As you might have guessed, I talk to people about politics. I try to find Democrats who will actually talk to you, but its hard. They don't like to actually talk issues and have little tolerance for those with different views. That said, I do have some relief that McCain didn't win. I have said it before, that McCain is a liberal, and if a liberal is going to be President, it might as well be a Democrat.
What I do wonder is what will the Liberals do now that they can't blame Bush for all of their life's problems? The answer to any question, any problem about any topic was its Bush's fault. I'm fairly confident that will be the mantra for the first 100 days as well. What will they do when they figure out it wasn't actually Bush's fault.
I'm the first to blame Bush for killing the GOP and not using a veto on a single budget that wasn't balanced. But there comes a time when you realize that people around the world don't like us no matter who is President. They didn't like us when Clinton President either - another Liberal myth. If the terrorist liked us so much during the Clinton years, why did the spend all 8 of those years attacking us and planning 9/11? No really answer for that except they didn't like us then either.
That's not going to change soon, even if Obama gives in to all their requests, they said they won't be happy until they kill us all.
The last excuse will be the filibuster. Republicans will have to use it. Democrats will have to blame it. But that can't cover everything.
Let me know what you think they are going to do? Who is the next Liberal deamon? My pick is Fox News and Radio.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Dow didn't like the election news I guess
Two straight days of the DOW being down after the election has been closed. I guess the DOW didn't like the news. Of course the Obama camp will blame Bush for it after all he is President. The keen observer will not that that the value of the DOW is not based on today, but its based on the expectations of the future. The better Obama did in the polls the worse the DOW got and when the race got closer the DOW started to bounce back. Now that its over, we are seeing more pessimism.
A couple of things to note. Companies need to lay off people quickly before the end of the year and the congress changes the rules. We should see the big companies do that. Small business are already running tight, expect them to hold off hiring until closer to mid 2009 when they understand the rules. Plus big companies aren't buying as much of their stuff, so not many will have need to hire.
That should lead to at least another point rise in unemployment. Could be 7% before the end of the year or Q1, 2009. That's aggressive, but possible depending on the statements that come over the next few weeks.
Last for all youth and college kids that voted for Obama. You should reduced your chances of actually getting a job. If you don't graduate until May 2009. Maybe some companies will be hiring again, but its going to be harder than ever to justify hiring someone with no experience when so many people will be available that have it.
A couple of things to note. Companies need to lay off people quickly before the end of the year and the congress changes the rules. We should see the big companies do that. Small business are already running tight, expect them to hold off hiring until closer to mid 2009 when they understand the rules. Plus big companies aren't buying as much of their stuff, so not many will have need to hire.
That should lead to at least another point rise in unemployment. Could be 7% before the end of the year or Q1, 2009. That's aggressive, but possible depending on the statements that come over the next few weeks.
Last for all youth and college kids that voted for Obama. You should reduced your chances of actually getting a job. If you don't graduate until May 2009. Maybe some companies will be hiring again, but its going to be harder than ever to justify hiring someone with no experience when so many people will be available that have it.
Palin's political outlook worse than Quayle
People keep talking about her as the future, but maybe not. My opinion, is that she goes back to Alaska, as business as usual and we don't hear from her again. She will have great odds to overcome to get back on the national scene. Greater that Quayle had after the Bush I re-election bid failed. If anyone posts a comment of interest on this subject I'll explain why but for now, its enough to predict she'd done.
The press vetting Obama after the election on if he will move to the center
Its a like press just woke up the morning after and is wondering, what did we just do? On CNN they were debating if Obama would rule from the Middle or the Left. But the didn't know!!! A little late to have that discussion. You followed him around for 2 years and you don't know!
Tom Brokaw said: "There's a lot about him (Obama) we don't know." Chris Matthews finally came clean and said Obama's tax plan was welfare. No really Chris. I bet nobody said that before you moron.
These people couldn't figure out who this guy was in the last 2 years, because they were to busy campaigning for change. Now they want to find out and start acting like a news organization. Its a little late for that.
The old Chuclkebee, my nickname for the happy go lucky Huckabee, said he learned from Clinton and he's going to go Center. Idiots!
There's no one even reading this blog, same idiots. I'm handing out the truth to you, telling you in advance and you don't pay attention and then you acted surprised. "Oh my, how could we have known that?"
Look Huckabee is wrong, for several reasons. He's using normal main stream logic. That's not at play here. First Obama is arrogant. He would have to be, to have no relevant experience and run for President. He doesn't like Clinton, and I don't think he's taking from their playbook. He ran on the some of the same issues that did in Clinton, free healthcare for everyone. People don't want socialized medicine in America. Clinton tried it and failed and Obama ran on it again. He's not going to not try it and people won't like again. In also won in his mind by a landslide. I call 5 points marginal, 10 points would be different. He considers it validation of his vision that got him elected, the greatness of his ideas. He doesn't realized that he won because people hate Bush. They would have voted for Lenin, maybe even Hitler in this election season. They don't even know is vision. As we just discussed, the reporters following him for 2 years just figured out they don't know him. Then like Bush, he will move forward with his leftist agenda, much like Bush pushed is Right agenda. Which is not what people want. They want moderation. They were happiest with Clinton in the middle. The analogy and lessons learned for Obama are better to be watched by Bush's mistakes. Stay in the center and don't over spend, maybe veto a budget or two. He's not going to do that. I'm sorry Huckabee, but your analysis is wishful thinking and wrong.
Obama is going to govern from the Left. He has the congress behind and the "will of the American people". He just picked Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, to be his own chief of staff. There is nothing middle of the road about this guy. That's first and biggest indicator of how left they are going. Yes, I know he was an adviser to Clinton, but that's different than being the chief of staff.
Based on his voting record, we know is the most liberal senator. He would have to change his entire world view, just to get to the middle. You can't see the middle from where he standing. That includes votes to restrict medical care to surviving aborted fetuses, higher taxes for those making as little as 42K/year, and calling hunting a rifle an assault weapon.
We know what he said. Socialize health care, Socialize wages and "spread the wealth", diminish the military and our role as a world leader, nationalize banks and other industries, and drive up the price of energy to promote going green.
How do we get to the middle from there? And why are reporters in the main stream media just waking up to ask these questions now. Go back to sleep, if we wanted news we already be watching a different station.
Update:
Looks like Rush agrees with me today that Obama will work from the far left before he starts to do anything from a moderate point of view.
Rush also started to talk about how reporters covered the election and started just asking questions now about what he will do.
Maybe Rush is a reader.
Tom Brokaw said: "There's a lot about him (Obama) we don't know." Chris Matthews finally came clean and said Obama's tax plan was welfare. No really Chris. I bet nobody said that before you moron.
These people couldn't figure out who this guy was in the last 2 years, because they were to busy campaigning for change. Now they want to find out and start acting like a news organization. Its a little late for that.
The old Chuclkebee, my nickname for the happy go lucky Huckabee, said he learned from Clinton and he's going to go Center. Idiots!
There's no one even reading this blog, same idiots. I'm handing out the truth to you, telling you in advance and you don't pay attention and then you acted surprised. "Oh my, how could we have known that?"
Look Huckabee is wrong, for several reasons. He's using normal main stream logic. That's not at play here. First Obama is arrogant. He would have to be, to have no relevant experience and run for President. He doesn't like Clinton, and I don't think he's taking from their playbook. He ran on the some of the same issues that did in Clinton, free healthcare for everyone. People don't want socialized medicine in America. Clinton tried it and failed and Obama ran on it again. He's not going to not try it and people won't like again. In also won in his mind by a landslide. I call 5 points marginal, 10 points would be different. He considers it validation of his vision that got him elected, the greatness of his ideas. He doesn't realized that he won because people hate Bush. They would have voted for Lenin, maybe even Hitler in this election season. They don't even know is vision. As we just discussed, the reporters following him for 2 years just figured out they don't know him. Then like Bush, he will move forward with his leftist agenda, much like Bush pushed is Right agenda. Which is not what people want. They want moderation. They were happiest with Clinton in the middle. The analogy and lessons learned for Obama are better to be watched by Bush's mistakes. Stay in the center and don't over spend, maybe veto a budget or two. He's not going to do that. I'm sorry Huckabee, but your analysis is wishful thinking and wrong.
Obama is going to govern from the Left. He has the congress behind and the "will of the American people". He just picked Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, to be his own chief of staff. There is nothing middle of the road about this guy. That's first and biggest indicator of how left they are going. Yes, I know he was an adviser to Clinton, but that's different than being the chief of staff.
Based on his voting record, we know is the most liberal senator. He would have to change his entire world view, just to get to the middle. You can't see the middle from where he standing. That includes votes to restrict medical care to surviving aborted fetuses, higher taxes for those making as little as 42K/year, and calling hunting a rifle an assault weapon.
We know what he said. Socialize health care, Socialize wages and "spread the wealth", diminish the military and our role as a world leader, nationalize banks and other industries, and drive up the price of energy to promote going green.
How do we get to the middle from there? And why are reporters in the main stream media just waking up to ask these questions now. Go back to sleep, if we wanted news we already be watching a different station.
Update:
Looks like Rush agrees with me today that Obama will work from the far left before he starts to do anything from a moderate point of view.
Rush also started to talk about how reporters covered the election and started just asking questions now about what he will do.
Maybe Rush is a reader.
Indiana wasn't won it was stolen
I expect a full investigation of Indiana voter fraud. I want to get this out quickly, so its there. The state turned on 20K votes. That's a number of people that were over registered in certain counties and the absentee ballots that went 10 to 1 democratic. Its a sad state for the country when fraud can exist at these levels. A 100K voters were found to have voted in GA and FL. My suspicion is that a similar level of people did the same in IL and IN. More to come.
Making the case:
My personal experience was my wife and my registration as Republican's was 'lost'. Since we had moved in the state, we could still go to our old polling location, but clearly even that was confusing, since the polling locations were changed.
105% of the eligible voters were registered in Marion county.
The absentee ballots put them over the top in record numbers going for Obama 10 to 1 is what I am hearing.
Provisional ballots are still be investigated.
Lake county if finally under investigation, where thousands of IL voters voted in IN.
Felons were registered and voted Absentee ballot.
At least one dead person voted, but more are suspected.
All in state that elected a Republican Governor and hasn't gone for a Democrat since the 60's. It was 20,000 votes where 30,000 false registration alone were documented in one county.
This story has been completely ignored this year by the media. We know have our past three elections in question by I would be almost all of the American population. If you want unity, lets unify around revisions to the voter laws, so living people get one vote only.
Making the case:
My personal experience was my wife and my registration as Republican's was 'lost'. Since we had moved in the state, we could still go to our old polling location, but clearly even that was confusing, since the polling locations were changed.
105% of the eligible voters were registered in Marion county.
The absentee ballots put them over the top in record numbers going for Obama 10 to 1 is what I am hearing.
Provisional ballots are still be investigated.
Lake county if finally under investigation, where thousands of IL voters voted in IN.
Felons were registered and voted Absentee ballot.
At least one dead person voted, but more are suspected.
All in state that elected a Republican Governor and hasn't gone for a Democrat since the 60's. It was 20,000 votes where 30,000 false registration alone were documented in one county.
This story has been completely ignored this year by the media. We know have our past three elections in question by I would be almost all of the American population. If you want unity, lets unify around revisions to the voter laws, so living people get one vote only.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Obama to lower expectations very soon!
You can see in our historical posts how I have helped you see what will happen in the future. Instead of posting again about an Obama win, I thought I would point you to the older post. Its want things say something, its another thing to write it down. Read it and leave a comment.
Now for something new. The racism debate was thought to be ended once Obama got elected, its already becoming the opposite as people begin to make their comments. Already on the news they are saying electing one black man to President doesn't erase racism. So much for the people who hoped that would change.
The predictions:
You are going to see Obama back peddle on his promises very soon. It shouldn't take long for him to start the process of lowering expectations. After all people are posting today about the 'new America'. What if the totally inexperienced person can't deliver. He will also get his first briefings from the CIA. Talk about a wake up call. Put some Russian missle crisis in there and the back peddling will be out of control. Not to mention their policies are not actually viable to produce the results they wanted. He must know this.
