Friday, May 27, 2011
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Imagine...
...if we had a candidate, that didn't care to win as much as they cared to speak the truth. I was thinking about a Herman Cain, or an Alan West. Which...they pretty much do. If one of them campaigned for cutting subsidies (not tax breaks, but true subsidies), limiting the collection of unemployment, cutting the Defense budget by focusing on waste (and its there!), severely cutting the corporate tax rate (corporations don't pay taxes, consumers pay them), getting rid of the death tax, severely cutting the capitol gains tax rate to a nominal fee, and yes - scaling Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to be self sufficient.
...if the candidate had the mindset of 'I'm going to say what needs to be said, and if I lose, then at least America was offered the choice'...I think he just might win. I think for sure he would win the Republican nomination.
Ron Paul says the right things on the fiscal side, but after that - he goes of the deep end.
Tim Pawlenty says these things - but does anybody hear him? He got a little traction by speaking against corn subsidies in Iowa. We'll see...
Donald Trump - he got traction by exactly what I'm talking about, speaking the truth. But the truth is, he is in it for Trump, and he loves the power too much.
Herman Cain is almost perfect - he lacks the recognition to win, but a good run this time will help. And YES THEY WILL play the race card with him, but it would be better that race card than the one they usually play.
Allen West speaks truth to power - and he suffers from the same name brand problem that Cain and Pawlenty do. A full term or two in the House - and the Republicans would be wise to start promoting him.
That brings me to Mr. Gingrich. Most conservatives (myself included) and ALL media outlets - have written him off. His comments on Ryan's plan (...oh, I mean his negative comments, not the ones he said before, or since) exposed him as willing to sell out to get the 'middle', the 'undecided', the 'moderate' vote. For a smart guy - he wasn't smart enough to know that those types of voters don't look for a candidate in the middle, they look for a candidate they believe in (Reagan, and yes...Obama).
So...he's got nothing to lose, because he can't win: (CLICK here for a video I couldn't embed)
Gingrich: Balance Budget by Cutting Taxes and Government
"...eliminate the National Labor Relations Board, replace the Environmental Protection Agency and repeal the national health care plan..."
"...cut regulations on financial institutions, including eliminating the Sarbanes-Oxley law that governs accounting practices of publicly traded companies..."
"...by getting people off of unemployment, off of Medicaid, off of food stamps, get them back into earning a living and paying taxes..."
"...eliminating the capital gains tax; allowing companies to deduct capital expenses fully; reducing the corporate tax rate to Ireland's rate of 12.5 percent; and abolishing the death tax..."
"...allow the unemployed to collect benefits for four weeks to look for a job, then would force recipients into a job training program..."
...if the candidate had the mindset of 'I'm going to say what needs to be said, and if I lose, then at least America was offered the choice'...I think he just might win. I think for sure he would win the Republican nomination.
Ron Paul says the right things on the fiscal side, but after that - he goes of the deep end.
Tim Pawlenty says these things - but does anybody hear him? He got a little traction by speaking against corn subsidies in Iowa. We'll see...
Donald Trump - he got traction by exactly what I'm talking about, speaking the truth. But the truth is, he is in it for Trump, and he loves the power too much.
Herman Cain is almost perfect - he lacks the recognition to win, but a good run this time will help. And YES THEY WILL play the race card with him, but it would be better that race card than the one they usually play.
Allen West speaks truth to power - and he suffers from the same name brand problem that Cain and Pawlenty do. A full term or two in the House - and the Republicans would be wise to start promoting him.
That brings me to Mr. Gingrich. Most conservatives (myself included) and ALL media outlets - have written him off. His comments on Ryan's plan (...oh, I mean his negative comments, not the ones he said before, or since) exposed him as willing to sell out to get the 'middle', the 'undecided', the 'moderate' vote. For a smart guy - he wasn't smart enough to know that those types of voters don't look for a candidate in the middle, they look for a candidate they believe in (Reagan, and yes...Obama).
So...he's got nothing to lose, because he can't win: (CLICK here for a video I couldn't embed)
Gingrich: Balance Budget by Cutting Taxes and Government
"...eliminate the National Labor Relations Board, replace the Environmental Protection Agency and repeal the national health care plan..."
"...cut regulations on financial institutions, including eliminating the Sarbanes-Oxley law that governs accounting practices of publicly traded companies..."
"...by getting people off of unemployment, off of Medicaid, off of food stamps, get them back into earning a living and paying taxes..."
"...eliminating the capital gains tax; allowing companies to deduct capital expenses fully; reducing the corporate tax rate to Ireland's rate of 12.5 percent; and abolishing the death tax..."
"...allow the unemployed to collect benefits for four weeks to look for a job, then would force recipients into a job training program..."
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Is it just me...
...again?
Democrat wins 3-way race for House seat from N.Y.
