Politicians would never let something as petty as politics enter into a discussion as important as the collapse of our economy, right?
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The Bailout: Politics Free? Yeah Right!
Politicians would never let something as petty as politics enter into a discussion as important as the collapse of our economy, right?
Friday, September 26, 2008
Obama and the Democrats are committing political suicide
Do me a favor. Grab your wallet or purse real quick and take out a dollar or a bill of any amount. Do you know what that bill is worth? One dollar, five dollars, twenty dollars? No, it is worthless! It is a piece of paper. The only reason that this small piece of paper has any value is because our government uses it as a promise of value. They back that bill and guaranty that you can exchange it for goods and services.
So, what is my point? My point is that the U.S. government has the power and authority to make something worthless have value by just saying they will back it. This is where the title of this post, "The Democrats and Barack Obama are committing political suicide", comes from. The Democrats are trying to push through a bill that spends $700 billion of tax payers money. The plan the Democrats are backing has been trashed by economists across the country. The House Republicans have offered an alternative that will spend less of the tax payers money by using the same power that the U.S. governments used to make that worthless piece of green paper in your hand, worth something.
Before I go on let me explain why there needs to be action in this crisis and what are the mechanics of this issue. The $700 billion plan was proposed because some think we need to buy up a lot of assets from the financial world that have lost their value and cannot be sold. What happens with these real estate assets is that a company takes individuals' mortgages, bundles them, and then sells them to other companies for a profit. The purchasing company then sales those same assets to another company trying to make a profit. This passing on of these assets goes on and on like a game of musical chairs. What has lead to this crisis is that everyone found out that a lot of these assets were very risky or even worthless. This led to a drop in real estate prices that led to more real estate assets being devalued. Very quickly a lot of companies found themselves with real estate assets that they could not get off their books so they could free up money to buy and trade other assets. Basically when the music stopped a lot of companies got caught without a chair to sit in.
The solution to this problem is to get the game of musical chairs going again. How do we do that? The $700 billion plan says that the American tax payers should buy all of these bad real estate assets from these companies so the game can start again. The House Republican plan says, no, neither the federal government or the tax payers should buy or own assets in such huge quantities. The Republican plan admits that there are some real estate assets that are so bad that there is no alternative but for the tax payers to buy them and hold them until their value returns. Unlike the $700 billion plan, the Republican plan says, in addition to having to buy the worst assets ($100 to $200 billion), that the market can correct itself without such a huge burden on the American tax payers. How is that?
- The government will use the same power that makes paper money valuable to fix this problem. The government will have Wall Street, and these companies that are hurting, pay for insurance on these assets. In return the government will guaranty a certain value for each of the real estate assets being held by these companies. By doing this the government has given those worthless real estate assets value, the same way it gives our money value. Those assets can now be entered back into the game of musical chairs and the market can start working again.
- The House Republicans are also asking for a reduction or elimination of the capital gains tax. The capital gains tax is the tax paid on money made in the stock markets. A reduction or elimination of this tax would make money start to flow into the market at an incredible rate thus giving the struggling companies liquid assets to use. The market would pull itself up and the American people would not be paying a dime. Retirement plans and 401Ks would shoot back up in value as the market rose from the influx of cash. Companies would have money to expand and hire new people. Basically this would be a stimulus plan that actually works.
The Democrats and Obama would reply to my assertion that they are committing political suicide by saying the $700 billion plan was George Bush's idea. Are you serious? The Democrats are going to use Bush for political cover? They are going to pass a bill that Bush presented that his own party does not like not to mention almost 90+% of Americans do not like? If they keep going down this path of saying that they had a deal on this $700 billion plan until John McCain screwed it all up...they are committing political suicide. If 90+% of Americans do not like this plan then anyone who slows it down or knocks it of track will be a hero. The Democrats are making the 90+% of Americans, who hate this plan, see John McCain and the House Republicans as the voice of reason!
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
Obama is full of s@#t on taxes!!!
