Debt Ceiling?

In 2006 then Senator Obama gave a very impassioned speech on why we should NOT raise the debt limit. A link to an article which quotes the entire speech is at the end if this post. Read the entire speech and see if Senator Obama can convince you that the debt ceiling should not be raised.

In the conclusion of the speech he said, “Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

Now President Obama says that NOT raising the debt limit weakens us domestically and internationally. Was he right then, or now?

Now President Obama says, "This is not normal..." So, in 2006 when then Senator Obama said, “I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.” was he being abnormal? How not normal is it? Congress fought with Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush over the debt limit. On numerous occasions over the years the treasury has had to go to extraordinary measures to keep from default, and keep funding programs. Is in normal?  You keep using that word, “normal”, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

Now President Obama says, "...politics is a battle of ideas, but you advance those ideas through elections and legislation – not extortion." In 2006 was he attempting extortion?

I have heard, though I could not find a good quote on the matter, that President Obama now refers to his 2006 vote NOT to raise the debt ceiling as a “political” vote. (As an aside, is not every vote made by a “politician” a “political” vote?) I presume that by “political vote” he means that, he obviously knew that the debt ceiling had to be raised, and only because of the fact that the majority of the Senate was going to vote for it anyway was Senator Obama able to vote against it because it was going to pass without his vote, and, had there not been enough votes to pass it without Senator Obama's vote, he would have voted for it, knowing how important it is. At least that is what I think he means by that. Is that some twisted “political” logic?

Had he said something like, “I support the effort to increase the debt limit, but, knowing that it will pass anyway, I am going to vote against it as a political vote.” then it would be consistent with what he is saying now. But in 2006 he said, “I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.” Not just “vote against rising the debt limit.” but, “oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

If I correctly understand what he means now by a “political” vote, then he, in fact, supported the effort to increase America's debt limit, he just voted against it. So, did he lie? Did he then oppose or support the effort to increase America's debt limit? Does he now oppose or support the effort to increase America's debt limit? Which is his true core belief?

If he lied in his 2006 speech because it was political, has he lied in other speeches because they are political?

Read more about it...

Read the entire speech along with some commentary here. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/annotating-obamas-2006-speech-against-boosting-the-debt-limit/2013/01/14/aa8cf8c4-5e9b-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_blog.html

Think for yourself.

Make up your own mind.

Joe the Plumber, Barack Obama, and Socialism?

When you look up socialism in Wikipedia it reads, in part, “All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.”

The other day Barack Obama said in response to Joe the plumber, “It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they have a chance at success too. ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.”

Keeping in mind the key phrase in Senator Obama's statement, “...spread the wealth around...” and the phrase from the definition of socialism, “...wealth and power are distributed more evenly...” does Senator Obama's view appear socialist? Does this scare you?

Wikipedia goes on to read that “Karl Marx posited that socialism... represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.” Does it scare you now?

Read (and hear) more about it...

YouTube - JOE the PLUMBER : Obama says, "I'll Spread The Wealth!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Think for yourself.

Make up your own mind.

Putting Lipstick On A Pig : NPR

A few days ago Barak Obama made a speech in which he used a common colloquialism about putting lipstick on a pig, "but it is still a pig." This is commonly used . I have heard it many times and I have even used it before. When I first heard of the comment I did not actually hear the audio of what was said, I only heard others speaking about it.

My first impression (while being influenced by those recounting the speech) was that it was terrible that Senator Obama would say such a thing about Governor Palin. However, when I heard the context and the audio of Senator Obama's speech I realized that he was not calling the Governor a pig. That was not the context. However, after the lipstick on a pit bull joke told by Governor Palin at the convention, it was obvious that, at a minimum, Senator Obama used poor judgment when he made the comment.

Senator Obama says that he did not mean for the comment to be a dig at Governor Palin. I believe Senator Obama is a shrewed and intelligent man, and I do not think it possible for him to have a line about lipstick on an animal within days of the convention in which one the Governor's most famous lines was of lipstick on an animal, and the intelligent Senator Obama not to have made the connection.

I do not believe Senator Obama is that stupid. Do you? No matter how big an Obama supporter you are, you cannot convince me he is so stupid not to make ANY connection in his brilliant mind.

In order to give Senator Obama cover for his gaff, National Public Radio played a montage of several prominent politicians, including Senator McCain, using the lipstick on a pig analogy. At first I thought, how utterly biased of them to play these clips. In NONE of these instances did the speaker's opponent make a major, national speech about lipstick on an animal just days before these comments. A link at the bottom of this post will let you listen to the NPR reoprt.

