I keep seeing the GOP primaries and the percentages for each of the contestants and wonder if anyone else notes the real problem.
For instance, in Iowa Santorum won with 24.6%. That means that 75.4% preferred someone else, and that was for the winner! Three quarters of those involved didn't like Santorum and he was the winner.
Now, let's go on to the next one, that would be New Hampshire. In N.H. Romney received 39.3% and won but that just means that 60.7% voted against him, and he was the winner.
How about South Carolina? Gingrich won S.C. with 40.4% of the vote which means that 59.6 preferred someone else.
Let's stop here for a second and observe that there have been no repeats in the winners and the average winner only received 34.8% of the votes, which again means that 65.2% of the voters didn't like the winner . . . on average.
Now we will be seeing what happens to the numbers when the list shortens to just 4 contestants.
At the end of January, everyone went to Florida, which seems like a good place to go on January 31. There we had a repeat, Romney. He got 46.4% of the votes and 53.6% went for someone else and this was without the dilution of having 7 people in the race.
Next, we went to the Nevada caucuses on February 4. There Romney won with the first ever 50.0% majority.
On Feb. 7, we had the three caucuses in Missouri, Colorado and Minnesota. Rick Santorum won all three by 55.2%, 40.3% and 44.8% respectively. That was the highest percentage(55.2%) so far and it was in Missouri where no delegates were at stake.
In Maine on February 11, Romney won again but by only 39.2%. Again, lots of folks voted another way.
So far, on average, the winner of the various GOP primaries have won with only 42.2% on average. That means the vast majority of participants voted for someone other than the winner.
What you have just seen is only a small part of the real story. The number of actual voters is the big story. Normally about 25% of the voters participating in the general election for President show up for the primaries/caucuses. But this time only 17.7% showed up in Iowa and NO PREFERENCE beat out two of the participants. In Maine, less than 2% of the normal number of voters from 2008 showed up to vote in the primaries.
I just don't see a lot of enthusiasm for any of the GOP roster.
Sources:
Associated Press via Google
http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/
Showing posts with label Political Analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political Analysis. Show all posts
Friday, February 17, 2012
Who Came Up With This?
The other day I saw a Pontiac Aztec going along the highway. It occurred to me that it was a really ugly car . . . in my opinion. Then I said to myself, being a salesman, "Someone had to sell that car." Not just to the final consumer but to the execs at General Motors. Someone had to convince his boss that that was the greatest thing on four wheels. Then the boss had to convince his boss and so on up to the top before they committed financial resources to build the Aztec. What SALESMEN/WOMEN these people must have been.
Now, here comes this years crop of Republicans. They seem to have recently adopted an anti-contraceptives platform. "Let's be against contraception" they have decided. Now I wonder, "Who sold that idea to them? Must have been one hell of a salesman."
The only ones that seem to really be against any form of contraception are the only ones that don't/shouldn't need it . . . the Catholic Clergy.
The way to really turn the people against you is to come out against the one thing that most of us enjoy . . . male/female SEX. Among the Catholics, 98% use some sort of contraception. That leaves the 2% that are either clergy or they lie about it, or clergy that lie about it.
The one thing that could really do-in the Republicans is being against contraception or an easy way to pay for it.
Let's see what happens to it in the near future. Then let's see what they can come up with next to be against, maybe some other form of recreation, Face Book, Twitter, Bridge? Who knows what the desperate will come up with next? And, yes . . . that is what the GOP is . . . DESPERATE!
You gotta read the next post to find out how desperate they really are.
Now, here comes this years crop of Republicans. They seem to have recently adopted an anti-contraceptives platform. "Let's be against contraception" they have decided. Now I wonder, "Who sold that idea to them? Must have been one hell of a salesman."
The only ones that seem to really be against any form of contraception are the only ones that don't/shouldn't need it . . . the Catholic Clergy.
The way to really turn the people against you is to come out against the one thing that most of us enjoy . . . male/female SEX. Among the Catholics, 98% use some sort of contraception. That leaves the 2% that are either clergy or they lie about it, or clergy that lie about it.
The one thing that could really do-in the Republicans is being against contraception or an easy way to pay for it.
Let's see what happens to it in the near future. Then let's see what they can come up with next to be against, maybe some other form of recreation, Face Book, Twitter, Bridge? Who knows what the desperate will come up with next? And, yes . . . that is what the GOP is . . . DESPERATE!
You gotta read the next post to find out how desperate they really are.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
On A Recent Recess Appointment
The first recess appointment by a President was made by President George Washington in 1795 and that practice has continued since.
More recently, President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, and as of January 5, 2012, President Barack Obama had made 32 recess appointments.
Sources:
Henry B. Hogue; Richard S. Beth. "Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions" (pdf). Congressional Research Service.
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP%2BP%5CW%3B%20P%20%20%0A. Retrieved 4 January 2012
The question arises from the fact that the present “Do Nothing” Congress, with an approval rating in the single digits, had failed to approve a head for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau after several months. Exposing the Republican’s desire to NOT have consumer’s finances protected from banks, loan associations or any other group out to cheat the public. The Republicans didn’t even want that bureau to exist so the best bet was for them to continue to filibuster any appointments to head it. To try to thwart any appointments, the Republicans did a pro forma opening of the Senate. They opened it and left it open with no business being done and no one there to perform any business or to give “Advise and Consent.” They had to do this every three days to make it work. President Obama appointed John Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau anyway. The Republicans have objected ever since but none have taken him to court on it. More “Sound and fury . . . signifying nothing.”
On January 6th, 2012, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion regarding recess appointments and pro forma sessions, stating that "The convening of periodic pro forma sessions in which no business is to be conducted does not have the legal effect of interrupting an intrasession recess otherwise long enough to qualify as a "Recess of the Senate" under the Recess Appointments Clause. In this context, the President therefore has discretion to conclude that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advise-and-consent function and to exercise his power to make recess appointments."
Sources:
http://www.justice.gov/olc/memoranda-opinions.html
http://www.justice.gov/olc/2012/pro-forma-sessions-opinion.pdf
In case anyone is interested, President Barack Obama knows the Constitution, he was a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.
More recently, President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, and as of January 5, 2012, President Barack Obama had made 32 recess appointments.
Sources:
Henry B. Hogue; Richard S. Beth. "Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions" (pdf). Congressional Research Service.
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP%2BP%5CW%3B%20P%20%20%0A. Retrieved 4 January 2012
The question arises from the fact that the present “Do Nothing” Congress, with an approval rating in the single digits, had failed to approve a head for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau after several months. Exposing the Republican’s desire to NOT have consumer’s finances protected from banks, loan associations or any other group out to cheat the public. The Republicans didn’t even want that bureau to exist so the best bet was for them to continue to filibuster any appointments to head it. To try to thwart any appointments, the Republicans did a pro forma opening of the Senate. They opened it and left it open with no business being done and no one there to perform any business or to give “Advise and Consent.” They had to do this every three days to make it work. President Obama appointed John Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau anyway. The Republicans have objected ever since but none have taken him to court on it. More “Sound and fury . . . signifying nothing.”
On January 6th, 2012, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion regarding recess appointments and pro forma sessions, stating that "The convening of periodic pro forma sessions in which no business is to be conducted does not have the legal effect of interrupting an intrasession recess otherwise long enough to qualify as a "Recess of the Senate" under the Recess Appointments Clause. In this context, the President therefore has discretion to conclude that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advise-and-consent function and to exercise his power to make recess appointments."
Sources:
http://www.justice.gov/olc/memoranda-opinions.html
http://www.justice.gov/olc/2012/pro-forma-sessions-opinion.pdf
In case anyone is interested, President Barack Obama knows the Constitution, he was a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Fact Free Politics
Ever since Obama chose to run for President, the U. S. has experienced fact free politics. A culture where UNTRUTH has triumphed over facts, references and sources. And, all this has been promoted by an enthusiastic, deliberate and systematic campaign to destroy Barack Obama's presidency before it even got started. The economic collapse was answered with emergency measures, a bank bailout, an auto bailout and the stimulus package.
While almost identical to Mitt Romney's health reform in Massachusetts, and far to the Right of the Clinton's in the '90s, Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will actually reduce the deficit. That while placing millions more within the program and providing insurance and drug companies with more customers. That was all turned into a Socialist Governmental take-over.
All of these moves could be held as detrimental in lots of ways but what you cannot do is say they portray Obama as an ultra Socialist anti-American who is taking the U. S. down a path to oblivion. Fox News, Rush, Sean, Michael, Glen and various others have put that in our heads day and night for so long, it almost seems true . . . ALMOST!
If a Republican President had stepped up and helped turn around our financial institutions, our auto industries and done that profitably while insuring millions within the private sector, cut Medicare fraud and misuse, overseen a decline in illegal immigration, started a pull out from Iraq, set up a debt commission to reduce future debt, and seen job growth within a deliberate recovery . . . I don't think that Republican President would be referred to as a Socialist. Yet, because the President is a Democrat, that is exactly what has happened.
The BIG LIE is nothing but a bunch of little lies--"Death panels, out of control spending, climate change is a myth, Obama will take your guns away, a tax on financial transactions, average Federal employees make $120,000 per year, $200,000,000 per day to travel to India, rationed health care, Obama was born in Kenya, Obama is a Muslim, Obama is a radical Christian, Obama is an atheist," and oh so many more. It is the onslaught of all the little stuff that makes the BIG LIE, the accumulated lie. This all got into the minds of the people and became, at first, plausible, then possible, then probable and later true because they never let up and never varied in their talking points. And, none of this was officially refuted. A lie told long enough becomes the truth, someone said.
Don't let them get away with it. Look things up, check it out for yourself and call them on it. Ask for references, as for sources, ask where they read it, heard it and who wrote it or said it.
You might ask me, "They are all lying, isn't there a law against that?" For the answer to that you really need to go to:
http://swoopsfromsnowyowl.blogspot.com/2010/06/isnt-there-law-against-that.html
While almost identical to Mitt Romney's health reform in Massachusetts, and far to the Right of the Clinton's in the '90s, Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will actually reduce the deficit. That while placing millions more within the program and providing insurance and drug companies with more customers. That was all turned into a Socialist Governmental take-over.
All of these moves could be held as detrimental in lots of ways but what you cannot do is say they portray Obama as an ultra Socialist anti-American who is taking the U. S. down a path to oblivion. Fox News, Rush, Sean, Michael, Glen and various others have put that in our heads day and night for so long, it almost seems true . . . ALMOST!