I am tired of hearing Obama, and other Democrats, say that "Republicans give the largest tax cuts to the wealthy!". Bulls@#t! Anyone who can do simple math can figure out that, while technically true when talking about percentage points, it is a distortion of the truth about taxes and who really supports this country with their tax dollars. Yes, when the government cuts taxes, the people who make the most money get the largest amount of money back BUT THAT IS BECAUSE THEY PAY MORE IN TAXES TO START WITH!!! Even if the percentage of the cut is slightly higher for the wealthy, they are still paying an unevenly higher amount of taxes. As a matter of fact, the top 25% of earners in America pay 85% of the taxes! If I was in that bottom 75% of earners(I am) I would keep my mouth shut and be glad that those 25% of Americans are paying for 85% of everything we as Americans have!!!! To make this easier to understand I will break it down:
If the government cuts taxes across the board 10%, what happens?
- A person, call them person A, who makes $500,000.00 per year gets a tax cut of $50,000.00
- A person, call them person B, who makes $50,000.00 per year gets a tax cut of $5,000.00
Let's do that again but see who is paying more, as in the total amount, of taxes. Before the tax cut Person A was paying 30% now they will be paying 20%. Before the tax cut Person B was paying 20%(you pay a smaller percentage when you make less) now they are paying 10%.
- Person A saved $50,000.00 because of the tax cut but will still pay $100,000.00 in taxes.
- Person B saved $5,000.00 because of the tax but will still pay $5,000.00 in taxes.
So you see, even with the tax cut, the big evil rich Person A still pays 20 times as much in taxes as Person B!!! And, yes, this is a simplified example of how taxes work. A person actually gets taxed in each bracket whatever is the percentage of that bracket. So Person A would get taxed at 10% for his first $7,285.00 earned then 15% for his money earned between $7,285.00 and $31,850.00 and so on. Under the 2007 tax rate schedule, Person A would pay $154,074.25. Person B would pay $8,923.75 which means Person A still pays 17 times what Person B pays in taxes while only making 10 times as much in earnings. I do not know how your math is but if Person A is making 10 times as much as Person B($500,000.00 to $50,000.00) but pays 17 times the taxes as Person B($154,074.25 to $8,923.75)...I think Person A is doing more than their fair share to support our broken government! Below is the tax rate schedule from the IRS.Schedule X — Single
| If taxable income is over-- | But not over-- | The tax is: |
|---|---|---|
| $0 | $7,825 | 10% of the amount over $0 |
| $7,825 | $31,850 | $782.50 plus 15% of the amount over 7,825 |
| $31,850 | $77,100 | $4,386.25 plus 25% of the amount over 31,850 |
| $77,100 | $160,850 | $15,698.75 plus 28% of the amount over 77,100 |
| $160,850 | $349,700 | $39,148.75 plus 33% of the amount over 160,850 |
| $349,700 | no limit | $101,469.25 plus 35% of the amount over 349,700 |
Do you see it? A person pays more, the more they make. Evil rich people have to give a higher and higher percentage of their money to the government the more they make. They are already doing their part, Senator Biden, and, no, paying taxes is not patriotic! That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Joe Biden is Dan Quayle!Now get this! Obama says that he could not implement his tax plan right now because the economy is too weak! WHAT?!?!? So, Obama, you are now admitting that your tax increases will hurt the American people and the economy?!? After all if the economy is too weak for you to raise taxes then you must be admitting it will do damage to raise taxes, right?
Over and over, Barack Obama's economic advisers have said that tax rates don't affect economic growth unless they get stratospherically high. But here is what Obama said yesterday on ABC in response to a question about whether he would postpone his tax hikes given the state of the economy: "I think we've got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now." Exactamundo! Raising taxes in the name of equity is a luxury we can't afford in a hypercompetitive global economy. This is also another sign that McCain's tax attacks are working, I would think. - James Pethokoukis, US News
Here are some more problems with Obama's tax plan:
- Obama talks about how he will cut taxes on 95% of Americans. That can't be true because at least 40% of Americans pay no federal taxes at all.
- Obama says he will cut taxes on the middle class but will raise taxes on large corporations. Barack, come on! I am not sure how any American can let this piece of spin get by them. Large corporations are large because they are good at making money. Do you really think that large corporations are going to pay extra taxes and let that hurt their bottom line? No, Barack, they won't! Those large corporations are in the business of making money. They will take the extra costs of Obama's tax increases and pass them onto their customers. Who are their customers? You, me, the lower class and, yes, the middle class of America. If you buy groceries, gas, consumer products, etc...Obama's tax increases will effect you the same way as if he taxed you directly.
