I have a few favorite websites that I go to about once a week. Two of these sites (www.comicbookresources.com and www.georgerrmartin.com) feature two well-known (at least in the comics community and novel community respectively) writers. These writers are both unapologetic liberals. Which is fine with me.
What I'm struggling with is their complete obedience to the tenets of the liberal side of the aisle. They appear not to question their own politicians and will go off on ridiculous tangents about issues that appear to be based entirely on speculation. I'll give two examples:
From George RR Martin (who writes fantastic books):
"McCain talks about an assault on the very fabric of democracy, but there's far more of that coming from the right, with its efforts to disenfranchise minorities, the young, first time voters, and the elderly than from anything that ACORN has done. It worked in 2000 (Florida) and in 2004 (Ohio). We have to make certain it does not happen this time."
Okay. There are a number of problems here:
(1) He states that the right has tried to disenfranchise minorities, the young, first time voters, and the elderly. My response is "how" and, next, "what in the heck are you talking about." There is no further proof of the lack of an attempt at disenfranchisement than the fact that first time voters were out in record numbers in 2008. Additionally, Mr. Martin makes no attempt to link McCain to disenfranchisement except to say that McCain is a conservative, so naturally he is attempting to disenfranchise the above-referenced groups. Finally, why would McCain, who is "the elderly" try to disenfranchise the elderly?
(2) The excuse that disenfrachisement worked in 2000 and 2004 to explain how Al Gore and John Kerry lost is ridiculous and people should stop it. Just knock it off. It's not true, it's not helpful, and it just goes to show what poor losers many on the left are.
The second guy, Steven Grant, writes Permanent Damage (as well as comic books). Most of his political comments are ridiculous and borderline insane. He comments on stuff like torture and conspiracy like someone who should be wearing a tin foil hat. Anyway, here is something from his latest column:
"One interesting election day report someone just sent: various voting hijinks in highly contested Virginia and Pennsylvania, with things like illegal pamphleting allowed too close to polls, some polling places in Virginia were illegally closed with possibly thousands of voters turned away and wrongly given "provisional" ballots, which are commonly only used where voter registrations are in doubt, and Virginia Tech saw its polling place moved without warning to a difficult to get to location six miles off campus. Sounds like someone doesn't want someone to vote, but we all know it couldn't be those "Country First" people because they'd want all citizens to have a voice, just like the country stands for. Wouldn't they?"
There's just one problem with this one and it's the same problem with all of Mr. Grant's political musings: HE... COMPLETELY... IGNORES... HIS... OWN... POLITICAL... PARTY'S... ACTIONS.
I posted a couple days ago what was going on in Pennsylvania, New York, and some other states vis-a-vis the Democrats and election problems. It happens on both sides and I'm man enough to admit it (and, at the same time, acknowledge that it has no effect on elections) because I'm a responsible and intelligent adult. So, when Mr. Grant writes, "Sounds like someone doesn't want someone to vote, but we all know it couldn't be those "Country First" people because they'd want all citizens to have a voice, just like the country stands for," it smacks of hypocrisy (which is my #1 pet peeve) and idiocy.
Anyway, now that you've read all this, you may ask what's my point. My point is that George RR Martin and Steven Grant (to a lesser extent) are read by thousands if not millions of people. Those people may not be able to think for themselves. So they read these things and they believe them and therefore, they no longer entertain political views in opposition to those of Martin and Grant. Does it happen the other way? Sure... except that when someone is listening to Rush Limbaugh, they know what they're getting. When someone's reading Mr. Martin's blog, they aren't reading it knowing that Mr. Martin is liberal and they're probably not going to Rush Limbaugh to hear a different point of view.
I have the same beef with MTV. MTV wants you to vote, Rock the Vote, and Vote or Die... but only if you're voting for Barack Obama. They don't want you to vote if you're not voting for Obama. It's simple, it's plan, and it's out there. However, the vast majority of 18-20 year olds don't understand politics and the issues that may or may not affect them. Instead they sit there watching Paris Hilton get a new BFF or that Lauren chick on The Hills and then get bombarded with "Go Vote for Obama." They're not watching Hannity & Colmes.
The overarching point here is that I think I have a problem with celebrities coming out with political views without acknowledging their own party's failings. I'm not sure if I have a problem because I'm not sure how much people actually see truth in the rantings of George RR Martin and Steven Grant and Susan Sarandon and MTV. However, those same people are supporting the Fairness Doctrine and they are as crazy as Rush Limbaugh. However, those people are seen as paragons of society and as "normal," while Rush is considered crazy. That's what I have a problem with. Let's call all the crazies the way we sees them.
So, if the Fairness Doctrine gets passed, I'd like to see it get applied to the MTVs and Susan Sarandons of the world, but I doubt that will happen.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Election = Over
Our new president-elect is Barack Obama. He will surely cure all that ails us.
In other news, I was relieved and heartened to see John McCain respectfully step aside. Please note that there were no calls of voter fraud and the like.
In still other news, I read an interesting article on the treatment of President Bush throughout the years. It's short, but to the point. And I think I agree with it. The gist is that the president has been mocked and ridiculed by the left and, when his popularity sunk to an all-time low, abandoned by the right. The article goes on to point out (and I think this is the most important part) that many of the problems plaguing our nation (i.e. the economy) are not his fault. And other "problems" (i.e. the War in Iraq) are not his "fault" alone.
I think a lot of the president's lack of popularity has to do with two things: (1) his inability to speak in public (which, to most, means he's stupid) and (2) the media's constant portayal of him as a buffoon, war monger, and all-around bad guy. Anyway, I digress, here's the link to the article.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584386627599251.html
And congratulations to all those who voted for Obama. I hope he tries to do what you want him to do (whatever that is).
In other news, I was relieved and heartened to see John McCain respectfully step aside. Please note that there were no calls of voter fraud and the like.
In still other news, I read an interesting article on the treatment of President Bush throughout the years. It's short, but to the point. And I think I agree with it. The gist is that the president has been mocked and ridiculed by the left and, when his popularity sunk to an all-time low, abandoned by the right. The article goes on to point out (and I think this is the most important part) that many of the problems plaguing our nation (i.e. the economy) are not his fault. And other "problems" (i.e. the War in Iraq) are not his "fault" alone.
I think a lot of the president's lack of popularity has to do with two things: (1) his inability to speak in public (which, to most, means he's stupid) and (2) the media's constant portayal of him as a buffoon, war monger, and all-around bad guy. Anyway, I digress, here's the link to the article.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584386627599251.html
And congratulations to all those who voted for Obama. I hope he tries to do what you want him to do (whatever that is).
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Voter Frawd
This might further my friend Joe's insistence that the Republicans will use voter fraud as an excuse... but I couldn't resist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyVjqRApOoc - Senator Clinton within 5 feet of the polling booths... illegal by the way
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU - Black Panthers blocking access in Philly
http://townhall.com/blog/g/cf47766b-5a6d-44ab-95e7-ce60631bcadc - More Philly fun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyVjqRApOoc - Senator Clinton within 5 feet of the polling booths... illegal by the way
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU - Black Panthers blocking access in Philly
http://townhall.com/blog/g/cf47766b-5a6d-44ab-95e7-ce60631bcadc - More Philly fun
Monday, October 27, 2008
Media Bias
Posted because someone like me could never write as well as this guy.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=1
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=1
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Can't Keep My Mouth Shut
I'm sorry. I can't keep my mouth shut any more. I'm really tired of this "wealthy" and "rich" and "no more trickle down economics" nonsense. I'm a tax attorney. I know this shit. I'm telling you. Let me spell it out for you... taxes are money out of someone's pocket... so they don't spend on other stuff... and that hurts the economy. It doesn't get more obvious.
Anyway, I just want to throw in my own little monkey wrench into the idea of taxing the "rich." I'll use three examples of what will happen if you tax the "rich."
(1) Jim Smith, CEO of Big Company, which employs 2,000 individuals. Big Company faces an increased tax rate, a small portion of which (let's say $500,000, or 1,000 people times $100) goes to the "disadvantaged." In order to retain its profits, and therefore it's stock price, at a high level, Jim decides to lay off 1,000 workers. That's what will happen. I'm telling you. Big Company and Jim Smith will take care of themselves.
Result - Jim Smith and Big Company stay strong. 1,000 people have to find new work. They also get $500 from the government, which doesn't help them at all. Additionally, those 1,000 people no longer spend money, affecting the economy.
(2) Bill Davis, owner of Davis' Ice Cream, which employs 20 individuals on a part-time basis. Davis' Ice Cream is an S Corporation. Prior to the Obama tax increase, Bill Davis pays an effective tax rate, exclusive of state taxes, of approximately 35%. Obama raises the rate to approximately 50%. Bill Davis can no longer pay taxes and keep his business open. Because he has another job, Bill closes Davis' doors. That's what will happen. I'm telling you. Bill Davis will take care of himself.
Result - 20 individuals no longer have summer jobs. No more delicious soft ice cream.
