Thursday, May 26, 2011

Blogging just meaningless sort of like arguing with liberals

While arguing with liberals never goes anywhere, blogging is almost less than arguing with them, because mostly likely they are not reading my blog. They are off reading some liberal blog. While I don't have too much love for republican politician either, most of my views lean conservative. In that case, I would really tell anyone something they probably don't already know if they listen to any of the other conservative media outlets. So the only time, I might say something new for them is when I disagree with one of the popular media outlets.
That said the other down side, is that solutions to all of these problems are just so simple, my 10 year old can solve them. But politicians aren't really interested in solving the problem. They are interested in power and so they will do whatever helps them acquire such power. To that end logic is used, but to the American people the goals are totally different. In that case the public voice is only useful in mass, not a lone blog, when it looks to revoke power from a politician. That makes political blogging somewhat irrelevant, because the population that is informed is so small as to be insignificant. Inform the uninformed is nearly impossible, because they are trying to find the information.
So for now.. maybe no more blogs..

Friday, May 20, 2011

More lies about Daniels in Liberal smear campaigns

Daniels must be scaring people, because the smear campaigns are out. Here is the huff post had to say:
MITCH DANIELS IS YOUR NEWEST GOP CANDIDATE WHO PREVIOUSLY LIKED HCR - With the vultures of smoke picking at the Tweet-riddled carcass of Newt Gingrich's cocktail party -- or whatever it was Rick Tyler said -- liberal sights are now set on Mitch Daniels, the next (would-be) candidate whose record contains a number of policy statements that could prove embarrassing. Sam Stein cites a 2003 article in the South Bend Tribune that summarizes then-candidate Daniels' views on health care reform: "The candidate said he favors a universal health care system that would move away from employee-based health policies and make it mandatory for all Americans to have health insurance. Daniels envisioned one scenario in which residents could certify their coverage when paying income taxes and receive a tax exemption that would cover the cost. 'We really have to have universal coverage,' Daniels said." Daniels today told radio host Michael Smerconish today that he is against a mandate. "I don't believe in mandates," he said. "There's nothing wrong with trying to protect more people from being ruined by an adverse health effect."

First, Daniels did not say anything about a mandate. The original story paraphrases a discussion with Daniels. The Huffpost, basically just turns it into an all out lie. Mitch would have given people an option to deduct deductibles from the income tax as well as let people make the choice about what healthcare plan was best for them. A tax deduction for choosing care is totally different than a mandate and government run program doomed failure.

This is a key reason why I'll never be a 'great' blogger. This type of out right bending of the truth to literally create news where it didn't exist before, isn't something I can do. I can make up a total story out of nothing. Which is what these people do. And lets look at this again, how could a story where Mitch isn't quoted even be embarrassing for him today, when the people who would read the article would be in favor of a federal healtcare plan of some kind anyway. So they try to make him out to be a flip flopper on healthcare, by saying his views have changed over a 10 time period! Really that's embarrassing? Note to public, over a 10 year period, people's view might change. Also don't listen to summarized snippets by journalists trying to create stories out of nothing to promote their already bad careers.

Keep the tax cuts

The 'Bush' tax cuts are quite a funny issue. Apparently even Bush gets it, don't call them "Bush tax cuts", as he said in a recent interview. What's funny is that Liberals spend years saying the Bush tax cuts cause the current crisis, and demonizing the cuts. Only now that they are in office does it appear they actually got an economics lesson or two.
If they just called them the Obama tax cuts, they would pass with ease, and everyone would be happier and say, "He speaks so well".
Sadly they are so stupid they need Bush, who they characterized as an idiot, to tell them to call the cuts something different. That really is just funny.

Netanyahu takes Obama to school

This was almost embarrassing to me as an American and must have been embarrassing to the President unless he is so clueless that he can't understand when he is being insulted politely. When Netanyahu told the President, that "everyone" knows that Israel can't go back to the 1967 Boundaries, it was just as plain a slap in the face as a politician can give. And Netanyahu is right. Everyone does know it, except for Obama it appears. I doubt even Palin would have made so tragic a mistake, and Liberals use her has the benchmark of stupidity on foreign policy. So what does it say that Obama's insights into the world.
Netanyahu had some great remarks in this speech, I'm still looking for a transcript instead of doing this from memory. If you find it please add a comment with a link, I assume it will be on at some point, unless its just too embarassing. He told Obama basically that Obama sided with the terrorists in his proposal. Israel's Al Qaeda is what is called Hamas and said he won't negotiate with terrorists. He then added that Hamas, just attacked you Mr President.
I liked what Leiberman had to say about the O's speech:
"Unfortunately, President Obama's important and constructive speech embracing and supporting the peaceful, democratic revolutions in the Arab world was also undermined by an unhelpful and surprising set of remarks about Israel and the Palestinians that will not advance the peace process and in fact is likely to set it back. ..."