- Obama talks about the top income earners in America and how he wants to tax them. The way he and other Democrats talk, the top earners in America look like greedy fat cats who need their non-hard earned money taken from them and redistributed amongst the rest of us. Well, a friend of mine just happens to fall into Obama's tax increase limits and my friend is neither greedy or privileged. This friend of mine grew up in a lower middle class, single parent, household and made high enough grades to go to college. This person succeeded at college and got a bottom of the rung job after college. This person then worked their butt off everyday, for more than 15 years, to climb the ladder into upper management. My friend worked their ass off and deserves every penny that they have earned! This is in stark contrast to people I have seen, with my own eyes, at government aid offices or county hospitals who are openly talking amongst each other and advising each other on how they can get more aid from the government without working! Obama's "rich" people are most likely rich because they worked their butts off to become "rich" and they paid their fair share of taxes, that the government asked them to pay, every step of the way!
P.S.
Again, before you comment, yes, in the above scenario Person A got a tax cut under Bush of $6,913.80 while Person B only got a tax cut of $1718.25. Person A gets 4 times the tax cut but Person A is STILL paying 17 times the taxes of Person B under Bush! THAT is where Democrats get there numbers and skew the truth. If you play with the numbers and leave out certain facts then you can make something look anyway you want. Remember that under the old tax rates Person A paid 17 times the taxes of Person B while only making 10 times in earnings and under the 2007(Bush) tax rates, Person A still pays 17 times the taxes that Person B pays while only making 10 times the earnings. Where is the injustice? Where is this great benefit for the wealthy? Fair is fair and 17 times the taxes is not fair!
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Why are college students(18-22 yrs old) so liberal?
I have come back to college to finish my education. I consider myself to be a moderate that leans a little to the right but no one could ever call me a die-hard conservative or a toter of the Republican party line. Since coming back to college I have gotten a good laugh, every now and then, when over hearing a young college student spouting idealistic liberal thoughts for the world to hear. This happened so much that I thought to myself, "why are young college students so liberal?". It is a fact that college students are more likely to be liberal than the overall population. So, that would make one wonder, "why are people liberal in college and then get more conservative when they get out into the "real world"?". It did not take me but a few seconds to come to a conclusion.
Data from Cal Berkeley
Data from UCLA
College Faculties: A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds
Pragmatic Americans Liberal and Conservative on Social Issues
As the writers of South Park pointed out(Episode 902, Die Hippie, Die), college students are so liberal because they get on campus, take a freshman psychology class, a freshman humanities class, and all of the sudden they are experts on the world and how the world should be. As a person who has been in the "real world", I can not help but be amused by this phase that young students around me are going through. See, most of them are fresh from mom and dad's house. Most of them have never had to work for a living, and I do mean work for a living, not a part time job while in high school. They have not yet earned a $6000.00 paycheck that is only $4000.00 after the government is done taking their part in order to fund those idealistic programs that so many liberals want. They have never worked 60-80 hours in a week only to see other citizens of this country get paid for doing nothing or get paid for the simple act of having another child.
It is a fact that the general population is less liberal than college students so it is obvious that the realities of the real world, the realities of supporting a family, the realities of making a mortgage payment, and the realities of making ends meet everyday have the effect of toning down the idealistic but naive ideas of young college students.
And, yes, I know, I know, every young liberal college student is going to rail against this post and say it is not true, probably call me some bad names, but get back to me when you are 32 years old...tell me then if I was right or wrong. Obviously not everyone completely abandons their liberal views after college but a large number do.
By the way...if you ever want a dose of reality...spending about 30 minutes in the emergency room or the free clinics down at your local county hospital will turn a die-hard liberal into a conservative! Watch as these people openly advise each other how to get more aid from the government without working. Watch as a perfectly healthy looking woman brags about how she gets disability payments. Watch as they talk about food stamps, welfare, free rent, and so on and so on. What you will be seeing is how giving too much aid to a human being takes away their self-respect and their work ethic. Government aid does not help people. It cripples them. The tragedy of the government run Indian reservations taught us that lesson.
(Even if you hate my post...you have to admit that the South Park clip is funny!)
