Thursday, October 30, 2008
Palin/Kelly '12
Just saying. Sarah Palin and Megyn Kelly in 2012. This would be a force to reckon with, and they will have my vote from... well, now. :)
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
I never realized "Barack" was Russian...
I'm sorry, but the more and more I hear Obama's own words, the more I am convinced that he is a Marxist. Not just a Socialist, but a Marxist. Now the technical difference between the two is slight, but basically a Marxist calls for a drastic collapse of Capitalism before Socialist principles take over.
He's also a racist. Yup, a got a steal pair to say such a thing about any person these days. But watch this video. Amazing that the last responsible news network-Fox News-are not covering this. What is also telling in this video is that Obama is against capitalism.
Okay, you say... he's in support of taking from the rich (white) and giving to the poor (blacks). He's against capitalism. Best you can show is that he's a socialist that wants to redistribute towards his particular racial/social class. No different from other politicians, right? Where's the condemning evidence?
Ahh, I say... the connection is the fact that he is connected to ACORN. Remember how they pushed for risky loans? It is fact that these risky loans led to the economic breakdown that we are experiencing. What is the point of demanding for risky loans, which will not be paid back? What's the point? People get property, but it would take a complete moron to not see how dangerous that scenario would be. (Says something about our elected officials. Nice to know that Bush and McCain both tried to regulate these practices.) But as a person who connected with ACORN in the '80s who actively campaigned for these risky mortgages, Obama is directly connected to the very thing that caused the downfall of economic society as we know it. And we're supposed to buy that he did this out of ignorance?
Either he's a moron who doesn't understand what this (and his other Socialist ideas) will do to our economy, or he is actively committed to bringing down capitalism so that he can change America into a new Marxist/Socialist nation.
Behold! Before he surprises us, I give you the new national anthem of the United Socialist States of America (USSA).
He's also a racist. Yup, a got a steal pair to say such a thing about any person these days. But watch this video. Amazing that the last responsible news network-Fox News-are not covering this. What is also telling in this video is that Obama is against capitalism.
Okay, you say... he's in support of taking from the rich (white) and giving to the poor (blacks). He's against capitalism. Best you can show is that he's a socialist that wants to redistribute towards his particular racial/social class. No different from other politicians, right? Where's the condemning evidence?
Ahh, I say... the connection is the fact that he is connected to ACORN. Remember how they pushed for risky loans? It is fact that these risky loans led to the economic breakdown that we are experiencing. What is the point of demanding for risky loans, which will not be paid back? What's the point? People get property, but it would take a complete moron to not see how dangerous that scenario would be. (Says something about our elected officials. Nice to know that Bush and McCain both tried to regulate these practices.) But as a person who connected with ACORN in the '80s who actively campaigned for these risky mortgages, Obama is directly connected to the very thing that caused the downfall of economic society as we know it. And we're supposed to buy that he did this out of ignorance?
Either he's a moron who doesn't understand what this (and his other Socialist ideas) will do to our economy, or he is actively committed to bringing down capitalism so that he can change America into a new Marxist/Socialist nation.
Behold! Before he surprises us, I give you the new national anthem of the United Socialist States of America (USSA).
Stimulating the Economy
So there's word that Congress is working on a second stimulus package. Well could we all please make sure that if this thing is created and presented to Congress, that we call our Reps and Sens and motivate them to not vote for this thing? Please.
Now it's tempting to take the money that they offer and run to spend it of course. But let's think about this critically. Do we—as in me and you—actually need free money? Right there we should recognize that nothing is free. Where is this money coming from? China (like last time)? Britain? The wealthy in America? The old “Spread the wealth around” Marxist Socialist doctrine that Obama supports is perhaps the most naïve showing of how the American system works. Taxing the people who hire us means they can't afford to pay us, ergo they fire us. So do we really want more money taken from them, putting our very jobs on the line, just so we can get a couple hundred dollars in a couple months?
Of course that's just begging the question... do we need a stimulus package? The point behind a stimulus package is to boosts confidence in the economic system by infusing it with money so that people can purchase commodities. Now the first stimulus package probably was needed, as much as it hurts me to say. See when we were going through the gas bubble and the price of oil was up to $150 per barrel, people truly could not afford to spend money.
What is the situation today? People are losing money in the stock markets. In response to the apparent world-recession we are beginning to go through, people are taking loses from the market to make sure they have cash. If capitalism allows the markets to correct themselves, then the scenario ought to be clear. The market takes a huge hit now. It takes the time to reform itself by people like Warren Buffet and other rich people buy up cheap stocks. Businesses close or merge so that only the few and strong are left. The market tanks, but when it stabilizes, it will be with a strong base.
This is when the government ought to reform regulations. Now any non-Marxist economist knows that markets work best when free trading takes place. There is a balance that needs to happen with regulation. Government needs to make sure that they are not hindering markets, but that the markets are not being closed to new business, etc. If government wanted to really reform the system, they need to do something about these bad/risky mortgages and the way banks trade them.
It pains me to hear the McCain plan to buy up bad/risky mortgages and repurpose them into something that can be actually paid for. (Compare Obama's plan to just extend when people pay by three months.) As people cannot afford to pay their property taxes because they are being foreclosed on, local state and city governments will go bankrupt. That means under-funded police, fire, and other emergency agencies. As well foreclosed homes bring down the value of other homes. So the reciprocal effect of people not being able to afford their mortgages means we all suffer. That's why I cringe when I hear McCain's plan, but I'm willing to go along with it. Basically every home needs to be revalued to its correct value (and not the bubble value). But its best to start with those homes which are worse worse. Obama's plan does nothing in the long run, as it doesn't address the actual problem that these houses are over-valued and people can't pay on their mortgages as they stand. (Does he plan on economic/mortgage stimulus packages every few months? Taking from the rich to give to people so that they can pay their house payments? How does this even make sense?)
Now, back to the markets and the economy. Imagine this scenario. The market stabilizes, and government actually makes the regulations balanced so that they neither hinder the free market, but they protect people. What happens then? The market is able to grow again. People are able to reinvest. And now people can afford their house payments. All good, all swell. We have a strong economy again. And that's pretty much what “free market” means. It just needs to be given a chance to work, and then government needs to set up regulatory committees to allow it to run correctly.
Where does the stimulus package play into this? Well it presumes that people do not have the ability to spend money right now (or at least soon). I disagree with this assumption. Right now people are divided into those with stability with loses, and unstable people with nothing. The second group have had their homes foreclosed on, or can expect them to be foreclosed soon. They have larger problems than being able to buy the next XBox 360 game. People in the former category have long term issues as they have to worry about retirement. Most people can take the loss now and be able to reinvest in the future, making their retirement stable. It is the people who are leaving the workforce in the next 5-7 years that ought to be worried for the future. They have little money to retire on, so they will not be spending much now. That's the actual reality that this country faces. Those who have not don't need a stimulus check for short-term infusion of money into the economy. Those who taken a loss, but still have buying power on Main Street, don't need stimulus money. A small percentage of people might need the stimulus check (as they will take any money they can get), but they won't use it for short term spending. So the stimulus money just isn't needed.