Loss of GOP district seen as omen on Medicare plan
I read three articles in reference to this election - FoxNews (AP), Washington Times, and CNN. CNN by the way, actually titled the link to the article "GOP Medicare plan loses in proxy vote."
There were all kinds of Democrat quotes by idiots....I mean there were all kinds of idiot quotes by Democrats - "We don't want to hurt our seniors", "..their plan is extreme, even Newt Gingrich said so" (half of that one is true).
Oh, wait....there were two Republicans in the race, one being a "Tea Party" candidate. And yes, their vote tallies combined were more than the Democrat.
Republicans just don't learn lessons, Woodrow Wilson, Bill Clinton, etc. (especially ones from New York - the only place the Republicans didn't dominate in 2010) and lest we forget, the seat was vacated by this "Republican":
Democrat wins 3-way race for House seat from N.Y.
Loss of GOP district seen as omen on Medicare plan
I read three articles in reference to this election - FoxNews (AP), Washington Times, and CNN. CNN by the way, actually titled the link to the article "GOP Medicare plan loses in proxy vote."
There were all kinds of Democrat quotes by idiots....I mean there were all kinds of idiot quotes by Democrats - "We don't want to hurt our seniors", "..their plan is extreme, even Newt Gingrich said so" (half of that one is true).
Oh, wait....there were two Republicans in the race, one being a "Tea Party" candidate. And yes, their vote tallies combined were more than the Democrat.
Republicans just don't learn lessons, Woodrow Wilson, Bill Clinton, etc. (especially ones from New York - the only place the Republicans didn't dominate in 2010) and lest we forget, the seat was vacated by this "Republican":
Friday, May 20, 2011
Netanyahu visits DC...
UPDATE: Flashback to 2008
 |
| Obama: "Uh, in the spirit of continuing, uh, the instability, uh, not going, uh, to solve..." Netanyahu: (...there is no way this guy wins another election) |
 |
| Netanyahu: "Actually, with respect, what you proposed would not work in what the Jews call 'the real world...'" Obama: (...I can say anything, and I will still win one more election) |
 |
| Netanyahu: "Is it me? Can you people see how he crosses his legs?" Obama: (...good thing there are no Republicans like this guy, I'm safe in 2012) |
 |
| Netanyahu: "So, again, rainbows are real, but there is no pot of gold, unicorns are not real..." Obama: (...note to self, I should have accomplished, uh, stuff, before lecturing people like him) |
 |
| Netanyahu: "See! See how he sat in our last meeting! I think Michelle keeps them in a jar..." Obama: "Not only can I cross my legs like this, I can lean way over, and experience no pain..." |
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Lying liars and the lies they tell...
Stars Aligning on Debate Over Debt Ceiling by Michael G. Franc
"...In the upcoming debate over the national-debt ceiling, the stakes couldn’t be higher. The economic recovery has stalled. The debt mounts by $4 billion each day..."
"...Liberal lawmakers such as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) argued that the only thing we had to fear was, not fear itself, but these unhinged Republicans who would insist that any increase in the debt ceiling be accompanied by trillions in cuts to cherished social programs, thereby precipitating a game of chicken that would spook financial markets and torpedo our credit rating. Schumer has campaigned relentlessly for a “clean” debt-ceiling bill, bereft of any spending cuts, entitlement reforms, spending caps, or balanced-budget amendments whatsoever..."
"...According to budget experts, this translates into $381 billion in cuts next year alone..."
"...In just the last twelve months, they reported last Friday, Medicare’s fiscal hole worsened by an additional $2 trillion; Medicare’s projected date of insolvency is now 2024, five years earlier than projected last year. The news was similarly dour for Social Security, where expenditures exceeded payroll-tax receipts last year by $49 billion, and the date of insolvency edged another year closer, to 2036..."
$381 billion in cuts next year? Does anybody remember that the 'draconian' Republicans wanted to cut $100 billion, which became $60 billion, which became $30 billion - and mostly ended up being financial write-offs, and not CUTS in budgets?
Can you imagine, that your personal or family situation were so far into debt... You call a meeting, and sit around the table to discuss it.
Do you think that anybody would argue - "I spent $65 on clothes last month, and so I have to be able to spend that much every month, with a little increase." Of course not.
How about this - "Honey, we have to cut back on groceries." Ever had that conversation? If you had a Democrat at the table, you might have heard, "So, you want us to starve the children to death."
If you had any of our current elected officials at the table, you might have heard, "Can we just try to time our purchases so that we stock up on the 31st, then try to string it along for 30 days, then buy heavy again on the 1st of next month?" They just don't get it - and the sad part is that they know they are lying to the citizens, and they do it anyway.
They don't get it - in so many ways. The housing crisis? Caused partially by Congress forcing banks (who went willingly once their loans were guaranteed) to lend to people who couldn't afford it. After it was clear that we had a problem...Congress tried to fix it, by bailing out those same people, and those same banks...with our tax money. Then, Congress passed new "Financial Reform" laws to remove the risk, which removes reward.