(3) Nick the Greek, tax attorney (yes, that's me). Prior to the Obama tax increase, Nick gets effed in the b on taxes because he is no longer eligible for certain deductions. He gets even more effed in the b on taxes after the Obama tax increase. Nick works 80 hours a week (wait, Nick's not a fat cat investment banker sitting on his ass all day?). Nick went to law school (wait, Nick doesn't live off of his parents?). Nick drives a Hyundai (wait, Nick doesn't drive a Mercedes?). Nick has loans to pay (wait, Nick's trust fund didn't pay for law school?). Nick has a mortgage to pay on his townhouse (wait, Nick doesn't have a mansion?). Nick continues to work 80 hours a week and continues to live in his townhouse, contemplating why he works so hard when he doesn't get to keep any loot.
In any event, I don't make enough money yet to fit under Obama's tax plan. But there is no doubt in my mind that Obama's tax plan, when it takes effect, will negatively affect me because it aint' going to be $250,000. It's going to be $80,000 or $100,000. The next time I hear some moron on the news or talk radio talking about how "hard-working Americans" deserve their tax break, I'll go freaking nuts. YOU WORK 40 HOURS A WEEK WITH EFFING LUNCH BREAKS!!! I WORK 80 HOURS A WEEK EFFERS!!!
Four Asides to this Diatribe:
(1) During her campaign, Hillary Clinton regularly panned and ridiculed investment bankers (presumably for making too much money). Investment bankers get a bad rap in the media today (for, you know, the stock stuff). I know investment bankers. They aren't "fat cats." They work 100 hours a week at crappy and stressful jobs. They earn their money. If you don't work 100 hours a week, go do it for a few months and then decide that those people don't work hard and they deserve to be taxed to death.
(2) "Spreading the wealth around"... what wealth? $500? C'mon. It's a bribe. Senator Obama is bribing people... "Go vote for me and I'll give you $500."
(3) Davis' is no longer open. They closed their doors after Mrs. Davis passed away from lung cancer. I addressed it in an earlier post. Anyway, they were a small business. They would be negatively affected.
(4) I really need to not work as much.
Anyway, I just want to throw in my own little monkey wrench into the idea of taxing the "rich." I'll use three examples of what will happen if you tax the "rich."
(1) Jim Smith, CEO of Big Company, which employs 2,000 individuals. Big Company faces an increased tax rate, a small portion of which (let's say $500,000, or 1,000 people times $100) goes to the "disadvantaged." In order to retain its profits, and therefore it's stock price, at a high level, Jim decides to lay off 1,000 workers. That's what will happen. I'm telling you. Big Company and Jim Smith will take care of themselves.
Result - Jim Smith and Big Company stay strong. 1,000 people have to find new work. They also get $500 from the government, which doesn't help them at all. Additionally, those 1,000 people no longer spend money, affecting the economy.
(2) Bill Davis, owner of Davis' Ice Cream, which employs 20 individuals on a part-time basis. Davis' Ice Cream is an S Corporation. Prior to the Obama tax increase, Bill Davis pays an effective tax rate, exclusive of state taxes, of approximately 35%. Obama raises the rate to approximately 50%. Bill Davis can no longer pay taxes and keep his business open. Because he has another job, Bill closes Davis' doors. That's what will happen. I'm telling you. Bill Davis will take care of himself.
Result - 20 individuals no longer have summer jobs. No more delicious soft ice cream.
(3) Nick the Greek, tax attorney (yes, that's me). Prior to the Obama tax increase, Nick gets effed in the b on taxes because he is no longer eligible for certain deductions. He gets even more effed in the b on taxes after the Obama tax increase. Nick works 80 hours a week (wait, Nick's not a fat cat investment banker sitting on his ass all day?). Nick went to law school (wait, Nick doesn't live off of his parents?). Nick drives a Hyundai (wait, Nick doesn't drive a Mercedes?). Nick has loans to pay (wait, Nick's trust fund didn't pay for law school?). Nick has a mortgage to pay on his townhouse (wait, Nick doesn't have a mansion?). Nick continues to work 80 hours a week and continues to live in his townhouse, contemplating why he works so hard when he doesn't get to keep any loot.
In any event, I don't make enough money yet to fit under Obama's tax plan. But there is no doubt in my mind that Obama's tax plan, when it takes effect, will negatively affect me because it aint' going to be $250,000. It's going to be $80,000 or $100,000. The next time I hear some moron on the news or talk radio talking about how "hard-working Americans" deserve their tax break, I'll go freaking nuts. YOU WORK 40 HOURS A WEEK WITH EFFING LUNCH BREAKS!!! I WORK 80 HOURS A WEEK EFFERS!!!
Four Asides to this Diatribe:
(1) During her campaign, Hillary Clinton regularly panned and ridiculed investment bankers (presumably for making too much money). Investment bankers get a bad rap in the media today (for, you know, the stock stuff). I know investment bankers. They aren't "fat cats." They work 100 hours a week at crappy and stressful jobs. They earn their money. If you don't work 100 hours a week, go do it for a few months and then decide that those people don't work hard and they deserve to be taxed to death.
(2) "Spreading the wealth around"... what wealth? $500? C'mon. It's a bribe. Senator Obama is bribing people... "Go vote for me and I'll give you $500."
(3) Davis' is no longer open. They closed their doors after Mrs. Davis passed away from lung cancer. I addressed it in an earlier post. Anyway, they were a small business. They would be negatively affected.
(4) I really need to not work as much.
Friday, October 24, 2008
What You Won't Hear
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10132008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/an_obama_panic__133374.htm
Obama's going to win, so I'll just say this: You reap what you sow.
Obama's going to win, so I'll just say this: You reap what you sow.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Turnabout = Fair Play?
From my friend's blog (notice no quotes... as an aside, I used quotes because his blog is mostly pictures, not words... putting blog in quotation marks had nothing to do with my opinion of my friend's blog. He's a very knowledgeable individual):
"The public impression of this tale is going to be that ACORN is engaging in alleged voter fraud and Barack Obama has some tangential relationship to ACORN. That might not be enough to make a difference in the election, but if the votes are actually close, the Republicans are clearly planning to use the sham investigation into voter fraud as part of the basis of a challenge. As Marshall says (and I think he’s right):
The essence of McCain’s campaign now appears to amount to prepping McCain’s base to believe they didn’t really lose the election. The election was stolen from them by Barack and his army of gangsters and black street hustlers."
It's common knowledge among a lot of Americans that both the 2000 and 2004 elections were won by President Bush because of voter fraud... even after the recount in 2000. Even after various and sundry investigations (admittedly not by the FBI... at least that I've heard of). In any event, if Democrats and other liberals believe that this is McCain's strategy, they have only to look in the mirror to see who to blame. Anyway, who cares? If you're a liberal, who cares if Obama wins and McCain's cronies call "voter fraud?" I certainly did not put any stock in the allegations against the Bush peeps. Believe it or not, there are people (almost 50%) who liked President Bush... any they voted for him.
"The public impression of this tale is going to be that ACORN is engaging in alleged voter fraud and Barack Obama has some tangential relationship to ACORN. That might not be enough to make a difference in the election, but if the votes are actually close, the Republicans are clearly planning to use the sham investigation into voter fraud as part of the basis of a challenge. As Marshall says (and I think he’s right):
The essence of McCain’s campaign now appears to amount to prepping McCain’s base to believe they didn’t really lose the election. The election was stolen from them by Barack and his army of gangsters and black street hustlers."
It's common knowledge among a lot of Americans that both the 2000 and 2004 elections were won by President Bush because of voter fraud... even after the recount in 2000. Even after various and sundry investigations (admittedly not by the FBI... at least that I've heard of). In any event, if Democrats and other liberals believe that this is McCain's strategy, they have only to look in the mirror to see who to blame. Anyway, who cares? If you're a liberal, who cares if Obama wins and McCain's cronies call "voter fraud?" I certainly did not put any stock in the allegations against the Bush peeps. Believe it or not, there are people (almost 50%) who liked President Bush... any they voted for him.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Racism Amok in Western PA
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93R6QEO0&show_article=1
The only explanation as to why Lynn Swann lost the gubernatorial election..........
.....
.....
See how ridiculous that sounds?
The only explanation as to why Lynn Swann lost the gubernatorial election..........
.....
.....
See how ridiculous that sounds?
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
The Rainbow Coalition
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10142008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_o_jesse_knows_133450.htm?page=0
I can't believe this guy is still relevant.
I can't believe this guy is still relevant.
More Acorn Hilarity
I'm just reporting the news, not taking a stance.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/elections/article852295.ece
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10142008/news/politics/bogus_voter_booted_amid_probe_of_acorn_133540.htm
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1223973289273860.xml&coll=2
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/elections/article852295.ece
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10142008/news/politics/bogus_voter_booted_amid_probe_of_acorn_133540.htm
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1223973289273860.xml&coll=2
Apocalyptica
Ridiculous. Probably what I've been waiting my whole life for...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbTozgoj9OQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbTozgoj9OQ&feature=related
Monday, October 13, 2008
Greatest Game Ever
www.conquerclub.com
Greatest game ever if you like losing Risk-style games to 9th graders that belittle you using poor spelling.