Now it's tempting to take the money that they offer and run to spend it of course. But let's think about this critically. Do we—as in me and you—actually need free money? Right there we should recognize that nothing is free. Where is this money coming from? China (like last time)? Britain? The wealthy in America? The old “Spread the wealth around” Marxist Socialist doctrine that Obama supports is perhaps the most naïve showing of how the American system works. Taxing the people who hire us means they can't afford to pay us, ergo they fire us. So do we really want more money taken from them, putting our very jobs on the line, just so we can get a couple hundred dollars in a couple months?
Of course that's just begging the question... do we need a stimulus package? The point behind a stimulus package is to boosts confidence in the economic system by infusing it with money so that people can purchase commodities. Now the first stimulus package probably was needed, as much as it hurts me to say. See when we were going through the gas bubble and the price of oil was up to $150 per barrel, people truly could not afford to spend money.
What is the situation today? People are losing money in the stock markets. In response to the apparent world-recession we are beginning to go through, people are taking loses from the market to make sure they have cash. If capitalism allows the markets to correct themselves, then the scenario ought to be clear. The market takes a huge hit now. It takes the time to reform itself by people like Warren Buffet and other rich people buy up cheap stocks. Businesses close or merge so that only the few and strong are left. The market tanks, but when it stabilizes, it will be with a strong base.
This is when the government ought to reform regulations. Now any non-Marxist economist knows that markets work best when free trading takes place. There is a balance that needs to happen with regulation. Government needs to make sure that they are not hindering markets, but that the markets are not being closed to new business, etc. If government wanted to really reform the system, they need to do something about these bad/risky mortgages and the way banks trade them.
It pains me to hear the McCain plan to buy up bad/risky mortgages and repurpose them into something that can be actually paid for. (Compare Obama's plan to just extend when people pay by three months.) As people cannot afford to pay their property taxes because they are being foreclosed on, local state and city governments will go bankrupt. That means under-funded police, fire, and other emergency agencies. As well foreclosed homes bring down the value of other homes. So the reciprocal effect of people not being able to afford their mortgages means we all suffer. That's why I cringe when I hear McCain's plan, but I'm willing to go along with it. Basically every home needs to be revalued to its correct value (and not the bubble value). But its best to start with those homes which are worse worse. Obama's plan does nothing in the long run, as it doesn't address the actual problem that these houses are over-valued and people can't pay on their mortgages as they stand. (Does he plan on economic/mortgage stimulus packages every few months? Taking from the rich to give to people so that they can pay their house payments? How does this even make sense?)
Now, back to the markets and the economy. Imagine this scenario. The market stabilizes, and government actually makes the regulations balanced so that they neither hinder the free market, but they protect people. What happens then? The market is able to grow again. People are able to reinvest. And now people can afford their house payments. All good, all swell. We have a strong economy again. And that's pretty much what “free market” means. It just needs to be given a chance to work, and then government needs to set up regulatory committees to allow it to run correctly.
Where does the stimulus package play into this? Well it presumes that people do not have the ability to spend money right now (or at least soon). I disagree with this assumption. Right now people are divided into those with stability with loses, and unstable people with nothing. The second group have had their homes foreclosed on, or can expect them to be foreclosed soon. They have larger problems than being able to buy the next XBox 360 game. People in the former category have long term issues as they have to worry about retirement. Most people can take the loss now and be able to reinvest in the future, making their retirement stable. It is the people who are leaving the workforce in the next 5-7 years that ought to be worried for the future. They have little money to retire on, so they will not be spending much now. That's the actual reality that this country faces. Those who have not don't need a stimulus check for short-term infusion of money into the economy. Those who taken a loss, but still have buying power on Main Street, don't need stimulus money. A small percentage of people might need the stimulus check (as they will take any money they can get), but they won't use it for short term spending. So the stimulus money just isn't needed.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
New Paper
It has been a while since I've posted any theological or exegetical works. Here is a brand spankin' new paper I just finished (i.e., I just got done formatting it a few minutes ago) and will be handing it today. It will be going to Rick Watts, the prof of my The Use of the OT by the NT class. Great class. My subject: Deut 17:7, et al, in 1 Cor 5:13b ("Purge the evildoer from your midst.") You can click on the title of this post or click below to download it.
Purge the evildoer from your midst.pdf
Purge the evildoer from your midst.pdf
Friday, October 17, 2008
"Read my lips..."
"...no new taxes."
Words that set up G. H. W. Bush to fail. He had to raise taxes, and then paid the price the next campaign. Clinton did not set in words such a famous clip, but nevertheless raised taxes weeks after taking office. This was offset by the Republicans controlling Congress the rest of his tenure.
Now we have a promise of Obama, "I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans." Now a week ago I claimed that Obama was lying to the American people. I stand by that claim. I hope my large post about the men at the bar helps raise some questions about Obama's promises. Where does his money come from? How does he afford his spending?
And here's the key: his tax cuts are just spending. He taxes the rich to give to the poor. And now I want to point you to this post, which really coherently (better than me at least) spells out the worries that are real. Here's the key point as I can find it:
Words that set up G. H. W. Bush to fail. He had to raise taxes, and then paid the price the next campaign. Clinton did not set in words such a famous clip, but nevertheless raised taxes weeks after taking office. This was offset by the Republicans controlling Congress the rest of his tenure.
Now we have a promise of Obama, "I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans." Now a week ago I claimed that Obama was lying to the American people. I stand by that claim. I hope my large post about the men at the bar helps raise some questions about Obama's promises. Where does his money come from? How does he afford his spending?
And here's the key: his tax cuts are just spending. He taxes the rich to give to the poor. And now I want to point you to this post, which really coherently (better than me at least) spells out the worries that are real. Here's the key point as I can find it:
Obama should be forced to come clean: 95% of who? Will he cut any tax rates, or just offer to cut a bunch of checks? If he won't clarify his promise, he can fairly be blamed for breaking another pledge if the percentage of current federal taxpayers whose tax liability doesn't go down under an Obama Administration ends up being, as most of us expect, vastly lower than 95%.This is why if Obama wins I will start placing bets on Nov. 5th that the Republicans will not only take back the Congress in 2010, but will win the presidency in 2012.
Mickey Mouse and the Republican Party
Well last night McCain and Obama went on the Al Smith Memorial Dinner and roasted each other and themselves. Check out McCain part 1 and part 2, and Obama part 1 and part 2. This is most possibly the greatest moment of this campaign. And I'm sorry to my Obama friends, but McCain got constant laughs and Obama fell flat at times. Oh well, maybe the great rhetorician isn't much of a comedian. But check out around McCain (part 2) around 0:58 mark on his mention of Mickey Mouse. Subsequently he says that he might let Mickey vote, since he's sure that the "big rat" is really a Republican.
Stop! McCain is wrong! Mickey Mouse (trademark Disney of course) is about as Democrat as you can get. McCain should call for the courts to stop all potential fictional characters from voting, as their leader of Mickey Mouse is leading them straight in to the voting offices to pull the lever for Obama. It is absurd to think that Mickey won't organize his Disney union.