Then it hit me. THANK you NPR! By using your influence (and some of my tax money) to try to cover up Senator Obama's blunder you showed me something. Something I otherwise never would have heard.

First let's talk about the joke and the way it was told by all of the others in the montage, the way it is supposed to go.

Joke teller: “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.” Audience: “Laugh.”

Now let's look at the way the joke went when Senator Obama told it a few days after Governor Palin made her speech about lipstick on a pit bull.

Senator Obama: “You can put lipstick on a pig,” Audience: “Big laugh.” Senator Obama: “but it is still a pig.” Audience: “Small laugh.”

The audience got the connection to Governor Palin's speech within a split second. They laughed at the setup, not waiting for the punchline. So, if you are to believe Senator Obama, after having hours, perhaps days to read and prepare to give this speech he is so slow that he could not see any connection. The people in his audience on the other hand are obviously far, far brighter than he, since they got it in a fraction of a second.

So answer this. Is he bright and intelligent and knew that he (or at least his speech writer) was trying to take some of Governor Palin's thunder (which is perfectly ok by the way), or is he so slow that he couldn't see the connection? Of course millions of other people got it.

So, what is Senator Obama's I.Q.? Is he intelligent? Did he know his lipstick on a pig comment was most funny in its context with the recent comments of Governor Palin? Did he lie when he said he never saw the connection (and none of his aids saw it to tell him about it before he gave his speech) until someone else had to inform him of it after the speech?

Read (and listen) more about it.

Putting Lipstick On A Pig : NPR


Think for yourself.

Make up your own mind.

Not Paying Enough Taxes?

Warren Buffet, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, recently said that he thinks he is not paying enough in taxes.

Really?

With the millions upon millions of dollars Warren Buffet makes each year he spends more on accountants to avoid paying taxes than I make in a year! In fact he says he only pays 17.7% of his income in taxes. Those accountants are good! If Warren Buffet really thinks that he is not paying enough in taxes, why does he not fire the accountants he pays to look for tax saving loopholes? He makes donations to charities and then pays accountants to make sure he does not pay taxes on that money.

So, if he really thinks he is not paying enough he could save all kinds of money on accountants and simply pay the amount charged without his many loopholes and tax deductions. Then if he still thinks he is not paying enough he could simply write a check to the federal government and I am sure they would cash it and spend the money without regard for whether or not he “owes” the money in taxes.

There you go, problem solved.

I must be a financial genius to be able to solve such a monumental financial problem plaguing one of the richest men in the world. If Warren would like to compensate me for this brilliant financial advice, I, like the government, would gladly cash any check he wished to send my way.

Well, of course that is not what Warren Buffet meant. He does not really believe that he is not paying enough taxes. He believes that YOU are not paying enough taxes, and he is willing to pay a little more than he is now, though no more than his accountants can get him out of paying, to see to it that YOU pay enough taxes.

I would even be willing to bet the money I make a week against the money Mr. Buffet makes in a week that he has even had his accountants write things off of his taxes that most of us would not do because it would seem too shady, perhaps even illegal.

Mr. Buffet, put your money where your mouth is. Pay whatever percentage of your income you wish in taxes and stop complaining that you are not paying enough. After all, you can volunteer all of your money you wish, but you need the federal government to “volunteer” other people’s money at the point of a gun, and that is what you are really after anyway, isn’t it?

Read more about it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/30/watch-warren-buffett-cal_n_70455.html

Think for yourself.

Make up your own mind.

Have You Voted Today? (I Did)

The vast majority of Americans regularly go to the grocery, shop for clothes and presents, go out to eat, etc.

I don't know about you, but I frequently spend five to ten minutes in line at the grocery. I have spent over and hour in line at Christmas time to purchase gifts. I have spent two hours plus waiting for a table at a nice restaurant.

Today I spent less than ten minutes, from the time I entered the building to the time I left, voting.

Don't give an excuse that the lines are too long. Or that it is too much trouble to get out of the house.

Waiting in line for several hours to vote is worth it!

You have waited longer in line for things much less important!

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

Freedom of Speech?

On Wednesday, as Secretary Rice was about to speak before the Foreign Affairs Committee, a woman with blood like paint on her hands called Secretary Rice a “war criminal.” This is quite a way to exercise one's right to free speech.