"OMG... I pwned u!"
Greatest game ever if you like losing Risk-style games to 9th graders that belittle you using poor spelling.
"OMG... I pwned u!"
Ah... Democratic Congress
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related
Next time I heard Dems blaming only Republicans, I can laugh.
To be clear, I'm saying they're both at fault. I just don't want Dems saying it's the Republicans.
Next time I heard Dems blaming only Republicans, I can laugh.
To be clear, I'm saying they're both at fault. I just don't want Dems saying it's the Republicans.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
From a friend's "blog":
"Voter Fraud willie
Ok, so the 2000 presidential election was tainted with (almost assuredly correct) charges of voter fraud. Which ever side you fall on in regards to that decision, you can at least agree the whole thing was tainted.
Then more shaadiness in 2004, this time in Ohio.
Both times, the Republicans won and the Democrats claimed voter fraud. (Just to be even more clear about this, yes, i do believe that fraud took place.)
Now 2008 is rolling around, there’s a pretty good chance the GOP are not going to win the White House and what are we hearing about already? Voter fraud. You can bet your sweet ass that if Obama wins, that’ll be the lead story on Fox News for at least a month. They’ll chase any whiff of fraud with a vociferiousness you haven’t seen since the Clinton blow job witch hunt.
So, without trying to sound partisan, is that not hypocrisy? This is all conjecture at this point, but Obama winning and Fox devoting serious chunks of time saying it was due to voter fraud seems to really be in the cards. And if that’s the case, then I think you can finally stop saying that Fox is “Fair & Balanced”. because it won’t be (not that it ever was, but…). "
Okay, I have three things:
(1) What hypocrisy? What the hell is my friend talking about? The only person being hypocritical here is my friend.
(2) Here's some voter fraud already. Also, ever hear of a little organization called "Acorn?"
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-flbfelons1012sboct12,0,3762352.story
You want more, go to drudge. Oh wait, drudge is clearly conservative because he actually reports the truth.
(3) I agree voter fraud occurred in 2000 and 2004 on both sides (see Acorn taking ballots into federal prisons, see Republicans in West Philly telling residents they would be arrested if they voted.) I don't believe the fraud had any effect on the outcome of the election. Why? Because I'm not bitter or insane or a conspiracy theorist or misinformed. So, when Fox supposedly tells me that Obama won the election because of voter fraud, I'll laugh and say, "whatever, Fox," unlike my friend who in 2000 and 2004 said, "Yeah, voter fraud. That's the only reason Bush won twice." Sorry, my friend is usually well-informed, but this is just ridiculous.
"Voter Fraud willie
Ok, so the 2000 presidential election was tainted with (almost assuredly correct) charges of voter fraud. Which ever side you fall on in regards to that decision, you can at least agree the whole thing was tainted.
Then more shaadiness in 2004, this time in Ohio.
Both times, the Republicans won and the Democrats claimed voter fraud. (Just to be even more clear about this, yes, i do believe that fraud took place.)
Now 2008 is rolling around, there’s a pretty good chance the GOP are not going to win the White House and what are we hearing about already? Voter fraud. You can bet your sweet ass that if Obama wins, that’ll be the lead story on Fox News for at least a month. They’ll chase any whiff of fraud with a vociferiousness you haven’t seen since the Clinton blow job witch hunt.
So, without trying to sound partisan, is that not hypocrisy? This is all conjecture at this point, but Obama winning and Fox devoting serious chunks of time saying it was due to voter fraud seems to really be in the cards. And if that’s the case, then I think you can finally stop saying that Fox is “Fair & Balanced”. because it won’t be (not that it ever was, but…). "
Okay, I have three things:
(1) What hypocrisy? What the hell is my friend talking about? The only person being hypocritical here is my friend.
(2) Here's some voter fraud already. Also, ever hear of a little organization called "Acorn?"
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-flbfelons1012sboct12,0,3762352.story
You want more, go to drudge. Oh wait, drudge is clearly conservative because he actually reports the truth.
(3) I agree voter fraud occurred in 2000 and 2004 on both sides (see Acorn taking ballots into federal prisons, see Republicans in West Philly telling residents they would be arrested if they voted.) I don't believe the fraud had any effect on the outcome of the election. Why? Because I'm not bitter or insane or a conspiracy theorist or misinformed. So, when Fox supposedly tells me that Obama won the election because of voter fraud, I'll laugh and say, "whatever, Fox," unlike my friend who in 2000 and 2004 said, "Yeah, voter fraud. That's the only reason Bush won twice." Sorry, my friend is usually well-informed, but this is just ridiculous.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
My Views on the Potential Bailout
I will preface this analysis by saying I know little about economics and I know less about this issue. However, seeing as how this does not stop most commentators, I feel the need to commentate.
Here's how I understand the potential bailout - Congress will purchase the stock (i.e. infuse cash) into a number of entities in return (for pennies on the dollar). This amounts to giving these companies money for free. I'm not sure how the US Government will get the money, except that I've heard higher taxes, spending the current budget, and/or taking loans.
My first thought on this is that it's plain socialism (and therefore bad). If you've learned anything from reading my blog, I'm an ardent (and violent!) capitalist and strict constitutional constructionist. Therefore, anything that smacks of socialism is bad in my book. Helping companies stay in business is definitively socialism. It's other companies and people helping other companies and people stay in business by government mandate (i.e. not capitalism, which is other companies and people helping other companies and people stay in business by personal choice).
My second thought on this is that there are serious repurcussions if a bunch of these companies fail. In addition to the usual suspects (loss of jobs, loss of homes), there is also the issue of how this will affect other sectors of the economy (such as me). I don't want to lose my job and I would gladly pay tax dollars to ensure I don't lose my job.
After thinking about this and weighing these two thoughts, I've determined that I'm going with my first thought. I don't like this idea. In fact I hate it. I hate it for the following reasons:
(1) Socialism (see above).
(2) Slippery slope. If we get into a cycle of bailing out companies, where will it end? Will it end?
(3) The concept of "bailing out." There are a number of problems with how these businesses have been run that led to the current problems. I don't pretend to know what those problems were, but they involve things like fiscal responsibility and the like. Additionally, there are attendant problems, such as the salaries, bonuses and severance packages of CEOs and the like (i.e. I run the company into the ground, but I still make $35 million a year). If we bail out these companies, they will not learn their lesson. If we don't bail out these companies and they fail, they are much more likely to learn a lesson of some sort. This kind of runs in to #2. If we bail out these companies, they make the same mistakes, we'll have to bail them out again.
(4) It's just not right. I worked at an ice cream shop for most of high school and college. I worked with about 12 other people, 10 of whom were attractive girls. Huzzah! Anyway, I digress... if the ice cream store went out of business, would the town government (or county government) give them cash so that they could stay in business? Never in a million years. Despite the fact that 12-15 people would lose their jobs, it would never happen. Therefore, I don't think it's right to do this on a nationwide level either.
Anyway, I'm against the bailout. I don't know the candidates' views on the subject, so I'm not sure who I would support on this issue. This will probably sway my vote in the upcoming election because I'm now so strongly against it.
Here's how I understand the potential bailout - Congress will purchase the stock (i.e. infuse cash) into a number of entities in return (for pennies on the dollar). This amounts to giving these companies money for free. I'm not sure how the US Government will get the money, except that I've heard higher taxes, spending the current budget, and/or taking loans.
My first thought on this is that it's plain socialism (and therefore bad). If you've learned anything from reading my blog, I'm an ardent (and violent!) capitalist and strict constitutional constructionist. Therefore, anything that smacks of socialism is bad in my book. Helping companies stay in business is definitively socialism. It's other companies and people helping other companies and people stay in business by government mandate (i.e. not capitalism, which is other companies and people helping other companies and people stay in business by personal choice).
My second thought on this is that there are serious repurcussions if a bunch of these companies fail. In addition to the usual suspects (loss of jobs, loss of homes), there is also the issue of how this will affect other sectors of the economy (such as me). I don't want to lose my job and I would gladly pay tax dollars to ensure I don't lose my job.
After thinking about this and weighing these two thoughts, I've determined that I'm going with my first thought. I don't like this idea. In fact I hate it. I hate it for the following reasons:
(1) Socialism (see above).
(2) Slippery slope. If we get into a cycle of bailing out companies, where will it end? Will it end?
(3) The concept of "bailing out." There are a number of problems with how these businesses have been run that led to the current problems. I don't pretend to know what those problems were, but they involve things like fiscal responsibility and the like. Additionally, there are attendant problems, such as the salaries, bonuses and severance packages of CEOs and the like (i.e. I run the company into the ground, but I still make $35 million a year). If we bail out these companies, they will not learn their lesson. If we don't bail out these companies and they fail, they are much more likely to learn a lesson of some sort. This kind of runs in to #2. If we bail out these companies, they make the same mistakes, we'll have to bail them out again.
