I now hear pundits, bloggers and "journalists" discussing whether Obama would be ready for the crisis.
That's not the question to ask!
The question to ask is: Why elect a president whose very election will guarantee an 'international crisis' strikes us?
I don't want an international crisis! I don't want to know if Obama has the "mettle" to endure a crisis. How do we prevent this crisis from happening, Joe???
Seems simple to me: Vote for the guy whose national defense policy mirrors the policy of the current president, on whose watch there has been no "generated crisis" from The Middle East or Russia for the last seven years!" Vote John McCain.
Interesting note, the CNN story somehow failed to mention Biden's saying the crisis would come from the Middle East or Russia. Hmmmm. (Nope, no liberal bias here!)
Monday, October 20, 2008
Biden Hints at Impending "International Crisis"
At a fundraiser on Sunday, vice-presidential nominee Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) suggested that a President Barack Obama would be "tested" by a "generated international crisis" from the Middle-East or Russia within six months of his election.
"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy...Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
As the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden has access to top secret national defense intelligence. What exactly does he know, and what does his saying it mean?
More enigmatic is his hint at an Obama response to the crisis:
"And (Obama's) gonna need help. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
Is Biden talking to the (presumably) left-wing supporters at this fund raiser, or is he asking for the help of all of the American people?
Is he hinting that Obama's response would be aggressive, disappointing the left-wing anti-war crowd; or would Obama's response be tepid, disappointing Middle America?
Is he telling us that electing President Obama equals asking for a terrorist attack? Would this "crisis" focus on Obama himself or the U.S. as a whole? A military attack or a financial hit?
Is he tipping his hand to the presumed makers of this crisis that we are onto them and they should not proceed?
"The world is looking," he announced.
Does this mean "the world" does not fear Obama or see him as a strong leader, one who could help his country survive such an event? Does this mean the world sees Obama as weak, and is licking their chops at the chance to attack an Obama-led U.S. rather than a U.S. in the hands of Bush or McCain?
Is Biden, himself, suggesting that Obama is weak, and giving us yet another reason to vote against him.
Or, is he suggesting that the world is misunderestimating Obama at its own peril?
Please comment below and let me know what you think. This is a very interesting development....
"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy...Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
As the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden has access to top secret national defense intelligence. What exactly does he know, and what does his saying it mean?
More enigmatic is his hint at an Obama response to the crisis:
"And (Obama's) gonna need help. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
Is Biden talking to the (presumably) left-wing supporters at this fund raiser, or is he asking for the help of all of the American people?
Is he hinting that Obama's response would be aggressive, disappointing the left-wing anti-war crowd; or would Obama's response be tepid, disappointing Middle America?
Is he telling us that electing President Obama equals asking for a terrorist attack? Would this "crisis" focus on Obama himself or the U.S. as a whole? A military attack or a financial hit?
Is he tipping his hand to the presumed makers of this crisis that we are onto them and they should not proceed?
"The world is looking," he announced.
Does this mean "the world" does not fear Obama or see him as a strong leader, one who could help his country survive such an event? Does this mean the world sees Obama as weak, and is licking their chops at the chance to attack an Obama-led U.S. rather than a U.S. in the hands of Bush or McCain?
Is Biden, himself, suggesting that Obama is weak, and giving us yet another reason to vote against him.
Or, is he suggesting that the world is misunderestimating Obama at its own peril?
Please comment below and let me know what you think. This is a very interesting development....
Friday, October 17, 2008
"Joe the Plumber" Gets Trashed for Daring to Challenge Obama
First Palin, Now Joe the PlumberThis will teach anyone about speaking out against the Anointed One Barack Obama.
After Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was added to the Republican ticket, every aspect of her life was ravaged by the left-wing, from her hobbies to her children. Every manner of vicious lie, hateful allegation, ludicrous rumor, and demented fantasy was spun about her and her family. She was ravaged by the press, musicians, (so-called) comedians, and every other left-wing Obama advocate.
Enter Joe the Plumber. An average Joe; just another typical white person, no doubt, who had the nerve to challenge his Highness asking questions about Obama's policies and actually challenging answers.
Now, the media mavens who have tired of lying about Palin are in full-on offensive mode against Joe. They are digging into his taxes, his profession, his income, his voter registration status, his family ties, and anything else they can get their hands on. Is anyone watching Joe's trash barrels?
"Reporters camped out by his house overnight and by mid-morning there were 21 people on his driveway surrounding him, holding cameras and notebooks," reports MSNBC.com. Only 21 people? Obama alone sent more than 30 people to dig through Palin's trash.
"I don’t have any Joe the Plumbers in my neighborhood that make $250,000 a year..." sneered Joe Biden, Obama's running mate, clearly not understanding that the business Joe wanted to buy would earn that much, not Joe himself.
“How many plumbers do you know making a quarter of a million dollars a year?” chortled Obama, continuing to spread the falsehood.
The McCain camp rallied to Joe's defense: "This is why voters still have so many questions about Barack Obama. Instead of answering tough questions, his campaign attacks average Americans for daring to look at the reality behind his words," said Tucker Bounds, spokesman the McCain-Palin campaign.
Whether Joe was a GOP plant or a real person with real questions, he is talking for all of us in Middle America. He is asking the questions and making the statements far too many of us are unwilling to make. Obama's casual dismissal of Joe shows his disdain for the common folk.