There is much historical precedent for thinking that no mouse could ever be a Republican. We all know how mice scare elephants, as even Mythbusters proved! And what animal symbolizes the GOP? The elephant! There can by no mistake here. The fact that ACORN has registered Mickey should be concerning enough. But the Republican Party, being represented by the elephant, should start stampeding when they see any mouse and especially any named Mickey.
We ought to take great caution in this news, and then respond with the strength that we have as an elephant. Be afraid John McCain, the Democrats are registering the Disney union under Mickey's leadership, and you want us to be calm? Panic, John, panic! Panic like the entire Republican Party, and panic like the elephant like we are. Friends, if John McCain will not lead us, let us stampede like the herd of elephants that we are! Let us stampede to the polls and vote against Mickey Mouse, against ACORN, against Obama, and for John McCain!
Stop! McCain is wrong! Mickey Mouse (trademark Disney of course) is about as Democrat as you can get. McCain should call for the courts to stop all potential fictional characters from voting, as their leader of Mickey Mouse is leading them straight in to the voting offices to pull the lever for Obama. It is absurd to think that Mickey won't organize his Disney union.
There is much historical precedent for thinking that no mouse could ever be a Republican. We all know how mice scare elephants, as even Mythbusters proved! And what animal symbolizes the GOP? The elephant! There can by no mistake here. The fact that ACORN has registered Mickey should be concerning enough. But the Republican Party, being represented by the elephant, should start stampeding when they see any mouse and especially any named Mickey.
We ought to take great caution in this news, and then respond with the strength that we have as an elephant. Be afraid John McCain, the Democrats are registering the Disney union under Mickey's leadership, and you want us to be calm? Panic, John, panic! Panic like the entire Republican Party, and panic like the elephant like we are. Friends, if John McCain will not lead us, let us stampede like the herd of elephants that we are! Let us stampede to the polls and vote against Mickey Mouse, against ACORN, against Obama, and for John McCain!
An e-mail forward and the candidate's tax plans
I'm going to lay out the different tax plans of both candidates, based upon an e-mail circulating on the internet. I must first say that the original e-mail has 10 men, and so please do not think that I intend to say that only men get together and go out to drink. Plenty of women go drinking, but I want to follow the details of the original e-mail. As well, I originally did this entry in a nice word processor, with spiffy graphs and everything. Of course once I imported it into the blog I lost my nice graphs. It took me an hour to go back and make the graphs that you see below. Painful, and if anyone knows how to fix that problem in the future, please let me know. Enjoy the nice graphs people. Update: Oh and enjoy this, since I needed to had to laugh before bed.
“Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do.”
$0
.....................Amount Owed
Man 1...........$0
Man 2...........$0
Man 3...........$0
Man 4...........$0
Man 5...........$1
Man 6...........$3
Man 7...........$7
Man 8...........$12
Man 9...........$18
Man 10.........$59
Now Obama wants to give a direct tax cut to the middle and lower class, effecting changing the way we divide our tax money. He wants to raise taxes on the upper income class brackets (which he now defines as $250,000, but could redefine at any other point in time). So what happens when you give a tax credit to the first nine men at the bar? It looks like this:
.....................Owed B4....................Amount Owed Under Obama
Man 1...........$0..............................$-3.33
Man 2...........$0..............................$-3.33
Man 3...........$0..............................$-3.33
Man 4...........$0..............................$-3.33
Man 5...........$1...............................$-2.33
Man 6...........$3..............................$-0.33
Man 7...........$7...............................$3.67
Man 8...........$12.............................$8.67
Man 9...........$18.............................$14.67
Man 10.........$59.............................$88.97
6/10 people now get paid to go drink! Count me in on that deal, right? Now Obama wants to justify this by saying that the lower and middle class people will have money to spend on the economy, health care, etc. It grows the economy, making it stronger.
Compare this to the economic plans of the conservatives. They want a overall tax cut. This is where the next part of the e-mail plays a part.
“The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80 .
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we currently pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
..................Amount Owed B4...Amount Owed After Cut
Man 1........$0...........................$0
Man 2........$0...........................$0
Man 3........$0...........................$0
Man 4........$0...........................$0
Man 5........$1............................$0
Man 6........$3............................$2
Man 7........$7............................$5
Man 8........$12..........................$9
Man 9........$18..........................$14
Man 10......$59..........................$49
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.”
Ahh, says the conservative. Look at OUR plan for economics. Everyone saves. And this way nobody is getting paid to drink beer, but everyone pays according to what they can afford and to what is fair. Our plan makes it so that each tax bracket pays what they can afford, and not putting all the burden on one single tax bracket. But the e-mail goes on with a troubling scenario.
“But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!' The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking verseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.”
So what happens if the tenth man decides that it is no longer worth going out to drink beer at the bar? Well then the totals need to be recalculated for the nine men. Under the conservative tax plan, the situation looks like this:
...............Amount Owed B4...Supposedly Owed...Recalc'd
Man 1.....$0............................$0...........................$5.56
Man 2.....$0............................$0...........................$5.56
Man 3.....$0............................$0...........................$5.56
Man 4.....$0............................$0...........................$5.56
Man 5.....$1.............................$0...........................$5.56
Man 6.....$3.............................$2..........................$7.56
Man 7.....$7.............................$5...........................$10.56
Man 8.....$12...........................$9...........................$14.56
Man 9.....$18...........................$14.........................$19.56
Hmm... We should all stop and consider this scenario. Is it worth it to really tick off that important tenth man? Now the question comes back to the forefront. If this is bad with a discount (tax cut) from the conservatives, what about the Obama camp which want to take back the Bush tax cuts? Those totals need to be recalculated.
..............Amount Owed B4......Supposedly Owed....Recalc'd
Man 1....$0..............................$-3.33.......................$6.56
Man 2....$0..............................$-3.33.......................$6.56
Man 3....$0..............................$-3.33.......................$6.56
Man 4....$0..............................$-3.33.......................$6.56
Man 5....$1...............................$-2.33.......................$7.56
Man 6....$3..............................$-0.33.......................$9.56
Man 7....$7.............................$3.67........................$13.56
Man 8....$13............................$8.67........................$18.56
Man 9....$18...........................$14.67.......................$24.56
Everyone pays 6.56 more than they originally did! This is what a “share the wealth” doctrine actually does. It pushes businesses who pay most of the taxes away. So to make up for it, lower and middle classes have to make up the difference. Instead of a 3.33 savings by all, the people left to split the bill have to pay 6.56 more—almost twice as much as they supposedly were going to save! Without the tax cuts of course each is going to pay taxes, but the issue is how to get the tenth man to stay in the first play.
The conservative plan does not actually translate well into this scenario. People usually do not go beat up rich people and convince them to go away. The tax cut actually acts as incentive to stick around. It's not until one introduces class warfare into the scenario that the rich people say, “Forget you guys, I'm going to Ireland.” (No doubt the rich drink Guinness.)
But now for a complicated matter. Obama recognizes that he has to keep businesses here to afford this type of wealth redistribution. So what does he do? He promises tax breaks for businesses that create jobs (how much of a tax break?), stop tax breaks for companies that do business overseas (there are no tax cuts here, but okay), and promising to eliminate the capital gain taxes for small businesses (which again, don't exist). So a lot of talk of keeping businesses here in America, but not really any solid plan that makes sense. Small businesses especially have to deal with new taxes, even in small ones. Obama has promised to take back the Bush tax cuts. He promises lower taxes for small businesses, but automatically promises to raise everyone's taxes so that we are receiving a $100 bill from the barkeep. Then his tax plans come into affect, and that just drives large businesses away, leaving small businesses to pick up the tab.