So the question is how will the dissappointed react to his failure? Will they defend him anyway and continue to blame Bush even after he's gone? I expect this will take place for at least the first 6 months. But then what.
Defecits will certainly get bigger, unemployement will be higher and small business won't be creating new jobs. They are too scared to take any risks for at least 6 months into 2009. So big business will need to carry the load.
What are they going to do when he fails to deliver?
Update:
People have raising expectation for Obama in the news lately! Wow its getting deep. The have been comparing him to Kennedy again. He's nothing like Kennedy, who had a resume before he got the job, but who cares, no one can remember that. Obama has been quite so far, but after that first briefing we should start seeing some news.
Now for something new. The racism debate was thought to be ended once Obama got elected, its already becoming the opposite as people begin to make their comments. Already on the news they are saying electing one black man to President doesn't erase racism. So much for the people who hoped that would change.
The predictions:
You are going to see Obama back peddle on his promises very soon. It shouldn't take long for him to start the process of lowering expectations. After all people are posting today about the 'new America'. What if the totally inexperienced person can't deliver. He will also get his first briefings from the CIA. Talk about a wake up call. Put some Russian missle crisis in there and the back peddling will be out of control. Not to mention their policies are not actually viable to produce the results they wanted. He must know this.
So the question is how will the dissappointed react to his failure? Will they defend him anyway and continue to blame Bush even after he's gone? I expect this will take place for at least the first 6 months. But then what.
Defecits will certainly get bigger, unemployement will be higher and small business won't be creating new jobs. They are too scared to take any risks for at least 6 months into 2009. So big business will need to carry the load.
What are they going to do when he fails to deliver?
Update:
People have raising expectation for Obama in the news lately! Wow its getting deep. The have been comparing him to Kennedy again. He's nothing like Kennedy, who had a resume before he got the job, but who cares, no one can remember that. Obama has been quite so far, but after that first briefing we should start seeing some news.
Democrats the new Bolsheviks
In 1917 in Russia there was an election that took place in November not that much different than ours in 2008. Unhappy people feeling hardship voted for change. By July 1918 they published their revised constitution. You can read it here.
These new Bolsheviks with their power took the land from the land owners and gave it to the people. This was to restore equity to the people who did the work. But as time went on, times got harder the Bolsheviks took the food, from workers who just received the land they thought was theirs!!!
So while they did get the land and could work it on their own for a little while, the government just took the output, which made owning the land worthless. We have just elected the Bolsheviks, but now the go by the term Democrats.
Take a look at what they are doing, as we have links below to show it. They believe it is arrogant for the wealth builders to actually think they would keep their wealth! America is taking some people's land already for commercial uses for the "greater good". With the current bail-out they are prepared to take ownership of all the mortgages in the country. Sound familiar. The government taking steps to own your property.
This did result in civil war as you may recall. One the people couldn't win against superior organized forces. Output dropped for the entire country, the people who just redistributed the wealth didn't actually know how to create wealth or manage it. When that happens, the wealth goes away. And after more hardship and the cold war, that government system finally failed.
Why are trying so hard to follow that path in America.
These new Bolsheviks with their power took the land from the land owners and gave it to the people. This was to restore equity to the people who did the work. But as time went on, times got harder the Bolsheviks took the food, from workers who just received the land they thought was theirs!!!
So while they did get the land and could work it on their own for a little while, the government just took the output, which made owning the land worthless. We have just elected the Bolsheviks, but now the go by the term Democrats.
Take a look at what they are doing, as we have links below to show it. They believe it is arrogant for the wealth builders to actually think they would keep their wealth! America is taking some people's land already for commercial uses for the "greater good". With the current bail-out they are prepared to take ownership of all the mortgages in the country. Sound familiar. The government taking steps to own your property.
This did result in civil war as you may recall. One the people couldn't win against superior organized forces. Output dropped for the entire country, the people who just redistributed the wealth didn't actually know how to create wealth or manage it. When that happens, the wealth goes away. And after more hardship and the cold war, that government system finally failed.
Why are trying so hard to follow that path in America.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Coal bankruptcy, means living in the dark ages
Looks like part of Obama's plan to make people equal is to make us all freeze in winter in the dark. I guess if you kill enough old people in a cold winter with no power that's less Republicans to vote.
Why do I work?
The better question, is why should I work? Why should I pay my mortgage?
I started a small business. I took great risks. I made no money for a while. No one wanted to help me out. Banks wouldn't give me a loan. Bill collectors wouldn't give me good terms. I worked 12 hour days and weekends without pay.
I deserve to recoup my investment in time, money and risk. My reward for just getting in to the black, the government is now going to confiscate my property, take what little wealth I worked so hard to accumulate and give it to someone who didn't do anything for it.
We are teaching an entire generation that its easier to vote to have the government take people's property than it is to work for it.
Now we see people stealing the election. Stealing the election so they steal hard working people's wealth. Its all over the news what they are doing in the Philly to take PA. All this in the name of killing America. People are doing all this, so their kids don't have to finish school and they can live as good as the middle class.
What's being lost is that no matter of the middle class will be able to improve their style of living, no matter how hard they work.
Now, November 4th, 2008 could be remembered as the day America capitalism died and socialism became the law of the land. The success of individuals was crushed and left only to those born of wealth. The reasons to work hard and study in school were erased. Hope for entire generation to achieve new success was eradicated from possibility. Enter the new era of government dependency.
I always thought it was odd that so many rich people would align themselves with so many poor people. If they wanted they could always start an out reach organization to help those people, but they don't. They could pay more in taxes any year they wanted, but they don't. The could donate more to churches, but they don't. Instead what they do, is mislead the poor in dependency, so they can ensure new wealth can not enter their class. This is not about 250K/year. That is not wealth, its income. They are protecting their wealth and from anyone to achieving it, and the price was about the cost of flat screen television. That is what it cost to kill the American dream.
I started a small business. I took great risks. I made no money for a while. No one wanted to help me out. Banks wouldn't give me a loan. Bill collectors wouldn't give me good terms. I worked 12 hour days and weekends without pay.
I deserve to recoup my investment in time, money and risk. My reward for just getting in to the black, the government is now going to confiscate my property, take what little wealth I worked so hard to accumulate and give it to someone who didn't do anything for it.
We are teaching an entire generation that its easier to vote to have the government take people's property than it is to work for it.
Now we see people stealing the election. Stealing the election so they steal hard working people's wealth. Its all over the news what they are doing in the Philly to take PA. All this in the name of killing America. People are doing all this, so their kids don't have to finish school and they can live as good as the middle class.
What's being lost is that no matter of the middle class will be able to improve their style of living, no matter how hard they work.
Now, November 4th, 2008 could be remembered as the day America capitalism died and socialism became the law of the land. The success of individuals was crushed and left only to those born of wealth. The reasons to work hard and study in school were erased. Hope for entire generation to achieve new success was eradicated from possibility. Enter the new era of government dependency.
I always thought it was odd that so many rich people would align themselves with so many poor people. If they wanted they could always start an out reach organization to help those people, but they don't. They could pay more in taxes any year they wanted, but they don't. The could donate more to churches, but they don't. Instead what they do, is mislead the poor in dependency, so they can ensure new wealth can not enter their class. This is not about 250K/year. That is not wealth, its income. They are protecting their wealth and from anyone to achieving it, and the price was about the cost of flat screen television. That is what it cost to kill the American dream.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Obama the marxist link
Just in case you are but didn't see this. I still can't see why anyone would vote for this guy.
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/10/26/audio-obama-the-marxist/
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/10/26/audio-obama-the-marxist/
Mellencamp is an idiot
I just deleted my Mellencamp music from my iPhone. Oh that really hurts him, not like I can get a refund, but I won't be buying anymore. The reason, a stupid ad that he is doing for Obama in Indiana. He is entitled to his opinion. The ad was just bad, it was the talking point straight from Obama and he was just repeating them.
So why don't I think Obama is stupid, after all they are his thoughts. Because Obama is brilliant, he has duped 50% of America into thinking he's not a socialist that change this country in a bad way. That takes some smarts and we need to respect an opponent like that.
Mellencamp on the other hand was just totally duped into be a talking head for Obama's liberal ideas. Oddly, ideas that will make the country worse for his children, but hey they don't really impact John who is basically isolated from the damage Obama will do. For example, John is looking to employee teams of people to produce any good or services, he doesn't need to shop for health care plan the way we do, he probably doesn't even notice that gas prices have changed considerably. When you are selling houses or have to worry about being up-side down in your mortgage that probably doesn't matter either.
John's ad talked about how Bush sent jobs off shore and that McCain just wants to reduce takes for the Rich and corporation - in the same breath which is amazing. So lets review these quickly - Comment if you need some help with these.
Jobs go off-shore because its cheaper to do the work some where else, but you still have to sell the good in the US. Ironic isn't it. With the second highest corporate tax rate in the world its hard to compete in a global economy when the government puts that burden on you. But its not just the profit taxes at the end of the year, its all of the other stuff that ads costs to actually employing an American worker. So the American worker can't just be the best in the world. Lets for the moment assume they are the best in the world. That's no longer the criteria, they have to be enough better to cover the wage difference plus the extra government goodies. Napkin math used here - they need to be twice as a good as the closest competitor. John doesn't know anything about this, because he doesn't run a factory, he's an entertainer. He's not a politician, he's an entertainer.
The reason McCain wants to lower the corporate taxes, is so that business can stay in America and higher American workers. Yes, profits are why people higher other people to do work. They maximize profits or they go out of business to someone who does. For example, if John stops selling records, the labels will sign people who do. If your John, you can just publish your own record, so this doesn't impact him as much does it. But not everyone owns their own recording studio.
We should touch quickly on who really pays taxes. Companies do not pay taxes. It seems like they do, but they don't. They must pass these costs on to consumers. Again, the MUST pass these costs on to consumers. If they don't they don't make money and go out of business. That's the thing about competition in a global economy. The competition is fierce. When companies pass on these costs, if they are higher in the US, that makes us less competitive and companies need to find ways to cut costs and one way is to send jobs off-shore.
The problem isn't the companies, its the government. Maybe we can all agree on that. Where this message is totally wrong is that they think they can raise taxes on companies and not raise the tax on people. Well, it just feels better this way, but as prices rise, anyone spending money will just feel the pressure at that time. At the same time, Obama's policy statements are guaranteed to push more jobs off-shore and reduce investment in American companies. Without investment in American companies, the American economy weakens.
So now we basically have Obama buying people's votes, with their own money and putting themselves out of jobs and the people are happy about it. That's why I say Obama is brilliant and John is the idiot for helping him do it.
So why don't I think Obama is stupid, after all they are his thoughts. Because Obama is brilliant, he has duped 50% of America into thinking he's not a socialist that change this country in a bad way. That takes some smarts and we need to respect an opponent like that.
Mellencamp on the other hand was just totally duped into be a talking head for Obama's liberal ideas. Oddly, ideas that will make the country worse for his children, but hey they don't really impact John who is basically isolated from the damage Obama will do. For example, John is looking to employee teams of people to produce any good or services, he doesn't need to shop for health care plan the way we do, he probably doesn't even notice that gas prices have changed considerably. When you are selling houses or have to worry about being up-side down in your mortgage that probably doesn't matter either.
John's ad talked about how Bush sent jobs off shore and that McCain just wants to reduce takes for the Rich and corporation - in the same breath which is amazing. So lets review these quickly - Comment if you need some help with these.
Jobs go off-shore because its cheaper to do the work some where else, but you still have to sell the good in the US. Ironic isn't it. With the second highest corporate tax rate in the world its hard to compete in a global economy when the government puts that burden on you. But its not just the profit taxes at the end of the year, its all of the other stuff that ads costs to actually employing an American worker. So the American worker can't just be the best in the world. Lets for the moment assume they are the best in the world. That's no longer the criteria, they have to be enough better to cover the wage difference plus the extra government goodies. Napkin math used here - they need to be twice as a good as the closest competitor. John doesn't know anything about this, because he doesn't run a factory, he's an entertainer. He's not a politician, he's an entertainer.
