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/
Monday, October 27, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