If a Republican President had stepped up and helped turn around our financial institutions, our auto industries and done that profitably while insuring millions within the private sector, cut Medicare fraud and misuse, overseen a decline in illegal immigration, started a pull out from Iraq, set up a debt commission to reduce future debt, and seen job growth within a deliberate recovery . . . I don't think that Republican President would be referred to as a Socialist. Yet, because the President is a Democrat, that is exactly what has happened.
The BIG LIE is nothing but a bunch of little lies--"Death panels, out of control spending, climate change is a myth, Obama will take your guns away, a tax on financial transactions, average Federal employees make $120,000 per year, $200,000,000 per day to travel to India, rationed health care, Obama was born in Kenya, Obama is a Muslim, Obama is a radical Christian, Obama is an atheist," and oh so many more. It is the onslaught of all the little stuff that makes the BIG LIE, the accumulated lie. This all got into the minds of the people and became, at first, plausible, then possible, then probable and later true because they never let up and never varied in their talking points. And, none of this was officially refuted. A lie told long enough becomes the truth, someone said.
Don't let them get away with it. Look things up, check it out for yourself and call them on it. Ask for references, as for sources, ask where they read it, heard it and who wrote it or said it.
You might ask me, "They are all lying, isn't there a law against that?" For the answer to that you really need to go to:
http://swoopsfromsnowyowl.blogspot.com/2010/06/isnt-there-law-against-that.html
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Is a Gerrymander An Amphibian?
Way back in 1812, Elbridge Gerry, then the Governor of Massachusetts, was in charge of redividing the districts of his state after the census of 1810. Governor Gerry decided to reshape districts to gain political advantage. When he did, one came out with a strange shape that looked like a salamander. That was renamed by the local newspaper into a "Gerry" mander and has stuck for the past hundred and eighty eight years. So to "Gerrymander" is to redistrict for political advantage making strange shapes out of districts.
That is why electing a Governor from your party is important in the years after a census is taken. That Governor can dictate the way your state is represented for the next ten years. He/She can give his opposition a funny shaped district and confine all those against him into one district while giving his compatriots five districts or more. In some cases a Governor can put all his opposition into a minority in several districts.
In Arkansas, we have a strong Democrat as Governor, but in some other states the voters don't realize yet that the future of their state and their representation for the next ten years rests with who they elect Governor.
Only two states, Arkansas and New York, have strong Democrats that should be re-elected. The Republican in New York is Carl Paladino, the guy that Andrew Coumo should beat easily. Those two states plus seven holdovers will give the Democrats only nine states for sure.
The Republicans, on the other hand, have six holdovers and eleven solidly going to them. That will give the Republicans a solid seventeen states to redistrict. The leaning states are six for the Democrats and ten for the Republicans. If that stays accurate, that will give the Democrats fifteen states and the Republicans twenty seven states to redistrict to their advantage. The tossup states for Governor number eight. If the Democrats take all of them, and they won't, they can't catch the Republicans in number of states they can redistrict.
No one has really brought this to the attention of the voters this year and it is very important that people know. Unfortunately this blog is about a week late and reaches far too few to make a difference, but be aware, those Governors we elect this year are important, not only now but for the next ten years.
That's just another reason to be well informed.
(For more on this subject, go to;
www.redistrictingthenation.com/
That is why electing a Governor from your party is important in the years after a census is taken. That Governor can dictate the way your state is represented for the next ten years. He/She can give his opposition a funny shaped district and confine all those against him into one district while giving his compatriots five districts or more. In some cases a Governor can put all his opposition into a minority in several districts.
In Arkansas, we have a strong Democrat as Governor, but in some other states the voters don't realize yet that the future of their state and their representation for the next ten years rests with who they elect Governor.
Only two states, Arkansas and New York, have strong Democrats that should be re-elected. The Republican in New York is Carl Paladino, the guy that Andrew Coumo should beat easily. Those two states plus seven holdovers will give the Democrats only nine states for sure.
The Republicans, on the other hand, have six holdovers and eleven solidly going to them. That will give the Republicans a solid seventeen states to redistrict. The leaning states are six for the Democrats and ten for the Republicans. If that stays accurate, that will give the Democrats fifteen states and the Republicans twenty seven states to redistrict to their advantage. The tossup states for Governor number eight. If the Democrats take all of them, and they won't, they can't catch the Republicans in number of states they can redistrict.
No one has really brought this to the attention of the voters this year and it is very important that people know. Unfortunately this blog is about a week late and reaches far too few to make a difference, but be aware, those Governors we elect this year are important, not only now but for the next ten years.
That's just another reason to be well informed.
(For more on this subject, go to;
www.redistrictingthenation.com/
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Senate Races To Watch on November 2nd
The big Mid-Term Elections are on November 2nd and here are the Senate Races you need to watch Tuesday night.
In Washington State:
Dino Rossi (R)
Patty Murray (D)
Patty Murray is the incumbent and hold a very slight lead over Dino Rossi. That lead is about 48% to 46% at this time but we have a week to go and this one could go either way.
In Nevada:
Sharron Angle (R)
Harry Reid (D)
Jerry Carter (I)
Jeffery Durbin (I)
Wil Stand (NONE)
Scott Ashjian (T) [Tea Party of Nevada]
Recently the polls have gone back and forth with Ms. Angle recently taking a small lead but still about 47% to 45%.
In Colorado:
Ken Buck (R)
Michael Bennet (D)
Bennet and Buck have been in a dead heat tied at 47% for the last 2 weeks. The decision will be made when it is decided who screwed up most/least.
In Illinois:
Mark Kirk (R)
Alan Giannoulias (D)
LeAlan Jones (G) [Green]
Michael Labno (L) [Libertarian]
Alyson Kennedy (S) [Socialist Workers] {Write-in}
Mark Kirk has been consistently ahead for the past month but still within each polls margin of error. So for all practical purposes it is still a tossup. The problem here is the Green/Libertarian/Socialist dilution of voters. That makes it very difficult for one person to get above 50%.
In West Virginia:
John Raese (R)
Joe Manchin (D)
Jesse Johnson (M) [Mountain Party]
Three weeks ago Raese had a 5 point lead. Two weeks ago Manchin had a 4 point lead. Two days ago Raese had a 2 point lead . . . who knows by November 2nd.
In Pennsylvania:
Pat Toomey (R)
Joe Sestak (D)
Osborn Hart (S) [Socialist] {Write-In}
This is a back and forth race. On the same day one pose shows an even tie at 46% while other polls show Toomey ahead by up to 8 points. No poll shows Sestak ahead. But it shall be interesting.
I feel that the Democrats need to take at least half of these races to keep a majority in the Senate. Keep this list and watch the fight come Tuesday night.
In Washington State:
Dino Rossi (R)
Patty Murray (D)
Patty Murray is the incumbent and hold a very slight lead over Dino Rossi. That lead is about 48% to 46% at this time but we have a week to go and this one could go either way.
In Nevada:
Sharron Angle (R)
Harry Reid (D)
Jerry Carter (I)
Jeffery Durbin (I)
Wil Stand (NONE)
Scott Ashjian (T) [Tea Party of Nevada]
Recently the polls have gone back and forth with Ms. Angle recently taking a small lead but still about 47% to 45%.
In Colorado:
Ken Buck (R)
Michael Bennet (D)
Bennet and Buck have been in a dead heat tied at 47% for the last 2 weeks. The decision will be made when it is decided who screwed up most/least.
In Illinois:
Mark Kirk (R)
Alan Giannoulias (D)
LeAlan Jones (G) [Green]
Michael Labno (L) [Libertarian]
Alyson Kennedy (S) [Socialist Workers] {Write-in}
Mark Kirk has been consistently ahead for the past month but still within each polls margin of error. So for all practical purposes it is still a tossup. The problem here is the Green/Libertarian/Socialist dilution of voters. That makes it very difficult for one person to get above 50%.
In West Virginia:
John Raese (R)
Joe Manchin (D)
Jesse Johnson (M) [Mountain Party]
Three weeks ago Raese had a 5 point lead. Two weeks ago Manchin had a 4 point lead. Two days ago Raese had a 2 point lead . . . who knows by November 2nd.
In Pennsylvania:
Pat Toomey (R)
Joe Sestak (D)
Osborn Hart (S) [Socialist] {Write-In}
This is a back and forth race. On the same day one pose shows an even tie at 46% while other polls show Toomey ahead by up to 8 points. No poll shows Sestak ahead. But it shall be interesting.
I feel that the Democrats need to take at least half of these races to keep a majority in the Senate. Keep this list and watch the fight come Tuesday night.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Getting The Word Out
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that everybody is allowed to give as much money as they desire, to anybody they choose and absolutely nobody needs to know about it, we are finding ourselves up to our butts in crap passed down to us as truth.
First, I'd like you to read my blog post on the lies we endure during campaigns by clicking this URL:
www.swoopsfromsnowyowl.blogspot.com/2010/06/isnt-there-law-against-that.html
Now you will understand that all restraints are off when it comes to politics and political advertising. If that is the case, why doesn't more truth come out? Why is it that only the false stuff makes the headlines? Isn't the truth believable? Or, isn't there any truth out there to be believed?
I'm not sure I can answer any of these questions to the comfort of everyone, but here is my analysis on what has happened, is happening and will happen in the future.
You have to understand that a good part of politics is getting the word out. Letting people know what you are going to do and why, then actually doing it and again explaining why it is good for the country, then reinforcing what you did with again explaining it so that there will be few if any questions. Anticipating objections and overcoming those objections up front will help eliminate problems that might arise later.
The White House is not very good at this! Obama's advisers don't understand good salesmanship and that is what politics is all about. Winning an election is one thing, keeping the post to which you are elected, is another. In order to keep your position, you must explain your actions and why those actions were good for the country. If the White House doesn't do this then everyone that hears the lies, which will inevitably come from the other side, will only believe them to be true because no one has refuted them.
Here are some of those lies that have been recently passed around and need to be put to rest.
1. "Government spending takes money out of the economy." The REALITY is that Government is you and I, the "People" and the money it spends is on you and me. The citizens of the U. S. are a gathering of people who pool their money to do the good we need to have done for us because we can't afford to do them as individuals. Some consider this a Socialist leaning country and what would they do without those Socialist Roads, Socialist highways, Socialist airports, Socialist harbors, Socialist courts, Socialist schools, Socialist police, Socialist Firemen and Socialist Armed Forces. Government doesn't just spend on the unemployed, welfare recipients and foreign aid.