Who would you rather have in the White House? Obama who ridicules a hard-worker like Joe because he doesn't agree with Obama? Or, John McCain who rushes to Joe's defense and supports people who ask the hard questions.
First Obama wants to punish Joe's success; now Obama is going to punish Joe for asking him a question.
If Joe the Plumber can't ask a critical question of Obama, who can? Will this full-on assault be launched on anyone who dares question a President Obama? If a politician stand up and challenge a policy, will his career be done? Will talk radio be shut down by the "Fairness Doctrine?" Where is the evidence to the contrary?
Is this really the America you want?
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Obama Admits His Socialist/Marxist Policies
As I told you several weeks ago, Sen. Barack Obama is finally coming to terms with his Marxist/Socialist tendencies.In a now-famous conversation with gentlemen come to be known as "Joe the Plumber," Obama said this:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
Well, not exactly. That was Karl Marx, the philosopher upon whose thinking Communism has developed. Barack is not that far away from Marx.
Joe, it seems, wants to buy the plumbing business where he has worked. However, he fears, in his new position, Obama's tax plans would cost Joe dearly.
It's not that I want to punish your success, Obama told Joe. But, Obama will punish Joe anyway.
This country was was built and has thrived on individuals who work hard and take chances. Obama wants to punish those individuals for those very actions.
I don't mind paying a little more (in taxes), Obama told the crowd at the third presidential debate. Good for you, Barack. You do that; you pay more and leave the rest of us alone. That is what charities are for. Of course, Barack don't know much about charity.
At least no one can question Obama's patriotism!
I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody, he told Joe.
Obama is finally admitting -- in his own words -- that he wants to take money from people who are successful and give it to those who are less-so.
Maybe we should leave Joe alone and let him spread his wealth to his employees for putting in a hard day's work instead of turning the "wealth" over to the government to distribute as they see fit!
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
Or, to think of it in another way: Those who can, pay more taxes; those who can't, get more handouts.
McCain Wins Third Debate in a TKO
I know my opinion is not in-line with all the pundits in the partisan press, it is clear to me that Sen John McCain clearly won the third and final U.S. presidential debate.
(A quick review of the Internet sites of some major media outlets will tacitly confirm McCain's victory. Look at the MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, Boston Globe web sites; stories of the debate are buried, if present at all. )
Throughout the night, McCain had Obama on the defensive, criticizing Obama for his desire towards "spreading the wealth" among the people, taking more tax dollars from the successful and giving it to the less-so.
Joe was trying to realize the American dream, McCain challenged, referencing a gentleman who spoke with Obama a few days ago. We're going to take Joe's money, give it to Senator Obama and let him spread the wealth around.
McCain followed with a quip reminding us that the Obama and Democrats have a low threshold for defining someone as rich. Congratulations, Joe, you are rich. He probably didn't even know that.
Obama criticized McCain for suggesting an across-the-board spending freeze, a move put in place in New York City (and in households across the nation), preferring to take a scalpel to the budget.
However, when pressed on what programs he will cut, after 20 months on the campaign trail, Obama STILL cannot name a single item that he will cut. He continues to throw the suggestion that he will go line-by-line through the budget to cut programs that don't work, with no hint of what those might be.
McCain followed with a reminder about Obama's proposed $830 billion in new spending plans.
When told that the U.S. has the highest per-student cost for public education, Obama responded by stating that we need more money in education, standing steadfastly against any voucher program, despite McCain's claims that the voucher program in the Washington D.C. school system is popular and successful.
Obama's strongest point came when defending his healthcare plan, emphasizing that people will save more money on his plan than on McCain's. He is offering folks with no health insurance to sign up for the plan Congress has; he thinks that people should have the same healthcare as the legislators. Except, regular folks won't get it for free.
When asked directly by McCain how much Obama would fine people who don't subscribe to his health insurance plan, Obama will still not tell us. Likely, because he doesn't want us to know!
While McCain did not sufficiently highlight Obama's associations with the domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and the vote-fraud campaign of the group ACORN, McCain did remind us all that Obama gave $832,000 from his campaign coffers to ACRON that has gone to fund the group's "get-out-the-vote" campaign -- an effort that has resulted in massive voter registration fraud. Obama never apologized or expressed regret for that donation (not to mention that he lied on his campaign finance reports about the donation), nor did he condemn their tactics.
However, Obama faltered on the topic of Supreme Court judges. When asked, McCain emphatically announced that he would have no "litmus test" for judicial nominees regarding the Roe v Wade abortion "rights" case, despite his feeling that the ruling should be overturned.
Obama, who supports pretty much every form of abortion -- including abortions paid for by the tax-payers, dodged the question, never answering the question. A clear indication that he would have a precondition for his judicial nominees.
And finally, finally (!!), McCain told Obama and all the Democrats that he is not, in fact, George Bush:
Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you want to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.
Throughout the night, as he has throughout his campaign, Obama continues to avoid discussing the details of his plans for the country, preferring instead to throw out the now-tired canard that we can't have the same failed policies and the same failed politics of the past eight years.
About the only thing certain that Obama will do is raise taxes. He told us last night that he doesn't "mind paying a little more (taxes)." I don't know about you, but I would rather spend my earnings on my family, not on Washington D.C.
McCain answered my concerns by demanding: "Nobody likes taxes. Let's not raise anybody's taxes."
Amen, Senator.