The reason McCain wants to lower the corporate taxes, is so that business can stay in America and higher American workers. Yes, profits are why people higher other people to do work. They maximize profits or they go out of business to someone who does. For example, if John stops selling records, the labels will sign people who do. If your John, you can just publish your own record, so this doesn't impact him as much does it. But not everyone owns their own recording studio.
We should touch quickly on who really pays taxes. Companies do not pay taxes. It seems like they do, but they don't. They must pass these costs on to consumers. Again, the MUST pass these costs on to consumers. If they don't they don't make money and go out of business. That's the thing about competition in a global economy. The competition is fierce. When companies pass on these costs, if they are higher in the US, that makes us less competitive and companies need to find ways to cut costs and one way is to send jobs off-shore.
The problem isn't the companies, its the government. Maybe we can all agree on that. Where this message is totally wrong is that they think they can raise taxes on companies and not raise the tax on people. Well, it just feels better this way, but as prices rise, anyone spending money will just feel the pressure at that time. At the same time, Obama's policy statements are guaranteed to push more jobs off-shore and reduce investment in American companies. Without investment in American companies, the American economy weakens.
So now we basically have Obama buying people's votes, with their own money and putting themselves out of jobs and the people are happy about it. That's why I say Obama is brilliant and John is the idiot for helping him do it.
Friday, October 17, 2008
The purpose of government
Talked slot about what the federal government isn't and what it shouldn't do but what should it do?
The purpose of the government should be to protect it's people, to ensure and defend their safety. Said again, the primary function of the federal government should be to provide for the safety of ALL it's people. That doesn't happen in America and that's a shame. The American government still wants to control who it's ok to save and who is not worth saving.
Infants are worth saving and we need to do that better. We need to agree that in third trimester a fetus is viable and must be protected.
A criminal, convicted of horrible crimes should be protected. These are the outside cases bit if we believe we protect life when it begins and near it's end we can agree to protect it everywhere in between.
When safety exists people can have hope for the future. Then they can work hard and take the risks to do great things with their lives. That is what government is for.
The purpose of the government should be to protect it's people, to ensure and defend their safety. Said again, the primary function of the federal government should be to provide for the safety of ALL it's people. That doesn't happen in America and that's a shame. The American government still wants to control who it's ok to save and who is not worth saving.
Infants are worth saving and we need to do that better. We need to agree that in third trimester a fetus is viable and must be protected.
A criminal, convicted of horrible crimes should be protected. These are the outside cases bit if we believe we protect life when it begins and near it's end we can agree to protect it everywhere in between.
When safety exists people can have hope for the future. Then they can work hard and take the risks to do great things with their lives. That is what government is for.
Voter fraud out of control - is it time to postpone the election?
Clearly democrats are are trying illegally influence the outcome of this election with voter fraud at an unprecedented level. Say what ever you want about historical elections, voter fraud is wrong and violators should be prosecuted and never allowed to vote again.
The fraud in this election is so rampant as to invalidate the entire process.
So far illegal registrations are rampant in a dozen states, military wives are sending in absentee ballots for Obama without their spouse's knowledge, and now the court won't make them try to get it right in Ohio!
You have to restore some confidence in the system before the election takes place.
The fraud in this election is so rampant as to invalidate the entire process.
So far illegal registrations are rampant in a dozen states, military wives are sending in absentee ballots for Obama without their spouse's knowledge, and now the court won't make them try to get it right in Ohio!
You have to restore some confidence in the system before the election takes place.
Surprised at low housing starts
Seriously... Low housing starts a surprise, so that's why the market is down today.
Why would we need more new homes when people can sell what we have now. But really here is the issue that we have talked about before.
The median home buyer is 39 years old, so half are older and half are younger. The number of people now over 39 is larger than the people under 39 but over 18. The universe of people who can buy homes. We do have a decent size population of 15-19 years olds (3.69% male, 3.49% female) that will need to take the place of the retiring baby boomers and those over 55 who aren't buy new homes, they are selling. So you have in the population distribution twice as many people already in their home or selling their home to retire as the largest bracket of home buyers - 25-44 (54% of buying). So the basic problem is there aren't enough 25-44 year olds to buy all the homes of those 44-85. That's not going to change for a little while and it didn't sneak up on us. So lets stop acting so surprised!
Why would we need more new homes when people can sell what we have now. But really here is the issue that we have talked about before.
The median home buyer is 39 years old, so half are older and half are younger. The number of people now over 39 is larger than the people under 39 but over 18. The universe of people who can buy homes. We do have a decent size population of 15-19 years olds (3.69% male, 3.49% female) that will need to take the place of the retiring baby boomers and those over 55 who aren't buy new homes, they are selling. So you have in the population distribution twice as many people already in their home or selling their home to retire as the largest bracket of home buyers - 25-44 (54% of buying). So the basic problem is there aren't enough 25-44 year olds to buy all the homes of those 44-85. That's not going to change for a little while and it didn't sneak up on us. So lets stop acting so surprised!
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Rush thinks that was McCain best performance, now where is the spin?
If that was the best McCain can do I'd say he's in trouble. Since there are no more debates, its ancient history now. I think Rush is wrong, McCain simply didn't follow up on the issues strong enough, and left a lot on the table of what could have been said. I suppose that its easy later, and there are many things he wish he said, but this was a big moment, one those you need to be prepared for and I don't think he was.
Example:
When asked if the VP is qualified, McCain gave some watered down answer about good personality and children with needs. Neat, but I would have said - Governor Palin has more experience than Senator Obama. Wamo, right between the eyes.
Example:
When asked if the VP is qualified, McCain gave some watered down answer about good personality and children with needs. Neat, but I would have said - Governor Palin has more experience than Senator Obama. Wamo, right between the eyes.
More debate - Lesser of two evils - Voter turnout is the key
I've had more time to think about this debate. I had originally thought the key was that McCain didn't win, and that was bad for McCain. It would have helped McCain for sure if Obama blew it, but that didn't happen. My summary criticism was that McCain just didn't close the deal on a lot of issues where he left Obama's message as acceptable. Upon further reflection, I don't really think anyone was going to change mind based on this and that's not what McCain really needed. What he needed was to get out the base vote. He needs me to go off my butt and go vote for a guy that I don't like (McCain). I think McCain got it right when he said he's not Bush. No love lost their, but I still don't consider McCain a conservative. I particularly tried to reflect on the conversation about judge appointments. Certainly I didn't think McCain's statements were strong enough, but Obama's were just down right scary and that was pretty motivating. This is going to be about voter turnout and people to get out and vote before they get more of the big government takeover. Sadly, Bush II has made the most Liberal Senator look fiscally conservative! I can't wait until he's gone and we get actually get the party back to the basics. We certainly are not going to get smaller government under Senator Government. Probably won't under McCain either, but I don't think it will be as big and our choice is one the lesser of two evils.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Why McCain lost
Post debate I believe McCain came out the looser of the debate. One he just couldn't speak clearly, some mistakes were funny but they won't help. I did enjoy "senator government". When McCain did get his words out he had to many details without a memorable point. Obama talked about high level simple points that were right out of the Bush playbook ironically. I guess McCain really is different than Bush. Obama only needed a tie to win and I think he did that. He refuted all of McCain's attacks very well. On the whole I believe Obama talked about big government all the time which on the whole will be bad for America. Obama will raise all our taxes, no question, what ever he says now. McCain missed the point that Obama ran on tax cuts before and voted for an increase. On Palin for President, I think McCain should have said she has more experience than Obama. McCain left out issues on abortion and Obama's views.
Monday, October 13, 2008
States Rights
What ever happened to State's rights? We have created a nation of conflict primarily because activist groups wish to push their agenda on every one else in the country. The idea that we all have to be the same is disgusting. Of course we need to be some sort of melting pot, that is our tradition, but its also important to let be live free enough to enjoy the pursuit of happiness. Many people came to this country in the pursuit of religious freedoms. I would argue that liberalism is the new religion that we need to free ourselves from. The idea that that God has no place in the world and poverty is a 36 inch television and a used car. On the flip side the Religious right has gone a little crazy in the past over issues like same sex marriage.
My point is not to say these issues aren't important to people. My point is to say they have no place in the federal government. I'm going to include Education in this bucket as well. What does the federal government know about education? Obviously nothing, if past performance is any indication of future outcomes.
States should have the right to create policies for their states that are a the heart of the people who live there. They should be allowed to differentiate themselves as much as they believe is in the best interest of their people. Instead today judicial activism lets court rulings in one state override the wants of the people in other states. In process our rights to live free lives are being taken away from us faster than ever before.
Moving these issues to the States means less Federal time wasted and less dollars wasted on programs that sound nice but don't deliver. How can the federal government doing any good educating people in TX, or expect to it better than the state of TX. That's just dumb. What we have really been talking about is handouts to each state, to help get people re-elected. More buying votes from the federal government. That is truly what they spend most of their time doing and we need to reduce that immediately.
So what types of things should we stop arguing about a federal level:
- Abortion
- Death penalty
- Same Sex Marriage
- Education
- Drilling for oil
- Federal speed limits
- Federal income tax - Get rid of it, like in my earlier post!
- There are many more
These things just aren't in the constitution. The federal government should be providing for our common defense and I think it would be hard to argue they do that well after 9/11 and the porous borders we can't lock up.
The point is that we should let local governments and states decided these issues where they can meet the needs of the people. There can be a lot of complexity to the issues, but the more we make it local the better the decision will be.
My point is not to say these issues aren't important to people. My point is to say they have no place in the federal government. I'm going to include Education in this bucket as well. What does the federal government know about education? Obviously nothing, if past performance is any indication of future outcomes.
States should have the right to create policies for their states that are a the heart of the people who live there. They should be allowed to differentiate themselves as much as they believe is in the best interest of their people. Instead today judicial activism lets court rulings in one state override the wants of the people in other states. In process our rights to live free lives are being taken away from us faster than ever before.
Moving these issues to the States means less Federal time wasted and less dollars wasted on programs that sound nice but don't deliver. How can the federal government doing any good educating people in TX, or expect to it better than the state of TX. That's just dumb. What we have really been talking about is handouts to each state, to help get people re-elected. More buying votes from the federal government. That is truly what they spend most of their time doing and we need to reduce that immediately.
So what types of things should we stop arguing about a federal level:
- Abortion
- Death penalty
- Same Sex Marriage
- Education
- Drilling for oil
- Federal speed limits
- Federal income tax - Get rid of it, like in my earlier post!
- There are many more
These things just aren't in the constitution. The federal government should be providing for our common defense and I think it would be hard to argue they do that well after 9/11 and the porous borders we can't lock up.
The point is that we should let local governments and states decided these issues where they can meet the needs of the people. There can be a lot of complexity to the issues, but the more we make it local the better the decision will be.
The upside of an Obama win
Couple of quick political points, as McCain would really need to change some things to make this election change, so not too much to discuss here.
In theory the incumbents to do worse in a down economy. This is what happened when Republicans picked up seats in the mid-term elections. Bush thought it was a mandate for his policies. It really was a vote against the current administration or any incumbents. There happened to be more Dems at the time. I predicted that back them based on this theory and while on some level it doesn't seem right this time, I have to assume the theory will old until broken.
What that could mean is that Obama wins the Presidency, but the Republicans take the Senate and pick up seats in the house. This is where republicans should turn their attention. McCain can't run a decent campaign. They recently asked for more money, I'm not going to give it to them so they can waste it with the garbage they are putting out. The economy has tanked since Democrats took over the house and senate. Their approval ratings are terrible. They have done little to nothing, and most of the something was bad for America. Republicans need to hang that performance on them and win those seats. The models say they will.
On McCain's campaign, it looks terrible. I can't figure it out. Here's my ad tip for him for the day.
Obama said he would reduce taxes on the middle class when he ran for the Senate, instead he voted to raise them on people making as little as 40K/year. He never authored a bill to reduce taxes, or on anything else. How can we trust him now?
Their current message is all over the map and doesn't really hit Obama. This really hits him, its the core of his message, and its not 'mean'.
Finally the upside of an Obama win.
My prediction after an Obama win is a declining economy, inflation, resulting in higher interest rates and 10%+ unemployment inside of two years. When that takes place Republicans could easily take back the House and Senate. That could lead to some fiscal responsibility like it did during the Clinton years.