2. ""Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme that is going broke." The REALITY is that Social Security has run a surplus since it began and has Trillions in a trust fund. It is completely sound for at least 25 more years. It cannot borrow so it will never contribute to the deficit, unlike the military and most other agencies. Life expectancy is longer because infant mortality has improved over the years. Back in the 30s the average life expectancy was shorter because more children died of TB, Polio, Whooping Cough, Mumps, Measles, Chicken Pox, Scarlet Fever and various other diseases that don't kill people any more. If you reach the age of 60 your future life expectancy is about the same as it was back in the 30s.
3. "Health Care Reform costs $1 Trillion." The REALITY is that Health Care Reform will reduce government deficits by $138 Billion over the next 10 years.
4. "Small businesses will hire if they get Tax Cuts." The REALITY is that Small businesses hire according to DEMAND. Demand creates jobs. Having extra money on hand does not cause Small Businesses to hire. On the other hand, if there is demand for their product or service, a business will find the money to hire workers to create products to satisfy that demand.
5. "The Stimulus was a bust and didn't work at all." The REALITY is that the stimulus worked but was not enough by itself. The Congressional Budget Office says the stimulus raised employment by between 1.5 and 3.5 million jobs. The fact is that we were in a deeper depression than we had known about. We needed a larger stimulus to get us all the way out.
6. "Obama Bailed out the banks." The REALITY is that while most people confuse the "Stimulus" with the bank bailouts, the Bank Bailouts were requested by President George W. Bush and his Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama.
7. "President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy." The REALITY is that President Obama actually cut taxes. 40% of the ""Stimulus" was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt. That is why the stimulus was so much less effective than it could have been.
8. "President Obama tripled the deficit." The REALITY is that President George W. Bush's last budget had a $1.416 Trillion deficit. Obama's first budget reduced that to $1.29 Trillion.
Until the White House learns how to communicate President Obama's programs and how to best do a quality PR job, they will continue to lose the information battle and it may cost Obama re-election in 2012.
Doing a good job is only half the battle, communicating it is the other half and some say the important half. Senior Obama advisor David Axelrod has to do a better job. Recently he stated, "Two years ago I could have told you this was going to be a tough year." He knew then and had plenty of time to work on PR and quality communication about Obama's plans. But, unlike the master Karl Rove, Axelrod has really done very little or nothing. Axelrod also stated, "Our mission is to get people energized and understanding there are real stakes in the election." But what he failed to understand is, that is an ongoing job, not something you only do a few months every two years. His job should be to stay out in front of those objections and anticipate those questions before they are asked.
First, I'd like you to read my blog post on the lies we endure during campaigns by clicking this URL:
www.swoopsfromsnowyowl.blogspot.com/2010/06/isnt-there-law-against-that.html
Now you will understand that all restraints are off when it comes to politics and political advertising. If that is the case, why doesn't more truth come out? Why is it that only the false stuff makes the headlines? Isn't the truth believable? Or, isn't there any truth out there to be believed?
I'm not sure I can answer any of these questions to the comfort of everyone, but here is my analysis on what has happened, is happening and will happen in the future.
You have to understand that a good part of politics is getting the word out. Letting people know what you are going to do and why, then actually doing it and again explaining why it is good for the country, then reinforcing what you did with again explaining it so that there will be few if any questions. Anticipating objections and overcoming those objections up front will help eliminate problems that might arise later.
The White House is not very good at this! Obama's advisers don't understand good salesmanship and that is what politics is all about. Winning an election is one thing, keeping the post to which you are elected, is another. In order to keep your position, you must explain your actions and why those actions were good for the country. If the White House doesn't do this then everyone that hears the lies, which will inevitably come from the other side, will only believe them to be true because no one has refuted them.
Here are some of those lies that have been recently passed around and need to be put to rest.
1. "Government spending takes money out of the economy." The REALITY is that Government is you and I, the "People" and the money it spends is on you and me. The citizens of the U. S. are a gathering of people who pool their money to do the good we need to have done for us because we can't afford to do them as individuals. Some consider this a Socialist leaning country and what would they do without those Socialist Roads, Socialist highways, Socialist airports, Socialist harbors, Socialist courts, Socialist schools, Socialist police, Socialist Firemen and Socialist Armed Forces. Government doesn't just spend on the unemployed, welfare recipients and foreign aid.
2. ""Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme that is going broke." The REALITY is that Social Security has run a surplus since it began and has Trillions in a trust fund. It is completely sound for at least 25 more years. It cannot borrow so it will never contribute to the deficit, unlike the military and most other agencies. Life expectancy is longer because infant mortality has improved over the years. Back in the 30s the average life expectancy was shorter because more children died of TB, Polio, Whooping Cough, Mumps, Measles, Chicken Pox, Scarlet Fever and various other diseases that don't kill people any more. If you reach the age of 60 your future life expectancy is about the same as it was back in the 30s.
3. "Health Care Reform costs $1 Trillion." The REALITY is that Health Care Reform will reduce government deficits by $138 Billion over the next 10 years.
4. "Small businesses will hire if they get Tax Cuts." The REALITY is that Small businesses hire according to DEMAND. Demand creates jobs. Having extra money on hand does not cause Small Businesses to hire. On the other hand, if there is demand for their product or service, a business will find the money to hire workers to create products to satisfy that demand.
5. "The Stimulus was a bust and didn't work at all." The REALITY is that the stimulus worked but was not enough by itself. The Congressional Budget Office says the stimulus raised employment by between 1.5 and 3.5 million jobs. The fact is that we were in a deeper depression than we had known about. We needed a larger stimulus to get us all the way out.
6. "Obama Bailed out the banks." The REALITY is that while most people confuse the "Stimulus" with the bank bailouts, the Bank Bailouts were requested by President George W. Bush and his Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama.
7. "President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy." The REALITY is that President Obama actually cut taxes. 40% of the ""Stimulus" was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt. That is why the stimulus was so much less effective than it could have been.
8. "President Obama tripled the deficit." The REALITY is that President George W. Bush's last budget had a $1.416 Trillion deficit. Obama's first budget reduced that to $1.29 Trillion.
Until the White House learns how to communicate President Obama's programs and how to best do a quality PR job, they will continue to lose the information battle and it may cost Obama re-election in 2012.
Doing a good job is only half the battle, communicating it is the other half and some say the important half. Senior Obama advisor David Axelrod has to do a better job. Recently he stated, "Two years ago I could have told you this was going to be a tough year." He knew then and had plenty of time to work on PR and quality communication about Obama's plans. But, unlike the master Karl Rove, Axelrod has really done very little or nothing. Axelrod also stated, "Our mission is to get people energized and understanding there are real stakes in the election." But what he failed to understand is, that is an ongoing job, not something you only do a few months every two years. His job should be to stay out in front of those objections and anticipate those questions before they are asked.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
What The Republicans Are Against!
Recently, the Congressional Republicans stated that they are for the Small businesses in America, yet they have been consistently opposed to the Obama's administrations efforts to cut the taxes small business owners have to pay.
The President has already signed into law eight pieces of powerful legislation designed to help small business. They are:
1. A small business health care tax credit.
2. A tax credit for hiring the unemployed.
3. Bonus depreciation tax incentives to support new investment.
4. 75% exclusion of small business capital gains.
5. Expansion of limits of small business expenses.
6. A five year carryback of net operating losses.
7. To allow small businesses better flexibility in their investments, a reduction from 10 down to 7 years on built in gains holding period.
8. A temporary small business estimated tax payment relief so small business can keep more of their cash on hand.
Guess what, the Republicans voted against all of that. They are not pro-small businesses . . . they are ANTI-OBAMA! The high income taxpayers they are fighting to get tax relief for are hardly what most Americans think of as "Small Businesses." While Congressional Republicans' rhetoric would imply they are fighting for "Start-ups", mom-and-pop store owners and aspiring entrepreneurs, they count as "Small Businesses" making "Small Business income" any and all high income taxpayers with any type of partnership income, sole proprietor income, or "S" corporation income. Thus, under their definition, the following are all counted as small businesses:
>Each partner of a major corporate law firm
>Billionaire hedge fund Managers
>Over 50% of the top 400 taxpayers with the highest adjusted gross income (according to the IRS--a group that averaged $344 million each in income in 2007)
And here is more;
While Republicans claim that their push for high income tax relief is motivated by concern for small business, almost 85% of the tax relief they want goes to those making over $1,000,000. Those are not small businesses.
Obama wants to lend support to creditworthy small businesses still struggling to access the credit they need to expand and hire.
Republicans are holding middle class tax cuts, your tax cuts, hostage so they can borrow $700,000,000,000 to pay for the tax cuts that the Republicans want to give to the richest 2% of earners, those are the people that contribute to the Republicans campaign.
The President has already signed into law eight pieces of powerful legislation designed to help small business. They are:
1. A small business health care tax credit.
2. A tax credit for hiring the unemployed.
3. Bonus depreciation tax incentives to support new investment.
4. 75% exclusion of small business capital gains.
5. Expansion of limits of small business expenses.
6. A five year carryback of net operating losses.
7. To allow small businesses better flexibility in their investments, a reduction from 10 down to 7 years on built in gains holding period.
8. A temporary small business estimated tax payment relief so small business can keep more of their cash on hand.
Guess what, the Republicans voted against all of that. They are not pro-small businesses . . . they are ANTI-OBAMA! The high income taxpayers they are fighting to get tax relief for are hardly what most Americans think of as "Small Businesses." While Congressional Republicans' rhetoric would imply they are fighting for "Start-ups", mom-and-pop store owners and aspiring entrepreneurs, they count as "Small Businesses" making "Small Business income" any and all high income taxpayers with any type of partnership income, sole proprietor income, or "S" corporation income. Thus, under their definition, the following are all counted as small businesses:
>Each partner of a major corporate law firm
>Billionaire hedge fund Managers
>Over 50% of the top 400 taxpayers with the highest adjusted gross income (according to the IRS--a group that averaged $344 million each in income in 2007)
And here is more;
While Republicans claim that their push for high income tax relief is motivated by concern for small business, almost 85% of the tax relief they want goes to those making over $1,000,000. Those are not small businesses.
Obama wants to lend support to creditworthy small businesses still struggling to access the credit they need to expand and hire.
