Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Obama Attacks AFP During Radio Address



One politician is the number one recipient of campaign contributions for BP during his career. BP is both a foreign corporation and big oil. Apparently even though they have financial interests in the US and American employees depending on them to protect the sustainability of the company, they are evil for supporting ads.

Unlike George Soros, foreigner, multi-billionaire, wanted in three countries for destroying the economy and blamed for playing a big part in many other collapses, who is the big money behind MoveOn.org and Media Matters. No, never mind the millions spent by Goldmann Sachs on his campaign, or the 12 former GS employees that now work for him.

Wait, still haven't told you who this big recipient of BP money is? Haven't figured it out?

It's Obama.

So why attack a group like Americans For Prosperity by name. Millions of Americans proudly belong to that group. "Shadowy" my you-know-what.

What is a special interest? Somebody who is opposed to your point of view. What is a supporter? Somebody else's "special interest."

We need to stop demagoging and get to facts.

Fact: Obama and the Democrats have increased spending 38% since they took control of the purse strings in 2007, including consecutive 10% increases.

Fact: To hide the current increase, for the first time in decades the Democrats refused to do a budget resolution this summer.

Fact: Taxes hurt the economy. They need to be collected, but so much is wasted when you get a government so bloated.

Want to get rid of "special interests"? Get the money out of Washington. Spend only on defense and law enforcement, and regulating interstate commerce, as the constitution originally spelled out.

"Shadowy Groups"? How about moveon.org, mediamatters.com, The Apollo Foundation (who wrote the stimulus bill, how innocent that does name sound?), Center for Progress, etc.

Is he scared or setting something up? Like more restrictions on speech?

Friday, August 20, 2010

An Email You May Have Already Received

Here's an opinion piece by Chuck Green who writes "Greener Pastures" for the Denver Post Aurora Sentinel...one of the more liberal papers in the country. Additionally, Mr. Green is a life long Democrat...so this is rather a stunning piece...


Obama is victim of Bush's failed promises

Greener Pastures Column -- 5/ 15/10

Barack Obama is setting a record-setting number of records during his first year in office.

Largest budget ever. Largest deficit ever. Largest number of broken promises ever. Most self-serving speeches ever. Largest number of agenda-setting failures ever. Fastest dive in popularity ever.

Wow! Talk about change.

Just one year ago, fresh from his inauguration celebrations, President Obama was flying high. After one of the nation's most inspiring political campaigns, the election of America 's first black president had captured the hopes and dreams of millions. To his devout followers, it was inconceivable that a year later his administration would be gripped in self-imposed crisis.

Of course, they don't see it as self-imposed. It's all George Bush's fault.

George Bush, who doesn't have a vote in congress and who no longer occupies the White House, is to blame for it all.

He broke Obama's promise to put all bills on the White House web site for five days before signing them.

He broke Obama's promise to have the congressional health care negotiations broadcast live on C-SPAN.

He broke Obama's promise to end earmarks.

He broke Obama's promise to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent.

He broke Obama's promise to close the detention center at Guantanamo in the first year.

He broke Obama's promise to make peace with direct, no precondition talks with America 's most hate-filled enemies during his first year in office, ushering in a new era of global cooperation.

He broke Obama's promise to end the hiring of former lobbyists into high White House jobs.

He broke Obama's promise to end no-compete contracts with the government.

He broke Obama's promise to disclose the names of all attendees at closed White House meetings.

He broke Obama's promise for a new era of bipartisan cooperation in all matters.

He broke Obama's promise to have chosen a home church to attend Sunday services with his family by Easter of last year.

Yes, it's all George Bush's fault. President Obama is nothing more than a puppet in the never-ending failed Bush administration. If only George Bush wasn't still in charge, all of President Obama's problems would be solved. His promises would have been kept, the economy would be back on track, Iran would have stopped its work on developing a nuclear bomb and would be negotiating a peace treaty with Israel . North Korea would have ended its tyrannical regime, and integrity would have been restored to the federal government.