(A quick review of the Internet sites of some major media outlets will tacitly confirm McCain's victory. Look at the MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, Boston Globe web sites; stories of the debate are buried, if present at all. )
Throughout the night, McCain had Obama on the defensive, criticizing Obama for his desire towards "spreading the wealth" among the people, taking more tax dollars from the successful and giving it to the less-so.
Joe was trying to realize the American dream, McCain challenged, referencing a gentleman who spoke with Obama a few days ago. We're going to take Joe's money, give it to Senator Obama and let him spread the wealth around.McCain followed with a quip reminding us that the Obama and Democrats have a low threshold for defining someone as rich. Congratulations, Joe, you are rich. He probably didn't even know that.
Obama criticized McCain for suggesting an across-the-board spending freeze, a move put in place in New York City (and in households across the nation), preferring to take a scalpel to the budget.
However, when pressed on what programs he will cut, after 20 months on the campaign trail, Obama STILL cannot name a single item that he will cut. He continues to throw the suggestion that he will go line-by-line through the budget to cut programs that don't work, with no hint of what those might be.
McCain followed with a reminder about Obama's proposed $830 billion in new spending plans.
When told that the U.S. has the highest per-student cost for public education, Obama responded by stating that we need more money in education, standing steadfastly against any voucher program, despite McCain's claims that the voucher program in the Washington D.C. school system is popular and successful.
Obama's strongest point came when defending his healthcare plan, emphasizing that people will save more money on his plan than on McCain's. He is offering folks with no health insurance to sign up for the plan Congress has; he thinks that people should have the same healthcare as the legislators. Except, regular folks won't get it for free.When asked directly by McCain how much Obama would fine people who don't subscribe to his health insurance plan, Obama will still not tell us. Likely, because he doesn't want us to know!
While McCain did not sufficiently highlight Obama's associations with the domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and the vote-fraud campaign of the group ACORN, McCain did remind us all that Obama gave $832,000 from his campaign coffers to ACRON that has gone to fund the group's "get-out-the-vote" campaign -- an effort that has resulted in massive voter registration fraud. Obama never apologized or expressed regret for that donation (not to mention that he lied on his campaign finance reports about the donation), nor did he condemn their tactics.
However, Obama faltered on the topic of Supreme Court judges. When asked, McCain emphatically announced that he would have no "litmus test" for judicial nominees regarding the Roe v Wade abortion "rights" case, despite his feeling that the ruling should be overturned.
Obama, who supports pretty much every form of abortion -- including abortions paid for by the tax-payers, dodged the question, never answering the question. A clear indication that he would have a precondition for his judicial nominees.
And finally, finally (!!), McCain told Obama and all the Democrats that he is not, in fact, George Bush:
Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you want to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.
Throughout the night, as he has throughout his campaign, Obama continues to avoid discussing the details of his plans for the country, preferring instead to throw out the now-tired canard that we can't have the same failed policies and the same failed politics of the past eight years.
About the only thing certain that Obama will do is raise taxes. He told us last night that he doesn't "mind paying a little more (taxes)." I don't know about you, but I would rather spend my earnings on my family, not on Washington D.C.
McCain answered my concerns by demanding: "Nobody likes taxes. Let's not raise anybody's taxes."
Amen, Senator.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Obama Criticizes His Own Economic Policy
Barack Obama has proposed an economic policy that he lambasted as disastrous just a few months ago.
When Hillary Clinton proposed a 90-day moratorium on home foreclosures in March 2008, Obama called her plan disastrous and suggested that it would reward people who made this problem worse and benefit banks that profit from high mortgage rates.
However, yesterday, a mere 7 months later, Obama has proposed -- you guessed it -- a 90-day moratorium on home foreclosures.
Obama believes that banks participating in the federal bailout should temporarily postpone foreclosures for families making good-faith efforts to pay their mortgage."
And, precisely what does good-faith effort mean? Who knows?
It's rather like Obama saying he will bring the U.S. troops home responsibly. Whatever that means.
Obama says the nation needs a new ethic of responsibility, unless of course, you are responsible for paying your mortgage, in which case you will be off the hook.
Maybe Obama should switch his motto to The Change-of-Mind You Can Believe In.
When Hillary Clinton proposed a 90-day moratorium on home foreclosures in March 2008, Obama called her plan disastrous and suggested that it would reward people who made this problem worse and benefit banks that profit from high mortgage rates.However, yesterday, a mere 7 months later, Obama has proposed -- you guessed it -- a 90-day moratorium on home foreclosures.
Obama believes that banks participating in the federal bailout should temporarily postpone foreclosures for families making good-faith efforts to pay their mortgage."
And, precisely what does good-faith effort mean? Who knows?
It's rather like Obama saying he will bring the U.S. troops home responsibly. Whatever that means.
Obama says the nation needs a new ethic of responsibility, unless of course, you are responsible for paying your mortgage, in which case you will be off the hook.
Maybe Obama should switch his motto to The Change-of-Mind You Can Believe In.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Obama and His Associations - A Case in Poor Judgment
We have all heard the names Jeremiah Wright, the patently anti-American, racist preacher; William Ayers, the patently anti-American, unrepentant domestic-terrorist murderer; the left-wing radicalism of the "community" group ACORN; and Sen. Barack Obama's association with each.
I am less concerned at the moment about what-he-knew-and-when-he-knew-it about these Obama associates. And I don't think that associating with these groups makes Obama a racist, bigoted, domestic terrorist, community group.