Republicans are holding middle class tax cuts, your tax cuts, hostage so they can borrow $700,000,000,000 to pay for the tax cuts that the Republicans want to give to the richest 2% of earners, those are the people that contribute to the Republicans campaign.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Next Year's COLA
This is a preliminary warning to Liberals everywhere. There are those around that are at this very moment preparing emails that will soon be coming your way about the subject of this blog post.
Approximately 35% of retired Americans rely on Social Security for up to 90% of their retirement income and over 60% of those retired depend on Social Security as their primary income. Most of them also rely on an annual COLA (cost of living allowance) increase in that income. Once again, next year, that will not happen. That's two years in a row without a COLA increase, and it still isn't Obama's fault. Nor is it the fault of the Democrats controlling Congress. In fact, the COLAs are automatically set each year by an inflation measure that was adopted by Congress back in the mid seventies. That COLA is based on inflation within the present year and according to that measure, there will be no COLA next year.
Once again; For those of you reading this, be aware . . . there will be emails coming your way accusing Obama or the Democrats in Congress for this lack of a COLA. They will say that Obama has refused to give the elderly a raise in their Social Security. Make sure you don't let them get away with it. Remember, the formula was set back in the 70s, not by anyone in power today and it is the law.
Also remember that the VA benefits are tied directly to the Social Security COLA as well as many other entitlements.
Approximately 35% of retired Americans rely on Social Security for up to 90% of their retirement income and over 60% of those retired depend on Social Security as their primary income. Most of them also rely on an annual COLA (cost of living allowance) increase in that income. Once again, next year, that will not happen. That's two years in a row without a COLA increase, and it still isn't Obama's fault. Nor is it the fault of the Democrats controlling Congress. In fact, the COLAs are automatically set each year by an inflation measure that was adopted by Congress back in the mid seventies. That COLA is based on inflation within the present year and according to that measure, there will be no COLA next year.
Once again; For those of you reading this, be aware . . . there will be emails coming your way accusing Obama or the Democrats in Congress for this lack of a COLA. They will say that Obama has refused to give the elderly a raise in their Social Security. Make sure you don't let them get away with it. Remember, the formula was set back in the 70s, not by anyone in power today and it is the law.
Also remember that the VA benefits are tied directly to the Social Security COLA as well as many other entitlements.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Don't Take The Pledge! (Conclusion)
We have seen where the "Pledge to America" is a façade that has nothing, or next to nothing, as foundation. Of the 46 pages of "Pledge," only 17 have a message and even that is
Large Type
and w i d e l y s p a c e d.
Even though this year government employment has declined and private sector jobs increased by over 750,000, the "Pledge" states that the "Only parts of the economy expanding are government and the National Debt." That, of course, is FALSE!
Even though jobless claims are down 8%, the "Pledge" says, "Jobless claims continue to soar." That is obviously FALSE!
Even though it has been proven FALSE, it echoes the claims that the IRS may need to expand by over 16,000 employees.
Even though the CBO, a non-partisan group of experts, states that the stimulus bill will cost $814 billion over 10 years, about $81 billion a year, the "Pledge" claims it will cost $1 Trillion.
Even though tax cuts would not hurt any REAL "Small Business," the "Pledge" claims that half of the small businesses in America would have higher taxes. What they don't tell you is that the GOP has included as "Small Business" are businesses that make over $450 million a year. That's not a small business!
The "Pledge" is full of "Apple Pie" and "Motherhood" terms and Phrases like ". . . to those who yearn to be free" and "America is an idea."
Even though the will of the people is what put Obama in office and gave the Legislature to the Democrats, the "Pledge" states, ". . . an unchecked executive, a compliant legislature and an overreaching judiciary have combined to thwart the will of 'the people.'" That, of course, is FALSE!
Even though the CBO estimates that "Defensive Medicine" or ordering extra tests as a defensive measure, would only raise the cost of medicine about ½ of 1%, the "Pledge" states "Skyrocketing medical liability insurance rates have distorted the practice of medicine, routinely forcing doctors to order costly and often unnecessary tests to protect themselves from lawsuits, often referred to as 'defensive medicine.'" So, that part of teh "pledge" is FALSE!
The "Pledge" is like Cotton Candy and Marshmallow Fluff. . . it kinda tastes good for a while but in the end you are gonna get lots of cavities and may even get diabetes. It sounds good but in the end it will only hurt you and cost you more.
Most of the really bad things that the GOP "Pledge" predicts will happen only if the Republicans get control of the legislature in the midterms and/or the Republicans continue to say NO to everything that would be good for the middle class.
The solution to all this is for you to get educated and to educate those around you. Then get out and vote in an intelligent manner. Offer your services on Election Day, to help other Liberals get to the polls.
Get informed and stay informed.
References:
www.data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ce
www.data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool-latest_numbers&series_id-LNS14000000
www.factcheck.org/2009/10/malpractice-savings-reconsidered/
www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/
www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11706/08-24-ARRA/pdf
www.factcheck.org/2009/06/making-sense-of-stimulus-spending
www.jct.gov/publications.html?func-startdown&id-3691
www.factcheck.org/2010/09/2011-tax-increases/
Large Type
and w i d e l y s p a c e d.
Even though this year government employment has declined and private sector jobs increased by over 750,000, the "Pledge" states that the "Only parts of the economy expanding are government and the National Debt." That, of course, is FALSE!
Even though jobless claims are down 8%, the "Pledge" says, "Jobless claims continue to soar." That is obviously FALSE!
Even though it has been proven FALSE, it echoes the claims that the IRS may need to expand by over 16,000 employees.
Even though the CBO, a non-partisan group of experts, states that the stimulus bill will cost $814 billion over 10 years, about $81 billion a year, the "Pledge" claims it will cost $1 Trillion.
Even though tax cuts would not hurt any REAL "Small Business," the "Pledge" claims that half of the small businesses in America would have higher taxes. What they don't tell you is that the GOP has included as "Small Business" are businesses that make over $450 million a year. That's not a small business!
The "Pledge" is full of "Apple Pie" and "Motherhood" terms and Phrases like ". . . to those who yearn to be free" and "America is an idea."
Even though the will of the people is what put Obama in office and gave the Legislature to the Democrats, the "Pledge" states, ". . . an unchecked executive, a compliant legislature and an overreaching judiciary have combined to thwart the will of 'the people.'" That, of course, is FALSE!
Even though the CBO estimates that "Defensive Medicine" or ordering extra tests as a defensive measure, would only raise the cost of medicine about ½ of 1%, the "Pledge" states "Skyrocketing medical liability insurance rates have distorted the practice of medicine, routinely forcing doctors to order costly and often unnecessary tests to protect themselves from lawsuits, often referred to as 'defensive medicine.'" So, that part of teh "pledge" is FALSE!
The "Pledge" is like Cotton Candy and Marshmallow Fluff. . . it kinda tastes good for a while but in the end you are gonna get lots of cavities and may even get diabetes. It sounds good but in the end it will only hurt you and cost you more.
Most of the really bad things that the GOP "Pledge" predicts will happen only if the Republicans get control of the legislature in the midterms and/or the Republicans continue to say NO to everything that would be good for the middle class.
The solution to all this is for you to get educated and to educate those around you. Then get out and vote in an intelligent manner. Offer your services on Election Day, to help other Liberals get to the polls.
Get informed and stay informed.
References:
www.data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ce
www.data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool-latest_numbers&series_id-LNS14000000
www.factcheck.org/2009/10/malpractice-savings-reconsidered/
www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/
www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11706/08-24-ARRA/pdf
www.factcheck.org/2009/06/making-sense-of-stimulus-spending
www.jct.gov/publications.html?func-startdown&id-3691
www.factcheck.org/2010/09/2011-tax-increases/
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Don't Take The Pledge!
One thing must be understood from the start, jobs are created by DEMAND not by rich guys with lots of money to invest. Rich guys with lots of money to invest put that money where there is a DEMAND for a product or service and where that demand has not already been met and surpassed. Rich guys with lots of money to invest have never created a job and never will. Bill Gates wasn't rich when he started Microsoft, he just found something where there was demand and satisfied that demand, and that created more demand . . . and so it goes.
The way to create demand is to put money in the hands of the masses, the great middle class. If they have money they will find a way to spend it and a product on which to spend it. That in turn creates more jobs to make those products and perform those services.
The way to put more money in the hands of the masses is with a middle class tax cut, or in this case a tax cut continuation.
The way to create demand is to put money in the hands of the masses, the great middle class. If they have money they will find a way to spend it and a product on which to spend it. That in turn creates more jobs to make those products and perform those services.
The way to put more money in the hands of the masses is with a middle class tax cut, or in this case a tax cut continuation.
Now to that "Pledge to America"
The Republican "Pledge" tells you exactly what the Republicans will do when they take over Congress . . . SORTA!
This is a 46 page document with large glossy photos that really comes out to be about 17 pages of real text(large type, widely spaced) and I use the word "Real" very loosely. About the only things I found that were definite were that they would repeal "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," (Obama Care). I just wonder what about "Patient Protection" and "Affordable Care" do the Republicans not like? Oh, that's right, they think that Health Care is a Commodity that should be only for the rich. They also want to put a halt to all unspent TARP funds. You know, the stuff that stopped the decline of the Auto Industry and has created enough new jobs and preserved old ones to stop the skid we were in. By the way, the original TARP was a Bush era and Republican backed plan that they do not now like. But they liked it when it was Bush's plan.
I've gone through this document, as you can at the link above, and here is what I've found. There are 13 full pages of glossy pictures, that's a full 28% of the document. There are 8 title pages with only the title on them, that 17% of the document. There are 2½ pages of graphs, that over 5% of the document. One page is the back cover, one page is the table of contents, 5 pages are either single column or only half covered with words. So, the entire 46 page document has, in very large type and widely spaced, 17 pages of substance(I use that word loosely), or around 37% . . . a little over a third of the "pamphlet" . . . but it is attractive. If I were a judge, I'd give the document an 8 for style and a 2 for substance.
Go take a look at it for yourself. I guarantee, it won't take long for you to read and it has such broadly worded ideas and ideals that you can almost speed read it. Actually, many of the thoughts are very close to those of the White House, just using different words.
My next post will be on the inside of the "Pamphlet." Go to:
http://swoopsfromsnowyowl.blogspot.com/2010/09/dont-take-pledge-conclusion.html
http://swoopsfromsnowyowl.blogspot.com/2010/09/dont-take-pledge-conclusion.html
Friday, September 24, 2010
The "I" of Newt!