Let us set aside this woman's motives and look solely at her tactics, and whether or not they are effective.

Those of like mind with her probably cheered. Perhaps even some in congress. What she wants is to change the minds of people who do not want to precipitously pull out of Iraq.

I am one of those, and since she waived her blood-like hands in front of the Secretary, I am now convinced that we should immediately pull out of Iraq...NOT.

Did ANYONE change their minds about Iraq because of this nut? Was anyone not wanting to pull out now, convinced that we should now, because of her actions? Or were some, like myself, even more convinced their position is the correct one if this is the kind of individual who holds the opposing view?

Did anyone who wants to pull out of Iraq immediately want to distance themselves from this type of “sanity challenged” individual, and perhaps even question there own judgment on the issue, if this kind of nut job holds their same view?

Those who yesterday wanted to pull out immediately still do, and those who yesterday wanted to complete what we started and leave Iraq a thriving democracy (or something resembling one) still want that as well.

So, other than getting herself into some legal trouble, did she accomplish anything?

Read more about it.

Think for yourself.

Make up your own mind.

Willing Suspension of Disbelief?

When Senator Clinton fist made this comment I thought that it sounded strange. The phrase “Suspension of disbelief” is an art term. When you go to a movie, for example and you say "That a car would not blow up like that." you suspend your bias against believing what you are seeing and you still enjoy the movie, giving the artists some dramatic license.

The word “disbelief” lead me to think she was saying that she had a bias against believing the testimony. I dismissed this thought for some time thinking that surely a woman as intelligent as Senator Clinton would have done her homework on a predesigned, sound byte quote like this. She had obviously thought long and hard about this particular phrase, the one she knew would be quoted everywhere, and she wanted to be clever, catchy and stop right at the line of outright insult to one of out nation’s foremost generals.

However, in her desire to set just the right tone with her words she actually may give us some real insight into her thoughts. Let's look at the word disbelief.

Disbelieve- to refuse to believe in something. Webster's dictionary 1999.

So, using Webster's definition, Senator Clinton said that to accept General Petraeus' report required a “willing suspension of my refusal to believe in the report.” Doesn’t she need to stop refusing to believe it, and keep an open mind?

Why hold hearings in the Senate if the Senators will not keep an open mind? If they already know ALL, why waste time, money and energy with the hearings? Perhaps Senator Clinton should give her report on how things are going in Iraq to General Petraeus, since she claims to know more about it than he does, she must willingly suspend her knowledge (disbelief) to accept his report.

Read more about it.

Think for yourself.

Make up your own mind.

401k help for all?

I read this article on Yahoo! News. Following are two exact quotes...

“Families could get 401(k) retirement accounts and up to $1,000 in annual matching funds from the government under a plan offered Tuesday by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

“Her campaign said that for every $7 million estate that gets taxed, at least 5,000 families would receive the matching funds.”

Let’s do some quick math.

5,000 families helped by each $7 million estate.
x $1,000 matching funds.
= $5,000,000 taxed from each estate of $7 million.

Therefore…

$7,000,000 value of estate.
-$5,000,000 tax calculated from above.
=$2,000,000 amount remaining of the estate BEFORE other taxes!

Then…

$2,000,000 balance from above.
-$740,000 estate tax of 37% (assuming the $5,000,000 for 401k program is 100% tax deductible. If not, this number could be $2,590,000, more than the balance, so you would owe the government $590,000 for having had a wealthy parent and you get nothing!)
=$1,260,000 amount remaining after federal estate tax.

Then you have state and local taxes.

So, if your parent dies with $7,000,000 in the bank, you will see LESS than $1,260,000. Or LESS that 18%!!!!!

My parents have nowhere near these amounts of money so it has no direct effect on me either way, but does this sound fair to you?

Read more about it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071009/ap_po/clinton_retirement_accounts

Think for yourself.

Make up your own mind.

99 Senators

When Senator Tim Johnson, (D-SD) was struck with a brain injury causing him to require brain surgery in mid December last year, the news papers were still printing the headlines about his falling ill when the political talking heads began discussing his replacement.

Being busy with the holidays I failed to finish writing then, what I felt. So I completed it now.

I wanted to slap some of the people I heard talking about a man, stricken just hours before, being replaced, and the potential political implications. Absolutely, without a doubt, the day he falls ill is TOO soon to even discuss these things. Even had he died that very day, it would have been too soon discuss it.