What bothers me -- and should bother ALL Americans -- is that Obama is a blatant political opportunist, a terrible judge of character and/or a patent liar.
Worse than Obama's knowing what these parties stand for and working with them anyway, or worse than his not knowing, is that Obama didn't care what these parties stood for.
I believe that Obama saw opportunities through each of these connections to advance his political career and did not concern himself with what these parties preached nor how his association could help.
About Wright, Obama contends that he never knew about Wright's proclivities, despite their 20-year relationship.
"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign."
What does that say about Obama? How can you not know the hate-filled opinions of someone you've known for 20 years? Someone who is a professional public speaker, and apparently airs his hateful views frequently and with great pride (and on DVD!).
I contend that Obama associated himself with Wright and his church to establish his street cred. Remember, here is a guy who was born to a white mother, raised by his "typical white person" grandmother, and a product of Ivy League schools. He would seem to be a guy who would want for something to establish a connection with the South Side of Chicago. What better than a race-baiting, hate-monger?
And, how could Obama just get up and walk out, as so many detractors have criticized him for not doing? Walking out would have offended Wright, who would likely have the power to hurt Obama's political aspirations. So, Obama put his political gain over doing the right thing, stated with this anti-American preacher so as not to offend someone who could help him.
Obama's associated with ACORN, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a community-based organization. In addition to legitimate advocacy, ACORN is known for staging boisterous protests.
Among their initiatives, ACORN became involved in pushing the very type of mortgages to low-income borrowers that had a large impact in the current Wall Street crisis.
Obama was a trainer for ACORN, teaching ACORN tactics in voter registration drives. Interestingly, the organization is being investigated for massive voter registration fraud, including claims of signing-up an entire professional football team multiple times, registering non-existent people, and paying people to repeatedly register in dozens of communities.
Again, I believe that Obama sought out ACORN as a means to reach the grass-roots, inner-city constituency in Chicago for his eventual political campaigns.
Next is William Ayers, an unrepentant domestic terrorist whose organization, the Weather Underground, is responsible for killing police officers, bombing the Pentagon, and countless acts of wanton destruction.
Obama used his connection to Ayers through the Woods Fund of Chicago and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge organizations to meet the well-heeled liberals of Chicago. Anyone launching a political career in any jurisdiction needs to meet and impress people with money and influence to contribute.
One could forgive Obama this association, were Ayers in any way repentant for his past. He is not. In interviews during the 2000s, Ayers reportedly lamented "they didn't do more" to stop the Vietnam War. Which I construe to mean more killings and destruction.
For me, these associations and others give rise to concerns that Obama puts political gain over the right-and-wrong of a given relationship. This represents a level of poor judgment that this country cannot have in a president.
How will Obama respond to in his planned meetings with the leaders of countries like Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela?
What will his judgment allow him to appoint to various offices, posts, and judgeship? Consider whom he might appoint to the Supreme Court, with its likely 2 or 3 openings; Secretary of State, Attorney General, just to name a few.
If Obama has either the poor judgment or the political indifference to associate with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, will he appoint people with the country's interest in mind, or his own....
I am less concerned at the moment about what-he-knew-and-when-he-knew-it about these Obama associates. And I don't think that associating with these groups makes Obama a racist, bigoted, domestic terrorist, community group.
What bothers me -- and should bother ALL Americans -- is that Obama is a blatant political opportunist, a terrible judge of character and/or a patent liar.
Worse than Obama's knowing what these parties stand for and working with them anyway, or worse than his not knowing, is that Obama didn't care what these parties stood for.
I believe that Obama saw opportunities through each of these connections to advance his political career and did not concern himself with what these parties preached nor how his association could help.
About Wright, Obama contends that he never knew about Wright's proclivities, despite their 20-year relationship.
"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign."What does that say about Obama? How can you not know the hate-filled opinions of someone you've known for 20 years? Someone who is a professional public speaker, and apparently airs his hateful views frequently and with great pride (and on DVD!).
I contend that Obama associated himself with Wright and his church to establish his street cred. Remember, here is a guy who was born to a white mother, raised by his "typical white person" grandmother, and a product of Ivy League schools. He would seem to be a guy who would want for something to establish a connection with the South Side of Chicago. What better than a race-baiting, hate-monger?
And, how could Obama just get up and walk out, as so many detractors have criticized him for not doing? Walking out would have offended Wright, who would likely have the power to hurt Obama's political aspirations. So, Obama put his political gain over doing the right thing, stated with this anti-American preacher so as not to offend someone who could help him.
Obama's associated with ACORN, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a community-based organization. In addition to legitimate advocacy, ACORN is known for staging boisterous protests.
Among their initiatives, ACORN became involved in pushing the very type of mortgages to low-income borrowers that had a large impact in the current Wall Street crisis.
Obama was a trainer for ACORN, teaching ACORN tactics in voter registration drives. Interestingly, the organization is being investigated for massive voter registration fraud, including claims of signing-up an entire professional football team multiple times, registering non-existent people, and paying people to repeatedly register in dozens of communities.
Again, I believe that Obama sought out ACORN as a means to reach the grass-roots, inner-city constituency in Chicago for his eventual political campaigns.
Next is William Ayers, an unrepentant domestic terrorist whose organization, the Weather Underground, is responsible for killing police officers, bombing the Pentagon, and countless acts of wanton destruction.