Newton Leroy McPhearson, born June 17, 1943 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania into a family with a nineteen year old father and a sixteen year old mother. The McPhearson Family didn't last very long and his mother married again to Robert Gingrich who adopted Newt. The Gingrich family was military and moved frequently. Newt graduated from High School in Georgia and went to college at Emory University in Atlanta where he graduated with a BA, then later he received an MA, then went to Tulane for a PhD in modern European history.
Newt Gingrich was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1978 after two previous unsuccessful attempts. He was then reelected six times to that position until he decided to not take his final reelection and left the House and his office as Speaker, under pressure from his own party.
To retrace, in 1995, Newt and a small group of powerful Republicans decided to bring the government to its knees by stopping all funding of vital programs. He said he wanted to "Slow the growth of Government Spending." That was a great Republican thought and garnered him great praise among fellow Republicans. Later however, it was revealed by Newt himself, that it was to spite President Clinton for snubbing him on Air Force One and making him stay in the back of the plane with Bob Dole. Tom Delay wrote in his book, "No Retreat, No Surrender;"
"He told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One . . . Newt had been careless to say such a thing and now the whole moral tone of the shutdown had been lost. What had been a noble battle for fiscal sanity began to look like the tirade of a spoiled child . . . The Revolution was never the same." But Hillary Clinton, in her book "Living History" shows a picture of that flight with Bill Clinton, Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich laughing on that flight together and having a good time.
In 1997, the House voted overwhelmingly to reprimand Gingrich for ethics violations going back as far as late 1994. Gingrich had to pay a $300,000 penalty. That was the first time in history that a Speaker was disciplined for an ethics violation. Also in 1997, a few Republicans saw that Gingirich was becoming a liability and tried to replace him as Speaker. Tom Delay, Dick Armey, John Boehner and Bill Paxon along with lesser House Members Steve Largent, Lindsey Graham and Mark Souder plotted against Gingrich and held secret meetings to capture the leadership of the party. They were going to hand Gingrich an ultimatum, that Gingrich resign or they would vote him out. But Dick Armey got cold feet and warned Gingrich about he coup.
In 1998, Newt became a heavy liability with his approval rating below 50% among Republicans and the Republicans had lost seats in the worst showing in 64 years for the party that didn't hold the Presidency. Gingrich faced yet another rebellion and held most of the blame for the losses. After being reelected in November 1998 Newt Gingrich quit as Speaker and left the House. His reasoning was, "I'm willing to lead but I'm not willing to preside over people who are cannibals."
Gingrich has been married three times . . . so far. Gingrich was married when he started dating his second wife. He told his first wife and they planned the divorce while his first wife was recovering from cancer in the hospital. He married his second wife six months later. Gingrich began an affair with house staffer Callist Bisek, 23 years younger than he, in the mid 90s. That continued during the Congressional investigation of Bill Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky scandal. He married her in 2000 shortly after his divorce from his second wife.
Some of his present quotes:
"When the United States 'first created the federal income tax, frankly, nobody below a million dollars a year paid anything.'" That of course is totally FALSE. (See my previous posts on the history of the income tax.) The first income tax was in 1913, those brackets were:
$0-$20,000 paid 1%
$20,000-$50,000 paid 2%
$50,000-$75,000 paid 3%
$75,000-$100,000 paid 4%
$100,000-$250,000 paid 5%
$250,000-$500,000 paid 6%
Over $500,000 paid 7%
(From http://www.taxfoundation.org/)
In January of this year on the O'Reilly Factor Newt said:
"The President recently signed, very quietly, an executive order that basically releases Interpol from all American Constraints. Freedom of Information Acts don't apply. All the constraints that you as a citizen could use against an American police force, based on a recent Obama-signed executive order, give Interpol, which has relationships with Syria, with Libya, with Iran, it give them all sorts of extralegality in the United States in a way that has never ever before been offered to Interpol. And I'm very curious as to why the President is doing this . . . What I'm told is that it could lead to a number of investigations by Interpol in the United States, potentially aimed at American officials. And the question I would raise is, why would the President of the United States give that kind of extralegal protection to an international police force?" This was rated by http://www.politifact.com/ as "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire." The key problem with this notion is that Interpol couldn't investigate CIA or American officials because Interpol doesn't do investigations. It doesn't arrest anyone, and doesn't even have it own officers. It helps police organizations in different countries communicate and coordinate actions, provides databases of crime information (fingerprints, stolen artwork, names of suspected terrorists), training and does other support services.
In late May of last year, Newt said: Inside the stimulus package "is anti-Christian legislation that will stop churches from using public schools for meeting on Sundays, as well as Boy Scouts and student Bible study groups." Again, politifact rated this one as a "Pants on fire" lie. And what is really bad about this one is that a fund raising mail out that contained it also stated, "Bring moral leadership back to our nation." I guess morality includes telling lies as far as Newt is concerned. When this one is passed to you, ask, "Could you cite the location of that for me?" It ain't there and never was.
In May of 2009, Newt said, "Democrats in Congress had control since January of 2007. They haven't passed a law making waterboarding illegal. They haven't gone into any of these things and changed law." That, of course, is FALSE. In 2008, Democrats did pass legislation that would have had the effect of outlawing waterboarding by restricting U. S. agents to interrogation methods outlined in the Army Field Manual. The Manual specifically forbids waterboarding. But President George W. Bush VETOED the bill and Democrats were not able to muster the two-thirds majority necessary to override the veto.
If you get notes and emails promoting Newt Gingrich, copy and paste this to the one that sent it to you. He is not a plus for the Republican Party or for Conservatism in general . . . after you look a bit deeper.
Newt Gingrich holds truth as high as he holds his marriage vows. He'll do what it takes to promote Newt . . . the Big "I," and he'll squash whatever is in his way. Don't get taken in!
Newt Gingrich was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1978 after two previous unsuccessful attempts. He was then reelected six times to that position until he decided to not take his final reelection and left the House and his office as Speaker, under pressure from his own party.
To retrace, in 1995, Newt and a small group of powerful Republicans decided to bring the government to its knees by stopping all funding of vital programs. He said he wanted to "Slow the growth of Government Spending." That was a great Republican thought and garnered him great praise among fellow Republicans. Later however, it was revealed by Newt himself, that it was to spite President Clinton for snubbing him on Air Force One and making him stay in the back of the plane with Bob Dole. Tom Delay wrote in his book, "No Retreat, No Surrender;"
"He told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One . . . Newt had been careless to say such a thing and now the whole moral tone of the shutdown had been lost. What had been a noble battle for fiscal sanity began to look like the tirade of a spoiled child . . . The Revolution was never the same." But Hillary Clinton, in her book "Living History" shows a picture of that flight with Bill Clinton, Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich laughing on that flight together and having a good time.
In 1997, the House voted overwhelmingly to reprimand Gingrich for ethics violations going back as far as late 1994. Gingrich had to pay a $300,000 penalty. That was the first time in history that a Speaker was disciplined for an ethics violation. Also in 1997, a few Republicans saw that Gingirich was becoming a liability and tried to replace him as Speaker. Tom Delay, Dick Armey, John Boehner and Bill Paxon along with lesser House Members Steve Largent, Lindsey Graham and Mark Souder plotted against Gingrich and held secret meetings to capture the leadership of the party. They were going to hand Gingrich an ultimatum, that Gingrich resign or they would vote him out. But Dick Armey got cold feet and warned Gingrich about he coup.
In 1998, Newt became a heavy liability with his approval rating below 50% among Republicans and the Republicans had lost seats in the worst showing in 64 years for the party that didn't hold the Presidency. Gingrich faced yet another rebellion and held most of the blame for the losses. After being reelected in November 1998 Newt Gingrich quit as Speaker and left the House. His reasoning was, "I'm willing to lead but I'm not willing to preside over people who are cannibals."
Gingrich has been married three times . . . so far. Gingrich was married when he started dating his second wife. He told his first wife and they planned the divorce while his first wife was recovering from cancer in the hospital. He married his second wife six months later. Gingrich began an affair with house staffer Callist Bisek, 23 years younger than he, in the mid 90s. That continued during the Congressional investigation of Bill Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky scandal. He married her in 2000 shortly after his divorce from his second wife.
Some of his present quotes:
"When the United States 'first created the federal income tax, frankly, nobody below a million dollars a year paid anything.'" That of course is totally FALSE. (See my previous posts on the history of the income tax.) The first income tax was in 1913, those brackets were:
$0-$20,000 paid 1%
$20,000-$50,000 paid 2%
$50,000-$75,000 paid 3%
$75,000-$100,000 paid 4%
$100,000-$250,000 paid 5%
$250,000-$500,000 paid 6%
Over $500,000 paid 7%
(From http://www.taxfoundation.org/)
In January of this year on the O'Reilly Factor Newt said:
"The President recently signed, very quietly, an executive order that basically releases Interpol from all American Constraints. Freedom of Information Acts don't apply. All the constraints that you as a citizen could use against an American police force, based on a recent Obama-signed executive order, give Interpol, which has relationships with Syria, with Libya, with Iran, it give them all sorts of extralegality in the United States in a way that has never ever before been offered to Interpol. And I'm very curious as to why the President is doing this . . . What I'm told is that it could lead to a number of investigations by Interpol in the United States, potentially aimed at American officials. And the question I would raise is, why would the President of the United States give that kind of extralegal protection to an international police force?" This was rated by http://www.politifact.com/ as "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire." The key problem with this notion is that Interpol couldn't investigate CIA or American officials because Interpol doesn't do investigations. It doesn't arrest anyone, and doesn't even have it own officers. It helps police organizations in different countries communicate and coordinate actions, provides databases of crime information (fingerprints, stolen artwork, names of suspected terrorists), training and does other support services.
In late May of last year, Newt said: Inside the stimulus package "is anti-Christian legislation that will stop churches from using public schools for meeting on Sundays, as well as Boy Scouts and student Bible study groups." Again, politifact rated this one as a "Pants on fire" lie. And what is really bad about this one is that a fund raising mail out that contained it also stated, "Bring moral leadership back to our nation." I guess morality includes telling lies as far as Newt is concerned. When this one is passed to you, ask, "Could you cite the location of that for me?" It ain't there and never was.
In May of 2009, Newt said, "Democrats in Congress had control since January of 2007. They haven't passed a law making waterboarding illegal. They haven't gone into any of these things and changed law." That, of course, is FALSE. In 2008, Democrats did pass legislation that would have had the effect of outlawing waterboarding by restricting U. S. agents to interrogation methods outlined in the Army Field Manual. The Manual specifically forbids waterboarding. But President George W. Bush VETOED the bill and Democrats were not able to muster the two-thirds majority necessary to override the veto.