(4) It's just not right. I worked at an ice cream shop for most of high school and college. I worked with about 12 other people, 10 of whom were attractive girls. Huzzah! Anyway, I digress... if the ice cream store went out of business, would the town government (or county government) give them cash so that they could stay in business? Never in a million years. Despite the fact that 12-15 people would lose their jobs, it would never happen. Therefore, I don't think it's right to do this on a nationwide level either.
Anyway, I'm against the bailout. I don't know the candidates' views on the subject, so I'm not sure who I would support on this issue. This will probably sway my vote in the upcoming election because I'm now so strongly against it.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
A Challenge
This challenge I've created is in response to a few things:
(1) Obama supporters contending that people who vote for McCain must be rascist.
(2) Obama supporters contending that people who vote for McCain must be stupid.
(3) Obama and his supporters claiming that Bush's policies failed.
(4) Obama and his supporters claiming that McCain's policies are identical to Bush's failed policies.
(5) My contention that this election should be about issues, not personalities.
(6) My contention that some of Obama's supporters are voting on personality, and have no idea what Obama's platform is.
(7) My contention that the vast majority of Obama's supporters hate President Bush, and, by extension, hate McCain.
So, I have a three-part challenge. Unfortunately, I have one reader, so this challenge is kind of moot. However, to my one reader, I advise to post this challenge to his friends.
Challenge, Part A - Name three of President Bush's failed policies. By "President Bush's failed policies" I mean something that the president or his cabinet, advisors, or the executive branch has done that has failed. I was going to say name something that has personally failed you, but I thought that might be too hard.
Challenge, Part B - Identify from Part A, the three failed policies of President Bush and indicate how McCain's policies are identical.
Challenge, Part C - Identify from Part A, the three failed policies of President Bush and explain how Obama's policies would work to solve such problems.
Here's an example, from me:
Part A - Bush delcared war and took over Iraq, resulting in soldiers' deaths and the continued occupation of Iraq for the foreseeable future.
Part B - McCain will continue to occupy Iraq for the foreseeable future.
Part C - Obama will pull out of Iraq... oh wait, he won't. He will continue to occupy Iraq if he becomes president.
See how easy it is? It's actually incredibly hard. It's hard to find something that Bush has "failed" at that will be changed by Obama and not changed by McCain.
(1) Obama supporters contending that people who vote for McCain must be rascist.
(2) Obama supporters contending that people who vote for McCain must be stupid.
(3) Obama and his supporters claiming that Bush's policies failed.
(4) Obama and his supporters claiming that McCain's policies are identical to Bush's failed policies.
(5) My contention that this election should be about issues, not personalities.
(6) My contention that some of Obama's supporters are voting on personality, and have no idea what Obama's platform is.
(7) My contention that the vast majority of Obama's supporters hate President Bush, and, by extension, hate McCain.
So, I have a three-part challenge. Unfortunately, I have one reader, so this challenge is kind of moot. However, to my one reader, I advise to post this challenge to his friends.
Challenge, Part A - Name three of President Bush's failed policies. By "President Bush's failed policies" I mean something that the president or his cabinet, advisors, or the executive branch has done that has failed. I was going to say name something that has personally failed you, but I thought that might be too hard.
Challenge, Part B - Identify from Part A, the three failed policies of President Bush and indicate how McCain's policies are identical.
Challenge, Part C - Identify from Part A, the three failed policies of President Bush and explain how Obama's policies would work to solve such problems.
Here's an example, from me:
Part A - Bush delcared war and took over Iraq, resulting in soldiers' deaths and the continued occupation of Iraq for the foreseeable future.
Part B - McCain will continue to occupy Iraq for the foreseeable future.
Part C - Obama will pull out of Iraq... oh wait, he won't. He will continue to occupy Iraq if he becomes president.
See how easy it is? It's actually incredibly hard. It's hard to find something that Bush has "failed" at that will be changed by Obama and not changed by McCain.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
(sigh) Here we Go
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/16/obama-race-a-factor/
To suggest that race may be one of many factors in this election is understandable. To suggest that race is a major factor is probably not true. But, to suggest that persons who vote for John McCain are racist... that's irresponsible journalism and an affront to every person who believes in McCain's policies (or does not believe in Obama's policies). It doesn't make sense from a logic standpoint. If you believe that 99% of rascists in this country are Republican, then those people are not going to vote for a Democrat whether that person is a man, woman, white, black, Asian, whatever. So, logically, it doesn't make sense to say that the election hinges or is even related to, race. Seriously.
I'm in the vast minority of people these days who think that the presidential election is an election about issues, not about personalities. If I was voting purely on the man, I would vote for Obama. He's extremely charismatic, an excellent public speaker (the best in a long time), and intelligent.
Anyway, I'm not happy with this article. I'm even more appalled by the comments. Here are some of the more ridiculous ones:
Jack: It just might. The”white privilege” mindset is deeply imbeded in this country. Which ever way this election goes ,it will speak volumns of who we really are as a country. I think we might not be proud of what we see. - I'm not sure what the white privilege mindset is.
100% If Obama would be white and his name would be John Smith then McCain would have never ever a chance! !Many people will not vote for the issues but against a black president!!
If he gets in the white house theres a high risk of someone trying to kill him.
Race will be the deciding factor.To many banjos in your country.
Of course it could Jack. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see the difference in the two candidates age wise, intelligence wise, morality wise and competency wise.
Then the biggest of them all is policy wise which isn’t even close for the average American it is so far tilted in Obama’s favour.
Obama is so far out in front of McCain on all these fronts no color blind person could ever justify voting for someone that will almost certainly turn out to be worse than what you have had for the past 8 years.
Race has always been a factor in this race. The selection of Gov. Palin allows people to say that is is not. They can feel comfortable not voting for Senator Obama now because they can view themselves as still being progressive with a vote for Gov. Palin because she is a woman. Nothing in their limited worlds has to change because Gov. Palin is only second in command and her presence can be used to calm the natives.
I’m nearly 95% shore that it will!
If a white man was running McCain would only get the votes of the people he lives with.
The Nation has some growing up to do!
Doesn't that make you want to cry? I won't be voting for Obama, so I guess I'm a racsist.
To suggest that race may be one of many factors in this election is understandable. To suggest that race is a major factor is probably not true. But, to suggest that persons who vote for John McCain are racist... that's irresponsible journalism and an affront to every person who believes in McCain's policies (or does not believe in Obama's policies). It doesn't make sense from a logic standpoint. If you believe that 99% of rascists in this country are Republican, then those people are not going to vote for a Democrat whether that person is a man, woman, white, black, Asian, whatever. So, logically, it doesn't make sense to say that the election hinges or is even related to, race. Seriously.
I'm in the vast minority of people these days who think that the presidential election is an election about issues, not about personalities. If I was voting purely on the man, I would vote for Obama. He's extremely charismatic, an excellent public speaker (the best in a long time), and intelligent.
Anyway, I'm not happy with this article. I'm even more appalled by the comments. Here are some of the more ridiculous ones:
Jack: It just might. The”white privilege” mindset is deeply imbeded in this country. Which ever way this election goes ,it will speak volumns of who we really are as a country. I think we might not be proud of what we see. - I'm not sure what the white privilege mindset is.
100% If Obama would be white and his name would be John Smith then McCain would have never ever a chance! !Many people will not vote for the issues but against a black president!!
If he gets in the white house theres a high risk of someone trying to kill him.
Race will be the deciding factor.To many banjos in your country.
Of course it could Jack. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see the difference in the two candidates age wise, intelligence wise, morality wise and competency wise.
Then the biggest of them all is policy wise which isn’t even close for the average American it is so far tilted in Obama’s favour.
Obama is so far out in front of McCain on all these fronts no color blind person could ever justify voting for someone that will almost certainly turn out to be worse than what you have had for the past 8 years.
Race has always been a factor in this race. The selection of Gov. Palin allows people to say that is is not. They can feel comfortable not voting for Senator Obama now because they can view themselves as still being progressive with a vote for Gov. Palin because she is a woman. Nothing in their limited worlds has to change because Gov. Palin is only second in command and her presence can be used to calm the natives.
I’m nearly 95% shore that it will!
If a white man was running McCain would only get the votes of the people he lives with.
The Nation has some growing up to do!
Doesn't that make you want to cry? I won't be voting for Obama, so I guess I'm a racsist.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Hypocrisy
From my Dem friend's blog:
Million dollar crybaby
“Cindy McCain, wife of Republican presidential nominee John McCain, criticized the media at a weekend fundraiser, telling supporters that the hosts of The View “picked our bones clean.””
So…people who’s job it is to interview people, aren’t allowed to ask you questions? Which, unless I’m mistaken, is kind of the crux of what an interview is.
Don’t you just love how being asked questions is such an affront to this group?
From my response:
Yes, because only the Republicans complain about being asked questions. The Democrats invite questions and never complain. Exhibit A - Senator Obama's interview with (of all people) Katie Couric. Please, of all people who hate being asked questions, it's the Obama camp. The man believes he is annointed by God to be the president. And heaven forbid anyone question him.