Data from Cal Berkeley
Data from UCLA
College Faculties: A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds
Pragmatic Americans Liberal and Conservative on Social Issues
As the writers of South Park pointed out(Episode 902, Die Hippie, Die), college students are so liberal because they get on campus, take a freshman psychology class, a freshman humanities class, and all of the sudden they are experts on the world and how the world should be. As a person who has been in the "real world", I can not help but be amused by this phase that young students around me are going through. See, most of them are fresh from mom and dad's house. Most of them have never had to work for a living, and I do mean work for a living, not a part time job while in high school. They have not yet earned a $6000.00 paycheck that is only $4000.00 after the government is done taking their part in order to fund those idealistic programs that so many liberals want. They have never worked 60-80 hours in a week only to see other citizens of this country get paid for doing nothing or get paid for the simple act of having another child.
It is a fact that the general population is less liberal than college students so it is obvious that the realities of the real world, the realities of supporting a family, the realities of making a mortgage payment, and the realities of making ends meet everyday have the effect of toning down the idealistic but naive ideas of young college students.
And, yes, I know, I know, every young liberal college student is going to rail against this post and say it is not true, probably call me some bad names, but get back to me when you are 32 years old...tell me then if I was right or wrong. Obviously not everyone completely abandons their liberal views after college but a large number do.
By the way...if you ever want a dose of reality...spending about 30 minutes in the emergency room or the free clinics down at your local county hospital will turn a die-hard liberal into a conservative! Watch as these people openly advise each other how to get more aid from the government without working. Watch as a perfectly healthy looking woman brags about how she gets disability payments. Watch as they talk about food stamps, welfare, free rent, and so on and so on. What you will be seeing is how giving too much aid to a human being takes away their self-respect and their work ethic. Government aid does not help people. It cripples them. The tragedy of the government run Indian reservations taught us that lesson.
(Even if you hate my post...you have to admit that the South Park clip is funny!)
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The Economic Panic We Are In: Give credit to McCain. He said it would happen.
The Democrats are running with the economy as a political plus for themselves. I do not blame them for that because it has been a good strategy but they need to be careful. The reason markets are collapsing and businesses are failing is because of the mortgage crisis. One man warned us, on the record, this would happen. It was John McCain:
FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005The United States Senate
May 25, 2006
Section 16"Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation." -John McCain, May 2006
He was right! In addition to him being right, Barack Obama was the second largest beneficiary of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributions. Fannie and Freddie play a huge role in the economic panic we are in right now.
A group called the Center for Responsive Politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions. The top three U.S. senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were Democrats and No. 2 is Sen. Barack Obama. - Fox News, John Gibson
Information I collected from Center for Responsive Politics or OpenSecrets.org:
John McCain's top contributors 2003-2008:
| Contributor | Total |
|---|---|
| Merrill Lynch | $293,010 |
| Citigroup Inc | $251,851 |
| Goldman Sachs | $223,995 |
| Morgan Stanley | $212,821 |
| AT&T Inc | $187,673 |
| Blank Rome LLP | $175,326 |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co | $169,625 |
| Greenberg Traurig LLP | $154,687 |
| Credit Suisse Group | $144,525 |
| Bank of America | $120,625 |
| Pinnacle West Capital | $119,250 |
| Lehman Brothers | $115,800 |
| UBS AG | $114,315 |
| US Government | $112,101 |
| Wachovia Corp | $110,462 |
| PricewaterhouseCoopers | $109,270 |
| FedEx Corp | $108,253 |
| Hess Corp | $95,050 |
| US Army | $92,007 |
| Blackstone Group | $91,500 |
There are several struggling companies at the top of McCain's list but they are also on Obama's.
Barack Obama's top contributors 2003-2008:
| Contributor | Total |
|---|---|
| Goldman Sachs | $689,280 |
| University of California | $531,070 |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co | $449,671 |
| Citigroup Inc | $411,504 |
| Harvard University | $407,452 |
| University of Chicago | $396,339 |
| UBS AG | $390,000 |
| Google Inc | $379,212 |
| Lehman Brothers | $365,922 |
| Skadden, Arps et al | $358,121 |
| Sidley Austin LLP | $356,345 |
| Kirkland & Ellis | $351,714 |
| Moveon.org | $347,463 |
| Morgan Stanley | $314,638 |
| Exelon Corp | $310,911 |
| National Amusements Inc | $298,500 |
| Microsoft Corp | $280,425 |
| Time Warner | $279,859 |
| Jones Day | $266,705 |
| Latham & Watkins | $255,095 |
In 2008 Freddie Mac has given the most money to:
Top Recipients
| Senate | Dodd, Christopher J | $28,800 |
| Senate | Obama, Barack | $18,150 |
| Senate | Clinton, Hillary | $17,600 |
| House | Bean, Melissa | $11,249 |
| Senate | McCain, John | $9,500 |
Obama got twice as much as McCain but McCain is still fifth. That is pretty high considering his statements against GSEs.