If you get notes and emails promoting Newt Gingrich, copy and paste this to the one that sent it to you. He is not a plus for the Republican Party or for Conservatism in general . . . after you look a bit deeper.
Newt Gingrich holds truth as high as he holds his marriage vows. He'll do what it takes to promote Newt . . . the Big "I," and he'll squash whatever is in his way. Don't get taken in!
Thursday, September 16, 2010
The History of the Federal Income Tax, Conclusion
As we have seen, since the beginning in 1913, the Federal Income Tax has been and rightfully so, a progressive tax. By 1918 they realized that the "Progression" should run higher . . . a lot higher. So, it went all the way from a top rate of 7% to a top rate of 77%, and the brackets went from 7 to 56.
The poorer pay a lower percentage and the wealthy pay a higher percentage. Why you ask? A person that pays 10% tax on an income of $15,000, pays 100% of their discretionary income on taxes and have nothing left for retirement or anything else, like a new refrigerator or furniture. That's not good for the refrigerator and furniture manufacturers. A person that pays 10% on $100,000 pays about 25% of their discretionary income on taxes and they have lots more means to acquire deductions to lower their taxable income. But, since the middle class doesn't have any money to spend on clothes and refrigerators and furniture, investments in those areas don't draw any income. In fact, our economy requires that middle income people to have spendable income to make everything work, otherwise the rich don't have anyone to sell their products. Without demand, there are no jobs in industry. Demand creates jobs.
Let's get back to where we were in our history of the Federal Income Tax.
As stated, the income tax brackets stayed pretty stable from 1965 through 1982. There was some small variance, but mostly it was the same. The top rate for 17 years was 70%.
That all changed when Ronald Reagan became President. He cut the top rate by almost 30% from a 70% rate down to a 50% rate and he cut the highest income bracket that started at $215,000, down to $85,000. This was massive for the guy that had a taxable income of $225,000. That guy or gal paid $45,000 less in taxes in one year than in the previous. It was a gift to the wealthy. Now let's look at the guy that made $50,000. He went from 49% to 44%. Wow! he paid $2,000 less. So, with Reagan the middle class got screwed when it came to taxes. Now, let's look at the brackets.
1981 taxes:
$5,001 paid 14%
$50,001 paid 49%
$225,001 paid 77%
All changed in 1982, the rich got richer:
$5,001 paid 12%
$50,000 paid 44%
$225,000 paid 50% (look at this and tell me who made out)
In the next 5 years nothing changed except the upper range income got higher and drove the top earners in 1982 of $85,600 to a lower bracket of 42%. That guy went down 8% but the $5,001 guy only went down one percentage point to 11%.
In 1987, also under Reagan, the top dropped down again. It went from 50% down to 38.5%. Now let's see what Reagan did for the rich. Under Reagan the top tax rate went from 77% down to 38.5%. That is a total decrease of 38.5 points or a 50% decrease. Reagan cut the taxes for the in HALF, and he considered the rich s anyone with a taxable income of over $45,000.
In 1988 the top rate went down again to 28% and it started at $113,300. That means the top tax bracket has now gone down, under Reagan, by 49 points. That is a total decrease for the rich of 64% in taxes.
So, in 1988, the taxes were:
$5,001 paid 15%
$50,001 paid 38.5%
$225,001 paid 38.5%
In 1989:
$5,001 paid 15%
$50,001 paid 33%
$225,001 paid 28% (A 15% rate bubble allowed a recapture from the
middle class of the discount to the rich)
Except for that rate bubble that expired in 1991, everything stayed close to the same till 1993. Under Clinton the three brackets went up a bit to five brackets and the top rate went back to 39.6%. The top bracket was 39.6% until 2001 when it went , under George W. Bush, to 39.1%, then in '02 to 38.6, and in '03 to 35%, where it has been until now.
In 2013 we will be celebrating the one hundredth birthday of the Federal Income Tax system. In the past 97 years the average top income tax bracket was 60.1%. For twenty years the top rate was 90% or higher. For forty nine years the top rate was 70% or higher. For sixty three of the past ninety seven years the top tax bracket has been 50% or higher.
Right now the top bracket is 35% and the wealthy is pissed off and they aren't going to put up with it any more! BULL! The rich are getting off lightly and they know it but have convinced the middle class that the rich are responsible for inventing jobs. Believe me, they are not. Demand creates jobs! Without demand for products, thee is no reason to manufacture those products. Demand comes from the people who use those products. If those people are unemployed, there is no demand.
I agree, the rich should pay 90% to income tax, but that almost never happened. That 90% rate was only on taxable income and with deductions, amortization, and reinvestment, the rich never paid much. In some cases the rich paid nothing after deductions.
Remember, just because some people are in a particular bracket doesn't mean that their taxable income will make them remain in that bracket. Warren Buffet has stated that his tax rate is less than his secretary's.
Don't let them fool you. They, the rich, are now paying less than they have paid in 90% of the life of the Federal Income Tax.
The poorer pay a lower percentage and the wealthy pay a higher percentage. Why you ask? A person that pays 10% tax on an income of $15,000, pays 100% of their discretionary income on taxes and have nothing left for retirement or anything else, like a new refrigerator or furniture. That's not good for the refrigerator and furniture manufacturers. A person that pays 10% on $100,000 pays about 25% of their discretionary income on taxes and they have lots more means to acquire deductions to lower their taxable income. But, since the middle class doesn't have any money to spend on clothes and refrigerators and furniture, investments in those areas don't draw any income. In fact, our economy requires that middle income people to have spendable income to make everything work, otherwise the rich don't have anyone to sell their products. Without demand, there are no jobs in industry. Demand creates jobs.
Let's get back to where we were in our history of the Federal Income Tax.
As stated, the income tax brackets stayed pretty stable from 1965 through 1982. There was some small variance, but mostly it was the same. The top rate for 17 years was 70%.
That all changed when Ronald Reagan became President. He cut the top rate by almost 30% from a 70% rate down to a 50% rate and he cut the highest income bracket that started at $215,000, down to $85,000. This was massive for the guy that had a taxable income of $225,000. That guy or gal paid $45,000 less in taxes in one year than in the previous. It was a gift to the wealthy. Now let's look at the guy that made $50,000. He went from 49% to 44%. Wow! he paid $2,000 less. So, with Reagan the middle class got screwed when it came to taxes. Now, let's look at the brackets.
1981 taxes:
$5,001 paid 14%
$50,001 paid 49%
$225,001 paid 77%
All changed in 1982, the rich got richer:
$5,001 paid 12%
$50,000 paid 44%
$225,000 paid 50% (look at this and tell me who made out)
In the next 5 years nothing changed except the upper range income got higher and drove the top earners in 1982 of $85,600 to a lower bracket of 42%. That guy went down 8% but the $5,001 guy only went down one percentage point to 11%.
In 1987, also under Reagan, the top dropped down again. It went from 50% down to 38.5%. Now let's see what Reagan did for the rich. Under Reagan the top tax rate went from 77% down to 38.5%. That is a total decrease of 38.5 points or a 50% decrease. Reagan cut the taxes for the in HALF, and he considered the rich s anyone with a taxable income of over $45,000.
In 1988 the top rate went down again to 28% and it started at $113,300. That means the top tax bracket has now gone down, under Reagan, by 49 points. That is a total decrease for the rich of 64% in taxes.
So, in 1988, the taxes were:
$5,001 paid 15%
$50,001 paid 38.5%
$225,001 paid 38.5%
In 1989:
$5,001 paid 15%
$50,001 paid 33%
$225,001 paid 28% (A 15% rate bubble allowed a recapture from the
middle class of the discount to the rich)
Except for that rate bubble that expired in 1991, everything stayed close to the same till 1993. Under Clinton the three brackets went up a bit to five brackets and the top rate went back to 39.6%. The top bracket was 39.6% until 2001 when it went , under George W. Bush, to 39.1%, then in '02 to 38.6, and in '03 to 35%, where it has been until now.
In 2013 we will be celebrating the one hundredth birthday of the Federal Income Tax system. In the past 97 years the average top income tax bracket was 60.1%. For twenty years the top rate was 90% or higher. For forty nine years the top rate was 70% or higher. For sixty three of the past ninety seven years the top tax bracket has been 50% or higher.
Right now the top bracket is 35% and the wealthy is pissed off and they aren't going to put up with it any more! BULL! The rich are getting off lightly and they know it but have convinced the middle class that the rich are responsible for inventing jobs. Believe me, they are not. Demand creates jobs! Without demand for products, thee is no reason to manufacture those products. Demand comes from the people who use those products. If those people are unemployed, there is no demand.
I agree, the rich should pay 90% to income tax, but that almost never happened. That 90% rate was only on taxable income and with deductions, amortization, and reinvestment, the rich never paid much. In some cases the rich paid nothing after deductions.
Remember, just because some people are in a particular bracket doesn't mean that their taxable income will make them remain in that bracket. Warren Buffet has stated that his tax rate is less than his secretary's.
Don't let them fool you. They, the rich, are now paying less than they have paid in 90% of the life of the Federal Income Tax.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Where The Money Is
As you might have heard, the RNC headed by Michael Steele has not received as many donations as they have in past election seasons. But, there is money out there waiting to be spent for Republican candidates and Conservative causes. Let's see where that money is and who is in charge of it.
First, you have to understand what these groups represent. Usually the name of the organization doesn't give a clue as to what the groups real goals are or who they represent.
1. U. S. Chamber of Commerce; This is an organization or "Union" if you will, that represents businesses and corporations in the U. S. They don't represent the working people or the middle class. They have big bucks to spend on elections. By big bucks, I mean millions . . . $75 million or more, to get those pro business people elected.
2. American Crossroads; The main purpose of this group is to fund the election of Republicans and unseat Democrats in power. Pelosi and Reid are the top targets. American Crossroads biggest sponsors are Karl Rove, Harold Simmons, from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. American Crossroads has $52 million to spend on the upcoming elections.
3. American Action Network; This group calls itself a "Think Tank" but promotes personal freedom and limited government. This is another Karl Rove group that also includes Haley Barbour, Jeb Bush, and Norm Coleman. American Action Network has about $25 million to spend on elections this year.
4. Club For Growth; this is really a Union for large corporations who want to return to the Bush economics that made them lots of money and almost wiped out the U. S. economy. "Dusty" Rhodes & Chris Chocola are the principles in this group and they have about $23 million to spend on getting Republicans elected this year.