Million dollar crybaby
“Cindy McCain, wife of Republican presidential nominee John McCain, criticized the media at a weekend fundraiser, telling supporters that the hosts of The View “picked our bones clean.””
So…people who’s job it is to interview people, aren’t allowed to ask you questions? Which, unless I’m mistaken, is kind of the crux of what an interview is.
Don’t you just love how being asked questions is such an affront to this group?
From my response:
Yes, because only the Republicans complain about being asked questions. The Democrats invite questions and never complain. Exhibit A - Senator Obama's interview with (of all people) Katie Couric. Please, of all people who hate being asked questions, it's the Obama camp. The man believes he is annointed by God to be the president. And heaven forbid anyone question him.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Stone Cold Morons
I don't understand some people.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/afc25cf0-827f-11dd-a019-000077b07658.html
Rather, I do understand some people, but I don't accept their points of view because they are stone cold morons.
Here are some good zingers from Obama supporters:
- Robert Spurrier - "I'm very worried because we've seen this movie before. The Republican attack machine shifts the election away from issues and turns it into a battle of personalities."
Wha? Huh? Guh? Buh? The Republicans turn the election away from issues? Please Bob. The biggest single personality in the election up until the Republican convention was Obama... no it's Palin. What? You can't take someone taking attention away from your Obama... your personality? Weak.
- Barack Obama - Mr. Obama warned that the Republicans were distorting his record and creating distractions to obscure their own failures but insisted the negative tactics that helped George W. Bush win the past two elections would fall short this year. "The times are too serious for those strategies to work this time."
Look, Senator. As far as I can tell, you guys started the mudslinging. You pointed out that McCain supported all of Bush's failed policies. That seems a negative tactic to me. So McCain says you don't have any leadership experience. Fairs fair my man.
- Eleanor Shavell - "I just do not trust the American people. I cannot believe that 80 per cent of this country thinks we're headed in the wrong direction yet 50 per cent are supporting McCain and Palin. I guess it's like at school, there's always got to be a bottom 50 per cent."
Yes, Eleanor. You guys are the bottom 50 percent. All obvious logical jokes aside (it's obvious because the race is 50-50 yet Eleanor makes a comment that 50% of the people are morons... clearly she's referring to the Republican 50%, not her 50%, but still... c'mon, I thought it was funny). Anyway, this is all part of the Democrat "woe is me" platform. It's never their own fault they lose elections. It's someone else's fault. Just like, "it's not your fault you lost your job, let the government pay for it" as a brief and crude example. Anyway, the Democrats should be looking at the following events as some indication of why they are where they are today:
(1) They chose an extremely liberal presidential nominee.
(2) The nominee is quite charismatic and popular, therefore potential voters are drawn to him.
(3) The nominee does not detail his plan to combat issues.
(4) The nominee consistently runs on "everything is bad right now, elect me and it will be better," and likens his opponent to the "bad" part.
(5) The opponent picks a charismatic VP.
(6) The nominee complains that they are not running on issues.
It just sickens me. The reason Obama won't run on the issues is because the issues are bad news for him. His policies, from what I can find on the intra-web thingy, are extremely liberal. I mean, McCain is more liberal than what I would like, but Obama is just ridiculous. He's socialist... really. Anyway, Obama ignores the issues and focuses on the popularity, rides that wave, until it crashes and now it's all about the issues with him. So annoying. Even more annoying is the stone cold morons that believe what Obama preaches. Please, you can support Obama, but at least speak for yourself.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/afc25cf0-827f-11dd-a019-000077b07658.html
Rather, I do understand some people, but I don't accept their points of view because they are stone cold morons.
Here are some good zingers from Obama supporters:
- Robert Spurrier - "I'm very worried because we've seen this movie before. The Republican attack machine shifts the election away from issues and turns it into a battle of personalities."
Wha? Huh? Guh? Buh? The Republicans turn the election away from issues? Please Bob. The biggest single personality in the election up until the Republican convention was Obama... no it's Palin. What? You can't take someone taking attention away from your Obama... your personality? Weak.
- Barack Obama - Mr. Obama warned that the Republicans were distorting his record and creating distractions to obscure their own failures but insisted the negative tactics that helped George W. Bush win the past two elections would fall short this year. "The times are too serious for those strategies to work this time."
Look, Senator. As far as I can tell, you guys started the mudslinging. You pointed out that McCain supported all of Bush's failed policies. That seems a negative tactic to me. So McCain says you don't have any leadership experience. Fairs fair my man.
- Eleanor Shavell - "I just do not trust the American people. I cannot believe that 80 per cent of this country thinks we're headed in the wrong direction yet 50 per cent are supporting McCain and Palin. I guess it's like at school, there's always got to be a bottom 50 per cent."
Yes, Eleanor. You guys are the bottom 50 percent. All obvious logical jokes aside (it's obvious because the race is 50-50 yet Eleanor makes a comment that 50% of the people are morons... clearly she's referring to the Republican 50%, not her 50%, but still... c'mon, I thought it was funny). Anyway, this is all part of the Democrat "woe is me" platform. It's never their own fault they lose elections. It's someone else's fault. Just like, "it's not your fault you lost your job, let the government pay for it" as a brief and crude example. Anyway, the Democrats should be looking at the following events as some indication of why they are where they are today:
(1) They chose an extremely liberal presidential nominee.
(2) The nominee is quite charismatic and popular, therefore potential voters are drawn to him.
(3) The nominee does not detail his plan to combat issues.
(4) The nominee consistently runs on "everything is bad right now, elect me and it will be better," and likens his opponent to the "bad" part.
(5) The opponent picks a charismatic VP.
(6) The nominee complains that they are not running on issues.
It just sickens me. The reason Obama won't run on the issues is because the issues are bad news for him. His policies, from what I can find on the intra-web thingy, are extremely liberal. I mean, McCain is more liberal than what I would like, but Obama is just ridiculous. He's socialist... really. Anyway, Obama ignores the issues and focuses on the popularity, rides that wave, until it crashes and now it's all about the issues with him. So annoying. Even more annoying is the stone cold morons that believe what Obama preaches. Please, you can support Obama, but at least speak for yourself.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Example and Retort
From a friend's blog (in Democrat blue) and my response (in Republican red):
Sep 5, 2008 11:03am
People will swallow anything because people are DUMB. Um, am I the only one thinking about Obama after this header? (To explain, people are swallowing Obama hook, line, and sinker because they don't know what he's actually going to do to them if he wins the presidency.)
“A week ago, most Americans had never heard of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. (about 3-4 years ago, no one had ever heard of Senator Obama until one really fantastic speech) Now, following a Vice Presidential acceptance speech viewed live by more than 40 million people, Palin is viewed favorably by 58% of American voters. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 37% hold an unfavorable view of the self-described hockey mom.
… Generally, John McCain’s choice of Palin earns slightly better reviews than Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden. “
GGGGGGGGGGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. My brain hurts. It hurts.
Here’s the worst part of this…the Right assumes the Left is attacking Palin for having a family or her daughter getting knocked up or killing a moose with her bare hands. That is incorrect. The media is digging and digging deep on her; the media does not equal the Democrats. (sure it does!... sorry, couldn't help myself) If there are any attacks coming from the Dems, it is soley on the point that she is inexperienced & unqualified to be PUSA when McCain catches a grabber. (unlike, say, a certain Democract presidential candidate... who is, of course, qualified (sarcasm), comparatively, considering he's held no executive office... ever... unlike Palin, who was actually a governor).
To my friend I say thusly:
(1) It's not like Palin is running for president. She's running for vice-president. The potential consequences of her inexperience ain't nuthin' compared to the potential consequences of Obama's inexperience... he's running for president. Additionally, Palin has had experience running something (Alaska), while Obama has not. I think Palin's comment on how being a governor is like being a community leader... except with actual responsibility... was good.
(2) People are stupid if they are voting for McCain because they like Palin because she made an excellent speech. Erego, people are stupid if they are voting for Obama simply because he is an excellent public speaker. I agree with both of those points.
(3) Long story short, I am on Obama's email list... so I get his staff's emails. The emails after Palin's speech were not good. They talked about how Palin attacked... wait for it... wait for it... wait for it... "Both Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin specifically mocked Barack's experience as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago more than two decades ago." and "They lied aobut Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and they attacked you for being a part of this campaign." Seriously. That's all they could come up with. Not good people, not good.
Sep 5, 2008 11:03am
People will swallow anything because people are DUMB. Um, am I the only one thinking about Obama after this header? (To explain, people are swallowing Obama hook, line, and sinker because they don't know what he's actually going to do to them if he wins the presidency.)
“A week ago, most Americans had never heard of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. (about 3-4 years ago, no one had ever heard of Senator Obama until one really fantastic speech) Now, following a Vice Presidential acceptance speech viewed live by more than 40 million people, Palin is viewed favorably by 58% of American voters. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 37% hold an unfavorable view of the self-described hockey mom.
… Generally, John McCain’s choice of Palin earns slightly better reviews than Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden. “
GGGGGGGGGGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. My brain hurts. It hurts.