Obama used his connection to Ayers through the Woods Fund of Chicago and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge organizations to meet the well-heeled liberals of Chicago. Anyone launching a political career in any jurisdiction needs to meet and impress people with money and influence to contribute.One could forgive Obama this association, were Ayers in any way repentant for his past. He is not. In interviews during the 2000s, Ayers reportedly lamented "they didn't do more" to stop the Vietnam War. Which I construe to mean more killings and destruction.
For me, these associations and others give rise to concerns that Obama puts political gain over the right-and-wrong of a given relationship. This represents a level of poor judgment that this country cannot have in a president.
How will Obama respond to in his planned meetings with the leaders of countries like Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela?What will his judgment allow him to appoint to various offices, posts, and judgeship? Consider whom he might appoint to the Supreme Court, with its likely 2 or 3 openings; Secretary of State, Attorney General, just to name a few.
If Obama has either the poor judgment or the political indifference to associate with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, will he appoint people with the country's interest in mind, or his own....
Friday, October 10, 2008
Obama's Plans to Kill the Economy and Cause a Depression
Barack Obama's economic proposals are wrong for the American economy. They defy both economic reason and economic experience.
In the election campaign of 2008, the economy and foreign policy are paramount with the candidates and the voters as well. The first two presidential debates focused almost exclusively in these two areas, with the second debate squarely centered on the economy as the U.S. was in the midst of a major financial meltdown.
Having the economy top-most on the voters minds should, and seems to be, benefiting Sen. Barack Obama; polls show the American people favor Barack as the savior of the country's economic future.
However, will Obama's policies fix the flagging economy or make it worse?
Sen. John McCain is trying, albeit likely too late, to charge that Obama's formula for economic recovery will not work, and will in fact plunge the economy deeper into recession, or worse.
A collective of 100 "distinguished and experienced" economists have signed onto a letter, released by the John McCain campaign, stating that Obama's policies will -- and already have -- hurt the U.S. economy.
These economists all agree:
Obama plans to increase taxes on the "wealthy" -- including most small businesses, capital gains, oil, and other sources in order to finance a stimulus package for the, um non-wealthy, despite the fact that the Bush stimulus package from earlier this year has had limited impact on the economy.
"What we're seeing is a mild recession interrupted here by a rebate program," said David Wyss, chief economist for the rating agency Standard & Poor's in New York this week. "Once they (consumers) finish spending these checks, we'll head down again." (paragrah 11)
Most historians agree: An increase in the tax rates and additional barriers to trade, which raised tarriffs on lower-priced imported goods, helped prolong the Great Depression. (paragraph 14)
Surprisingly, Obama also plans to fight for increased restriction and regulation on trade. He opposes the planned Columbia free-trade agreement and the signed Central American Free Trade Agreement for fear that these pacts will not "spread good labor and environmental standards around the world."
Free trade, say the 100 economists, "make goods available to Americans at lower prices and are a particular benefit to families and individuals with low incomes." In addition, they write, International trade is "a powerful source of strength in a weak economy."
If this is true, is Obama really willing to cause more pain to the "families and individuals with low incomes" in America in an attempt to "spread good labor and environmental standards" to those in other countries?
According to these experts:
If history is a guide, then one must ask: Will Obama's economic plans kill the economy and even cause a depression?
Is there any wonder that as Sen. Barack Obama's odds of winning the U.S. presidency are increasing, the stock market in plunging? Or is that just a coincidence?
In the election campaign of 2008, the economy and foreign policy are paramount with the candidates and the voters as well. The first two presidential debates focused almost exclusively in these two areas, with the second debate squarely centered on the economy as the U.S. was in the midst of a major financial meltdown.
Having the economy top-most on the voters minds should, and seems to be, benefiting Sen. Barack Obama; polls show the American people favor Barack as the savior of the country's economic future.
However, will Obama's policies fix the flagging economy or make it worse?
Sen. John McCain is trying, albeit likely too late, to charge that Obama's formula for economic recovery will not work, and will in fact plunge the economy deeper into recession, or worse.
A collective of 100 "distinguished and experienced" economists have signed onto a letter, released by the John McCain campaign, stating that Obama's policies will -- and already have -- hurt the U.S. economy.
These economists all agree:
- Obama's dividend and capital gains tax increases would reduce investment and cut into the savings of millions of Americans.
- His proposals to increase income and payroll tax rates would discourage the formation and expansion of small businesses and reduce employment and take-home pay,
- His mandates on firms to provide expensive health insurance (would reduce employment and take-home pay).
Obama plans to increase taxes on the "wealthy" -- including most small businesses, capital gains, oil, and other sources in order to finance a stimulus package for the, um non-wealthy, despite the fact that the Bush stimulus package from earlier this year has had limited impact on the economy.
"What we're seeing is a mild recession interrupted here by a rebate program," said David Wyss, chief economist for the rating agency Standard & Poor's in New York this week. "Once they (consumers) finish spending these checks, we'll head down again." (paragrah 11)
Most historians agree: An increase in the tax rates and additional barriers to trade, which raised tarriffs on lower-priced imported goods, helped prolong the Great Depression. (paragraph 14)
Surprisingly, Obama also plans to fight for increased restriction and regulation on trade. He opposes the planned Columbia free-trade agreement and the signed Central American Free Trade Agreement for fear that these pacts will not "spread good labor and environmental standards around the world."
Free trade, say the 100 economists, "make goods available to Americans at lower prices and are a particular benefit to families and individuals with low incomes." In addition, they write, International trade is "a powerful source of strength in a weak economy."