Oh, and did I mention what it would be like if the Democrats, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, didn't have the heavy yoke of George Bush around their necks? There would be no ear marks, no closed-door drafting of bills, no increase in deficit spending, no special-interest influence (unions), no vote buying (Nebraska, Louisiana).

If only George Bush wasn't still in charge, we'd have real change by now.

All the broken promises, all the failed legislation and delay (health care reform, immigration reform) is not President Obama's fault or the fault of the Democrat-controlled Congress. It's all George Bush's fault.

Take for example the decision of Eric Holder, the president's attorney general, to hold terrorists' trials in New York City . Or his decision to try the Christmas Day underpants bomber as a civilian.

Two disastrous decisions.

Certainly those were bad judgments based on poor advice from George Bush.

Need more proof?

You might recall that when Scott Brown won the election to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts , capturing "the Ted Kennedy seat", President Obama said that Brown's victory was the result of the same voter anger that propelled Obama into office in 2008. People were still angry about George Bush and the policies of the past 10 years. And they wanted change.

Yes, according to the president, the voter rebellion in Massachusetts was George Bush's fault.

Therefore, in retaliation, they elected a Republican to the Ted Kennedy seat, ending a half-century of domination by Democrats. It is all George Bush's fault.

Will the failed administration of George Bush ever end, and the time for hope and change ever arrive?

Will President Obama ever accept responsibility for something... - anything?
 (Chuck Green is a veteran Colorado journalist and former editor-in-chief of The Denver Post.)

Saturday, August 14, 2010

On Profit

I start with this quote from a friend of a sibling:
So these corporations burdened by American taxes must be being crushed by their tax burden. Oh wait Exxon has Broken the recorded for most profitable company in world history every year how? Oh by not paying any of these burdensome taxes due to loop holes and corporate welfare. why are politicians defending the right of corporations to protect obscene profits on the backs of the poor and middle class? Easy because of the campaign donations needed to keep their jobs I will bet you money that if we ever switched to public financing of elections they would all change their tune.
1) Corporations don't pay taxes. Oh, we send them tax bills, but they are in busines to do one thing - make a profit providing the public with their product. They pass every penny of their taxes onto us - the employees of their company with lower wages/benefits and less hiring, and the consumers with higher prices. If we increase how much Exxon pays in taxes, either by closing their loopholes or raising rates, they aren't going to just eat it. They will raise their prices . . . they will lay people off .  . . they will close refineries . . . they may just leave and become a distributor to other oil companies. All of those options hurt our economy.

2) Exxon sets profit records in terms of DOLLARS, but that is the wrong way to look at it. Liberals like to follow the words "Bush tax cuts" with the words "for the rich." They base that on the number of dollars the rich saved, but that is also the wrong way to look at it. In terms of percentages, the middle and lower tax brackets got a larger cut, percentage wise, in their taxes. Yes, somebody making 1,000,000 dollars a year saved $30,000 in the Bush tax cuts of 2003. And yes, somebody making 100,000 only saved $5,000 on their taxes. Looks bigger huh, but as a percentage of income, the second person saved more.

In terms of profit, Exxon's profit margin was 7.75%. That is only slightly above the oil industry average, and the industry average is below dozens of other industries. So how did they have record profits in terms of dollars? They have a HUGE gross revenue from how much they do. Should we be mad at them for that? No, they employ tens of thousands of people.

Without profit, do you think anybody would have even built the first oil rigs? Why would they have done it? Because it made them feel good? No, profit drives innovation, invention and investment.

3) On the backs of the poor and the middle class? Talk about a "talking point". Tell that to the millions of people who work in the oil industry that wouldn't have their jobs without profit. Tell that to the people who invested in Exxon when it first started and took a huge risk with their money. Tell that to all the middle class people, silver haired old ladies and pension funds whose incomes and growth depend on companies making a profit for their retirements. Exxon paid over 6 Billion dollars in dividends into those investors accounts.