Here’s the worst part of this…the Right assumes the Left is attacking Palin for having a family or her daughter getting knocked up or killing a moose with her bare hands. That is incorrect. The media is digging and digging deep on her; the media does not equal the Democrats. (sure it does!... sorry, couldn't help myself) If there are any attacks coming from the Dems, it is soley on the point that she is inexperienced & unqualified to be PUSA when McCain catches a grabber. (unlike, say, a certain Democract presidential candidate... who is, of course, qualified (sarcasm), comparatively, considering he's held no executive office... ever... unlike Palin, who was actually a governor).
To my friend I say thusly:
(1) It's not like Palin is running for president. She's running for vice-president. The potential consequences of her inexperience ain't nuthin' compared to the potential consequences of Obama's inexperience... he's running for president. Additionally, Palin has had experience running something (Alaska), while Obama has not. I think Palin's comment on how being a governor is like being a community leader... except with actual responsibility... was good.
(2) People are stupid if they are voting for McCain because they like Palin because she made an excellent speech. Erego, people are stupid if they are voting for Obama simply because he is an excellent public speaker. I agree with both of those points.
(3) Long story short, I am on Obama's email list... so I get his staff's emails. The emails after Palin's speech were not good. They talked about how Palin attacked... wait for it... wait for it... wait for it... "Both Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin specifically mocked Barack's experience as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago more than two decades ago." and "They lied aobut Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and they attacked you for being a part of this campaign." Seriously. That's all they could come up with. Not good people, not good.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
She was Great
Gotta say it, Governor Palin did a fantastic job last night.
My favorite quotes (not exactly quotes because I have a poor memory):
"Some candidates use change to promote their careers. And there are some candidates who use their careers to promote change."
"Being a mayor is like being a community leader, except with actual responsibility."
"Our opponent has authored two memoirs, but he has authored no major legislation."
My favorite quotes (not exactly quotes because I have a poor memory):
"Some candidates use change to promote their careers. And there are some candidates who use their careers to promote change."
"Being a mayor is like being a community leader, except with actual responsibility."
"Our opponent has authored two memoirs, but he has authored no major legislation."
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Dems Showing True Colors?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/03/mccain-camp-slams-faux-media-scandal/
All the articles I've seen about Governor Palin have been in regards to her not being able to do the job because (a) she is a woman, (b) she has a baby, and (c) her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. What do those things have to do with being a vice-president? Not really sure. And, here's my liberal media bias note of the week:
If Governor Palin was Senator Obama's VP nominee would (a) those three issues be issues and (b) would Obama call any criticism of her sexist and demeaning towards women? The answers are "no" and "yes." Here's what Senator Obama would say "The Republican Party's blatant attacks on Governor Palin are alarming. Republicans should be ashamed by the way they are treating a successful working mother. They are putting the womens movement back 50 years."
HAHAHAHAHAHA... eat that Democrats, you hypocritical jerks! Here's another question, why aren't people like Hillary Clinton and/or Nancy Pelosi saying anything?
All the articles I've seen about Governor Palin have been in regards to her not being able to do the job because (a) she is a woman, (b) she has a baby, and (c) her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. What do those things have to do with being a vice-president? Not really sure. And, here's my liberal media bias note of the week:
If Governor Palin was Senator Obama's VP nominee would (a) those three issues be issues and (b) would Obama call any criticism of her sexist and demeaning towards women? The answers are "no" and "yes." Here's what Senator Obama would say "The Republican Party's blatant attacks on Governor Palin are alarming. Republicans should be ashamed by the way they are treating a successful working mother. They are putting the womens movement back 50 years."
HAHAHAHAHAHA... eat that Democrats, you hypocritical jerks! Here's another question, why aren't people like Hillary Clinton and/or Nancy Pelosi saying anything?
WSJ's Opinion on Obama
Here's a good article I agree with:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122039919493892941.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122039919493892941.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Friday, August 29, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
I hope he wins...
I really do hope Senator Obama wins the election. I won't vote for him, because I think he's really going to hurt this country. I don't like McCain's domestic policies much either (as seen in previous posts), but it's the lesser of two evils. I just can't get behind a guy who is running a campaign based on popularity not policy. I understand that this is how elections are won (since the Kennedy-Nixon debate), but I would like to see Senator Obama speak about his policies to the undecided populace. He's supposedly going to do that tonight. I'm not holding my breath. So far, the people I know who like Obama are die-hard anti-Republicans ("Bush is the worst president in history and all Republicans are fascists") or are swept up in Obama-mania ("Like, dude, Obama is cool man"). The former always vote. I'll be very surprised if the latter do.
Anyway, I hope he wins because I kind of want to see what happens. I want to see what happens to the economy and to healthcare when a socialist is elected president. I want to see how other countries deal with him, especially our enemies. I want to see what kinds of judges he appoints. I want to see if he even does anything in the first place.
Anyway, I hope he wins because I kind of want to see what happens. I want to see what happens to the economy and to healthcare when a socialist is elected president. I want to see how other countries deal with him, especially our enemies. I want to see what kinds of judges he appoints. I want to see if he even does anything in the first place.
Friday, July 11, 2008
I Agree
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11658.html
I agree with Phil Gramm who said that the "economic downturn" is mental and that we are a nation of "whiners." Here's my take on this whole economic downturn thing. Is the economy not as good as it once was? All signs point to yes. Are people out of work? Sure, but compared to the really low unemployment rate all during Pres. Bush II's presidency, it just looks worse than it really is. I have a real-life example. I work in tax, and get to work on mergers and acquisitions and the like. During times of economic downturn, mergers and acquisitions is generally a quiet area... no companies want to buy other companies, they want to save their money. However, I have not been busier with mergers and acquisitions than I am right now. Not to mention, I'm busy in general, as a tax attorney, that's pretty weird in a time of economic downturn.
What troubles me is that everyone wants the government to fix things. I want people to fix things, not the government. Gas prices got you down? Don't drive, or trade in your gas guzzler for a more economical vehicle, or move to the city. Don't make the US government solve your problems for you. Don't whine.
I agree with Phil Gramm who said that the "economic downturn" is mental and that we are a nation of "whiners." Here's my take on this whole economic downturn thing. Is the economy not as good as it once was? All signs point to yes. Are people out of work? Sure, but compared to the really low unemployment rate all during Pres. Bush II's presidency, it just looks worse than it really is. I have a real-life example. I work in tax, and get to work on mergers and acquisitions and the like. During times of economic downturn, mergers and acquisitions is generally a quiet area... no companies want to buy other companies, they want to save their money. However, I have not been busier with mergers and acquisitions than I am right now. Not to mention, I'm busy in general, as a tax attorney, that's pretty weird in a time of economic downturn.
What troubles me is that everyone wants the government to fix things. I want people to fix things, not the government. Gas prices got you down? Don't drive, or trade in your gas guzzler for a more economical vehicle, or move to the city. Don't make the US government solve your problems for you. Don't whine.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Obama v. McCain - Round 4 - Retirement
I'm going to retire at some point. My ultimate goal is to not rely on government subsidies during retirement... it does not mean that I don't think I'm entitled to social security monies that I paid in (that's the point of the program).
McCain
McCain
- Meeting social security obligations to retirees and making the "hard decisions to restore the program's solvency without raising taxes." - YES By making hard decisions, he means cutting government programs.
- Personal investment accounts as part of Social Security reform. - YES I do not understand what the Dems find so bad about personal investment accounts.
- Lowering Medicare premiums through wider use of Medicare Advantage HMO plans. - NO I do not understand what this means.
- Eliminating the Medicare Part D prescription drug subsidies for the most affluent Americans and using the savings for the government retiree health program. YES To the eliminating Medicare Part D prescription drug subsidies. NO to the using savings for the government retiree health program.
Obama
- Maintaining the current retirement age. - NO It's stupid to have a "current retirement age" anyway, it should be whenever you retire.
- Extending the social security payroll tax beyond the first $102,000 of income made by a worker to help keep the program solvent - YES Meh.
- Blocking efforts to create private social security investment accounts. NO Capitalism and personal choice instead of government control? Please
- Automatic enrollment in company 401Ks or IRAs for employees not covered by 401K plans. - NO Government does not need to dip it's hand into 401Ks or IRAs.
- Elimination of income taxes for 7 million seniors making less than $50,000. YES I like less taxes.
- Bankruptcy code changes to keep companies from filing Chapter 11 to avoid pension obligations. NO You start messing with the bankruptcy code, bad stuff happens.
- Federal negotiation of drug prices for the Medicare Part D prescription drug program to help reduce costs for seniors. NO What does federal negotiation mean? "If you don't lower these prices, the rangers are coming for you.