I am not going to try to sway anyone's opinion on this issue. I just want to put forward the facts. What do you think about the facts I have provided? Does this effect your vote any? Does this change your mind any on which candidate can best fix the economy?
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
"I will lower your taxes! My opponent will raise them!"
I could attribute the title quote of this post to either candidate in this election and most elections. One of them has to be lying or, at least, partially lying! Right?
Out of frustration I tried to find the truth. Below is a graph that compares McCain's tax strategy vs. Obama's.
Here are the problems I see.
Out of frustration I tried to find the truth. Below is a graph that compares McCain's tax strategy vs. Obama's.
Here are the problems I see.
- Obama talks about how he will cut taxes on 95% of Americans. That can't be true because at least 20% of Americans pay no federal taxes at all.
FACTCHECK.ORG
FactChecking Obama
He stuck to the facts, except when he stretched them. - Obama says he will cut taxes on the middle class but will raise taxes on large corporations. Barack, come on! I am not sure how any American can let this piece of spin get by them. Large corporations are large because they are good at making money. Do you really think that large corporations are going to pay extra taxes and let that hurt their bottom line? No, Barack, they won't! Those large corporations are in the business of making money. They will take the extra costs of Obama's tax increases and pass them onto their customers. Who are their customers? You, me, the lower class and, yes, the middle class of America. If you buy groceries, gas, consumer products, etc...Obama's tax increases will effect you the same way as if he taxed you directly.
Now, our opponents tell us not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they're not going to tax your family. (Laughter.) No, they're just going to tax "businesses." So, unless you buy something from a business, like groceries or clothes or gasoline -- (laughter) -- or unless you get a paycheck from a business, a big business or a small business, don't worry, it's not going to affect you! (Laughter, cheers, applause.) They say they're not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the other side of the bucket! (Laughter.) That's their idea of tax reform. Fred Thompson, Speech at GOP Convention
- John McCain needs to explain how he is going to reduce our deficit and cut taxes at the same time. Just saying he will shrink the size of government is not enough. What will you shrink John? Where will you get the money the government needs if not through taxes?
- More important than what his plan is to cut taxes and balance the budget, McCain needs to tell me(us) how he is going to get these policies through a backed up and broken Congress. Honestly...John McCain needs to give us his plans on most of the issues facing Americans today. The Democrats are not exactly being forthcoming with hard numbers but I have heard even less from the McCain camp. Tell us your plan John.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Why are Republicans better than Democrats at the "political game"?
First before I post this...I know 9/11 is a politics-free zone but something happened yesterday that needs discussion.
My contention has always been that Republicans are better than Democrats at running a presidential campaign. It seems like every four years that Democrats come up with a candidate that excites their base and looks like a real contender and most of the time they mess it up. This year the Democrats had a clear path to the White House. People were so upset and ready for change that either Obama or Hillary Clinton should have rolled through the season uncontested....but it did not happen.
The DNC's past failures are what made something standout to me yesterday. Obama and McCain visited ground zero yesterday. I immediately noticed that Cindy McCain was there but Michele Obama was not. I did not think much of it because of the importance of the day and because, frankly, I didn't care. Michele Obama not being there is no great offense or a great mistake for her or her husband. What it is, is a lack of understanding by the DNC of the political game. I find it hard to believe that none of Obama's advisers saw a problem with Michele not being at ground zero.
Michele Obama's absence was not a major blunder but it was a mistake for a woman who has been repeatedly accused of not being patriotic. She was hammered for saying, "For the first time I am proud of my country." and she was harassed for not wearing a flag pin. So, why oh why, would anyone in the DNC not see that Cindy McCain being at ground zero and Michele Obama not being there would be more fuel for the fire? She could have skipped the appearance at ground zero under any other circumstances and in any other campaign....but not this one.