In theory the incumbents to do worse in a down economy. This is what happened when Republicans picked up seats in the mid-term elections. Bush thought it was a mandate for his policies. It really was a vote against the current administration or any incumbents. There happened to be more Dems at the time. I predicted that back them based on this theory and while on some level it doesn't seem right this time, I have to assume the theory will old until broken.
What that could mean is that Obama wins the Presidency, but the Republicans take the Senate and pick up seats in the house. This is where republicans should turn their attention. McCain can't run a decent campaign. They recently asked for more money, I'm not going to give it to them so they can waste it with the garbage they are putting out. The economy has tanked since Democrats took over the house and senate. Their approval ratings are terrible. They have done little to nothing, and most of the something was bad for America. Republicans need to hang that performance on them and win those seats. The models say they will.
On McCain's campaign, it looks terrible. I can't figure it out. Here's my ad tip for him for the day.
Obama said he would reduce taxes on the middle class when he ran for the Senate, instead he voted to raise them on people making as little as 40K/year. He never authored a bill to reduce taxes, or on anything else. How can we trust him now?
Their current message is all over the map and doesn't really hit Obama. This really hits him, its the core of his message, and its not 'mean'.
Finally the upside of an Obama win.
My prediction after an Obama win is a declining economy, inflation, resulting in higher interest rates and 10%+ unemployment inside of two years. When that takes place Republicans could easily take back the House and Senate. That could lead to some fiscal responsibility like it did during the Clinton years.
Friday, October 10, 2008
5 Million Illegal immigrants get home loans!?!
What more can you say about this? How do people defend and justify this stuff.
Some other conversation about this stuff:
Biz Journal
kevincolby
Why is Dodd not under investigation?
Barackbook on Dodd
More on Dodd
Some other conversation about this stuff:
Biz Journal
kevincolby
Why is Dodd not under investigation?
Barackbook on Dodd
More on Dodd
Revising the tax code - Kill Federal Income Tax
For the next edition in my 'Change Series', I consider the tax code. As I mentioned before, I believe in States rights. I think States should have more power to control local issues and be different from other states. Federal spending leads to more waste - not efficiency, and it leads to less accountability. Further, we live in a Republic, where we are represented federally by elected individuals. We have a certain number of representatives based on our relative population distribution. So California gets dramatically more influence on federal issues, because they are big. The voting system, House and Senate was setup to balance this out. I'm going to suggest that federal tax paying should follow this same model. Last, Presidents get on the stump and promise to change the tax code to 'buy' votes. These promises are usually not kept and have lead to the disaster of a tax code we have now.
We should do away with Federal Income tax, permanently and modify the constitution to make sure it never comes back. When a person completes their annual tax returns they complete a state tax return and federal tax return. Then we need twice as many people because we are checking them twice, processing them twice, prosecuting them twice, etc. A total waste that only the government could think was a good idea.
So what should we do?
At the end of the year, we split the bill according to electoral votes. So if a budget is passed for $1 Trillion, and you are CA with 55 votes and there are 538 total in the pool, than CA gets their portion of the bill ~10%. That state then collects enough money from its people to pay that bill with whatever mechanism they see fit for their economy. Now we are talking fair and simple.
The impact is a dramatic reduction in federal spending. It also means less power for the federal government to control our lives. The power is what the federal politicians really want at this time. This plan pushes accountability closer to the people and holds representatives responsible for their votes near the time when the money was spent. That doesn't happen today because no one actually gets a bill. Federally we get debt, and some other generation could get a bill (Eventually will). This will help control spending once the current representative is liable to pay their fair share and not pass off the problem to the next guy.
Last I propose a marginal, lets call it 2-3% federal sales tax. This sales tax will expressly be used to pay down the federal debt and expire when such debt reaches 0. A federal sales tax is better than an income tax for several reasons. The first being that it is fair. If you spend money, you pay the tax. If you want to save money, you don't pay the tax. It doesn't matter how you earned the money, if you spend it, you pay. You don't need complicated deductions and different rates for the different ways you earned the money. Who cares, how you got the money, if you spend it, you pay. The next positive is that everyone pays it, which includes illegal immigrants, people working under the table, teenagers, rich people with big deductions, foreign visitors, etc. I understand this will require some federal over site, so before you fire all the people currently supporting the federal income tax, lets keep a few people to do this. The result is still smaller federal government when you net it out. Business are already used to collecting and filing sales tax and the number of entities to track and audit is considerably smaller.
This plan puts accountability on the people who vote for the budgets when they spend the money, which they get out of now. This accountability is crucial to ensure better spending of our money. This plan will reduce overall government spending and waste. It reduces the power of the federal government. Its a fair plan where CA, can't pass their bills off on NH. Where drug dealers contribute to reducing the national debt. This plan will return this country to fiscal responsibility by making budgets and spending a key element of every election. These are all things your representatives desperately don't want, but as Americans we desperately need.
We should do away with Federal Income tax, permanently and modify the constitution to make sure it never comes back. When a person completes their annual tax returns they complete a state tax return and federal tax return. Then we need twice as many people because we are checking them twice, processing them twice, prosecuting them twice, etc. A total waste that only the government could think was a good idea.
So what should we do?
At the end of the year, we split the bill according to electoral votes. So if a budget is passed for $1 Trillion, and you are CA with 55 votes and there are 538 total in the pool, than CA gets their portion of the bill ~10%. That state then collects enough money from its people to pay that bill with whatever mechanism they see fit for their economy. Now we are talking fair and simple.
The impact is a dramatic reduction in federal spending. It also means less power for the federal government to control our lives. The power is what the federal politicians really want at this time. This plan pushes accountability closer to the people and holds representatives responsible for their votes near the time when the money was spent. That doesn't happen today because no one actually gets a bill. Federally we get debt, and some other generation could get a bill (Eventually will). This will help control spending once the current representative is liable to pay their fair share and not pass off the problem to the next guy.
Last I propose a marginal, lets call it 2-3% federal sales tax. This sales tax will expressly be used to pay down the federal debt and expire when such debt reaches 0. A federal sales tax is better than an income tax for several reasons. The first being that it is fair. If you spend money, you pay the tax. If you want to save money, you don't pay the tax. It doesn't matter how you earned the money, if you spend it, you pay. You don't need complicated deductions and different rates for the different ways you earned the money. Who cares, how you got the money, if you spend it, you pay. The next positive is that everyone pays it, which includes illegal immigrants, people working under the table, teenagers, rich people with big deductions, foreign visitors, etc. I understand this will require some federal over site, so before you fire all the people currently supporting the federal income tax, lets keep a few people to do this. The result is still smaller federal government when you net it out. Business are already used to collecting and filing sales tax and the number of entities to track and audit is considerably smaller.
This plan puts accountability on the people who vote for the budgets when they spend the money, which they get out of now. This accountability is crucial to ensure better spending of our money. This plan will reduce overall government spending and waste. It reduces the power of the federal government. Its a fair plan where CA, can't pass their bills off on NH. Where drug dealers contribute to reducing the national debt. This plan will return this country to fiscal responsibility by making budgets and spending a key element of every election. These are all things your representatives desperately don't want, but as Americans we desperately need.
Term Limits
So keeping with the next steps to improve the function of a Republic I want start the conversation with Term limits. We need term limits for the Congress and Senate which many Americans have discussed and called for. In addition we need to push people off "The Bench" after so many years or at an age limit.
For Congress and Senate, lets say the max is 12 years. Is that enough overlap to allow some consistence and leadership to exist as well as limiting the extreme political power that certain individuals can obtain. Several issues arrive from life long government workers. The most devastating is the extreme power that is acquired via the relationship of lobbyists and representatives. This power allows them to bully Jr. representatives and keep the 'business as usual' mentality alive. Without the draw of future service Representatives could represent the people instead of the lobbies and media. Further damage is caused by the total detachment between government and 'real' Americans who actually work for a living. Yes, I understand that Representatives believe they work a lot, but lets try for some honesty here, its not the same. We are taking the $200/day train ride to and from work in the first class cabin and saying we are like the folks because we ride the AmTrak. I believe if we lived in a democracy or it was put to a public vote, people would vote for term limits. We don't have them because of the people who make the laws don't want to give up their power.
As voters we can take it back. When someone gets to their second term, don't vote for them again. So the issue always comes back to, if people support this why don't they do it. That's not really true. Because of the 2 party system in the US, there is no alternative to vote for. The party picks who will run and so to vote out someone in for 4 or 6 terms, you have to vote for the other party in order to remove them. In some areas that just won't happen and so no other person can even get on the ticket for that party. The party almost always runs the incumbent. So unless we change the law, this isn't going to happen.
Why did it happen for the President, because the people who make the laws took the power away from the President and moved more to them. If term limits are constitutional for one arm of the government, then it should be in force for all arms of the government.
That leads to the 'term' limits for the legal branch of our government. Activist judges have intensely hurt this county. Understandably these people's views change over time and we need consistency in our legal views. But to say at age 65 you must retire from the bench, I don't think is unreasonable. Most American's want to retire at that age. This allows for the gradual transition of the court but also for lucid judges to be on the bench.
One of the major issues I have with the court today, is that states can escalate state issues to a federal issue the become the Federal Law of the land. I commonly refer this as coastal oppression. The occurs where the Coastal states like CA, MA, and NY bring lawsuits to the federal court to change country wide laws based on an partisan agenda. This is unacceptable and we need to start amending the Constitution to offset the judicial corruption as well as allow for Judges to be tried in a court (or the Senate, etc.) if they create rulings which are outside the bounds of the constitution. There are supposed to be checks and balances here already, but I submit the argument they aren't working. The congress and senate simply don't their job of passing new laws the counteract bad interpretation by judges. Many reasons for this, which I will let you debate in the comments section here, but the source is they aren't doing their job because they only work 1/2 the year and 1/2 of that is spent to their benefit, not ours.
For Congress and Senate, lets say the max is 12 years. Is that enough overlap to allow some consistence and leadership to exist as well as limiting the extreme political power that certain individuals can obtain. Several issues arrive from life long government workers. The most devastating is the extreme power that is acquired via the relationship of lobbyists and representatives. This power allows them to bully Jr. representatives and keep the 'business as usual' mentality alive. Without the draw of future service Representatives could represent the people instead of the lobbies and media. Further damage is caused by the total detachment between government and 'real' Americans who actually work for a living. Yes, I understand that Representatives believe they work a lot, but lets try for some honesty here, its not the same. We are taking the $200/day train ride to and from work in the first class cabin and saying we are like the folks because we ride the AmTrak. I believe if we lived in a democracy or it was put to a public vote, people would vote for term limits. We don't have them because of the people who make the laws don't want to give up their power.
As voters we can take it back. When someone gets to their second term, don't vote for them again. So the issue always comes back to, if people support this why don't they do it. That's not really true. Because of the 2 party system in the US, there is no alternative to vote for. The party picks who will run and so to vote out someone in for 4 or 6 terms, you have to vote for the other party in order to remove them. In some areas that just won't happen and so no other person can even get on the ticket for that party. The party almost always runs the incumbent. So unless we change the law, this isn't going to happen.
Why did it happen for the President, because the people who make the laws took the power away from the President and moved more to them. If term limits are constitutional for one arm of the government, then it should be in force for all arms of the government.
That leads to the 'term' limits for the legal branch of our government. Activist judges have intensely hurt this county. Understandably these people's views change over time and we need consistency in our legal views. But to say at age 65 you must retire from the bench, I don't think is unreasonable. Most American's want to retire at that age. This allows for the gradual transition of the court but also for lucid judges to be on the bench.
One of the major issues I have with the court today, is that states can escalate state issues to a federal issue the become the Federal Law of the land. I commonly refer this as coastal oppression. The occurs where the Coastal states like CA, MA, and NY bring lawsuits to the federal court to change country wide laws based on an partisan agenda. This is unacceptable and we need to start amending the Constitution to offset the judicial corruption as well as allow for Judges to be tried in a court (or the Senate, etc.) if they create rulings which are outside the bounds of the constitution. There are supposed to be checks and balances here already, but I submit the argument they aren't working. The congress and senate simply don't their job of passing new laws the counteract bad interpretation by judges. Many reasons for this, which I will let you debate in the comments section here, but the source is they aren't doing their job because they only work 1/2 the year and 1/2 of that is spent to their benefit, not ours.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
The nothing new debate
Well one more debate is over. I've had sometime to reflect with out news or media to bias my opinion and wanted to get this written so I could see was being said.