Leiberman gets it here. That's what happens when you have some actual experience working in the world. How could O mess this up so badly, and if not him, doesn't he have some staff?

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Kids not allowed to bring salt to school??

Now this is just silly. Salt has been banned from school because the federal government got involved in another waste of tax payer dollars. Or maybe they thought removing salt from schools would actually save money? That is the savings liberals have been looking for. That could be at least .01$ per child per year of savings.
It doesn't stop there either. Kids can't even bring salt to school, to salt their own food. Are you kidding me. Are we going to start inspecting lunches for salt upon entry to school now? Certainly that will cost more than what we saved on the salt. Really, I'm sure I'm thinking about this all wrong. Its not about the money. Its about federal control in every part of your life and now they can tell you want to eat in public. That is just an insane amount of control in any free person's life.

When did Rush Limbaugh turn into a conservative basher?

Rush has been slamming Newt and Daniels. Rush is on the path of violent over through and only those conservatives that support violently opposing anything democrats say is suitable for office. I guess he makes money by creating anger, but still Rush typically reserves his smears for liberals. Now he has Newt calling him a liar and Daniels I'm sure will be saying that Rush has at a minimum been unjustified in his criticism, as only Daniels could. Its nice that Rush can create some fodder for liberals, maybe MSNBC can starting quoting Rush on how bad a solid conservative candidate like Daniels is.
Which candidate is Rush for these days?

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Mitch Daniels is awesome

I don't care what Rush says or doesn't say, Mitch Daniels is an awesome leader. Yeah he's not flashy, he's just good at what he does. Other candidates, really just don't have the resume. Is not time for someone who has a great resume of experience doing positive work instead of empty suits talking out both sides of their mouth.
Some other candidates:
1. Newt - I do like Newt. I've always liked Newt. I forgive his baggage because he's a solid conservative. Recently, he has upset me, mistakes maybe, but I don't think he gets the nomination.
2. Palin - Great speaker, but I can't stand her as a candidate. At the most basic level, she doesn't have the experience in local government I want to see in a President. Still better than Obama.
3. Romney - Still better than Obama, but these two probably agree more than I would like them too. Romney at least gets business. I don't hold healthcare in MA against him. That's what his state wants, good for them, but don't bring that national. If he would say its a state's responsibility, I'd feel better about him.

Others.. who?? They still need to get some momentum, nationally. These are the people most likely to win the ticket...

Monday, May 16, 2011

Its the economy stupid and its not good news for Obama

9% say the economy is good or excellent. I'm worried about who those 9% are, but besides them a full 54% say its poor. If that continues we will be looking at a new president in 2012. When these numbers are this bad incumbents don't get re-elected. Most people think elections unfairly favor incumbents (another poll at rasmussen). But that is really the truth. When people think the economy is good, the incumbent is favored. When people think the economy is poor the non-incumbent is favored. Yes the economy was already faltering when Bush beat Gore.

Newt messed that up

When Newt Gingrich said "we need a national conversation" to get a better solution, he was dead wrong in his thinking and speaking. The time for talking is over Newt. There is no national conversation to be had. So far congress looks like a bunch kids:
Republicans: "Reduce the budget"
Democrats: "No"
Republicans: "Yes"
Democrats: "No"

Oh, that was productive. Since we can't actually fire them all for not doing their jobs, we need to let the ones there know that we will vote for any of them the cut enough to balance the budget, no matter what they cut. But a national conversation where people pick apart the current spending program by program that results in class and racial warfare, is totally the wrong way to go. Cut it all by 25% equal to everyone and everything, no favorites, no conversation.

Shut the federal government down

Don't raise the debt ceiling. Send everyone home and stop paying law makers first until they can resolve the budget. Shut the federal government down, which really means all non-essential services. Don't wait, do it today. Isn't that what investors would do to a bankrupt business? They would send home everyone, except non-essential services and people. They would work to collect whatever revenue they could and cover minimal costs until they could figure out what they could do to keep the business alive or shut it down completely. Why does the government just get a pass on that? If they did their job, we wouldn't have this problem. But they didn't do their job. They messed up their job and now they want the American people to the pay the price once again. Just say No.

Quickly, in 15 seconds, except for the military, if everyone else in the government went home, how would your day change. Mine wouldn't. It would get better. There is absolutely nothing I would do different if they didn't go to work. Local government, is totally different, but really the federal government.

What would you miss?