5. Americans For Job Security; This group seems to fund Tea Party candidates like Ken Buck in Colorado. AJS's main job is to influence elections and get Republicans that lean to the far right into office. They were started by a large donation from the American Insurance Association and will not disclose the source of their revenues. AJS has about $10 million to spend on getting the far right candidates elected in this election.
6. Freedom Works; This organization is from where the "Astro Turf" name for fake grass roots organizations came. FW funds people like Ken Buck, Rand Paul and Sharron Angle. FW is the corporate base of the Tea Party movement. This is from where the money and organization come. This is primarily a Dick Armey group but Steve Forbes is on the board and Glen Beck is featured on a membership drive. FW has about $5 million to spend but their main feature is their large group of followers, this group is the main backers of "Tea Party Express." That is where FW has the power and the votes.
7. Campaign for Working Families; This group has nothing to do with "Working Families." It has endorsed Sharron Angle, Marco Rubio, and Chuck Grassley. Gary Bauer or the Family Research Council and the religious right is at its head. CWF has about $2 million to spend on this years campaign.
8. Heritage Action; This is an arm of the Heritage Foundation and has a powerful influence on the far Right Wing Political Faction of the Republican party. HF claims that Sean Hannity & Rush Limbaugh are members. They have over $1 million available to elect Republicans this year.
9. Family Research Council Action; This is the electioneering arm of the Family Research Council and it funds Sahrron Angle and Marco Rubio. FRC was founded by James Dobson from Focus on the Family and George Rekers, an anti Gay activist who went on vacation for 10 days with a "Rent-Boy" is one of its founders. FRCA has about $½ million to promote far right candidates.
In 2008 these groups had about $50 million to spend on elections. This year they have in excess of $195 million to fund the elections of the most extreme of the far right. That is almost 4 times as much to get what we got rid of in 2008.
Yes, the RNC and Michael Steele has less to spend on the mid-term elections but those nasty groups mentioned will make up the difference. If you have the money . . . contribute to a campaign, if you don't have the money, give some time to help where you can make a difference.
First, you have to understand what these groups represent. Usually the name of the organization doesn't give a clue as to what the groups real goals are or who they represent.
1. U. S. Chamber of Commerce; This is an organization or "Union" if you will, that represents businesses and corporations in the U. S. They don't represent the working people or the middle class. They have big bucks to spend on elections. By big bucks, I mean millions . . . $75 million or more, to get those pro business people elected.
2. American Crossroads; The main purpose of this group is to fund the election of Republicans and unseat Democrats in power. Pelosi and Reid are the top targets. American Crossroads biggest sponsors are Karl Rove, Harold Simmons, from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. American Crossroads has $52 million to spend on the upcoming elections.
3. American Action Network; This group calls itself a "Think Tank" but promotes personal freedom and limited government. This is another Karl Rove group that also includes Haley Barbour, Jeb Bush, and Norm Coleman. American Action Network has about $25 million to spend on elections this year.
4. Club For Growth; this is really a Union for large corporations who want to return to the Bush economics that made them lots of money and almost wiped out the U. S. economy. "Dusty" Rhodes & Chris Chocola are the principles in this group and they have about $23 million to spend on getting Republicans elected this year.
5. Americans For Job Security; This group seems to fund Tea Party candidates like Ken Buck in Colorado. AJS's main job is to influence elections and get Republicans that lean to the far right into office. They were started by a large donation from the American Insurance Association and will not disclose the source of their revenues. AJS has about $10 million to spend on getting the far right candidates elected in this election.
6. Freedom Works; This organization is from where the "Astro Turf" name for fake grass roots organizations came. FW funds people like Ken Buck, Rand Paul and Sharron Angle. FW is the corporate base of the Tea Party movement. This is from where the money and organization come. This is primarily a Dick Armey group but Steve Forbes is on the board and Glen Beck is featured on a membership drive. FW has about $5 million to spend but their main feature is their large group of followers, this group is the main backers of "Tea Party Express." That is where FW has the power and the votes.
7. Campaign for Working Families; This group has nothing to do with "Working Families." It has endorsed Sharron Angle, Marco Rubio, and Chuck Grassley. Gary Bauer or the Family Research Council and the religious right is at its head. CWF has about $2 million to spend on this years campaign.
8. Heritage Action; This is an arm of the Heritage Foundation and has a powerful influence on the far Right Wing Political Faction of the Republican party. HF claims that Sean Hannity & Rush Limbaugh are members. They have over $1 million available to elect Republicans this year.
9. Family Research Council Action; This is the electioneering arm of the Family Research Council and it funds Sahrron Angle and Marco Rubio. FRC was founded by James Dobson from Focus on the Family and George Rekers, an anti Gay activist who went on vacation for 10 days with a "Rent-Boy" is one of its founders. FRCA has about $½ million to promote far right candidates.
In 2008 these groups had about $50 million to spend on elections. This year they have in excess of $195 million to fund the elections of the most extreme of the far right. That is almost 4 times as much to get what we got rid of in 2008.
Yes, the RNC and Michael Steele has less to spend on the mid-term elections but those nasty groups mentioned will make up the difference. If you have the money . . . contribute to a campaign, if you don't have the money, give some time to help where you can make a difference.
Friday, August 20, 2010
The Victory? Mosque
I have never heard such an uproar by a group of people trying to circumvent the Constitution. They, the GOP, have campaigned for years on upholding that same Constitution and promoted the strict interpretation of it.
Here is an example of the GOP's thoughts on the Constitution. I present an excerpt from a speech given by Charlton Heston to the NRA upon Protests by citizens of Denver against the NRA holding their convention in Denver a few weeks after the Columbine shootings in a Suburb of Denver.
Mr Heston Said:
(My insertions in parenthesis to show how similar things really are)
"This cycle of tragedy-driven hatred must stop because so much more connects us than that which divides us, because tragedy has been, and will always be, with us. Somewhere right now, evil people are planning evil things. All of us will do everything meaningful, everything we can do to prevent it, but each horrible act can't become an axe for opportunists to cleave the very Bill of Rights that binds us. America must stop this predictable pattern of reaction. When an isolated, terrible event occurs (9/11), our phones ring, demanding that the NRA (Muslims) explain the inexplicable. Why us(Muslims), because their (The GOP) story needs a villain. They (the GOP) want us (Muslims) to play the heavy in their (The GOP) drama of packaged grief (9/11), to provide riveting programming to run between commercials for cars and cat food."
That is what Charlton Heston, a devout Conservative had to say about discrimination against the NRA. How does that not apply to the Muslims and their Community Center 2½ blocks and several porn shops away from the WTC's "Sacred Ground" in New York City?
Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Agnostics and Atheists were all killed on 9/11. They all have claim and deserve a place of worship in the area . . . not because of those deaths, but because we have a Constitution that says they have that right if they can afford putting one there. Protesting that Muslim Community Center is protesting the Bill of Rights.
Building the "Victory" Mosque will represent the victory of the Bill of Rights, the victory of the Constitution and the victory of all the American people.
For more, go to:
www.factcheck.org/2010/08/questions-about-the-ground-zero-mosque/
Here is an example of the GOP's thoughts on the Constitution. I present an excerpt from a speech given by Charlton Heston to the NRA upon Protests by citizens of Denver against the NRA holding their convention in Denver a few weeks after the Columbine shootings in a Suburb of Denver.
Mr Heston Said:
(My insertions in parenthesis to show how similar things really are)
"This cycle of tragedy-driven hatred must stop because so much more connects us than that which divides us, because tragedy has been, and will always be, with us. Somewhere right now, evil people are planning evil things. All of us will do everything meaningful, everything we can do to prevent it, but each horrible act can't become an axe for opportunists to cleave the very Bill of Rights that binds us. America must stop this predictable pattern of reaction. When an isolated, terrible event occurs (9/11), our phones ring, demanding that the NRA (Muslims) explain the inexplicable. Why us(Muslims), because their (The GOP) story needs a villain. They (the GOP) want us (Muslims) to play the heavy in their (The GOP) drama of packaged grief (9/11), to provide riveting programming to run between commercials for cars and cat food."
That is what Charlton Heston, a devout Conservative had to say about discrimination against the NRA. How does that not apply to the Muslims and their Community Center 2½ blocks and several porn shops away from the WTC's "Sacred Ground" in New York City?
Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Agnostics and Atheists were all killed on 9/11. They all have claim and deserve a place of worship in the area . . . not because of those deaths, but because we have a Constitution that says they have that right if they can afford putting one there. Protesting that Muslim Community Center is protesting the Bill of Rights.
Building the "Victory" Mosque will represent the victory of the Bill of Rights, the victory of the Constitution and the victory of all the American people.
For more, go to:
www.factcheck.org/2010/08/questions-about-the-ground-zero-mosque/
Friday, August 6, 2010
"B. I. O. B." Part 2
As you have probably noted, the first ten of my top 20 reasons that what we are into as a country, pertain to the Iraq/Afghanistan war. The next 10 reasons are mostly other than that. #14 and #17 have also to do with the Wars but the others have to do with the economy, Katrina, and outright stupidity on the part of the Republicans in general and Bush in particular.
Here are the rest of my top 20 reasons "W" Bush is to blame for the situation we find ourselves in today:
11. Bush promoted and got, by reconciliation, tax cuts for the rich. Right after that, the economy of the U. S. and the World suddenly went into the crapper. The rich have money, the big corporations have big money, they just won't turn it loose. Those rich people aren't hiring, therefore people aren't spending and the big companies aren't making any money.
12. Until Bush limited the research of embryonic stem cells, tremendous advances made in the study of Parkinson's. On March 6, 2009, President Obama reversed that decision and we are now able to progress once again.
13. "W" Bush liked to have lots of "His" type of people around him at all times. That is why he nominated and got Alberto Gonzales, an old Texas friend, as Attorney General. Gonzales oversaw the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapes and the firing of many U. S. Attornies that wouldn't tow the line for "W." He tried to do the same thing with Harriet Miers in the Supreme Court, but she was forced to withdraw her name about 3 weeks later because of the opposition even from the Republicans.
14. The awarding of Halliburton contracts at the start of the Iraq/Afghanistan war. Some say they were no bid contracts but everyone agrees that they were very lucrative and profitable for Dick Cheney's old company.