What is more troubling that Obama's naivete when it comes to business taxes is that he he does not tell us where this tax break money will come from. He's taxing businesses to give to the poor; we understand that much. But where is he getting the money to give to the businesses? A disturbing question. Does he borrow from China? Or does he do a nice tap-dance and take from the middle class more to give to the rich to stay in America? This is what small businesses are worried about. They can be sacrificed because Walmart hires more people in one store than several small businesses put together, and Walmart pays larger taxes. But something like 2/3 Americans are employed by small businesses. They close, or simply fire a few employees to make up the difference.
Obama's plan, if it works out like it seems it would on paper, creates class warfare. The rich get richer, the poor get a little bit richer, and the middle class (80% of Americans) get poorer. This isn't fairness, and this is a very troubling aspect of not only Obama's plan, but the entire liberal agenda in total. I think the term “Socialism” is dead-on correct at this point. Look at other Socialist countries in the past (U.S.S.R., North Korea, Vietnam, Venezuela, China, etc) and you'll see this exact scenario: the rich get richer and the middle class becomes non-existent and the poor remain poor. It has never worked, and it is my belief that it will never work.
Now this isn't to say that the conservative plan is exactly the right scenario either. Tax cuts were given under both Reagon and Bush to bolster the economy. But tax cuts only work if one can afford it. Both were under extreme pressure to add national defense funding which their predecessors (Carter and Clinton respectfully) had cut drastically. I will be the first to admit that the Bush tax cuts did not make sense in the time of war. But when first proposed, they did help encourage business return and growth. Obama wants to remind you that we are in a hard time now under Bush. Well, we are under unusual circumstances with the housing crisis. But think back 3-5 years ago, when the Bush tax cuts were really doing their job. How was the economy then? It was good and stable. The unemployment rate was very low. Compare this to 10 years ago when the Dot.Com bubble bust and many people were in terrible shape. The Bush tax cuts did wonders for the American people. The trouble came with war. But now with the war in Iraq ending, and therefore being an non-issue, what can we expect as far as the economy goes? The money from Iraq will go to Afghanistan. So same budget, but now a new crisis overall that the next administration has to deal with. Neither candidate really has any plans to balance the budget to the extent to make any tax cut affordable even they both promise them.
McCain first wants to keep the Bush tax cuts. This means that each man in the bar is still having the $80 tab instead of the $100 tab. But he also wants to cut many programs (non-specific about which ones). He wants to save money on pork barrel spending and earmarks (a total of $17.2 billion for 2008 alone), which is a dent in the waste in Washington. It is difficult to really tell how much can be saved by McCain's plan because he does not have control over every single thing that he wants to cut. Here's the difference that I see though. Instead of trying to distribute the wealth around the country, McCain has a long history of saving money. What is the biggest problem with the government right now? Too much spending. Stop the spending, and you get more money. Stop the programs that just don't work, and you get more money to work with. McCain can't do this perfectly, but until Obama shows some sort ideas of where he wants to cut funding, the American people must wonder where the money is going to come from.
Now I must criticize both candidates at this point. They want to introduce more spending. Every candidate wants to do this, and few get this done (except Republicans and defense spending). Obama wants a lot more spending than McCain, but has no plan to pay for it (I'm sorry, but the money from Iraq goes to Afghanistan, not to Mr. Obama's coffers like he thinks). But before I criticize McCain too badly, let's remember where he wants to spend. So other policies considering we've covered taxes already:
Healthcare: McCain: $5000 to every family for healthcare (does not specify where the money will come from). Obama: Lower healthcare costs overall (does not specific how he's going to do this) and have an option to enroll children in the same type of healthcare as politicians get (does not specify how much this will cost). As well he wants to encourage people to get healthcare through their business (with a tax credit for businesses to pay for it). Obama also wants to push preventive medicine, while McCain actually wants to instill preventive education in schools and see businesses given incentives for preventive care (such as joining a health place and working out). I like McCain's plan of getting this started in schools where we learn our habits. We learn to exercise there, then it's not a large temptation to put it off later.
Now, McCain's plan is troubling because he doesn't show us where the money is coming from. Obama is troubling for the same reason, but more so because it is overly optimistic. He's going to lower healthcare costs on the basis of... his personality? his character? threatening the healthcare companies? The fact that he is being extremely non-specific about how he will implement his plan ought to give us reason to stop and think.
Education: Both want to hire and fire teachers based upon performance. Considering that's a state's issue right now, good luck with that. McCain wants an “all of the above approach” consisting of charter schools, private schools, home schools, vouchers, etc. Promoting these options takes money. Where will it come from? Obama seems intent on charter schools as an alternative. But he also wants to send everyone to college with a tax credit. Again, more money than before, but much less than McCain (I think at least, it's difficult to tell without actual numbers). Also less options to choose from. But again, where does the money to promote these schools come from on either side? I could say a lot more about education (and will in the future), but I don't actually see either candidate being able to fund it like it needs to be. Look for this to be dropped like a stone in a pond come actual budget time.
Social Issues: Well Obama wants state-paid abortions. Well Mr. Obama, come down South and see if we're going to pay for someone else to have an abortion. (Actually a word of advice to Obama in general: don't go down South, as there is already talk of assassination by the extremists. Not something to be proud of, and this talk should be condemned, but its a threat that I'm hearing third and fourth hand.) This is where Obama is at his most inconsistent. He wants federally protected, state-paid abortions, but he wants gay marriage to be a state-issue only even though it has federal tax implications. Looking past the fact that any Christian ought to be ashamed of approving of abortions as it is, this just doesn't make sense. If the woman wants to make that choice, then she ought to be able to pay for it. Why force a large portion of the nation which are against abortions to pay for them?
McCain at least is a bit more consistent on the issue. Let the states handle it. Pretty much makes it a non-issue as far as federal government goes. Again I could say a lot more about what I think of abortion and gay marriage, but as far as economics go, there's nothing to add to McCain's plan.
Energy: Ahh.. the big one. The one thing that saved the nation during the Great Depression was the energy plans initiated under Roosevelt (just about everything else he did hurt us badly). The jobs created under TVA, et al, allowed people to get back to work and have a paycheck. Seemingly both candidates want to encourage this type plan of sending people to work with new energy opportunities. Two issues:
1) Funding. Sorry folks but it takes a lot of funding to build a nuclear reactor. And try replacing the entire energy grid (which needs it!) so that solar, wind, etc, energy can be supported without any funding. This should have been done under Clinton, but wasn't. (Of course the argument then was pro-earth instead of energy independence.) Now we can't afford it. So we can't afford anything new. What does each candidate plan on doing as far as supporting what's available out there now? Obama: bio-fuels. Yup, using food for fuel has really helped us up until now, hasn't it? Made the cost of fuel and food go up. We can't export food, so we are limited in the global markets more. I'm sorry, but bio-fuels, as everyone outside the Midwest agrees, are a bad option. McCain: oil. Yup, going to take awhile, but who has the money to make us an oil producing nation? The big oil companies. Why aren't they drilling now? Because they fear that once the New Year passes, the Democrats won't let them. They have no incentive to drill until its clear that they will be able to without the government's intrusion. McCain wants to encourage them to drill with a tax cut. Incentive being the key word. They drill and we will indeed have more oil. It's energy at least. Now, even if McCain can't afford to give them a larger tax cut, let them do what they do best, and they still give us oil (even at a slower pace). It's something at least. The reasoning behind McCain's plan to give incentive to big oil to drill is great, but it can be dropped on the condition that government just backs out from the whole process altogether.