The press didn't make a big deal of it. The RNC isn't making a big deal out of it. Heck, even Fox News isn't making a big deal of it. But I guaranty you that people, who were already questioning her, now have another piece of evidence to back up their opinion that she isn't patriotic and does not love her country. The accusation is unfair and most likely untrue but when has fairness and truth ever mattered in a presidential election?!?
9/11: where were you?
It is a vivid memory for me. I was asleep trying to recover after breaking my ankle the day before. My phone rang and I heard my mother in an upset voice asking me to stay at home. She did not know what was going on but she heard that planes might have been hijacked and that the World Trade Center might be under attack. My mother is very protective, no matter how old I get, so I was skeptical that there was really anything serious going on. I turned on the television to see one tower on fire while the t.v. commentator said she did not know exactly what was going on. Just then the 2nd plane came into view and crashed into the 2nd building. I thought it was a dream.
I continued to watch the coverage while frantic reports, theories, and the news of the attack on the Pentagon came in. I was in shock during most of this but I remember the only time I really became truly horrified, and not just angry, is when the t.v. commentator said she thought the fire was exploding out or getting worse. I sat up in my bed and yelled, "It's not the fire! IT'S FALLING!!! IT'S FALLING!!!". That feeling was the 2nd worst feeling I have ever felt, the 1st is personal. It was like I couldn't breath. I told friends and family, and I still truly believe, that if it wasn't for my shattered ankle...I would have volunteered for the military that day.
We feel safe now. I just saw a poll that only 11% of voters say that terrorism is their main issue when voting. I understand that number. We can't live in fear but we also can't forget what happened that day. We can't forget the feeling that we felt that day. I know I never will.
Lipstick
Obama called Palin a pig!!! At least that is what people would have you think.
In my opinion, Obama did not mean to directly call Palin a pig! His comments were about Bush policies versus McCain policies!
This does raise a funny comparison though. Democrats are appalled that Obama is being taken out of context. They cry, "That isn't what he meant!". But, wait, I remember a huge number of Obama supporters talking about how McCain said he would be willing to wage a 100 year war in Iraq? That was a lie and a distortion. What McCain said was that he would be willing to have a "military presence" in Iraq for 100 years. "Presence" as in the "presence" we have had in Germany and Japan since World War II. The presence we have in the Philippines, Cuba, and South Korea. To distort what McCain said to use it against him is the exact same thing that is being done now, to Obama, with the lipstick comment. I find it laughable how one side cries foul when their own tactics are used against them!
Palin speech: What wasn't there
I was impressed by Obama and his speech at the DNC but I was blown away by Palin's speech last night. The question I have is: what was not there in her speech? I found it interesting that there was no pro-life statement in her speech. Strategy? Yes. After looking at her experience and hearing her speak it is obvious, to me at least, that she is qualified for the job BUT she is still an obvious tool being used by the Republican party. She is being used to court the base but she is also being used to court disenfranchised Hillary voters.
It was smart of her and the Republican party for her not to make a definitive pro-life statement in her first big moment. I think the Republicans know that she could have turned off a large portion of pro-choice women with a definitive statement. What she did do is hint at the subject with a "wink, wink" to the base but no statement that the Democrats could run with. She did so by introducing her new baby with downs syndrome as, "And we were so blessed in April. Todd and I welcomed are littlest one into the world. A perfectly beautiful baby boy named Trig". That statement is an obvious pro-life statement and falls in line with the Republican stance that all life is precious from the minute of conception. It says to people that they could have terminated the pregnancy when they found out their baby had downs syndrome but they didn't. She managed to make a pro-life point without taking a definitive pro-life stance in her first and most important major address.
Question: Is it okay for Palin to use her son Trig in a speech and in the politics of "choice" if it is not okay for Democrats to involve her family? Her speech
It was smart of her and the Republican party for her not to make a definitive pro-life statement in her first big moment. I think the Republicans know that she could have turned off a large portion of pro-choice women with a definitive statement. What she did do is hint at the subject with a "wink, wink" to the base but no statement that the Democrats could run with. She did so by introducing her new baby with downs syndrome as, "And we were so blessed in April. Todd and I welcomed are littlest one into the world. A perfectly beautiful baby boy named Trig". That statement is an obvious pro-life statement and falls in line with the Republican stance that all life is precious from the minute of conception. It says to people that they could have terminated the pregnancy when they found out their baby had downs syndrome but they didn't. She managed to make a pro-life point without taking a definitive pro-life stance in her first and most important major address.