What happens to profit? It gets put into reserves for lean times so they can pay their employees if things get rough. Yeah, oil is a very depression resistant industry right now, but that's not their fault. Many other corporations make huge profits, bigger in terms of percentages. Those reserves save jobs.

Profits from one period are what they use in the next quarter to open a new refinery/store/factory, or upgrade the ones they have to be safer and more efficient - in benefit to the employees and investors.

And, profit gets put into charities to help the poor and less fortunate. Yet, Obama's proposed budget eliminates the charitable tax deduction for the rich in 2011? Why would he do that? Because liberals want the government to make all our decisions for us. They don't want us to have the choice of who to help, they want to take as much as they can to "help" the poor, who then become dependent and enslaved to government.

Problem is, you eventually run out of other people's money, especially when there is a disincentive to making it in that if you cross a magic number, you have to pay even more to the government. Why make 125,000 when at 124,000 you aren't mentioned in the descriptions of "the rich" that are going to get a tax increase? Right now as ObamaCare stands if you have 19 pizza parlors, you don't want to open a 20th, because it means you'll have to publish the calorie counts for every possible topping on every size pizza in all your menus, every time anything changes. The cost of opening a 20th parlor is not worth it, so the employment that would be gained by doing it for the community is never realized. Taxes and regulations always create disincentives to growth.

4) What would public financing change? We would also have to get rid of free speech. If the companies couldn't give directly, they would buy their own advertising. The only way to stop people YOU don't like from having a voice in politics is to take away one of our fundamental rights. You can argue that corporations aren't people, so they don't have the same rights, but you're wrong. They are people. Corporations aren't led and staffed by robots, they are people and it their moral responsibility to fight for the things that keep their employees and investors happy and protected.

See, the underlying thing here is that liberals want more of their money, so they can pay for the health care, food and welfare of people that won't work. I'm all for taking care of people that can't work, but if you just won't, that's their choice. The problem is you CAN'T GET MORE MONEY FROM CORPORATIONS. Any tax on corporations is a tax on EVERYBODY. Actually, it taxes even the very poor, as that set of plates made from plastic which is made from oil that they buy for their table will cost more to pay the taxes. It taxes the middle class, as the tires for their car made from rubber which is made from oil (using this since Exxon was the liberal's example) now cost more to pay those taxes.

5) The ONLY solution to reducing the influence that corporations and lobbyists have on our lives is one that liberals will hate to hear, or read in this case: Massively cut government programs and taxes. The more money flows to Washington and the more they are spending and the more ways they are spending it the more people/organizations will flock to K Street for their piece of it.

For example, if government left it to a private organization similar to Universal Laboratories to test and approve drugs, and they stopped providing drug coverage, why would the pharmaceutical industry even need a lobby? And how much money could they save consumers if they didn't have to spend money lobbying for higher prices (which government support encourages). Competition would force them to keep their prices low as a UL type agency would have more incentive to let multiple companies produce a drug that lobbied government agencies don't.

Instead, we have provisions in ObamaCare to not cut drug reimbursements as a deal made with the White House to get $100 Million in advertising in support of the bill, which still was crammed down the throats of a public that didn't want it . . . The AMA was promised that Medicare reimbursement reductions would not go into effect in order to get their support. Leaving out the "doc fix" made the health care bill "deficit neutral" (what government program EVER costs what they say and collects what they say? Zero), but the CBO scored it as at least $150 Billion dollars in deficits over the ten years with the "doc fix" in there. Guess what? "Doc fix" was passed in June, and has to be refreshed every year.

And here's the other thing: Both sides like to make a big ruckus about certain groups having influence. Conservatives are unhappy that the Apollo Foundation, where avowed Communist Van Jones now works, wrote the "stimulus" bill. Liberals are unhappy evil employment and pension fund providing corporations get loopholes passed.