2) Short-term solution. This is kinda secondary once you realize that we can't fund new things anyways. But if (!) we could, then you're looking at 10 years of jobs created for an unskilled working class. Read that again. Short-term job opportunities, meaning that something new will have to be available after those 10 years. Perhaps moving on to newer and better types of energy types and improving our infrastructure overall. So we have a constant infrastructure overall each generation. Well, in the new and improving world of technology, perhaps. (Again funding becomes an issue.) But read the second part: “unskilled working class.” People do not need to go to college to learn how to pour cement. So Obama's plan that we send our kids to college doesn't really follow if this is where our solutions lie. And the more troubling economic times we go through, the less important college seems. Mr. Obama, give up on your dream that our kids are going to college in the next few years. Sounds good to a lot of people now, but more and more people are finding that a degree isn't getting them anywhere after college. Right now its survival time, and a college degree doesn't mean much if you have to flip burgers or pour concrete to pay the bills. It's a difficult tension to have, where the current generation builds it, while the next generation is able to run it, and then the next generation is then trained in research and development for newer technologies to start the process over again. Don't look for any of this to be addressed though, considering the lack of funding anyways.
Overall, neither candidate looks good on paper. Both want more spending. Both have no idea about the troubling times we're in. Nevertheless, I will stick with McCain as my candidate of choice. “Why?” asks my liberal friends. Because fundamentally he's closer to bringing about a healthy economy. We've got to see huge differences in how Washington is run. That means cutting with a hatchet a lot of programs, using a scalpel with a few programs, and then adding in new programs. We need a totally different way of budgeting in which subtraction is balanced by the addition. McCain's not perfect, but at least he is up front in his desire to do subtraction. Obama has avoided the question time and time again. McCain might not be able to balance the budget, but he can at least get the process started by subtracting some things. And really that's what you want to see. This won't be an overnight fix (sorry “gotta have it now” addicts out there). That would mean that the people who depend on the old way (i.e., most of us) get totally left behind, while only the next generation is in a position to profit. We need a stable transition, where the subtraction is done over time until we get spending under control. Then when we start seeing a surplus, and use that money to balance the budget. And then use the extra money to either 1) give back in tax cuts or 2) fund extra programs as needed. The first step must be a small one, but right now only McCain represents the kind of change that the country actually needs.
I know it doesn't seem fair. But if we elect Obama (and he can implement his changes), businesses go elsewhere. More of us have to pick up the tab. His new programs mean that the elimination of the middle class altogether. We aren't in a position for any long term recovery. The rich get richer and the rest stabilize into a lower class that just gets by. The government can't get fix itself like it needs to under those conditions. So there's no long-term recovery plan. Short term “fairness” doctrines turns this nation into a Socialist nation that always fails. And when a nation fails its usually to the benefit of another nation. So we not longer are a world power, and Russia and China now are. We are left vulnerable, while they are superior. And they aren't divided as we are. They can mobilize, and we can't. So we are become not only a second-rate country, but one that could be taken over at anytime. Obama is dangerous for our country. His lies about how far fetched his tax plans have not been called out, and his plans for America only will hurt the country more.
That being said, am I worried about an Obama presidency, even with a Democratic controlled Congress? Not really. Here's why. He wants some sort of universal healthcare. The American Medical Association will stop that. He wants to spend more, but won't have any money. So things will really stay the same. He'll hurt us more by not offering a solution, and so we'll go into a recession, and perhaps a depression. But that just means we stop moving altogether. We freeze as a country as he tries to move a country that simply can't afford to move. When he leaves office (and after 4 years of a Democrat that brought no change, oh he'll leave office, just like every other Democrat, while Republicans will sweep into office) and the Palin takes office (the best Republican candidate) then there will be total overhaul of the government system because the American people will demand it. So basically we can do this the easy way under McCain which will take time but be more successful overall, or the hard way under Palin where we will have to stop growth and then give up a lot of stuff just so that we can start moving forward again. We'll begin growth again under a Republican, but it just depends on how you want to do it. Personally I'd rather see McCain start the change we need, instead of Obama stopping it. But hey, looks like most of the country wants to do it the hard way.
And oh, about the guys at the bar, don't think they don't understand what's going on. We depend upon Man 10, and whether that's big business or big oil, we need their contribution to America. We rely on them for jobs and a majority of our tax income. Do we want class warfare? I certainly hope not.
“Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do.”
$0
.....................Amount Owed
Man 1...........$0
Man 2...........$0
Man 3...........$0
Man 4...........$0
Man 5...........$1
Man 6...........$3
Man 7...........$7
Man 8...........$12
Man 9...........$18
Man 10.........$59
Now Obama wants to give a direct tax cut to the middle and lower class, effecting changing the way we divide our tax money. He wants to raise taxes on the upper income class brackets (which he now defines as $250,000, but could redefine at any other point in time). So what happens when you give a tax credit to the first nine men at the bar? It looks like this:
.....................Owed B4....................Amount Owed Under Obama
Man 1...........$0..............................$-3.33
Man 2...........$0..............................$-3.33
Man 3...........$0..............................$-3.33
Man 4...........$0..............................$-3.33
Man 5...........$1...............................$-2.33
Man 6...........$3..............................$-0.33
Man 7...........$7...............................$3.67
Man 8...........$12.............................$8.67
Man 9...........$18.............................$14.67
Man 10.........$59.............................$88.97
6/10 people now get paid to go drink! Count me in on that deal, right? Now Obama wants to justify this by saying that the lower and middle class people will have money to spend on the economy, health care, etc. It grows the economy, making it stronger.
Compare this to the economic plans of the conservatives. They want a overall tax cut. This is where the next part of the e-mail plays a part.
“The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80 .
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we currently pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
..................Amount Owed B4...Amount Owed After Cut
Man 1........$0...........................$0
Man 2........$0...........................$0
Man 3........$0...........................$0
Man 4........$0...........................$0
Man 5........$1............................$0
Man 6........$3............................$2
Man 7........$7............................$5
Man 8........$12..........................$9
Man 9........$18..........................$14
Man 10......$59..........................$49
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.”
Ahh, says the conservative. Look at OUR plan for economics. Everyone saves. And this way nobody is getting paid to drink beer, but everyone pays according to what they can afford and to what is fair. Our plan makes it so that each tax bracket pays what they can afford, and not putting all the burden on one single tax bracket. But the e-mail goes on with a troubling scenario.
“But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!' The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking verseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.”