My take was that McCain was the winner in a split decision. That said I don't think it will really help him. Obama did a good job, even on the points where is clearly wrong, he makes it sound good and had no problems. So as the leader in the race, nothing startling happened, he used all the talking points we heard before.
McCain needed to really beat on Obama about energy and his ties to F&F. He did that a little. But it was Obama who actually incorporated energy into more of his answers, and basically said I'm all for drilling and nuclear. So what the problem. Well there are lots, that we have discussed before when you look at the details, but it sounded like Barack is for nuclear and drilling and if he's elected America will get that so McCain isn't different there.
One thing I thought McCain said was Obama ran on Middle Class tax cuts for the Senate and never introduced them once elected. I think that should have been repeated several hundred more times. Instead McCain said look at our record. Well that's not clear enough, and Barack noted that McCain voted against energy bill ~26 times and voted with Bush on all the over spending budgets. So repeating the record stuff, I don't think played well.
So enough elect stuff. This one is pretty much cooked. Everyone needs to go out and vote, turnout is always critical. Local elections are taking and place and people should spend some time there. The prediction model that I have used (and back tested*) still says Obama wins by a good margin. There is no indication to think that will change unless something shocks the system in the next few weeks.
* Prediction model has been accurate for all post 1980 elections and would not be considered scientific however accurate in recent times.
My take was that McCain was the winner in a split decision. That said I don't think it will really help him. Obama did a good job, even on the points where is clearly wrong, he makes it sound good and had no problems. So as the leader in the race, nothing startling happened, he used all the talking points we heard before.
McCain needed to really beat on Obama about energy and his ties to F&F. He did that a little. But it was Obama who actually incorporated energy into more of his answers, and basically said I'm all for drilling and nuclear. So what the problem. Well there are lots, that we have discussed before when you look at the details, but it sounded like Barack is for nuclear and drilling and if he's elected America will get that so McCain isn't different there.
One thing I thought McCain said was Obama ran on Middle Class tax cuts for the Senate and never introduced them once elected. I think that should have been repeated several hundred more times. Instead McCain said look at our record. Well that's not clear enough, and Barack noted that McCain voted against energy bill ~26 times and voted with Bush on all the over spending budgets. So repeating the record stuff, I don't think played well.
So enough elect stuff. This one is pretty much cooked. Everyone needs to go out and vote, turnout is always critical. Local elections are taking and place and people should spend some time there. The prediction model that I have used (and back tested*) still says Obama wins by a good margin. There is no indication to think that will change unless something shocks the system in the next few weeks.
* Prediction model has been accurate for all post 1980 elections and would not be considered scientific however accurate in recent times.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Really thinking about the future of government in America
I've decided that with election totally imploding at this point, its not that interesting. What is more interesting at this point is where do we go from here? What should Americans expect from their government? What is the new role of government.
When the stock market tanked the other day, people were looking for who was to blame. The answer is no one was to blame but the market. The market is going to go up and down, some days more than others. Its not the role of the Federal Government to ensure the Dow is always going up. But everyone agrees its the economy is strength required to maintain our country's safety and prosperity for the pursuit of happiness and the American dream. So what is the role of Government?
I think we want a Government that will ensure our safety, that will produce and economic environment that enables prosperity, that all people are treated fairly, and that life is protected.
The long form of those desires was written out in the Constitution.
The preamble is here, if you haven't read it lately:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
How did we get so far from this vision?
The years of contributions and failures have lead up to this point. Special interest, war, debt, change in the world and its key players, and the growing role of a Federal government in our lives.
So I wanted to write some articles that would start to discuss the future and what might be able to do, what should do and what will need to do to ensure the American dream is available to our children. A discussion of taxes, term limits, states rights, judicial activism, energy independence, the economy, education, and the military are all key topics.
If you have an interesting topic to discuss about the future policies you think should be taken by our government, leave a comment and start some discussion.
When the stock market tanked the other day, people were looking for who was to blame. The answer is no one was to blame but the market. The market is going to go up and down, some days more than others. Its not the role of the Federal Government to ensure the Dow is always going up. But everyone agrees its the economy is strength required to maintain our country's safety and prosperity for the pursuit of happiness and the American dream. So what is the role of Government?
I think we want a Government that will ensure our safety, that will produce and economic environment that enables prosperity, that all people are treated fairly, and that life is protected.
The long form of those desires was written out in the Constitution.
The preamble is here, if you haven't read it lately:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
How did we get so far from this vision?
The years of contributions and failures have lead up to this point. Special interest, war, debt, change in the world and its key players, and the growing role of a Federal government in our lives.
So I wanted to write some articles that would start to discuss the future and what might be able to do, what should do and what will need to do to ensure the American dream is available to our children. A discussion of taxes, term limits, states rights, judicial activism, energy independence, the economy, education, and the military are all key topics.
If you have an interesting topic to discuss about the future policies you think should be taken by our government, leave a comment and start some discussion.
McCain is done and the economy explained
The big news this week is the failing economy. I for one made money with puts on DIA. Here's a tip #1, we aren't at the bottom.
15 years ago this economic crisis was predict rather accurately. The person wrote a good book - The great boom ahead. He didn't know we would get Bush wacked or that the feds would keep rates too low to long and a hundred other excuses that people are using to blame the Republicans and ask government to solve the problem.
Tip #2 - The government can't solve this problem. They are only going to make it worse. Evidence is George Bush and Dems adding another trillion to our national debt which will end up in rich people's pockets. Thanks Pelosi. Later she said this was just the beginning, since the market tanked on her last plan I won't hold my breath.
Tip #3 - Housing isn't coming back any time soon. If normal housing 'trades' at 9 times annual rents and its now 20x annual rents, its going to be a while. And what do we need for it to go up? A change in supply and demand. Oh yeah the largest group of people in America aren't buying new houses, they will selling them and dying in them over the next 10 years. Not a nice thought, but true. The demand is only going lower. So the new socialist government we just put in place will be holding that paper for a while.
Tip #4 - For McCain, start running on an Energy independence policy that will lead to economic recovery. Its your strongest point and more people agree with you then Barack. Stop wasting air on Aires and Barack associations. Independents don't really care. It sounds like you are trying to scare people into making the wrong choice. But the answer is to run to Republican leadership, which no one believes exists because Bush put a stack through the heart of the Republican party. Instead McCain is blowing it.
No party has won re-election in a year where the stock market was down going into the November election in the last 30 years. (I only went back that far)
Tip #5 - For McCain is to attack Barack for his ties to Freddie/Fannie. That one could have some attention. Tie it to McCain trying to pass more legislation, but it was blocked by Dodd and co. That's important -> blame the Dems for the failure in the economy, there's an idea, since they are responsible. This town hall might be the only chance to get that discussion in the open because MSMBC isn't going to be playing and Hannity only knows how to say 'bill aires, raaght, bill aires' Insert parrot noise.
Tip #6 and my last point for Americans is that you should be preparing for an economic depression. The economy for the next president will be bad regardless of who wins the Whitehouse. That is not a question, its a fact. So you need to vote for the person who you think will do their best to help soften the blow. For me, I'm not hoping Barack wins. After that unemployment will move to 10-12% and the Republican party will take back the majority in the house and senate. This typically leads to best economic prosperity for America as well as weakness militarily which further leads to future military action/conflict in the world. So its not all good but not all bad, but a 'cycle' we need to prepare for.
That's all I wanted to say for this post. If you aren't sure about #6, read the Great Boom Ahead, you can probably get it at Amazon. Get the update which predicts the current 2008 issues and the future struggles.
If you don't want to buy the book, I'll give you my 2 cents here:
Real bail out ahead
Extra credit: Ayers is spelled with a y no an i.. but does anyone really care?
15 years ago this economic crisis was predict rather accurately. The person wrote a good book - The great boom ahead. He didn't know we would get Bush wacked or that the feds would keep rates too low to long and a hundred other excuses that people are using to blame the Republicans and ask government to solve the problem.
Tip #2 - The government can't solve this problem. They are only going to make it worse. Evidence is George Bush and Dems adding another trillion to our national debt which will end up in rich people's pockets. Thanks Pelosi. Later she said this was just the beginning, since the market tanked on her last plan I won't hold my breath.
Tip #3 - Housing isn't coming back any time soon. If normal housing 'trades' at 9 times annual rents and its now 20x annual rents, its going to be a while. And what do we need for it to go up? A change in supply and demand. Oh yeah the largest group of people in America aren't buying new houses, they will selling them and dying in them over the next 10 years. Not a nice thought, but true. The demand is only going lower. So the new socialist government we just put in place will be holding that paper for a while.
Tip #4 - For McCain, start running on an Energy independence policy that will lead to economic recovery. Its your strongest point and more people agree with you then Barack. Stop wasting air on Aires and Barack associations. Independents don't really care. It sounds like you are trying to scare people into making the wrong choice. But the answer is to run to Republican leadership, which no one believes exists because Bush put a stack through the heart of the Republican party. Instead McCain is blowing it.
No party has won re-election in a year where the stock market was down going into the November election in the last 30 years. (I only went back that far)
Tip #5 - For McCain is to attack Barack for his ties to Freddie/Fannie. That one could have some attention. Tie it to McCain trying to pass more legislation, but it was blocked by Dodd and co. That's important -> blame the Dems for the failure in the economy, there's an idea, since they are responsible. This town hall might be the only chance to get that discussion in the open because MSMBC isn't going to be playing and Hannity only knows how to say 'bill aires, raaght, bill aires' Insert parrot noise.
Tip #6 and my last point for Americans is that you should be preparing for an economic depression. The economy for the next president will be bad regardless of who wins the Whitehouse. That is not a question, its a fact. So you need to vote for the person who you think will do their best to help soften the blow. For me, I'm not hoping Barack wins. After that unemployment will move to 10-12% and the Republican party will take back the majority in the house and senate. This typically leads to best economic prosperity for America as well as weakness militarily which further leads to future military action/conflict in the world. So its not all good but not all bad, but a 'cycle' we need to prepare for.
That's all I wanted to say for this post. If you aren't sure about #6, read the Great Boom Ahead, you can probably get it at Amazon. Get the update which predicts the current 2008 issues and the future struggles.
If you don't want to buy the book, I'll give you my 2 cents here:
Real bail out ahead
Extra credit: Ayers is spelled with a y no an i.. but does anyone really care?
Friday, October 3, 2008
Forget McCain, lets run this thing ourself
McCain has lost. I hear Rush talking and Garisson is doing a good job. But the deal is, McCain can't run this campaign. I didn't vote for him in the primary and this campaign is why, he simply refuse to fight for it. He still thinks because he's right, he should win.
So how do we put together a fund that can run the campaign ads that we need to in battle ground states? Lets talk about that. Lets start it, lets raise the money lets call the Democrats out on their role in the mortgage crisis. Lets highlight their role in high gas prices, we are the sources of the destruction of our economy. Those are facts and if McCain won't use them, we are going to have to do it with out him.
So how do we put together a fund that can run the campaign ads that we need to in battle ground states? Lets talk about that. Lets start it, lets raise the money lets call the Democrats out on their role in the mortgage crisis. Lets highlight their role in high gas prices, we are the sources of the destruction of our economy. Those are facts and if McCain won't use them, we are going to have to do it with out him.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Boycott the debate
The news is just so difficult to watch these days. It will be a slow posting day for me, because not enough important things have changed. So here's the thoughts of the day.
First the Senate passed the bailout. The key is that they left and went on vacation, so the house will have to pass it, or its dead for a while. Now the House lead by Pelosi killed the last bill. Pelosi's handling of this was horrible. Said it before that she needs to go. She only needed to swing 12 votes in her party to get the bill to pass of the 94 that voted no. Instead she asked them to vote no so she could put blame on Republicans before the vote and after the vote. Why, because Democrats are too blame for the problem and they are doing everything they can to misinform the public about their role in blocking the legislation that would have avoided this issue. She did this the same way she killed the drilling bill. More interesting is the concept that she is so brilliant that she thought up this grand scheme of a bailout, to distract people from the drilling which was killing them in the polls and push the discussion to something else. Push it back to the economy and quickly attack the Republicans for the problem and put them on the defensive for this issue, instead of the offensive on the Oil issue. Clearly, that is the result.