If this is true, is Obama really willing to cause more pain to the "families and individuals with low incomes" in America in an attempt to "spread good labor and environmental standards" to those in other countries?
According to these experts:
- Obama's opposition to trade agreements (with Colombia and Central America and renegotiating NAFTA) would block the creation of jobs for Americans these treaties would likely product.
- His opposition to trade treaties would reduce imports that would make goods available to Americans at lower prices, particularly hurting low-income families and individuals.
If history is a guide, then one must ask: Will Obama's economic plans kill the economy and even cause a depression?
Is there any wonder that as Sen. Barack Obama's odds of winning the U.S. presidency are increasing, the stock market in plunging? Or is that just a coincidence?
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
McCain and Obama Battle to a Draw; Obama Draws Himself as Clueless
I am sorry, but I cannot see myself climbing aboard the Obama Change Train to Nowhere.I watched the entire U.S. Presidential debate in Memphis last night, and despite what the talking heads on television and in newsprint said, Obama did not win. I am not sure if McCain won either, though.
What I saw is that Obama is still clueless. Sen. Obama (D-IL) still has no plan to fix the economy, improve healthcare, or defend the country. His every policy seems hinged on raising taxes and alternative fuels. The economy can be fixed through alternative fuels, our national defense can be improved through alternative fuels. There, put up a few solar panels and all our problems are solved.
I also saw throughout the evening, that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was trying to be positive and constructive, uplifting and encouraging, with statement like: My friends, we are going through tough times, but together we can make it.
Alternatively, Obama maintained a negative and insulting tone throughout the event. We have problems in this country and they are due to President Bush's policies to which McCain subscribed.
Obama is still running against George Bush, mentioning Bush's policies or stating the "last eight years" at least 10 times in his 40-odd minutes. Sorry, Barack, W ain't running this time out.
Then, after insinuating McCain into every problem faced by the country, Obama literally turns around and said people are not interested in politicians pointing fingers at each other. Barack, take your own advice.
When asked about fixing the economy, Obama could still not offer a solid plan; mentioning only that he would raise taxes on the "wealthy." It is only fair, he said; he wouldn't promise this income-shifting would fix the economy or help the country in anyway. But it is "fair." Barack, the U.S. government is not there to determine what salary and lifestyle is "fair."And, despite what most -- if not all -- financial experts have been telling us over the past several days, Obama assures us that the economy will not get worse in the short term.
He laments that "ordinary families" are in trouble of losing their homes. Sorry, Barack, most "ordinary families" are not in trouble with their homes; 96% or mortgages are being paid with no problems.
He promises to offset his billions in new spending by using a "scalpel" to make cuts. But, unlike McCain, Obama has yet to name a single area where he would cut the budget. (McCain was not much better here, mentioning only a spending freeze, cutting wasteful defense spending, and vetoing earmarks.)
Obama seems to know how to run an oil company better than the industry professionals can, mandating that the oil companies drill on more of their oil fields or they will lose them. Drill where I want, when I want, and how I want or we will break your leases and take your land.
His health care plan in still a mystery. He deems that access to health care is a human "right," Sorry, Barack, health care is the result of people's hard work and talent. No one has the right to the hard work and talent of anyone else.
If we have insurance and are happy with it, he promises, we will get to keep it. Gee thanks, Barack. Now that's leadership. But, if you cannot afford insurance, you may just get fined. He will require health insurance for kids and fine you if you don't. What if you can't afford it?
In the foreign policy section of the debate, Obama made the single most outrageous statement I have ever heard in a debate before.
Never has there been a nation in the history of the world that saw it's economy decline and maintained its military superiority.
I have never heard a serious presidential candidate diminish the American military before, especially in a time of war!
We should send support troop to Darfur, even though we have no national interest. "Moral issues," he said, "When genocide is happening and we stand idly by, it diminishes us." We must consider genocide in other countries as part of U.S. national interest. Is it only "fair," Barack?
Unless the moral issue is in Iraq.
A retired member of the military asked a question. McCain walked over to the man and laid his hand on the man's shoulder in thanks for his service; Obama muttered "We honor your service and are grateful for it," in a flat, emotionless tone as he walked to the center of the stage to speak. And this is the man you want as Commander-in-Chief?On a number of occasions, Barack lambasted McCain for non-policies. "It was you singing Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran," he accused McCain, as though it were officially part of the Republican platform.
There is a difference between a policy and a joke, Obama Barack; although when you speak, it is hard to tell....
Obama Tells the World: We Have Lost Our Military Superiority
Folks, I have been watching presidential debates for 20 years; tonight I heard the single most offensive and destructive comments I have ever heard from a presidential candidate.
During a time of war, Barack Obama told the world "Never has there been a nation in the history of the world that saw it's economy decline and maintained its military superiority."
Why the HELL would he say something like that? What the HELL is he trying to say?
We have troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan and he has the audacity to suggest that we cannot maintain military superiority.
Or, does this mean, as president he would not try to maintain our military?
And you people want to call this man Commander in Chief?
During a time of war, Barack Obama told the world "Never has there been a nation in the history of the world that saw it's economy decline and maintained its military superiority."
Why the HELL would he say something like that? What the HELL is he trying to say?
We have troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan and he has the audacity to suggest that we cannot maintain military superiority.
Or, does this mean, as president he would not try to maintain our military?
And you people want to call this man Commander in Chief?