So what happens if the tenth man decides that it is no longer worth going out to drink beer at the bar? Well then the totals need to be recalculated for the nine men. Under the conservative tax plan, the situation looks like this:
...............Amount Owed B4...Supposedly Owed...Recalc'd
Man 1.....$0............................$0...........................$5.56
Man 2.....$0............................$0...........................$5.56
Man 3.....$0............................$0...........................$5.56
Man 4.....$0............................$0...........................$5.56
Man 5.....$1.............................$0...........................$5.56
Man 6.....$3.............................$2..........................$7.56
Man 7.....$7.............................$5...........................$10.56
Man 8.....$12...........................$9...........................$14.56
Man 9.....$18...........................$14.........................$19.56
Hmm... We should all stop and consider this scenario. Is it worth it to really tick off that important tenth man? Now the question comes back to the forefront. If this is bad with a discount (tax cut) from the conservatives, what about the Obama camp which want to take back the Bush tax cuts? Those totals need to be recalculated.
..............Amount Owed B4......Supposedly Owed....Recalc'd
Man 1....$0..............................$-3.33.......................$6.56
Man 2....$0..............................$-3.33.......................$6.56
Man 3....$0..............................$-3.33.......................$6.56
Man 4....$0..............................$-3.33.......................$6.56
Man 5....$1...............................$-2.33.......................$7.56
Man 6....$3..............................$-0.33.......................$9.56
Man 7....$7.............................$3.67........................$13.56
Man 8....$13............................$8.67........................$18.56
Man 9....$18...........................$14.67.......................$24.56
Everyone pays 6.56 more than they originally did! This is what a “share the wealth” doctrine actually does. It pushes businesses who pay most of the taxes away. So to make up for it, lower and middle classes have to make up the difference. Instead of a 3.33 savings by all, the people left to split the bill have to pay 6.56 more—almost twice as much as they supposedly were going to save! Without the tax cuts of course each is going to pay taxes, but the issue is how to get the tenth man to stay in the first play.
The conservative plan does not actually translate well into this scenario. People usually do not go beat up rich people and convince them to go away. The tax cut actually acts as incentive to stick around. It's not until one introduces class warfare into the scenario that the rich people say, “Forget you guys, I'm going to Ireland.” (No doubt the rich drink Guinness.)
But now for a complicated matter. Obama recognizes that he has to keep businesses here to afford this type of wealth redistribution. So what does he do? He promises tax breaks for businesses that create jobs (how much of a tax break?), stop tax breaks for companies that do business overseas (there are no tax cuts here, but okay), and promising to eliminate the capital gain taxes for small businesses (which again, don't exist). So a lot of talk of keeping businesses here in America, but not really any solid plan that makes sense. Small businesses especially have to deal with new taxes, even in small ones. Obama has promised to take back the Bush tax cuts. He promises lower taxes for small businesses, but automatically promises to raise everyone's taxes so that we are receiving a $100 bill from the barkeep. Then his tax plans come into affect, and that just drives large businesses away, leaving small businesses to pick up the tab.
What is more troubling that Obama's naivete when it comes to business taxes is that he he does not tell us where this tax break money will come from. He's taxing businesses to give to the poor; we understand that much. But where is he getting the money to give to the businesses? A disturbing question. Does he borrow from China? Or does he do a nice tap-dance and take from the middle class more to give to the rich to stay in America? This is what small businesses are worried about. They can be sacrificed because Walmart hires more people in one store than several small businesses put together, and Walmart pays larger taxes. But something like 2/3 Americans are employed by small businesses. They close, or simply fire a few employees to make up the difference.
Obama's plan, if it works out like it seems it would on paper, creates class warfare. The rich get richer, the poor get a little bit richer, and the middle class (80% of Americans) get poorer. This isn't fairness, and this is a very troubling aspect of not only Obama's plan, but the entire liberal agenda in total. I think the term “Socialism” is dead-on correct at this point. Look at other Socialist countries in the past (U.S.S.R., North Korea, Vietnam, Venezuela, China, etc) and you'll see this exact scenario: the rich get richer and the middle class becomes non-existent and the poor remain poor. It has never worked, and it is my belief that it will never work.
Now this isn't to say that the conservative plan is exactly the right scenario either. Tax cuts were given under both Reagon and Bush to bolster the economy. But tax cuts only work if one can afford it. Both were under extreme pressure to add national defense funding which their predecessors (Carter and Clinton respectfully) had cut drastically. I will be the first to admit that the Bush tax cuts did not make sense in the time of war. But when first proposed, they did help encourage business return and growth. Obama wants to remind you that we are in a hard time now under Bush. Well, we are under unusual circumstances with the housing crisis. But think back 3-5 years ago, when the Bush tax cuts were really doing their job. How was the economy then? It was good and stable. The unemployment rate was very low. Compare this to 10 years ago when the Dot.Com bubble bust and many people were in terrible shape. The Bush tax cuts did wonders for the American people. The trouble came with war. But now with the war in Iraq ending, and therefore being an non-issue, what can we expect as far as the economy goes? The money from Iraq will go to Afghanistan. So same budget, but now a new crisis overall that the next administration has to deal with. Neither candidate really has any plans to balance the budget to the extent to make any tax cut affordable even they both promise them.
McCain first wants to keep the Bush tax cuts. This means that each man in the bar is still having the $80 tab instead of the $100 tab. But he also wants to cut many programs (non-specific about which ones). He wants to save money on pork barrel spending and earmarks (a total of $17.2 billion for 2008 alone), which is a dent in the waste in Washington. It is difficult to really tell how much can be saved by McCain's plan because he does not have control over every single thing that he wants to cut. Here's the difference that I see though. Instead of trying to distribute the wealth around the country, McCain has a long history of saving money. What is the biggest problem with the government right now? Too much spending. Stop the spending, and you get more money. Stop the programs that just don't work, and you get more money to work with. McCain can't do this perfectly, but until Obama shows some sort ideas of where he wants to cut funding, the American people must wonder where the money is going to come from.
Now I must criticize both candidates at this point. They want to introduce more spending. Every candidate wants to do this, and few get this done (except Republicans and defense spending). Obama wants a lot more spending than McCain, but has no plan to pay for it (I'm sorry, but the money from Iraq goes to Afghanistan, not to Mr. Obama's coffers like he thinks). But before I criticize McCain too badly, let's remember where he wants to spend. So other policies considering we've covered taxes already:
Healthcare: McCain: $5000 to every family for healthcare (does not specify where the money will come from). Obama: Lower healthcare costs overall (does not specific how he's going to do this) and have an option to enroll children in the same type of healthcare as politicians get (does not specify how much this will cost). As well he wants to encourage people to get healthcare through their business (with a tax credit for businesses to pay for it). Obama also wants to push preventive medicine, while McCain actually wants to instill preventive education in schools and see businesses given incentives for preventive care (such as joining a health place and working out). I like McCain's plan of getting this started in schools where we learn our habits. We learn to exercise there, then it's not a large temptation to put it off later.