At the same time Democrats are responsible for the high price of oil and current crisis. She really is brilliant.
Next is the clear bias that has been created in the debates. McCain said Ifill would be professional. This is what I've never liked about McCain and you can see that in past posts. He takes the high road and gives the Democrats the benefit of the doubt and comes out looking like a patsy all the time. He's doing it again. The first debate was a foreign policy debate where he should have crushed Barack. That didn't happen because for the beginning of the debate the moderate changed the topic to the economy to make Barack look better. Clearly this was done intentionally and clearly McCain was not prepared. Now for the second debate the moderate is Ifill, who clearly has a conflict of interest at best and at worst is in the tank for Barack. Either way I think Palin should refuse to go unless the moderator is changed.
Last, The President, said people are worried about their homes, etc and this bailout needs to be passed in order to help with that. Really?? Was anyone you know worried about that? Ok, if they were, do they now think that the Government is actually going to help them out? As if Bush didn't spend the last 7 years killing the Republican party he has to add insult to injury. This man is not a conservative, he's a socialist. What would really help is if just quit and went back to Texas early and live the next to border he couldn't secure. Maybe he can pick up Spanish in his free time. But please stop trying to kill Conservatives in this country in your last days.
First the Senate passed the bailout. The key is that they left and went on vacation, so the house will have to pass it, or its dead for a while. Now the House lead by Pelosi killed the last bill. Pelosi's handling of this was horrible. Said it before that she needs to go. She only needed to swing 12 votes in her party to get the bill to pass of the 94 that voted no. Instead she asked them to vote no so she could put blame on Republicans before the vote and after the vote. Why, because Democrats are too blame for the problem and they are doing everything they can to misinform the public about their role in blocking the legislation that would have avoided this issue. She did this the same way she killed the drilling bill. More interesting is the concept that she is so brilliant that she thought up this grand scheme of a bailout, to distract people from the drilling which was killing them in the polls and push the discussion to something else. Push it back to the economy and quickly attack the Republicans for the problem and put them on the defensive for this issue, instead of the offensive on the Oil issue. Clearly, that is the result.
At the same time Democrats are responsible for the high price of oil and current crisis. She really is brilliant.
Next is the clear bias that has been created in the debates. McCain said Ifill would be professional. This is what I've never liked about McCain and you can see that in past posts. He takes the high road and gives the Democrats the benefit of the doubt and comes out looking like a patsy all the time. He's doing it again. The first debate was a foreign policy debate where he should have crushed Barack. That didn't happen because for the beginning of the debate the moderate changed the topic to the economy to make Barack look better. Clearly this was done intentionally and clearly McCain was not prepared. Now for the second debate the moderate is Ifill, who clearly has a conflict of interest at best and at worst is in the tank for Barack. Either way I think Palin should refuse to go unless the moderator is changed.
Last, The President, said people are worried about their homes, etc and this bailout needs to be passed in order to help with that. Really?? Was anyone you know worried about that? Ok, if they were, do they now think that the Government is actually going to help them out? As if Bush didn't spend the last 7 years killing the Republican party he has to add insult to injury. This man is not a conservative, he's a socialist. What would really help is if just quit and went back to Texas early and live the next to border he couldn't secure. Maybe he can pick up Spanish in his free time. But please stop trying to kill Conservatives in this country in your last days.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Letter to Sean Hannity - Have a point!
I'm not sure Sean Hannity is doing conservative any favors any more. He spends most of his day complaining about the media. He is also the media and we don't care about your media wars and your ratings. The next thing to whine about is Aires and Wright. Oh please, stop saying this stuff. No voting cares. McCain is loosing. Stop saying that Obama is plunging. No one buys this either. Its like a broken record. Then its the attacks on Hannity and how he was vilified. Its your job. And when you say you have been 'harping' on things... no kidding. We complain your repetitious, because its a sound bite with no meat, nothing new, just repetitious. In other words boring.
I'm just saying having a point, please.
I'm just saying having a point, please.
McCain strategy needs help : Updated
McCain is loosing quickly in the polls. Palin bump is dropping off. The press is hurting him - what's new. This election will be all about voter turn out. We have to assume that is being covered by the campaign. There are things McCain can do now.
1. Assign blame for the Freddie and Fannie bail out. People are mad about it and they need to know that Dodd was being bribed to cover this stuff up. They need to know McCain tried to stop it and was shut down. Right now Bush and so McCain too, are taking the blame for the issue. McCain need to get these facts out there. I know I have a post about this every day. So the message is the Democrats caused the problem.
2. The second part is McCain can fix the problem. A key to fixing the problem is Energy Independence. Drill here, Drill now. The second largest issue for the people. It can be tied to security and foreign policy, but its clearly domestic economic policy. Its a policy that will reduce gas prices, create jobs and stopping the transfer of well to those who hate us.
3. Shut-up about stuff people don't care about. Earmarks and CEO pay just aren't on the list of things people thing will them nor do they care. Even taxes are a marginal issue, that I've already said I don't think he can win.
If he doesn't win the economy battle. He looses the election. He is on the right side of these issues, but is failing to get the message out. Right now, he's taking the blame for the poor economy, for the mortgage failure and even the bailout not passing. Right now early voting is getting started in Ohio. There is now time to wait, its the time to blast the Democrats and Barack on these issues right now.
Update:
Moron V Seder is on Air America today talking about how the Republicans are to blame for Freddie & Fannie (F&F) issues. Mixing baking tips and with blaming McCain. They are naming names, why isn't McCain? Keep in mind these are people who refer to Tony Snow as "Cancer Boy". Isn't it time to stop playing nice.
Update:
Need more evidence the Democrats are naming names. This ad is running on Google!
http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2767&gclid=CKXP__nrhpYCFRJxxwodiR_bFA
1. Assign blame for the Freddie and Fannie bail out. People are mad about it and they need to know that Dodd was being bribed to cover this stuff up. They need to know McCain tried to stop it and was shut down. Right now Bush and so McCain too, are taking the blame for the issue. McCain need to get these facts out there. I know I have a post about this every day. So the message is the Democrats caused the problem.
2. The second part is McCain can fix the problem. A key to fixing the problem is Energy Independence. Drill here, Drill now. The second largest issue for the people. It can be tied to security and foreign policy, but its clearly domestic economic policy. Its a policy that will reduce gas prices, create jobs and stopping the transfer of well to those who hate us.
3. Shut-up about stuff people don't care about. Earmarks and CEO pay just aren't on the list of things people thing will them nor do they care. Even taxes are a marginal issue, that I've already said I don't think he can win.
If he doesn't win the economy battle. He looses the election. He is on the right side of these issues, but is failing to get the message out. Right now, he's taking the blame for the poor economy, for the mortgage failure and even the bailout not passing. Right now early voting is getting started in Ohio. There is now time to wait, its the time to blast the Democrats and Barack on these issues right now.
Update:
Moron V Seder is on Air America today talking about how the Republicans are to blame for Freddie & Fannie (F&F) issues. Mixing baking tips and with blaming McCain. They are naming names, why isn't McCain? Keep in mind these are people who refer to Tony Snow as "Cancer Boy". Isn't it time to stop playing nice.
Update:
Need more evidence the Democrats are naming names. This ad is running on Google!
http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2767&gclid=CKXP__nrhpYCFRJxxwodiR_bFA
Barack puts out the fire
Barack said if your neighbor's house is burning, you should help put it out, because it might affect your house. No! You put the house out because its the right thing to do, because someone may be inside and need help getting out alive. Because you are thinking about someone other than yourself. No, Barack, we don't put out the fire because we are thinking about our own stuff.
Here is the Barack quote:
“If your neighbor’s house is burning, you’re not gonna spend a whole lot of time saying ‘well, that guy was always irresponsible. He always left the stove on. He always was smoking in bed,’” ... “All those things may be true, but his house could end up affecting your house.” “We’ve got to make sure that we put the fire out and then go start making sure that these folks stop leaving the stove on.”
If you keep this analogy, its more like the Democratics ran into my house left the stove on, and then helped me put out the fire when they realized there house might be in trouble too. And now they want credit for helping save their house from burning too.
That's what happens when you take major money from F&F to ignore the stove being on.
Here is the Barack quote:
“If your neighbor’s house is burning, you’re not gonna spend a whole lot of time saying ‘well, that guy was always irresponsible. He always left the stove on. He always was smoking in bed,’” ... “All those things may be true, but his house could end up affecting your house.” “We’ve got to make sure that we put the fire out and then go start making sure that these folks stop leaving the stove on.”
If you keep this analogy, its more like the Democratics ran into my house left the stove on, and then helped me put out the fire when they realized there house might be in trouble too. And now they want credit for helping save their house from burning too.
That's what happens when you take major money from F&F to ignore the stove being on.
Why McCain's Tax message doesn't work
McCain is running a new ad via Palin. Here it is from YouTube:
The problem with this ad is that it won't stick with the American people. It also opens McCain up to alignment with Bush II. When Barack says he's going to give 95% of American's a tax cut, that believe what they want to hear, and it stick with them. Forget logic for a moment. Most of those people believe that Rich People pay to little tax now, that they can afford more taxes. So when McCain says raising taxes is bad, its sounds like he's defending higher taxes for the Rich and therefore not defending the 95% of American's that Barack is 'helping'.
Is this making sense? Its not about any of the facts of economics, who really pays the most taxes, who pays no taxes at all but gets money back!
These messages come down to Barack supports the common people and McCain support the Rich White Guy. This ad does nothing to change that opinion accept its delivered by a woman. The ad does nothing to attach those tax increases to the middle class.
The problem with this ad is that it won't stick with the American people. It also opens McCain up to alignment with Bush II. When Barack says he's going to give 95% of American's a tax cut, that believe what they want to hear, and it stick with them. Forget logic for a moment. Most of those people believe that Rich People pay to little tax now, that they can afford more taxes. So when McCain says raising taxes is bad, its sounds like he's defending higher taxes for the Rich and therefore not defending the 95% of American's that Barack is 'helping'.
Is this making sense? Its not about any of the facts of economics, who really pays the most taxes, who pays no taxes at all but gets money back!
These messages come down to Barack supports the common people and McCain support the Rich White Guy. This ad does nothing to change that opinion accept its delivered by a woman. The ad does nothing to attach those tax increases to the middle class.
The real bailout ahead!
$700 Billion could do a lot. Social Security is underfunded. Medicare is underfunded. Private Pension plans are underfunded. Public Pensions are underfunded.
Lets hope that the government won't say they are surprised when the largest population segment - the baby boomers - start to retire and try to access all these services and find out, the money isn't there. We know it now! Lets do something now before we have crisis and how about taxing the baby boomers now before they start sucking out all the money and there are too few other people to put money in.
The past policy has always been that the next generation would pay for the current one. That works with an expanding population but we are currently in a declining population. As when this happened in Europe, we are going to have the same issues here. So all I'm saying is, there is no reason to be surprised.
Combined this ad commentary to the above crisis not include in Obama's plans and we will have our hands full and our pockets emptied.
Please add stats or links with stats as you have them.
Lets hope that the government won't say they are surprised when the largest population segment - the baby boomers - start to retire and try to access all these services and find out, the money isn't there. We know it now! Lets do something now before we have crisis and how about taxing the baby boomers now before they start sucking out all the money and there are too few other people to put money in.
The past policy has always been that the next generation would pay for the current one. That works with an expanding population but we are currently in a declining population. As when this happened in Europe, we are going to have the same issues here. So all I'm saying is, there is no reason to be surprised.
Combined this ad commentary to the above crisis not include in Obama's plans and we will have our hands full and our pockets emptied.
Please add stats or links with stats as you have them.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Why McCain lost the debate
I took the weekend without any news to really think over the debates. My initial opinion was McCain did well, but as time went on and I was able to think over the entire debate my opinion has changed. I've to see credible polls. I expect they will come soon.