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Barney Frank Sadly Wrong About Racism Charge
Don't it make my blue state bluer.....
Sorry, Barney Frank; you are just plain wrong.
U.S. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) is on an extended rant, doing all he can to dismiss any level of blame for the current financial crisis from himself and his politics.
Like a good Liberal, Frank is quick to call the Republicans racist for criticizing the low-income lending that helped cause the financial collapse.
"They get to take things out on poor people," said the intrepid representative from tony Newton, MA. "The fact that some of the poor people are black doesn't hurt them either..."
Frank sticks his foot further into his mouth by calling claims that low-income loans helped cause the Wall Street meltdown "bizarre."
It is truly sad when a politician is so blinded by his own prejudices and his own agenda that he cannot or will not see the root of a problem.
This has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with banks being forced to lend money to people who could not afford the loan to satisfy the legal requirements placed on them by politicians.
Why in the world would a bank loan money to someone who could not afford the loan, unless there was some external pressure and/or a guarantee that the loan would be backed by someone else? Unlike the U.S. government, banks are in the business to earn money, not give it away.
He continues his partisan blathering by claiming that Republican's made no attempt at reforms that could have prevented the meltdown, ignoring efforts in 2005 by Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE), John McCain (R-AZ), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), and John Sununu (R-NH) to reform Fannie and Freddie. And, he conveniently neglects to mention that it was the Democrat-controlled Senate that refused to allow this bill to come to a vote.
He declines to mention his own resistance to a President Bush plan in 2003 to provide new oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, fearing that "we will see (less) in terms of affordable housing."
But, not surprisingly, Frank has a vested interest in seeing these agencies absolved of blame and further regulation, having received "more than $40,000 in campaign donations from Fannie since 1989." Further, he may have had a serious conflict-of-interest, stemming from reportedly having a close personal relationship with a Fannie Mae executive at the time.
"The guys on Wall Street," preached Frank, "if they never earned another nickel, would live better than they have any right to live."
I find it pretty frightening when an elected official decides he should be the determinant of how people "have any right to live."
We are living in scary times, indeed.
Sorry, Barney Frank; you are just plain wrong.
U.S. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) is on an extended rant, doing all he can to dismiss any level of blame for the current financial crisis from himself and his politics.
Like a good Liberal, Frank is quick to call the Republicans racist for criticizing the low-income lending that helped cause the financial collapse."They get to take things out on poor people," said the intrepid representative from tony Newton, MA. "The fact that some of the poor people are black doesn't hurt them either..."
Frank sticks his foot further into his mouth by calling claims that low-income loans helped cause the Wall Street meltdown "bizarre."
It is truly sad when a politician is so blinded by his own prejudices and his own agenda that he cannot or will not see the root of a problem.
This has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with banks being forced to lend money to people who could not afford the loan to satisfy the legal requirements placed on them by politicians.
Why in the world would a bank loan money to someone who could not afford the loan, unless there was some external pressure and/or a guarantee that the loan would be backed by someone else? Unlike the U.S. government, banks are in the business to earn money, not give it away.
He continues his partisan blathering by claiming that Republican's made no attempt at reforms that could have prevented the meltdown, ignoring efforts in 2005 by Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE), John McCain (R-AZ), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), and John Sununu (R-NH) to reform Fannie and Freddie. And, he conveniently neglects to mention that it was the Democrat-controlled Senate that refused to allow this bill to come to a vote.
He declines to mention his own resistance to a President Bush plan in 2003 to provide new oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, fearing that "we will see (less) in terms of affordable housing."
But, not surprisingly, Frank has a vested interest in seeing these agencies absolved of blame and further regulation, having received "more than $40,000 in campaign donations from Fannie since 1989." Further, he may have had a serious conflict-of-interest, stemming from reportedly having a close personal relationship with a Fannie Mae executive at the time.
"The guys on Wall Street," preached Frank, "if they never earned another nickel, would live better than they have any right to live."
I find it pretty frightening when an elected official decides he should be the determinant of how people "have any right to live."
We are living in scary times, indeed.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Finanaical Bailout Has Remarkable Effect on Economy
Well, it's a damn fine thing we passed that $700 Billion "bail-out" measure last week. It has had a remarkable impact.
And you want these guys running healthcare in this country????
Downward!
The Dow Jones Industrial Average has dropped nearly 800 points to 9561.32. The first time the average fell below 10,000 since 2004.
The credit markets and banks are still not loaning money; banks are begging for cash from the government (that means you and me!), in the form of $900 billion in "loans;" and individual states are coming forward for "bailouts" (everything starts in California).
The credit markets and banks are still not loaning money; banks are begging for cash from the government (that means you and me!), in the form of $900 billion in "loans;" and individual states are coming forward for "bailouts" (everything starts in California).
I don't know what that all really means, but it ain't good.
This guy knows what this really means, and he agrees with me:
“Whatever money you may need for the next five years, please take it out of the stock market right now, this week. I do not believe that you should risk those assets in the stock market right now.”
But, have no fear, gentle readers, President Bush tells us everything is hunky-dory, it is just "going to take awhile."
So, as long as you don't plan on retiring in the next couple of years, you might be OK.
So, thanks Barney Frank, et. al. You really saved the day this time.
This guy knows what this really means, and he agrees with me:
“Whatever money you may need for the next five years, please take it out of the stock market right now, this week. I do not believe that you should risk those assets in the stock market right now.”