Now, McCain's plan is troubling because he doesn't show us where the money is coming from. Obama is troubling for the same reason, but more so because it is overly optimistic. He's going to lower healthcare costs on the basis of... his personality? his character? threatening the healthcare companies? The fact that he is being extremely non-specific about how he will implement his plan ought to give us reason to stop and think.
Education: Both want to hire and fire teachers based upon performance. Considering that's a state's issue right now, good luck with that. McCain wants an “all of the above approach” consisting of charter schools, private schools, home schools, vouchers, etc. Promoting these options takes money. Where will it come from? Obama seems intent on charter schools as an alternative. But he also wants to send everyone to college with a tax credit. Again, more money than before, but much less than McCain (I think at least, it's difficult to tell without actual numbers). Also less options to choose from. But again, where does the money to promote these schools come from on either side? I could say a lot more about education (and will in the future), but I don't actually see either candidate being able to fund it like it needs to be. Look for this to be dropped like a stone in a pond come actual budget time.
Social Issues: Well Obama wants state-paid abortions. Well Mr. Obama, come down South and see if we're going to pay for someone else to have an abortion. (Actually a word of advice to Obama in general: don't go down South, as there is already talk of assassination by the extremists. Not something to be proud of, and this talk should be condemned, but its a threat that I'm hearing third and fourth hand.) This is where Obama is at his most inconsistent. He wants federally protected, state-paid abortions, but he wants gay marriage to be a state-issue only even though it has federal tax implications. Looking past the fact that any Christian ought to be ashamed of approving of abortions as it is, this just doesn't make sense. If the woman wants to make that choice, then she ought to be able to pay for it. Why force a large portion of the nation which are against abortions to pay for them?
McCain at least is a bit more consistent on the issue. Let the states handle it. Pretty much makes it a non-issue as far as federal government goes. Again I could say a lot more about what I think of abortion and gay marriage, but as far as economics go, there's nothing to add to McCain's plan.
Energy: Ahh.. the big one. The one thing that saved the nation during the Great Depression was the energy plans initiated under Roosevelt (just about everything else he did hurt us badly). The jobs created under TVA, et al, allowed people to get back to work and have a paycheck. Seemingly both candidates want to encourage this type plan of sending people to work with new energy opportunities. Two issues:
1) Funding. Sorry folks but it takes a lot of funding to build a nuclear reactor. And try replacing the entire energy grid (which needs it!) so that solar, wind, etc, energy can be supported without any funding. This should have been done under Clinton, but wasn't. (Of course the argument then was pro-earth instead of energy independence.) Now we can't afford it. So we can't afford anything new. What does each candidate plan on doing as far as supporting what's available out there now? Obama: bio-fuels. Yup, using food for fuel has really helped us up until now, hasn't it? Made the cost of fuel and food go up. We can't export food, so we are limited in the global markets more. I'm sorry, but bio-fuels, as everyone outside the Midwest agrees, are a bad option. McCain: oil. Yup, going to take awhile, but who has the money to make us an oil producing nation? The big oil companies. Why aren't they drilling now? Because they fear that once the New Year passes, the Democrats won't let them. They have no incentive to drill until its clear that they will be able to without the government's intrusion. McCain wants to encourage them to drill with a tax cut. Incentive being the key word. They drill and we will indeed have more oil. It's energy at least. Now, even if McCain can't afford to give them a larger tax cut, let them do what they do best, and they still give us oil (even at a slower pace). It's something at least. The reasoning behind McCain's plan to give incentive to big oil to drill is great, but it can be dropped on the condition that government just backs out from the whole process altogether.
2) Short-term solution. This is kinda secondary once you realize that we can't fund new things anyways. But if (!) we could, then you're looking at 10 years of jobs created for an unskilled working class. Read that again. Short-term job opportunities, meaning that something new will have to be available after those 10 years. Perhaps moving on to newer and better types of energy types and improving our infrastructure overall. So we have a constant infrastructure overall each generation. Well, in the new and improving world of technology, perhaps. (Again funding becomes an issue.) But read the second part: “unskilled working class.” People do not need to go to college to learn how to pour cement. So Obama's plan that we send our kids to college doesn't really follow if this is where our solutions lie. And the more troubling economic times we go through, the less important college seems. Mr. Obama, give up on your dream that our kids are going to college in the next few years. Sounds good to a lot of people now, but more and more people are finding that a degree isn't getting them anywhere after college. Right now its survival time, and a college degree doesn't mean much if you have to flip burgers or pour concrete to pay the bills. It's a difficult tension to have, where the current generation builds it, while the next generation is able to run it, and then the next generation is then trained in research and development for newer technologies to start the process over again. Don't look for any of this to be addressed though, considering the lack of funding anyways.
Overall, neither candidate looks good on paper. Both want more spending. Both have no idea about the troubling times we're in. Nevertheless, I will stick with McCain as my candidate of choice. “Why?” asks my liberal friends. Because fundamentally he's closer to bringing about a healthy economy. We've got to see huge differences in how Washington is run. That means cutting with a hatchet a lot of programs, using a scalpel with a few programs, and then adding in new programs. We need a totally different way of budgeting in which subtraction is balanced by the addition. McCain's not perfect, but at least he is up front in his desire to do subtraction. Obama has avoided the question time and time again. McCain might not be able to balance the budget, but he can at least get the process started by subtracting some things. And really that's what you want to see. This won't be an overnight fix (sorry “gotta have it now” addicts out there). That would mean that the people who depend on the old way (i.e., most of us) get totally left behind, while only the next generation is in a position to profit. We need a stable transition, where the subtraction is done over time until we get spending under control. Then when we start seeing a surplus, and use that money to balance the budget. And then use the extra money to either 1) give back in tax cuts or 2) fund extra programs as needed. The first step must be a small one, but right now only McCain represents the kind of change that the country actually needs.
I know it doesn't seem fair. But if we elect Obama (and he can implement his changes), businesses go elsewhere. More of us have to pick up the tab. His new programs mean that the elimination of the middle class altogether. We aren't in a position for any long term recovery. The rich get richer and the rest stabilize into a lower class that just gets by. The government can't get fix itself like it needs to under those conditions. So there's no long-term recovery plan. Short term “fairness” doctrines turns this nation into a Socialist nation that always fails. And when a nation fails its usually to the benefit of another nation. So we not longer are a world power, and Russia and China now are. We are left vulnerable, while they are superior. And they aren't divided as we are. They can mobilize, and we can't. So we are become not only a second-rate country, but one that could be taken over at anytime. Obama is dangerous for our country. His lies about how far fetched his tax plans have not been called out, and his plans for America only will hurt the country more.
That being said, am I worried about an Obama presidency, even with a Democratic controlled Congress? Not really. Here's why. He wants some sort of universal healthcare. The American Medical Association will stop that. He wants to spend more, but won't have any money. So things will really stay the same. He'll hurt us more by not offering a solution, and so we'll go into a recession, and perhaps a depression. But that just means we stop moving altogether. We freeze as a country as he tries to move a country that simply can't afford to move. When he leaves office (and after 4 years of a Democrat that brought no change, oh he'll leave office, just like every other Democrat, while Republicans will sweep into office) and the Palin takes office (the best Republican candidate) then there will be total overhaul of the government system because the American people will demand it. So basically we can do this the easy way under McCain which will take time but be more successful overall, or the hard way under Palin where we will have to stop growth and then give up a lot of stuff just so that we can start moving forward again. We'll begin growth again under a Republican, but it just depends on how you want to do it. Personally I'd rather see McCain start the change we need, instead of Obama stopping it. But hey, looks like most of the country wants to do it the hard way.