My reasoning is based upon a couple of things:

First, it is morally wrong to essentially declare him incapacitated before enough time has passed to know if he is incapacitated. How long is long enough to wait? I don't have that answer, but a few hours is definitely NOT long enough. There are a couple of reasons for this moral "delay". Not to sound too much like a Christian Scientist, but when someone is injured or ill a defeatist attitude can certainly hinder their recovery. No one, regardless of political leanings, would wish Senator Johnson not to recover, or to recover slower than he otherwise would. And even if the talk does not effect the Senator's recovery, his family deserves not to have to deal with this crap the day he becomes hospitalized. So, we have a moral obligation not to discuss this now.

Second, what difference does it make today (December 15, 2006)? Congress is not in session and will not be in session again for three weeks. No legislation will be voted upon by Senator Johnson or any other senator for three weeks. So, there is no pressure to make a decision on the Senator's potential state of incapacitation for at least two or three weeks. By then we should have a much clearer picture of his condition.

Fast forward to today, January 2, 2007. Congress goes into session in two days. How is Senator Johnson's recovery progressing? Have we now waited long enough to begin to ask questions?

I hope that Senator Johnson makes a full recovery. Without regard for "hope", will he?

What is his condition? ... prognosis? Back in mid December there must have been such backlash, as well there should have been backlash, that everyone has chosen not to report on the issue at all. I have looked and can find very little on his condition. All I have found this quote from Senator Johnson's web site dated December 28, 2006:

"... "Senator Johnson's overall general medical condition has improved and he is gradually being weaned from the sedation," said Vivek Deshmukh, MD, neurosurgeon at The George Washington University Hospital. "He is opening his eyes and is responsive to his wife." It is anticipated that Senator Johnson will undergo further testing in the coming days. He remains in critical condition. ..."
This is almost exactly what was said about him within days of his hospitalization. At this point all we can do is accept what the Senator's family releases about him and the Senate will have to convene with only 99 Senators able to participate.

My prayer is that he fully recovers, and soon, so that he can do in the Senate what he was elected to do.

I hope (though I would not bet on it) that Senator Johnson is not “used”, in his condition, for political gain. I hope that Republicans do not try to use a temporary disability to try to force a soon to be capable Senator from office so that the Republican Governor can appoint a Republican replacement for him. My hope is, also, that Senator Johnson is not found to have brain damage so severe that his duties in the Senate are impossible for him to carry out. And, others, knowing this, do not deceive the rest of us into believing otherwise so that, even though he is not able to participate, the false hope of his return maintains a Democratic majority in the Senate.

This is my hope. I am not so naive to believe it will happen.

Read more about it.

Statement from the Office of Senator Johnson

Think for yourself.

Make up your own mind.

A Ringing Endorsement for Democrats

If Al-Qaida had announced, before the elections, whom the wanted to win they may have chosen to use some reverse psychology on us and endorse the party they wanted to loose. If there is one thing we all should have learned by now it is that Al-Qaida will say ANYTHING to attain a desired result, without regard for truth.

So, what does it mean when Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, the leader of Al-Qaida in Iraq says “...they (Americans) voted for something reasonable in the last elections...”? He was obviously speaking of the Democrats gaining control of both houses of congress.

Is there anything to gain using reverse psychology on us days after the election? Are they, today, trying to influence the 2008 elections? With as fickle as the American voters are, having re-elected President Bush two years ago and now sweeping control of both houses of congress away from his party, would anything stated by Al-Qaida today have any influence in two years?

My guess is that Al-Qaida does not like the Democrats, and they do not think that the Democrats are “reasonable”. Doesn't it make more sense that Al-Qaida fears the Republicans and they hope that the Democrats will force the President to pull troops out of Iraq?

If you were fighting the world's greatest military power and your BEST weapon was a suicide bomber killing innocents at market, would you not want the enemy to leave without having accomplished victory?

Has Al-Qaida learned that their BEST weapon is really the US democratic system? While Osama bin Laden is in power until he dies, they know that ANY US president will be leader for, at most, eight years. And the next president will probably have to run a campaign against the war in order to get the fickle vote of Americans.

Has Al-Qaida learned that U.S. politicians will pander to the fears of some Americans that Iraq will become another Vietnam?

Did Al-Qaida know that one political party would actually campaign to increase that fear in order to be elected? Or was that just an unsolicited gift?

Read more about it...

Al-Qaida claims it's winning Iraq war - NDTV.com - News on Al-Qaida claims it's winning Iraq war:

Think for yourself.

Make up your own mind.