McCain - 3 Yes, 2 No
Obama - 2 Yes, 5 No
McCain in a landslide. Looks like the old man is pulling ahead.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Great Stuff
I completely agree with this guy, especially the last few paragraphs:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/145155/page/1
The best part is: "People complain about governmental gridlock. But what often obstructs constructive change is public opinion. The stalemates on immigration and retirement spending are typical. We avoid messy problems; we embrace inconsistent and unrealistic ambitions. We want more health care and lower health costs; cheap energy and less dependence on foreign energy; more government spending and lower taxes. The more unattainable our goals, the more we blame "special interests," "lobbyists" and other easy scapegoats. "
Yeah, no kidding boss. It's not "what can I do for myself" anymore, it's "what can the government do for me."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/145155/page/1
The best part is: "People complain about governmental gridlock. But what often obstructs constructive change is public opinion. The stalemates on immigration and retirement spending are typical. We avoid messy problems; we embrace inconsistent and unrealistic ambitions. We want more health care and lower health costs; cheap energy and less dependence on foreign energy; more government spending and lower taxes. The more unattainable our goals, the more we blame "special interests," "lobbyists" and other easy scapegoats. "
Yeah, no kidding boss. It's not "what can I do for myself" anymore, it's "what can the government do for me."
Obama v. McCain - Round 3 - Energy
The preface for this topic is as follows: I'm all for new and improved and clean fuels. However, what I am against is government subsidies vis-a-vis new and improved and clean fuels. I think companies/consumers should take care of this themselves. GM should make electric cars, so that they don't go out of business (for example). I'm not overly concerned about the environment because it has not yet affected me.
Obama
Obama
- A $150 billion investment over 10 years to promot biofuels and fuel infrastructure, plug-in hybrids, commercial-scale renewable energy development, low-emissions coal plants and a new digital electricity grid. - NO I'm all for these things. However, I have a feeling the $150 billion investment is actually not an investment (i.e. there is no cash return to me). Therefore, I'm against this.
- Creation of a Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund by investing $10 billion a year for five years to fill a gap in US technology development - NO See above.
- Partnering with existing investment funds and national laboratories to ensure promising technologies are commercialized - NO The investment funds and laboratories can commericialize the products themselves. If the government needs to help commercialize something, it probably should not be commercialized.
- Keep nuclear power an option as long as there is nuclear fuel and waste security, waste storage, and the public has information regarding the facility. - YES I'm fine with nuclear power and the safety thereof.
- A windfall profits tax on oil companies to help Americans pay their heating and cooling bills and reduce energy costs. - NO I'm against windfall profits taxes in general (see previous posts). I'm also questioning the "help Americans pay" part. The government should not help Americans pay for anything, and, further, I question whether Americans will actually see money from the windfall profits tax or if they will just go into the US coffers.
- Doubling fuel economy standards within 18 years. - YES I'm fine with this generally.
McCain
- Temporarily suspending the 18.4 cent federal gasoline tax and the 24.4 cent diesel fuel tax to help motorists offset rising fuel prices. - YES I'm all for reduced taxes. However, someone needs to point out that a reduction in taxes does not necessarily mean a reduction in fuel prices. Let's say fuel costs $5.00 a gallon plus $.18 and $.24 in taxes (so totaling $5.42 per gallon). There is no guarantee that upon the suspension of the taxes the gas station's charge to you the consumer will be $5.00.
- Encouraging private sector efforts to develop alternative fuels made from corn, sugar, switch grass, natural gas, and waste products. - NO Stop giving people money!
- Expansion of nuclear power as a way to generate energy without producing greenhouse gases. - YES See above re: Obama
- Developing clean coal technology to avoid emitting excessive greenhouse gases. - NO Mostly because this probably means giving coal companies money. I'm not for that.
- Encouraging a market-based approach to setting "reasonable caps" or limits on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change; providing industries with credits they can trade on the open markets for a profit. - NO Tax credits are great, except what they really involve is giving companies money, which, in case you haven't noticed, I'm against.
Obama - 2 yes, 4 no
McCain - 2 yes, 3 no
Again, McCain by a nose. McCain now leads, barely, through three rounds of "economy."
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Obama v. McCain - Round 2 - Jobs and Foreign Trade
Let me preface this section by saying that (1) I have a job and I like it and (2) Anything that makes stuff cheaper, I'm all for.
McCain
McCain
- Eliminating US tariffs on agricultural imports. YES (this will make stuff cheaper by more competition)
- Phasing out unneeded farm subsidies. YES (make the US farmers compete a little)
- Providing assistance to older workers who accept lower-paying jobs while they acquire new skills at community colleges and technical schools. NO (I want to like this, but I can't help but think of welfare. Save your money, go back to school, get your job. You didn't pay for me to go to school, I'm not paying for you to go to school).
- Consolidation of the half-dozen federal job-training programs. YES
- More H1-B VISAs for educated, skilled foreign workers. YES (although, I'm for letting anyone in who wants to come in... illegal, legal, martians, whatever)
Obama
- Trade agreements that open foreign markets to US goods and include labor and environmental standards. YES (More money for the US)
- Amending NAFTA so it works better for Americans. Um... YES (I have no idea what "better for Americans" means
- Extending the Trade Adjustment Assistance program which trains workers dislocated by trade, to service workers, creating flexible education accounts to help workers retrain; funding retraining workers in sectors vulnerable to dislocation before they lose their jobs. YES (This calls for an explanation... I'd rather spend my taxes training someone to work than paying them to not work. Ideally they figure it out for themselves, but that's never going to happen again.)
- Providing assistance to the US auto-industry to ensure new fuel-efficient vehicles are built by American workers. NO (The auto-industry can do this themselves. I ain't paying money to them to do it. Self-correction through capitalism baby).
- Investing in science, technology and renewable energy to create jobs. YES (Sure, why not. I like science and technology and renewable energy. I only hope invest means there will be some return, as opposed to "here's some money, you can keep it forever.")
- Strengthening the right to organize unions, banning permanent replacement of striking workers, increasing the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation. NO (The first part is fluff... unions have the right to organize, there is no permanent replacement for striking workers as it is already illegal... I studied this stuff in law school. Since I don't believe there should be a minimum wage, at least nationally, I disagree with the second part as well.)
McCain - 4 yes, 1 no
Obama - 4 yes, 2 no
McCain by a hair in the second round. Although, it was probably more than a hair since the two things I disagree with Obama on are both hot button type issues for me.
Monday, July 07, 2008
Obama v. McCain - Round 1 - Health Care
My feelings on socialized health care are as follows: DO NOT DO IT! I have some experience as my dad's a doctor, I've followed the issue, and I used to do some healthcare work. I would venture to say that the vast majority of Americans who have healthcare would prefer to have the high quality remain, rather than be subject to government-regulated healthcare. Anyway, here's the deal.
Obama
Obama
- Make affordable and quality coverage available through a mix of private insurance and expanded public programs, with employers offering health benefits or constributing a percenage of the payroll to finance the new public programs. - Federal health care? Yeah, sounds like it - NO
- Requiring all children to have health insurance. - NO
- Allowing Americans up to age 25 to continue family coverage through their parents plans. - This should end at age 18 or upon graduation from college. - NO
- Banning insurers from denying insurance coverage because of illness or pre-existing conditions. - YES (although watch out for rising insurance costs commensurate with this)
- Allowing Americans to buy lower-priced medications from other developed countries such as Canada if the drugs are safe. - YES (a thousand times yes!)
- Letting the government negotiate with drug companies to get better prices on prescription drugs for seniors under the Medicare Part D program - YES (I'm all good with more competition and lower prices)
McCain
- Allowing consumers to purchase health insurance nationwide, across state lines, to maximize choice, heighten competition and help businesses reduce overhead, administrative, and compensation costs. - YES (competition!)
- Expanding Health Savings Accounts for families. - YES (although they are government sponsored)
- Providing federal assistance to states so they can create high-risk pools that would contract with insurers to cover consumers who have been denied health coverage on the open market. - NO
- Lowering drug costs through safe re-importation of less expensive drugs from Canada and elsewhere. - YES
- Passing medical liability reform that eliminates lawsuits directed at doctors who follow clinical guidelines and adhere to safety protocols. - NO (you would think YES, except that I'm a lawyer and I hate laws that prohibit lawyering).
Obama - 3 yes, 3 no
McCain -3 yes, 2 no
McCain by a nose in the first round. Also, tell me you think Obama's rhetoric on the subject matches his plan... it doesn't.
Good Stuff
MSN.com has a great comparison of Obama and McCain on a variety of issues. I'll handle one issue per candidate per day... see what stuff I agree with.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/StockInvestingTrading/ObamaOnTheEconomyCampaign2008_SeriesHome.aspx
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/StockInvestingTrading/ObamaOnTheEconomyCampaign2008_SeriesHome.aspx
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
In the News Today
So, evidently the ACLU is not pleased with the Dems either.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9744092
Good. I hate that free speech is the Dems' hot button issue.
Here's another good one:
http://www.observer.com/2008/style/one-more-reason-hollywood-support-obama
I think my favorite part is that the New York Observer thought that Baldwin was serious, as opposed to, say, making fun of his brother and other Hollywood types. My lord, the people in this country are so stupid sometimes.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9744092
Good. I hate that free speech is the Dems' hot button issue.