But, have no fear, gentle readers, President Bush tells us everything is hunky-dory, it is just "going to take awhile."
So, as long as you don't plan on retiring in the next couple of years, you might be OK.
So, thanks Barney Frank, et. al. You really saved the day this time.
And you want these guys running healthcare in this country????
Friday, October 3, 2008
John McCain the Hypocrite or Did He Blow It Big Time??
For a candidate who has built his presidential campaign on fighting earmarks and other bits of political pork-barrel spending, John McCain is either a hypocrite or missed a huge opportunity by voting for this nightmare of a "economic recovery" package.
As I have railed at before, and again, and yet again, this recovery package is one part economic fixes and three parts "crap sandwich."
AND MCCAIN VOTED FOR IT!!!
This document was a giant 450 pages earmark!
It might have been a cynical maneuver, but it would have won McCain big points had he stood up and said NO!. He could easily have done some quiet internal polls of his senate brethren, determined that it would pass easily, then came out and screamed about the pork.
I cannot, in good conscience, vote for the bill in its current condition. This goes well beyond economic recovery to include some of the most opportunistic hand-outs to special interests and pounds of irrelevant pork! Fellow Senators, give me a clean economic recovery bill and I will support it! In its current form I cannot!
How hard would that have been?
Has "The Maverick" been tamed? Is this race over?
A huge opportunity missed to help prevent the utterance of the following: President Barack Obama.
As I have railed at before, and again, and yet again, this recovery package is one part economic fixes and three parts "crap sandwich."
AND MCCAIN VOTED FOR IT!!!This document was a giant 450 pages earmark!
It might have been a cynical maneuver, but it would have won McCain big points had he stood up and said NO!. He could easily have done some quiet internal polls of his senate brethren, determined that it would pass easily, then came out and screamed about the pork.
I cannot, in good conscience, vote for the bill in its current condition. This goes well beyond economic recovery to include some of the most opportunistic hand-outs to special interests and pounds of irrelevant pork! Fellow Senators, give me a clean economic recovery bill and I will support it! In its current form I cannot!
How hard would that have been?
Has "The Maverick" been tamed? Is this race over?
A huge opportunity missed to help prevent the utterance of the following: President Barack Obama.
Will Congress Save Us From the "Bailout"?
I know I am just spinning wheels here, but I urge the U.S. House of Representatives to recast the "Emergency Economic Stabilization" bill H.R. 1424 into an actual "bailout" measure.Crop out "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008," and lose the rest. This section consists of only 111 pages out of 451, leaving 340 pages of tax breaks and other gimmes to myriad special interests and dis-interests that have been analyzed ad nauseum by honest journalists and reporters.
I can't agree less with the "solution" to the economic mess that the entire legislature is considering: handing $700 billion dollars to one person to dole out any way he see fit.
But, if you are going to pass this solution anyway, at least take out the parts that have nothing to do with Wall Street, mortgages, and the banking industry.
Pass a bailout-only bill. The country deserves honest solutions to the problems we face. You will have plenty of time later to throw softballs to your friends and lobbyists.
Force the Senate to re-vote on the bailout-only portion of the bill and see how they respond. If this is such a dire crisis, why would Senators need earmarked incentives to sign onto a solution?Show the Senate and the American people that you take this issue seriously enough to evaluate the bailout on its merits, not What's in it for me?.
Do what is right for the country and solve the problem you are setting out to solve.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Senators Approve Pork-Laden "Bailout" Bill
I don't know why I am surprised.Barack Obama ridiculed John McCain last week for not being able to multi-task. And when a politician multi-tasks, I guess, this is what we get as a result.
Our intrepid U.S. Senators worked into the evening to craft a bail out bill that will help stem the fiscal crisis in the U.S. They wanted to help not just Wall Street, but Main Street, too.
They ended up helping pretty much every special interest group short of NAMBLA.
Here is just a partial list of the crucial items in Senate bill H.R. 1424 that Wall Street was crying out for.
- tax deductions for computer donations (pg. 291), food donations (pg. 293) and book donations (pg.294)
- tax breaks for filmmakers and TV producers (pg. 298)
- tax exemptions for children's wooden bow and arrows -- not those phony laminate types either (pg. 300)
- duty extension for wool products -- worsted wool and combed wool both! (pg. 295)
- caps on excise taxes for Puerto Rican and Virgin Island rum (pg 280)
- tax breaks on cost recovery for restaurant improvements and "certain" retail space (pg. 274)
And I love this piece of congressional magic -- they are going to turn anyone who receives a settlement from the Exxon Valdez accident into a fisherman (pg. 302). That will help that single-mother in the Bronx pay her mortgage.
My company will do well: they are extending the "Indian Employment Credit;" we have a number of good folks from India working here!
In this "economic recovery package," only 111 of 451 pages are dedicated to economic recovery!
I could write 451 pages of my own on the audacity of the senate to give one person the power to dole out $700 billion dollars to pretty much whomever he wants.
The Secretary is authorized... to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, troubled assets from any financial institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary, and in accordance with this Act and the policies and procedures developed and published by the Secretary. (pg. 6)
So the secretary of the U.S. treasury can buy any "troubled asset" as long as he determines it appropriate and abides by his own policies. Now that's oversight!
I don't know about you, but I will sleep better knowing that my 401K will mushroom now that we have extended tax breaks for economic development in America Samoa (pg 279).
Phew!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