I did watch a little news right after the debate. On Fox it was a split decision 2 for McCain and 2 for Obama. So I switched to CNN and MSNBC. On MSN they were saying McCain belittled Obama and was arrogant. Sure McCain was in every country Obama talked about, but I don't think that is arrogant. So I changed to CNN. They were doing fact verification. The first one sided with McCain. The second topic sided with McCain, but the presenter still used Obama's talking points to support Obama as being right. I turned it off and waited.
So where do I think McCain went wrong.
I don't think he was prepared for an economic debate at a Foreign policy debate. It was put in there as part of globalization or some farce of story. I believe this was specifically done to help Obama in an area is was weak by changing the topic of the debate. As underhanded as that was McCain did not do well.
He focused on ear marks and Obama hammered him. Where John didn't go, but should have was Energy Independence. It will create jobs and reduce prices which are great for the economy. Its an economic vision for the future and he clearly beats Obama on this issue - people support it in large numbers. But McCain dropped the ball.
He could also tie this to Foreign policy and America's security, which are topics that he is strong in. It would have brought it all together. A coup would have been to say he supports drilling in Alaska! But he didn't. His energy policy statement was weak and short lived. It didn't really sound different from Obama.
So at best he held is own at the beginning. At the end he clearly won. He was expected to win that section so it has no benefit in the polls. Garrison and Rush said made some fun of this statement that winning when you are expected to win doesn't help. Well it doesn't hurt but it doesn't help. Polls already have built in that McCain will win the Foreign Policy debate. So you don't get a change. You could get some change if Obama made a major mistake in that area. Otherwise, it met there expectations, already in the polls. For everyone hoping that McCain would go for it, I don't think they saw it.
When it does come to the economy debate, McCain needs to get his message down and Energy is all he has.
BTW - The top 9 fastest growing companies in America were all energy related. Even in a down economy. Leverage that to create more jobs in energy and get people working in good paying jobs. Keep oil revenues in America while taking it from people who hate us. Seems so simple.
I did watch a little news right after the debate. On Fox it was a split decision 2 for McCain and 2 for Obama. So I switched to CNN and MSNBC. On MSN they were saying McCain belittled Obama and was arrogant. Sure McCain was in every country Obama talked about, but I don't think that is arrogant. So I changed to CNN. They were doing fact verification. The first one sided with McCain. The second topic sided with McCain, but the presenter still used Obama's talking points to support Obama as being right. I turned it off and waited.
So where do I think McCain went wrong.
I don't think he was prepared for an economic debate at a Foreign policy debate. It was put in there as part of globalization or some farce of story. I believe this was specifically done to help Obama in an area is was weak by changing the topic of the debate. As underhanded as that was McCain did not do well.
He focused on ear marks and Obama hammered him. Where John didn't go, but should have was Energy Independence. It will create jobs and reduce prices which are great for the economy. Its an economic vision for the future and he clearly beats Obama on this issue - people support it in large numbers. But McCain dropped the ball.
He could also tie this to Foreign policy and America's security, which are topics that he is strong in. It would have brought it all together. A coup would have been to say he supports drilling in Alaska! But he didn't. His energy policy statement was weak and short lived. It didn't really sound different from Obama.
So at best he held is own at the beginning. At the end he clearly won. He was expected to win that section so it has no benefit in the polls. Garrison and Rush said made some fun of this statement that winning when you are expected to win doesn't help. Well it doesn't hurt but it doesn't help. Polls already have built in that McCain will win the Foreign Policy debate. So you don't get a change. You could get some change if Obama made a major mistake in that area. Otherwise, it met there expectations, already in the polls. For everyone hoping that McCain would go for it, I don't think they saw it.
When it does come to the economy debate, McCain needs to get his message down and Energy is all he has.
BTW - The top 9 fastest growing companies in America were all energy related. Even in a down economy. Leverage that to create more jobs in energy and get people working in good paying jobs. Keep oil revenues in America while taking it from people who hate us. Seems so simple.
Back to the bailout: Updated
Who is the bailout really for? When you watch the global markets you can see evidence of what I am saying in prior posts. The world markets are shaken at the idea of no bailout agreement. Why? Because they benefit from the bailout and they are hurt from no bailout. I think the President and the Congress have done a poor job explaining how this helps the American tax payer. It helps a lot of other countries who have invested in American assets. But that is the risk they took. We are still bailing out rich people and main street expense.
Wizbang has a good article on another way to spend the 700 billion. Pay off 50% of the outstanding mortgages in America! That would help consumers.
What about waving the bank penalties for missed payments until loans could be restructured. I see rates for 30 year mortgages at 6%. Historically still low. It would have to be cheaper for the Fed to pay closing costs on revised plans even if they pay a point than the 700 Billion they are talking about now. And if they say $700B, its a Trillion.
The Fed could lower rates to provide an incentive to lenders. It could help restructure loans through rates as well.
The activity is more about politics than helping Americans - or even American Taxpayers. Realizing and being respectful that they are not the same group of people.
Extremely disturbing is that Dodd is not forcibly removed from being involved at all, that he doesn't have the ethical backbone to remove himself for conflict of interest.
McCain touches on the issue in this ad:
I've posted before that he received the most money from F&F with a link below to the stats, Obama was number 2. Dodd messed it up and now we let him sit in there to help fix it, or is just covering up what he did wrong?
Update: On CNN - No way. Economist explanation of why the bailout is bad:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html
Wizbang has a good article on another way to spend the 700 billion. Pay off 50% of the outstanding mortgages in America! That would help consumers.
What about waving the bank penalties for missed payments until loans could be restructured. I see rates for 30 year mortgages at 6%. Historically still low. It would have to be cheaper for the Fed to pay closing costs on revised plans even if they pay a point than the 700 Billion they are talking about now. And if they say $700B, its a Trillion.
The Fed could lower rates to provide an incentive to lenders. It could help restructure loans through rates as well.
The activity is more about politics than helping Americans - or even American Taxpayers. Realizing and being respectful that they are not the same group of people.
Extremely disturbing is that Dodd is not forcibly removed from being involved at all, that he doesn't have the ethical backbone to remove himself for conflict of interest.
McCain touches on the issue in this ad:
I've posted before that he received the most money from F&F with a link below to the stats, Obama was number 2. Dodd messed it up and now we let him sit in there to help fix it, or is just covering up what he did wrong?
Update: On CNN - No way. Economist explanation of why the bailout is bad:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html
Pelosi - idiot or brilliant?
There was just too much news to comment on and of instead of a long post, I think its enough to say that Pelosi is an idiot.
She needs to go. She insulted Republicans in a cheap shot before the vote, then couldn't pull the votes from her own party. Over 90 voted against her. Then she blamed Republicans for being handful of votes short.
What more can you say about that. Idiot.
Or
She's brilliant - Because she canned it, and stuck Republicans with the blame.
She needs to go. She insulted Republicans in a cheap shot before the vote, then couldn't pull the votes from her own party. Over 90 voted against her. Then she blamed Republicans for being handful of votes short.
What more can you say about that. Idiot.
Or
She's brilliant - Because she canned it, and stuck Republicans with the blame.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
McCain required for Bail Out - Who's important now
The fact that Democratics have said they won't sign a bill without McCain's approval or his vote proves McCain's leadership. McCain came out with his plan first. Obama had to follow with his plan. So Obama's plan could only be reviewed in light and comparison to the already existing McCain plan. Note that people still think Obama would be better for the economy, yet he shows no leadership.
Sick is Dodd out talking about how it was the administration's fault, while Bush and McCain tried to add over site while Dodd was taking Bribes to kill the legislation.
Bush proposed legislation in 2003, Dems shot it down. 2005 McCain proposed legislation and Dodd personally killed it. That needs to be on TV.
Sick is Dodd out talking about how it was the administration's fault, while Bush and McCain tried to add over site while Dodd was taking Bribes to kill the legislation.
Bush proposed legislation in 2003, Dems shot it down. 2005 McCain proposed legislation and Dodd personally killed it. That needs to be on TV.
Dodd says taxpayer getting helped out by the bail out
Is that guy crazy? How are we the tax payer getting 'helped out' by the government taking 700 Billion of our dollars and giving it to someone else. If I buy you dinner, do you say your helping me out, because you let me spend my money on your dinner??
That is crazy. We aren't getting 'helped out' we are footing the bill!
The list everyone should see:
List of who got the money
Looks like the price to buy Dodd was $165,000 and now its costing us 1 Billion. I heard that 700 number but really its the government, round up.
That is crazy. We aren't getting 'helped out' we are footing the bill!
The list everyone should see:
List of who got the money
Looks like the price to buy Dodd was $165,000 and now its costing us 1 Billion. I heard that 700 number but really its the government, round up.
McCain still a stand up guy
How does he do it? McCain got bashed by the Clinton campaign and he shows up to see Bill in person, while Obama does the telecast. I never really appreciated McCain crossing the aisle like he does. It always seems like he gets taken advantage of, or used as a patsy. In this case he seems to gone out of his to do more than his competitor and shown himself as a leader above politics - or at least capable of it.
Bush gains a point??
This was interesting:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/president_bush_job_approval
Who would have thought Bush could gain a point in approval with the economy tanking. Goes to show you that with horrid performance of Democratics on the Hill, they can make Bush look good.
Congressional approval is on the rise too. This is very interesting. Using real clear politics, congress had it a low 15% approval in recent polls but has climbed up to 18%.
Now I'm just saying. If my co-workers game me a 185 job approval rating, I think I'd be fired. Why can we fire these guys? Or at least not let them run again. Who keeps voting for these bums?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/president_bush_job_approval
Who would have thought Bush could gain a point in approval with the economy tanking. Goes to show you that with horrid performance of Democratics on the Hill, they can make Bush look good.
Congressional approval is on the rise too. This is very interesting. Using real clear politics, congress had it a low 15% approval in recent polls but has climbed up to 18%.
Now I'm just saying. If my co-workers game me a 185 job approval rating, I think I'd be fired. Why can we fire these guys? Or at least not let them run again. Who keeps voting for these bums?
The discussion not taking place with the bail outs
I was listening to the radio today and an economist said this issue with the housing crisis could not be predicted. He was wrong. I was fortunate today to be able to call in and actually be heard. There are some major fallacies being spread around right now that we should address.
The first is that this could not be predicted. This was predicted, but people didn't want to listen. It was done quite well more than 10 years ago. Maybe the problem is that we've known so long, that we have forgotten. The issue with housings rise and fall has always been about the population distribution. The enormous size of the baby boomer generation drove prices up as this segment bought more homes. Closer to retirement they bought two homes. Speculators took advantage and bought a lot of homes. Now we have more too many homes and not enough buyers. The point to the prediction myth is that the size of the baby boomer population and its impact on the rise and fall of housing prices was predicted. Second is that if you are making bad loans, where you don't check if people even have jobs, how can you say you don't expect their to be a problem with bankruptcy in the future.
The falling prices is because of bad loans. The falling prices are because of a drop in demand. Supply and demand drive prices. There simply are not enough buyers in the market.
They took advantage of the public. If you ever bought a house you know that you have to sign 6 forms saying you read all the forms. Unfortunately a lot of people were sold risky loans they couldn't afford. I agree that poor practices lead to the people being approved for loans they should not have qualified for. On one hand, people should know better. On the other hand, they don't. We shouldn't bail out banks that make bad loans and sell them to people who can't afford them, essentially rewarding them for bad behavior. People have to be responsible for the debt they take on.
Its no ones fault and no one tried to do anything is a myth as well. McCain tried to put in legislation, late in this case is better than never. It was blocked by Dodd, because he was taking what I will call bribes from these institutions. They were significant campaign contributions that compelled him to act in the best interest of the Fannie/Freddie and not the American people. Most American's I think would translate that to a bribe. I think worthy of jail time and expulsion from his position as a representative of the people. He clearly is not representing the people.
Bush said in his address that the market would come back. That is normally true. Its not here at least not for a very long time. A significant change in immigration policy should have already taken place to deal with this problem, but that time has passed. There simply are not enough people in the home buying demographic to buy all the homes on the market, or the homes about to be on the market. So let me repeat that for you. Its not coming back, at least not the way most Americans think of a 7% per year increase in valuations. The best we can hope for now, is to hit bottom, assess the damage and begin to deal with the excess inventory. As baby boomers keep retiring and down sizing, or just dieing who will buy the homes? There simply aren't enough people to buy them all. Some will have to go unsold, or prices will have to drop so far, that people who normally would be able to buy a home, become eligible buyers.