Question: Is it okay for Palin to use her son Trig in a speech and in the politics of "choice" if it is not okay for Democrats to involve her family? Her speech
Then don't pick a fight!!!
The Democrats and their spin doctors are up in arms about Sarah Palin's speech last night. They say she was "shrill"(that sounds sexist to me) and nasty. Democrats can't believe she attacked and belittled community organizers and that it is "politics as usual" in the Republican party.
HOLD ON A SECOND!!! I am trying to be fair to both sides but there is something very wrong about this situation. I have watched every second of political coverage I could over the last two weeks and someone here is hitting below the belt and then whining when they get a retort. Democrats have roasted this woman and HER FAMILY every second since she was named the Vice-Presidential Nominee. There have been vicious false rumors started on left-leaning blogs and outright tabloid journalism from the mainstream media. Who is really being nasty here? They attacked her children. At least she attacked the other candidate.
I would hope that we could have politics without attacks but what Democrats did to Sarah Palin and what she did to Obama last night are two very different things. She questioned his experience. A person's experience is on the table when that person is running for President of the United States. They attacked her family. A person's family is never on the table! So, it is funny to me that Democrats are whining today because she took them to task on a legitimate point of discussion after they have assaulted her on an illegitimate one.
This blog is dedicated to "wiping off the mud" that is being slung and looking at the facts. My hope is for politics that are fair and clean but I have to interject when one party goes as low as a party can go and then whines when the target of their attacks fights back, not with family attacks or nasty mud slinging, but with serious questions on a legitimate topic. The Democrats want their cake and to eat it too. Don't be negative, petty, and nasty then run to momma whining when you get your nose bloodied.
Having said that, I want to say one thing about the spin doctors I have been watching last night and this morning on this subject. They say Palin and the Republicans made a huge mistake attacking community organizers and that community organizers are going to rise up against them after being belittled. COME ON!?! REALLY?!? That's the basket they are going to put their eggs in? REALLY?!?!? Again...I don't like negative politics and nasty attacks but I think this is a major stretch. Palin did not attack community organizers! She attacked Obama for using his experience as a community organizer to say he is ready to be the most powerful man in the world. There is a big difference. It does not mean I have anything against fast food workers if I question a person for using that as a bullet point on their resume to be the CEO of a company.
Political hatred
People today act like if their candidate loses the election that the world will come to an end. I believe, and so did George Washington, that we are Americans before we are ever Democrats or Republicans:
"In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discrimination's, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection."
"They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. " - George Washington in his Farewell Address 1796
The world of George Washington was very different from the world of today but his ideas are still as current as if they were spoken yesterday. Blind allegiance to a particular party or ideology is more rampant than ever. People are angry and scared that if their candidate or their party does not win the election, it is the end of the world. People are openly spewing venom and hatred at our President which was unheard of, or at least less public, in the past. He is OUR President. This is OUR country. No matter how bad it has become for you under the other party's leadership...it is not as bad as it is in other countries who are not as free as we are. In some countries the loss of the party you support means maiming or death. Attempting to vote for your party could lead to a similiar fate.
Even in the worst of times, we have it better than most of the world. Our disagreements and political beefs are nothing compared to people in other countries where at every sunrise your chances of making it to sundown are slim. The poorest people in our country still benefit from our immense success and infrastructure. A FEMA trailer and a soup kitchen would be extravagant luxuries in most of the rest of the world. And, yet, we squabble over ideas and minor differences. It is our country's great success which makes us so comfortable, and so cushioned from the harshness of the real world, that we have the luxury to argue minute points of disagreement. I challenge you to find many pro-life or pro-choice supporters in the famine ridden countries of the world. Go to the poorest countries in Africa and see what their opinion is on gun control or greenhouse gas emissions.
My point is: we have it pretty good and we still have similiar base beliefs, for the most part. We are a country. We are in this together. We need to work together. Democrats need to respect and work with Republicans, Republicans need to respect and work with Democrats, and above all of our squabbles and disagreements, we need to remember that we need each other!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