And oh, about the guys at the bar, don't think they don't understand what's going on. We depend upon Man 10, and whether that's big business or big oil, we need their contribution to America. We rely on them for jobs and a majority of our tax income. Do we want class warfare? I certainly hope not.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Obama lies rant
Obama has a lot going for him. He lies, and nobody calls him on it. When McCain calls him on it, people don't like it and just think that he's doing smears. Obama calls McCain a liar against his record. McCain comes back, and its deemed as petty and negative.
I'm tired of this shit. Obama is counting on people not researching either candidates actual history. The media makes metaphorical love with him every chance they get. People cry for issues to be heard, but really how much does Obama tell the truth concerning his record and actual plans for the country? If you know the answer to that question, you've already done the research and are voting for McCain.
And if you are voting for Obama, and believe what he says, then I am sorry to find you reading this blog. You are stupid, and instead of reading this you ought to be reading up on these candidate's histories. Obama is connected to domestic terrorists. Sorry, its the truth.
Obama will raise taxes by rescinding the Bush tax cuts. And you actually believe that Obama will give tax breaks? No record to show it. No way to support it. Or did he just become a conservative? He's lying out his mouth.
Economy... are you kidding me? Obama is a Socialist. Healthcare mandated by the government is socialism. Obama believes that sub-prime mortgages are a good idea "in theory" even though they directly led to the economic crisis we are currently in. Why does he support these? Because he supports poor people having a house no matter what. That's called entitlement, and it is wrong. I am under no obligation to help someone else live in a better house than I do. I live with my wife with my mother-in-law. I don't have my own house, nor do I feel that I am entitled to one. I am grateful for having family that helps me, but at some point we gotta get off the government's nipples and start walking ourselves. That means taking responsibility. Obama, shut up, because your good idea is actually a lousy one, and now we're all paying for it.
Business. If you still believe what Obama spews on this you oughtta be shot to rid the world of your stupidity. He wants to tax small business. And I got news for him. Most small business owners can't afford to separate their personal life from their professional life. So they are in fact wealthier than (what's his magic number again?) $250,000 on paper. There's the difference, since on paper is the only place you'll find that reality. Got news for voters. Where do you think Mr. Obama is going to be checking come tax time? Paper. Add in his "incentives" for small business', such as fines (of $??) to those that don't pay for their employees health insurance (on top of the government of course). Got more news for you Mr. Obama. You can take your fines and stick them up your ass, because businesses just close down when they don't feel like paying government fines. That's kinda what happened in the Great Depression, and you're advocating for the same failed policies that Roosevelt did that prolonged the Depression for years.
Contrast McCain. The one thing that Roosevelt did was to put people to work with energy and infrastructure. McCain wants to do this. Wow, guess that does make sense why energy is so important. Kinda impressive how Obama can steal McCain's plan here (all of the above) and then use it as his own. Kinda like how I am unimpressed by McCain not calling him on it. McCain also wants to retain the same tax cuts the big businesses already have (under Bush). Guess what stupid people? That's incentive for two things: get jobs back home and to hire more people. That means jobs for people out of work here at home. What happens when you tax them like Obama wants? Good question. Since we're in a world-wide economic crisis, they probably won't go overseas, since we were the world's buyers (not anymore obviously). They won't be able to sell their product, so most of them will fold up and go home. Oh, and call Obama a sucker for thinking that he could just tax them and get away with it.
So if you want to believe the outright lies that come from Obama... fine. It just makes you stupidier than Gerald Ford, who makes George W. Bush look like Aristotle by comparison. A vote for Obama directly hurts every single person in this nation. We're going through tought times, but Obama could do worse than cripple us. He could kill us. Yeah, vote for him... stupid.
I'm tired of this shit. Obama is counting on people not researching either candidates actual history. The media makes metaphorical love with him every chance they get. People cry for issues to be heard, but really how much does Obama tell the truth concerning his record and actual plans for the country? If you know the answer to that question, you've already done the research and are voting for McCain.
And if you are voting for Obama, and believe what he says, then I am sorry to find you reading this blog. You are stupid, and instead of reading this you ought to be reading up on these candidate's histories. Obama is connected to domestic terrorists. Sorry, its the truth.
Obama will raise taxes by rescinding the Bush tax cuts. And you actually believe that Obama will give tax breaks? No record to show it. No way to support it. Or did he just become a conservative? He's lying out his mouth.
Economy... are you kidding me? Obama is a Socialist. Healthcare mandated by the government is socialism. Obama believes that sub-prime mortgages are a good idea "in theory" even though they directly led to the economic crisis we are currently in. Why does he support these? Because he supports poor people having a house no matter what. That's called entitlement, and it is wrong. I am under no obligation to help someone else live in a better house than I do. I live with my wife with my mother-in-law. I don't have my own house, nor do I feel that I am entitled to one. I am grateful for having family that helps me, but at some point we gotta get off the government's nipples and start walking ourselves. That means taking responsibility. Obama, shut up, because your good idea is actually a lousy one, and now we're all paying for it.
Business. If you still believe what Obama spews on this you oughtta be shot to rid the world of your stupidity. He wants to tax small business. And I got news for him. Most small business owners can't afford to separate their personal life from their professional life. So they are in fact wealthier than (what's his magic number again?) $250,000 on paper. There's the difference, since on paper is the only place you'll find that reality. Got news for voters. Where do you think Mr. Obama is going to be checking come tax time? Paper. Add in his "incentives" for small business', such as fines (of $??) to those that don't pay for their employees health insurance (on top of the government of course). Got more news for you Mr. Obama. You can take your fines and stick them up your ass, because businesses just close down when they don't feel like paying government fines. That's kinda what happened in the Great Depression, and you're advocating for the same failed policies that Roosevelt did that prolonged the Depression for years.
Contrast McCain. The one thing that Roosevelt did was to put people to work with energy and infrastructure. McCain wants to do this. Wow, guess that does make sense why energy is so important. Kinda impressive how Obama can steal McCain's plan here (all of the above) and then use it as his own. Kinda like how I am unimpressed by McCain not calling him on it. McCain also wants to retain the same tax cuts the big businesses already have (under Bush). Guess what stupid people? That's incentive for two things: get jobs back home and to hire more people. That means jobs for people out of work here at home. What happens when you tax them like Obama wants? Good question. Since we're in a world-wide economic crisis, they probably won't go overseas, since we were the world's buyers (not anymore obviously). They won't be able to sell their product, so most of them will fold up and go home. Oh, and call Obama a sucker for thinking that he could just tax them and get away with it.
So if you want to believe the outright lies that come from Obama... fine. It just makes you stupidier than Gerald Ford, who makes George W. Bush look like Aristotle by comparison. A vote for Obama directly hurts every single person in this nation. We're going through tought times, but Obama could do worse than cripple us. He could kill us. Yeah, vote for him... stupid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