So why do I think the Bush Administration really cares about this? Its not because they are looking out for the tax payer. I believe the real reason is that China has invested heavily in these American entities and stands to loose up to 10% of their GDP if this were to collapse. I'm talking purely housing here, not the AIG problem, which is somewhat different. If this collapses and China looses their money they invest in our economy, that will certainly have less money to invest, but the confidence will be gone and they will take their money somewhere else. This is where it gets somewhat complicated. America has a lot of debt. It can't exist without selling and feeding that debt. China holds they debt. Think about it as owing the loan shark, only in this case China is the Shark, America the Bait to be eaten and the tax payer who is setup to pay the bill. They don't want to talk about this topic because it exposes how driven by foreign interest we have become. It also points to the global collapse. So basically the tax payer in this case is bailing out other countries more than our own. Which would impact us, but they aren't being straight with the American people.
The first is that this could not be predicted. This was predicted, but people didn't want to listen. It was done quite well more than 10 years ago. Maybe the problem is that we've known so long, that we have forgotten. The issue with housings rise and fall has always been about the population distribution. The enormous size of the baby boomer generation drove prices up as this segment bought more homes. Closer to retirement they bought two homes. Speculators took advantage and bought a lot of homes. Now we have more too many homes and not enough buyers. The point to the prediction myth is that the size of the baby boomer population and its impact on the rise and fall of housing prices was predicted. Second is that if you are making bad loans, where you don't check if people even have jobs, how can you say you don't expect their to be a problem with bankruptcy in the future.
The falling prices is because of bad loans. The falling prices are because of a drop in demand. Supply and demand drive prices. There simply are not enough buyers in the market.
They took advantage of the public. If you ever bought a house you know that you have to sign 6 forms saying you read all the forms. Unfortunately a lot of people were sold risky loans they couldn't afford. I agree that poor practices lead to the people being approved for loans they should not have qualified for. On one hand, people should know better. On the other hand, they don't. We shouldn't bail out banks that make bad loans and sell them to people who can't afford them, essentially rewarding them for bad behavior. People have to be responsible for the debt they take on.
Its no ones fault and no one tried to do anything is a myth as well. McCain tried to put in legislation, late in this case is better than never. It was blocked by Dodd, because he was taking what I will call bribes from these institutions. They were significant campaign contributions that compelled him to act in the best interest of the Fannie/Freddie and not the American people. Most American's I think would translate that to a bribe. I think worthy of jail time and expulsion from his position as a representative of the people. He clearly is not representing the people.
Bush said in his address that the market would come back. That is normally true. Its not here at least not for a very long time. A significant change in immigration policy should have already taken place to deal with this problem, but that time has passed. There simply are not enough people in the home buying demographic to buy all the homes on the market, or the homes about to be on the market. So let me repeat that for you. Its not coming back, at least not the way most Americans think of a 7% per year increase in valuations. The best we can hope for now, is to hit bottom, assess the damage and begin to deal with the excess inventory. As baby boomers keep retiring and down sizing, or just dieing who will buy the homes? There simply aren't enough people to buy them all. Some will have to go unsold, or prices will have to drop so far, that people who normally would be able to buy a home, become eligible buyers.
So why do I think the Bush Administration really cares about this? Its not because they are looking out for the tax payer. I believe the real reason is that China has invested heavily in these American entities and stands to loose up to 10% of their GDP if this were to collapse. I'm talking purely housing here, not the AIG problem, which is somewhat different. If this collapses and China looses their money they invest in our economy, that will certainly have less money to invest, but the confidence will be gone and they will take their money somewhere else. This is where it gets somewhat complicated. America has a lot of debt. It can't exist without selling and feeding that debt. China holds they debt. Think about it as owing the loan shark, only in this case China is the Shark, America the Bait to be eaten and the tax payer who is setup to pay the bill. They don't want to talk about this topic because it exposes how driven by foreign interest we have become. It also points to the global collapse. So basically the tax payer in this case is bailing out other countries more than our own. Which would impact us, but they aren't being straight with the American people.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The towers should be built by now
Bush has had a few years to leave a legacy and he certainly left one. For a conservative I'm pretty on the hard on guy, but he makes Clinton look good, and you have to dislike him for that. One thing Bush could have done was put an enormous amount of energy and money into rebuilding the towers. I know there was a lot to consider, and blah, blah, blah! Do you think Reagan didn't think is complicated when he said, "tear down this wall." or when Kennedy said we are going to the moon. They did those things and we can't put up a building!
It ticks me off. Everyday they are down the skyline is broken and the terrorist still have hope, a glimmer of past success. Then the Iranian President comes here and smugly waves his hand at us. I wonder if he want to the site or just looked at the skyline and smiled. How much better would it have been if he came here and a shadow was cast upon him by the enormity and grandeur of the tallest building in the world. But instead those buildings are being built in other countries.
We should have built that taller. They should be done. They should have been the craftsmanship of American pride and resiliency. Instead it will be another task left undone by this President.
It ticks me off. Everyday they are down the skyline is broken and the terrorist still have hope, a glimmer of past success. Then the Iranian President comes here and smugly waves his hand at us. I wonder if he want to the site or just looked at the skyline and smiled. How much better would it have been if he came here and a shadow was cast upon him by the enormity and grandeur of the tallest building in the world. But instead those buildings are being built in other countries.
We should have built that taller. They should be done. They should have been the craftsmanship of American pride and resiliency. Instead it will be another task left undone by this President.
Terrorists take my advice
Here's a note to the Terrorists.
I know you are on the internet because I've seen your posts. So pass this along. Next time your pissed off at America, wack a politician. Americans won't miss them. At most you could only upset 48% of the people. Really think about it. America is so polarized and filled with hate speech for politicians that most would think it was justice not a crime.
How many people do you know that could answer this question - Has the Pentagon finished reconstruction from 9/11. I asked 5 people that quickly. One said, oh yeah they hit the Pentagon! College educated people. They don't care about the politicians, they don't agree with them most of the time. You hate America for its policies that Politicians create. So put your energy where it belongs.
Here's the thing. You knock down a building with Americans in it and they don't get scared. They might for a little while, but really the get made. So you knock down the building and we knock down a country or two. People are ticked off here and if you give them someone to hate more than politicians you're going to bite the bullet. You might think they are weak and don't have the will to fight and no doubt the lefties are wimps. But the 38% of conservatives will still pick up a gun or press the button on a missile to wipe your landscape from the map. Why cause all that trouble?
Ok for those of you reading at home, really do you remember that the Pentagon actually was attacked on 9/11. The presidential candidates were in NY again. Standing on empty ground. The memorial at the Pentagon site is already built. Hardly any mention of it. So does anyway really think Americans would care enough to go to war if it were politicians that were killed on 9/11?
I know you are on the internet because I've seen your posts. So pass this along. Next time your pissed off at America, wack a politician. Americans won't miss them. At most you could only upset 48% of the people. Really think about it. America is so polarized and filled with hate speech for politicians that most would think it was justice not a crime.
How many people do you know that could answer this question - Has the Pentagon finished reconstruction from 9/11. I asked 5 people that quickly. One said, oh yeah they hit the Pentagon! College educated people. They don't care about the politicians, they don't agree with them most of the time. You hate America for its policies that Politicians create. So put your energy where it belongs.
Here's the thing. You knock down a building with Americans in it and they don't get scared. They might for a little while, but really the get made. So you knock down the building and we knock down a country or two. People are ticked off here and if you give them someone to hate more than politicians you're going to bite the bullet. You might think they are weak and don't have the will to fight and no doubt the lefties are wimps. But the 38% of conservatives will still pick up a gun or press the button on a missile to wipe your landscape from the map. Why cause all that trouble?
Ok for those of you reading at home, really do you remember that the Pentagon actually was attacked on 9/11. The presidential candidates were in NY again. Standing on empty ground. The memorial at the Pentagon site is already built. Hardly any mention of it. So does anyway really think Americans would care enough to go to war if it were politicians that were killed on 9/11?
BushWacked
I wanted to call this blog BushWacked but like everything on the internet, its already taken. As first post here it still sets the tone.
I am a conservative, registered independent, likely to vote libertarian. Why would I waste my vote you ask? Because I can't bring my self to vote for Obama, but it might be best if he wins. I'm counting on him doing for the Republican party what Clinton did and Bush couldn't. If he is as bad as I fully expect he will be, Republicans will rally and take back the House and Senate just like they did with Clinton. Obama will prove to much worse than Clinton. Sure he might not pick up the girls at the office like Clinton, but certainly is left winged agenda will get him in so much trouble, the economy is sure is to tank with his economic policy that Americans will be in full force come mid-term elections. That's what we want really.
It ensures checks and balances while still getting work done. The economy is proven to better in this scenario and that's what we need. We have a democratic congress for a while now, and they have done absolutely nothing, expect make the Bush problems worse. The President always gets the blame, so lets blame a democrat. Then have a conservative congress that actually try to spend OUR money wisely.
You'd like to think that Republicans in control of the House, Senate, and Presidency would leave to massive cuts in government spending. Unfortunately I think Bush went on another drinking binge while the cameras weren't watch and he let them spend as much money as they wanted on anything wanted with no vetoes for years!! His total irresponsibility to take any leadership for fiscal policy has doomed us to economic crisis and the likes of Obama. There has been a lot of talk of Reagan, these days. What would Reagan have done? He wouldn't spent money for guns and butter. He manned up and made the hard decisions that Bush never could. He knew the only way to fix the Carter economy was to induce a recession, take it on the chin and promote policies of growth and recovery. Bush on the other hand has been afraid of the economy his entire presidency. I wonder if he still hear "Its the economy stupid" over and over in his head. He has done everything he could think of to buy a positive economy, but for what? He spent the wealth of a generation on propping up an economy that is in a natural downward cycle. You can't avoid the cycle but that's a different blog. And so in the end, Bush had some good years of economic growth, but its a failure, the DOW is right back where it started when he took office and Bush is a total failure who destroyed the GOP.
I am a conservative, registered independent, likely to vote libertarian. Why would I waste my vote you ask? Because I can't bring my self to vote for Obama, but it might be best if he wins. I'm counting on him doing for the Republican party what Clinton did and Bush couldn't. If he is as bad as I fully expect he will be, Republicans will rally and take back the House and Senate just like they did with Clinton. Obama will prove to much worse than Clinton. Sure he might not pick up the girls at the office like Clinton, but certainly is left winged agenda will get him in so much trouble, the economy is sure is to tank with his economic policy that Americans will be in full force come mid-term elections. That's what we want really.
It ensures checks and balances while still getting work done. The economy is proven to better in this scenario and that's what we need. We have a democratic congress for a while now, and they have done absolutely nothing, expect make the Bush problems worse. The President always gets the blame, so lets blame a democrat. Then have a conservative congress that actually try to spend OUR money wisely.
You'd like to think that Republicans in control of the House, Senate, and Presidency would leave to massive cuts in government spending. Unfortunately I think Bush went on another drinking binge while the cameras weren't watch and he let them spend as much money as they wanted on anything wanted with no vetoes for years!! His total irresponsibility to take any leadership for fiscal policy has doomed us to economic crisis and the likes of Obama. There has been a lot of talk of Reagan, these days. What would Reagan have done? He wouldn't spent money for guns and butter. He manned up and made the hard decisions that Bush never could. He knew the only way to fix the Carter economy was to induce a recession, take it on the chin and promote policies of growth and recovery. Bush on the other hand has been afraid of the economy his entire presidency. I wonder if he still hear "Its the economy stupid" over and over in his head. He has done everything he could think of to buy a positive economy, but for what? He spent the wealth of a generation on propping up an economy that is in a natural downward cycle. You can't avoid the cycle but that's a different blog. And so in the end, Bush had some good years of economic growth, but its a failure, the DOW is right back where it started when he took office and Bush is a total failure who destroyed the GOP.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