What is the reoccurring problem here? Congress. When are they going to pay the price?
"...In the upcoming debate over the national-debt ceiling, the stakes couldn’t be higher. The economic recovery has stalled. The debt mounts by $4 billion each day..."
"...Liberal lawmakers such as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) argued that the only thing we had to fear was, not fear itself, but these unhinged Republicans who would insist that any increase in the debt ceiling be accompanied by trillions in cuts to cherished social programs, thereby precipitating a game of chicken that would spook financial markets and torpedo our credit rating. Schumer has campaigned relentlessly for a “clean” debt-ceiling bill, bereft of any spending cuts, entitlement reforms, spending caps, or balanced-budget amendments whatsoever..."
"...According to budget experts, this translates into $381 billion in cuts next year alone..."
"...In just the last twelve months, they reported last Friday, Medicare’s fiscal hole worsened by an additional $2 trillion; Medicare’s projected date of insolvency is now 2024, five years earlier than projected last year. The news was similarly dour for Social Security, where expenditures exceeded payroll-tax receipts last year by $49 billion, and the date of insolvency edged another year closer, to 2036..."
$381 billion in cuts next year? Does anybody remember that the 'draconian' Republicans wanted to cut $100 billion, which became $60 billion, which became $30 billion - and mostly ended up being financial write-offs, and not CUTS in budgets?
Can you imagine, that your personal or family situation were so far into debt... You call a meeting, and sit around the table to discuss it.
Do you think that anybody would argue - "I spent $65 on clothes last month, and so I have to be able to spend that much every month, with a little increase." Of course not.
How about this - "Honey, we have to cut back on groceries." Ever had that conversation? If you had a Democrat at the table, you might have heard, "So, you want us to starve the children to death."
If you had any of our current elected officials at the table, you might have heard, "Can we just try to time our purchases so that we stock up on the 31st, then try to string it along for 30 days, then buy heavy again on the 1st of next month?" They just don't get it - and the sad part is that they know they are lying to the citizens, and they do it anyway.
They don't get it - in so many ways. The housing crisis? Caused partially by Congress forcing banks (who went willingly once their loans were guaranteed) to lend to people who couldn't afford it. After it was clear that we had a problem...Congress tried to fix it, by bailing out those same people, and those same banks...with our tax money. Then, Congress passed new "Financial Reform" laws to remove the risk, which removes reward.
What is the reoccurring problem here? Congress. When are they going to pay the price?
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Wake Up, its time for school...
I have a post that is half-written about college, about who should go, and why. In the meantime, I found these:
The ‘Education’ Mantra by Thomas Sowell
"...When it comes to postgraduate study in tough fields such as math and science, you often find foreign students at American universities receiving more of those degrees than do Americans..."
"...Too many of the people coming out of even our most prestigious academic institutions graduate with neither the skills to be economically productive nor the intellectual development to make them discerning citizens and voters.
Students can graduate from some of the most prestigious institutions in the country without ever learning anything about science, mathematics, economics, or anything else that would make them either productive contributors to the economy or informed voters who can see through political rhetoric..."
"...Such people have proven to be ideal targets for demagogues promoting polarization and strife. We in the United States are still in the early stages of that process. But you need only visit campuses where whole departments feature soft courses preaching a sense of victimhood and resentment, and see the consequences in racial and ethnic polarization on campus.
There are too many other soft courses that allow students to spend years in college without becoming educated in any real sense.
We don’t need more government “investment” to produce more of such “education.” Lofty words such as “investment” should not blind us to the ugly reality of political pork-barrel spending."
This video is Part 5, but if you have kids who you are not sending to college, or are a kid who didn't go to college, this part will make you feel better about your decision:
The ‘Education’ Mantra by Thomas Sowell
"...When it comes to postgraduate study in tough fields such as math and science, you often find foreign students at American universities receiving more of those degrees than do Americans..."
"...Too many of the people coming out of even our most prestigious academic institutions graduate with neither the skills to be economically productive nor the intellectual development to make them discerning citizens and voters.
Students can graduate from some of the most prestigious institutions in the country without ever learning anything about science, mathematics, economics, or anything else that would make them either productive contributors to the economy or informed voters who can see through political rhetoric..."
"...Such people have proven to be ideal targets for demagogues promoting polarization and strife. We in the United States are still in the early stages of that process. But you need only visit campuses where whole departments feature soft courses preaching a sense of victimhood and resentment, and see the consequences in racial and ethnic polarization on campus.
There are too many other soft courses that allow students to spend years in college without becoming educated in any real sense.
We don’t need more government “investment” to produce more of such “education.” Lofty words such as “investment” should not blind us to the ugly reality of political pork-barrel spending."
This video is Part 5, but if you have kids who you are not sending to college, or are a kid who didn't go to college, this part will make you feel better about your decision:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)