Here's another good one:
http://www.observer.com/2008/style/one-more-reason-hollywood-support-obama
I think my favorite part is that the New York Observer thought that Baldwin was serious, as opposed to, say, making fun of his brother and other Hollywood types. My lord, the people in this country are so stupid sometimes.
Friday, June 27, 2008
I Can't Believe Those Jerks Made Money
So, I just paid $45 to fill up my tank on my 2003 Hyundai Elantra (regular, in New Jersey, which means cheapest gas within my reach). The point of that sentence is to let you, my reader(s), know that I'm affected by the gas prices, so it's not like I'm talking out of my proverbial butt here.
Anyway, Congress is considering penalizing oil executives for... brace yourself... making money. There are so many things wrong with that, I'm not sure where to start.
(1) I'm pretty sure it's unfair to tax five companies more than similarly situated companies (i.e. it's fair to tax all companies who make $1 million more than all companies who make $500 thousand, but it's not fair to tax all oil companies who make $1 million more than all other companies who make $1 million). I could be wrong about this, but anyway.
(2) I heard on a radio show earlier this week, that the Democrat who is sponsoring this bill stated something to the effect that he would like to penalize ALL companies who make "windfall profits," at the expense of the American people. I'm really scared that people will start supporting this because they want to pay less for gas, bread, milk, iPods, personal computers, cars, etc., etc. "But Nick, what's wrong with that? I want to pay less for those things." Yeah, so do I, but I don't want the government "helping" me with that. I can do that by shopping at cheaper places, buying gas in New Jersey (or not driving as much), buying bread and milk at Superfresh instead of Wegman's, not buying iPods, buying cheap personal computers and cars, et. al. Capitalism tends to take care of things like that.
(3) That last sentence leads me to my next point. I'm all for cheaper ways to get around. I just want people to invent things themselves. Electric cars will catch on if gas prices keep rising. It's just natural capitalism.
(4) If this gas company penalty somehow gets passed, I'm going to ask my Congressman to propose a bill that penalizes members of Congress. Those guys get paid WAY too much money and I'm footing the bill! (By the way, that's irony... I'm trying to be ironic... nevermind).
Anyway, Congress is considering penalizing oil executives for... brace yourself... making money. There are so many things wrong with that, I'm not sure where to start.
(1) I'm pretty sure it's unfair to tax five companies more than similarly situated companies (i.e. it's fair to tax all companies who make $1 million more than all companies who make $500 thousand, but it's not fair to tax all oil companies who make $1 million more than all other companies who make $1 million). I could be wrong about this, but anyway.
(2) I heard on a radio show earlier this week, that the Democrat who is sponsoring this bill stated something to the effect that he would like to penalize ALL companies who make "windfall profits," at the expense of the American people. I'm really scared that people will start supporting this because they want to pay less for gas, bread, milk, iPods, personal computers, cars, etc., etc. "But Nick, what's wrong with that? I want to pay less for those things." Yeah, so do I, but I don't want the government "helping" me with that. I can do that by shopping at cheaper places, buying gas in New Jersey (or not driving as much), buying bread and milk at Superfresh instead of Wegman's, not buying iPods, buying cheap personal computers and cars, et. al. Capitalism tends to take care of things like that.
(3) That last sentence leads me to my next point. I'm all for cheaper ways to get around. I just want people to invent things themselves. Electric cars will catch on if gas prices keep rising. It's just natural capitalism.
(4) If this gas company penalty somehow gets passed, I'm going to ask my Congressman to propose a bill that penalizes members of Congress. Those guys get paid WAY too much money and I'm footing the bill! (By the way, that's irony... I'm trying to be ironic... nevermind).
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
I couldn't resist
After reading the below, I could not resist adding another post today.
http://mobile.adage.com/site?sid=adage&pid=JuicerHub&targetUrl=http://adage.com//campaigntrail/post?article_id=127973
So, MTV is going to "finally" put up some campaign ads? I have two reactions to this: (1) MTV shows are one long campaign ad for whomever the Democratic nominee happens to be... just watch the channel. They have no interest in being fair and impartial. Some may argue they shouldn't have to be, I would say different, especially when they couch their political views as "news." Ah well. Additionally, please note the P. Diddy "vote or die" campaign that just happened to coincide with the election preceding the second term of President Bush. What a coincidence... which leads me to my next point, (2) You think MTV's "finally" delving into campaign ads has something to do with Barack Obama running for president? Of course it does, he's a popular guy with the young people in this country, very charismatic and intelligent guy. He'll do well with the MTV viewers... although, I don't know if those people vote.
http://mobile.adage.com/site?sid=adage&pid=JuicerHub&targetUrl=http://adage.com//campaigntrail/post?article_id=127973
So, MTV is going to "finally" put up some campaign ads? I have two reactions to this: (1) MTV shows are one long campaign ad for whomever the Democratic nominee happens to be... just watch the channel. They have no interest in being fair and impartial. Some may argue they shouldn't have to be, I would say different, especially when they couch their political views as "news." Ah well. Additionally, please note the P. Diddy "vote or die" campaign that just happened to coincide with the election preceding the second term of President Bush. What a coincidence... which leads me to my next point, (2) You think MTV's "finally" delving into campaign ads has something to do with Barack Obama running for president? Of course it does, he's a popular guy with the young people in this country, very charismatic and intelligent guy. He'll do well with the MTV viewers... although, I don't know if those people vote.
I'm BACK!!!
Yes, for my one reader, I am back. Here's what prompted me to come back:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080625/D91H2TT80.html
So, evidently, Congress is seriously considering passing a bill that would give money to people so they could afford to buy homes. Ostensibly, this came up because of the foreclosure "crisis." In reality, this is more like a "let's get some more votes" ploy. It's not going to work for me.
I rented an apartment for about a year once I graduated from law school. When I could afford it, I purchased a house with a mortgage. I made sure that the house I purchased was within my means to afford. I made sure that I could afford the mortgage payments based on my salary at the time I purchased the house. I did not purchase a house beyond my means.
So, evidently, a number of people purchased homes which they could not afford to make mortgage payments on. "But Nick, they had adjustible rates!" Yes, this is true, but if you know you can't afford House X unless you had an adjustible rate mortgage, wouldn't you purchase House Y instead? So that you knew you could afford the house?
Anyway, so, now the federal government is going to take my tax dollars to bail out people who bought houses they couldn't afford. That's the long and short of it. I think it's despicable. What happened to personal responsibility in this country? Seriously. People now know that they can buy stuff they can't afford and the government will take care of them. Isn't that socialism?
Tomorrow... Nick addresses the rising cost of gas and what to do to fix it.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080625/D91H2TT80.html
So, evidently, Congress is seriously considering passing a bill that would give money to people so they could afford to buy homes. Ostensibly, this came up because of the foreclosure "crisis." In reality, this is more like a "let's get some more votes" ploy. It's not going to work for me.
I rented an apartment for about a year once I graduated from law school. When I could afford it, I purchased a house with a mortgage. I made sure that the house I purchased was within my means to afford. I made sure that I could afford the mortgage payments based on my salary at the time I purchased the house. I did not purchase a house beyond my means.
So, evidently, a number of people purchased homes which they could not afford to make mortgage payments on. "But Nick, they had adjustible rates!" Yes, this is true, but if you know you can't afford House X unless you had an adjustible rate mortgage, wouldn't you purchase House Y instead? So that you knew you could afford the house?
Anyway, so, now the federal government is going to take my tax dollars to bail out people who bought houses they couldn't afford. That's the long and short of it. I think it's despicable. What happened to personal responsibility in this country? Seriously. People now know that they can buy stuff they can't afford and the government will take care of them. Isn't that socialism?
Tomorrow... Nick addresses the rising cost of gas and what to do to fix it.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
End of The Blog and the Beast?
Yes and no.
As you can tell, I haven't written in a while. Mostly because I'm busy, partly because I've been trying my hand at creatively writing (and I'm not ready to share that with the public).
Anyway, some issues:
(1) Keke's wedding - Much fun was had by all. Despite drinking between 15 and 20 Lagers, I had no hangover (huh?)
(2) Economic stimulus - I like the tax breaks. I don't like the govmint getting involved in my bizness.
(3) Joker is dead - I just learned that Heath Ledger died today, apparently from a drug overdose. How long before the "he got too into his Joker persona" stuff starts coming out? His regimin for getting into character was ridiculous, or so I hear.
(4) New music I'm listening to - Smog (late 90s indie group I think) - great, great stuff.
As you can tell, I haven't written in a while. Mostly because I'm busy, partly because I've been trying my hand at creatively writing (and I'm not ready to share that with the public).
Anyway, some issues:
(1) Keke's wedding - Much fun was had by all. Despite drinking between 15 and 20 Lagers, I had no hangover (huh?)
(2) Economic stimulus - I like the tax breaks. I don't like the govmint getting involved in my bizness.
(3) Joker is dead - I just learned that Heath Ledger died today, apparently from a drug overdose. How long before the "he got too into his Joker persona" stuff starts coming out? His regimin for getting into character was ridiculous, or so I hear.
(4) New music I'm listening to - Smog (late 90s indie group I think) - great, great stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)