"Intelligent Government Spending" doesn't exist

This guy calls into Garrison's Radio show and wants to cut defense spending to solve our deficit problem. Garrison asks him what percent of the budget is spent on defense, and he doesn't even know. Not even a guess. So that's problem number 1. People suggesting a solution when they have no idea what they are talking about.
Here is a link that might help you:
Defense as a percent of GDP
Defense spending is actually going down as a percent of GDP - Depending on the time period, or going up on shorter time periods. Percent of GDP is what I think you should look at, that is at ~5%. Either way as a percent of the budget, its about 20% depending on whose number you choose to believe, but he couldn't get that close, and this is his plan.
So then he says, he just wants "intelligent government spending". THAT DOESN'T EXIST! People need to stop believing the lie that the the government and intelligent spending could ever go together. But even if you cut 100% of defense spending, it would still solve the deficit problem! So do all of the people who act as a proponent of that solution know, it could never be the answer.
The real unfortunate truth is there is no way to balance the budget without cutting entitlement spending, which has climbed from 2.5% of GDP to 10% of GDP (or 25% by some sources). That is 2 times that of defense spending.

Debt Ceiling news ignored by the media today

Take a look on top stories on Google news today, and you won't even find the news that the US hit the debt ceiling.
Copied from CBS News:
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced to Congress on Monday that the U.S. government had hit its $14.3 trillion debt limit, and that the federal government would now begin a "debt issuance suspension period," according to the Hill.

You should check this out, its sort of an important thing going on in the US right now, as Greece is about to default on its debt. Can the Germans bail us out too?

Geithner is asking congress to raise the debt ceiling to avoid "catastrophic economic consequences". How about this, spend less money! And congress passed a budget plan to reduce deficits but the senate won't pass it. So basically what Geithner is asking is for the destruction of the US economy anyway. Seriously do you loan someone with a gambling problem more money? No. It won't help them. You have to let them take the consequences to get better. A bank won't give you a bigger loan on your house after you are upside down will it? Why would we do these same things for the US government?
They ARE the problem. If you raise the limit, they will just spend all that money too and we will be in the same situation when that money runs out. Its just pushing that problem to someone else. How about this. Geithner, step up and be a man. Deal with the actual problem. Get spending under control with your buddies and stop crying for more money like a spoiled child. Don't push these problems on to our children and grandchildren.

I just saw this comment from Geithner - that if we hit the debt ceiling it will lead to a double dip recession. For who? The rest of American is in a recession you moron! Unemployment is really about 15%, higher than what is currently reported as 9%, even reported as my Huffington. Even at 9%, its no party out here. The only people impacted by that is Washington.
Lets see what happened last time this occurred under Clinton... Care to guess.. Oh Balanced budgets, a booming economy, low unemployment. Yeah, I'd hate to see that again. Maybe we could get Clinton back to finish this thing off because the current void of intelligence in the White House is starting to tick American's off. Clinton could handle this while getting a quicky in the Oval office. Makes you wonder why Obama can't figure it out with his full attention.

Friday, May 13, 2011

Obama should be impeached for attacking Lybia

Read the Constition. He didn't uphold the constition, he violated it. He took an oath to uphold the constition and he broke it. No way to argue it. He broke the oath of office and should be impeached for it.

Entitlements must be cut as part of the deal to raise the debt ceiling

I had an argument with someone about entitlements today. Their argument is that they paid in so they should get the money. So let's be clear. Let's agree to only pay them back what they paid in. So fine you paid in. You deserve Your share, so let's just reduce the entitlements to the amount that people paid in. And for the poorest people which this was designed for, we continue the promise to those who are retiring now, but reset the plan for those who haven't started paying in yet. Read as the unborn. To pay for it is simple. Raise the ceiling for where we stop collecting this tax, but keep the current ceiling on employer matching. Yes it adds burden to the rich and really two income middle class families, but it balances it, and it let's business keep creating jobs.

Getting rid of oil subsidies is a great idea. Get rid of all them!

Why stop at Oil subsidies? Let's cut all the subsidies including the ones for solar and wind power! Its just a terrible idea for the government to be involved in business at all. They can't mange anything, much less a business investment.
Democrats be consistent while you are getting this one right and cut all of these subsidies, don't single out oil.

Cutting government waste is a mythical concept

The idea that the US can cut waste as any solution to it's spending problem is a complete falsehood. It's just totally and flat out a lie that they tell you because it sounds like it would make sense. I mean there must be waste right? Arguments over the few billion in waste is still stupid. What they need to do is simply cut a trillion across the board with no arguments about programs. Since they can't agree on what to cut then we should just cut everything. Better yet, until congress can fix the problem, don't pay them. Maybe that would be an incentive to get this right. And if you've gone totally insane over the idea of just cutting EVERY line item to get the trillion, how about we just go back to a Clinton budget? Would you go for that? Things were great after all in those years right? So let's do that again. Certainly that fits in most liberal ideas. But now, Obama needs to create deficits more in a year than Bush did in his entire presidency, to achieve an unemployment rate that is double that of the Bush years. Cut the budget, don't wait, do it today.