But again, we can't stop any organization for standing up for the interests of their members, because that's free speech. We can, however, by getting government less involved in our lives, take away their reason for needing to be in Washington lobbying. Then we'll only be left with liberal organizations lobbying for government to take more control of our lives so they can get money to do it . . . ACORN is perfect example of an organization that wouldn't have gotten their billions without government meddling in the housing market.

Post is too long already, more later . . .  :)

Any Questions?

I'll start with a post trying to answer any questions you might have about me.

My political philosophy is best described as conservative. Liberal policies have and are failing all over the world. Greece is just a preview of what the rest of the world is soon facing. Liberal policies always lead to a loss of freedom, whether its a large group of people who fall into dependence on the governtment and lose freedom to the rules to get that help or the lifestyle changes required to satisfy regulation.

A conservative is for laws that protect people from fraud, abuse and other crimes that restrict people in their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. We also believe the pursuit of happiness does not guarantee equal results. That is the crux of the difference between us and liberals. Liberals are always trying to make things "equal" and everybody "happy." All that we can possibly hope for in a truly free society is everybody having the freedom to pursue the things that make them happy, not that everybody will be happy.

I was in the pre-Perestroika Soviet Union for six weeks of language study. We live among the students and spent time at their apartments. We interacted with people on busses, in markets, etc. Their "equality" was miserable. The Soviet Union was and is a very, very rich nation in terms of resources. Yet equality meant equally poor, and the only way to improve yourself financially was to be a member of the political class or have been just the right size farm/business to slip through the take over cracks, yet make enough to be better off than everybody else.

The vision George Soros and all those groups he runs like Media Matters and MoveOn.org and the Center for American Progress and all those other progressive groups he funds is to makes us like the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Rich politicians driving to their Red Square offices in black Mercedes, while only the mob and black market prosper, and those who dare to get rich get it confiscated and given to those who won't or don't work for it. Full employment in the USSR included the four guys who on week one of our classes we walked past digging a hole. On week two they were filling it up, normal enough. Except, on week three they were digging the SAME HOLE. You guessed it, on week four they were filling it, and on week five . . .

That is not the vision most liberals have for this country. Most liberals are just trying to help the less fortunate and believe the government is the only "fair" way to do it. In their eyes leaving it to charities is inequitable and not right. There is a fundamental jealousy/envy/who knows what about corporations and other individuals being able to choose how to help people. I've experienced it in conversations with liberals in the past.

However, there are big money people supporting today's Democratic party that have a history of destroying the economies of other countries to bring about Communism. George Soros is a wanted man in several countries. He's blamed for the downfall of Hungary's economy and in Thailand he would be arrested on sight. TARP came about after somebody cashed out 500 Million dollars worth of mutual funds in a few hours. It scared the powers that be, yet nobody has revealed, if they have even investigated, who did it and who was behind the money. It changed the whole election and put Obama in office. McCain's participation in TARP turned a 5% lead into a loss, as he made it appear there was no difference between him and Obama.

I actually had a liberal accuse me of not wanting to take care of those less fortunate. Those are the kind of statements that are the talking points of today's left. I do want to take care of people, but I want to choose who uses my money so I can make sure it's not wasted. My church and local charities can make sure only people who really need it get the help. The fraud rate in government programs, not to mention the waste of overstaffing, paperwork, and other bureaucracy the unions create to increase their numbers and coffers, is huge.

I want to have the money to pay somebody's electric bill if they need it, to give groceries to a family, etc. But higher taxes so the government can waste a large portion of it and then make those people go through paperwork that can still be filled with fraud limit my ability to give. The more money I can keep, the more I can give. If I'm already dealing with tight budgets, higher taxes, like the ones coming in January TO YOU AND ME if the Bush tax cuts aren't renewed will only reduce my ability to give.

Well, now I've outlined some of the basics on how I think. Watch for future posts on specific topics for more details . . .