15. The athorization of Warrantless Wiretaps as well as other unconstitutional orders.
16. As in number 13 with Alberto Gonzales, he appointed Mike Brown to head FEMA. Brown was totally unprepared and without a clue as to how FEMA was to work and what he should do in New Orleans after Katrina. "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie!"
17. After coming aboard that aircraft carrier in the early Summer of 2003, Bush proclaimed the war was over with a "Mission Accoplished" banner hanging from the super structure behind him. That was an enduring mistake. Most of our casualties have come since that day.
18. "W" failed to sign the Kyoto Protocol because he said it would hamper the auto industry which was on its way down at that time already. This year green house gasses have contributed to us having the hottest first 6 months in world history. Let me remind you that last Winter was mostly in this year, all but about 9 days of it.
19. "W" decided to view the damage left by Katrina from a fly-over at 35,000 feet while he was on his way back to Washington from a Crawford vacation and McCain's birthday party in Phoenix, instead of going there and bringing attention to the disaster.
20. "W" Bush, in declaring a "State of Emergency" in Lousiana failed to include the coast and New Orleans in the Emergency State. Both had to scramble to get the funding and loans they needed to recover, and lots of New Orleans still needs help.
Now these are only my top 20 and have nothing to do with some of the really stupid things he said at various times. He continued to mispronounce "Nuclear" until he finally learned how to say it late in his presidency. But, to make up for mispronouncing words he made up some of his own from time to time.
What he left us was a dump and Obama is attempting to make it livable. George W. Bush is the embodyment of everything the Progessives are running against and I fully expect to see his name brought up more the closer we get to November 2012. Most look at George W. Bush with disdain and a bitter taste in their mouths.
Here are the rest of my top 20 reasons "W" Bush is to blame for the situation we find ourselves in today:
11. Bush promoted and got, by reconciliation, tax cuts for the rich. Right after that, the economy of the U. S. and the World suddenly went into the crapper. The rich have money, the big corporations have big money, they just won't turn it loose. Those rich people aren't hiring, therefore people aren't spending and the big companies aren't making any money.
12. Until Bush limited the research of embryonic stem cells, tremendous advances made in the study of Parkinson's. On March 6, 2009, President Obama reversed that decision and we are now able to progress once again.
13. "W" Bush liked to have lots of "His" type of people around him at all times. That is why he nominated and got Alberto Gonzales, an old Texas friend, as Attorney General. Gonzales oversaw the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapes and the firing of many U. S. Attornies that wouldn't tow the line for "W." He tried to do the same thing with Harriet Miers in the Supreme Court, but she was forced to withdraw her name about 3 weeks later because of the opposition even from the Republicans.
14. The awarding of Halliburton contracts at the start of the Iraq/Afghanistan war. Some say they were no bid contracts but everyone agrees that they were very lucrative and profitable for Dick Cheney's old company.
15. The athorization of Warrantless Wiretaps as well as other unconstitutional orders.
16. As in number 13 with Alberto Gonzales, he appointed Mike Brown to head FEMA. Brown was totally unprepared and without a clue as to how FEMA was to work and what he should do in New Orleans after Katrina. "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie!"
17. After coming aboard that aircraft carrier in the early Summer of 2003, Bush proclaimed the war was over with a "Mission Accoplished" banner hanging from the super structure behind him. That was an enduring mistake. Most of our casualties have come since that day.
18. "W" failed to sign the Kyoto Protocol because he said it would hamper the auto industry which was on its way down at that time already. This year green house gasses have contributed to us having the hottest first 6 months in world history. Let me remind you that last Winter was mostly in this year, all but about 9 days of it.
19. "W" decided to view the damage left by Katrina from a fly-over at 35,000 feet while he was on his way back to Washington from a Crawford vacation and McCain's birthday party in Phoenix, instead of going there and bringing attention to the disaster.
20. "W" Bush, in declaring a "State of Emergency" in Lousiana failed to include the coast and New Orleans in the Emergency State. Both had to scramble to get the funding and loans they needed to recover, and lots of New Orleans still needs help.
Now these are only my top 20 and have nothing to do with some of the really stupid things he said at various times. He continued to mispronounce "Nuclear" until he finally learned how to say it late in his presidency. But, to make up for mispronouncing words he made up some of his own from time to time.
What he left us was a dump and Obama is attempting to make it livable. George W. Bush is the embodyment of everything the Progessives are running against and I fully expect to see his name brought up more the closer we get to November 2012. Most look at George W. Bush with disdain and a bitter taste in their mouths.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
"B. I. O. B."
The Republicans have recently been saying that Obama has to stop blaming it on Bush (B.I.O.B.). Obama, they say, blames the whole mess he has gotten into as Bush's fault. That is not what I've found.
This week in Atlanta obama said, "These are the folks who were behind the steering wheel and drove the car into the ditch. So we've had to put on the galoshes. We went down there in the mud. We've been pushing, We've been shoving. They've been standing back, watching, saying, 'You're not moving fast enough. You ain't doing it right. Why are you doing it that way?' We're about to start driving forward again and they say, 'Hold on, we want the keys back.' You can't have the keys back . . . you don't know how to drive!"
No where in that nor in most of Obama's recent statements has he blamed Bush. He is blaming the Republicans, the dumb asses that nominated then elected Bush.
But, I've been thinking . . . and that always gets me into trouble, but what are all those really terrible things that I've been blaming Bush for all these years? Well, I have come up with at least 20 of those things, a sorta "Top 20" list.
Here is what I've come up with in my top twenty list of Bush's worst mistakes:
1. Not paying attention to that August 6th memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U. S." Bush knew on August 6, 2001 that the U. S. was in Bin Laden's sights and did nothing. Bush just passed it off and pay no further attention to the warning that cost us several thousand lives and the World Trade Center. Check out:
www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
2. Invading Iraq without the help or sanction of the U. N. The U. N., after several months of hearings, could not come to any agreement on the invasion of Iraq. So, Bush decided to do it alone . . . well he had the help of the "Coalition of the Willing," 49 countries which consisted of some heavy weights like:
Eritrea, Estonia, Honduras, Macedonia, Palau, Rwanda, Tonga,
Singapore, Micronesia, Angola, & Latvia along with 35 other light
weights along with some real heavy weights like Great Britain,
Australia and the U. S.
3. Bush insisted that there was a coalition between al-Qaeda & Saddam Hussein. There is not now nor has there ever been any connection between the two. Another lie told by the Bush administration.
4. The U. S. went to war on the lie told by Bush that there were weapons of mass destruction. Just like number 3 above, there is not now nor was there then any WMDs in Iraq. It was all a ruse to get congress to vote to go to WAR. Another lie told by the Bush administration.
5. Failure to track down and capture Osama bin Laden. Bush had a chance in Tora Bora but failed to listen to his Generals and troops on the ground. I think he really wanted to go into Iraq and going after bin Laden was only short distraction to get us there and Iraq was the primary goal in the first place.
6. There was no planning for the end of the Iraqi War. How do we leave? Who do we leave in charge? Who do we train to do the job of enforcement? How do we get out with our dignity intact?
7. Bush's Presidency will always be known as the era of torture and depravity when it comes to enemy combatants. We are still hated around the world for what Bush allowed to happen to those we captured.
8. Bush's total misunderstanding of the cost of a war. His first estimate was in the $75 Billion range. To date the total cost of the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq is in excess of $1.1 TRILLION. Go to:
http://www.costofwar.com/
9. The total lack of protection for our troops cost lives in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush failed to provide body armour, and heavy armour for vehicles. Families were purchasing body armour for their kids and sending it to them in Iraq to see to it they were safe.
10.Bush changed focus from Afghanistan to Iraq for no other reason than to get the guy that threatened his father George H. W. Bush. Changing the war in the middle of an invasion let bin Laden escape into Pakistan.
Tomorrow I'll finish my 20 reasons that "W" Bush is responsible for where we are now.
This week in Atlanta obama said, "These are the folks who were behind the steering wheel and drove the car into the ditch. So we've had to put on the galoshes. We went down there in the mud. We've been pushing, We've been shoving. They've been standing back, watching, saying, 'You're not moving fast enough. You ain't doing it right. Why are you doing it that way?' We're about to start driving forward again and they say, 'Hold on, we want the keys back.' You can't have the keys back . . . you don't know how to drive!"
No where in that nor in most of Obama's recent statements has he blamed Bush. He is blaming the Republicans, the dumb asses that nominated then elected Bush.
But, I've been thinking . . . and that always gets me into trouble, but what are all those really terrible things that I've been blaming Bush for all these years? Well, I have come up with at least 20 of those things, a sorta "Top 20" list.
Here is what I've come up with in my top twenty list of Bush's worst mistakes:
1. Not paying attention to that August 6th memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U. S." Bush knew on August 6, 2001 that the U. S. was in Bin Laden's sights and did nothing. Bush just passed it off and pay no further attention to the warning that cost us several thousand lives and the World Trade Center. Check out:
www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
2. Invading Iraq without the help or sanction of the U. N. The U. N., after several months of hearings, could not come to any agreement on the invasion of Iraq. So, Bush decided to do it alone . . . well he had the help of the "Coalition of the Willing," 49 countries which consisted of some heavy weights like:
Eritrea, Estonia, Honduras, Macedonia, Palau, Rwanda, Tonga,
Singapore, Micronesia, Angola, & Latvia along with 35 other light
weights along with some real heavy weights like Great Britain,
Australia and the U. S.
3. Bush insisted that there was a coalition between al-Qaeda & Saddam Hussein. There is not now nor has there ever been any connection between the two. Another lie told by the Bush administration.
4. The U. S. went to war on the lie told by Bush that there were weapons of mass destruction. Just like number 3 above, there is not now nor was there then any WMDs in Iraq. It was all a ruse to get congress to vote to go to WAR. Another lie told by the Bush administration.
5. Failure to track down and capture Osama bin Laden. Bush had a chance in Tora Bora but failed to listen to his Generals and troops on the ground. I think he really wanted to go into Iraq and going after bin Laden was only short distraction to get us there and Iraq was the primary goal in the first place.
6. There was no planning for the end of the Iraqi War. How do we leave? Who do we leave in charge? Who do we train to do the job of enforcement? How do we get out with our dignity intact?
7. Bush's Presidency will always be known as the era of torture and depravity when it comes to enemy combatants. We are still hated around the world for what Bush allowed to happen to those we captured.
8. Bush's total misunderstanding of the cost of a war. His first estimate was in the $75 Billion range. To date the total cost of the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq is in excess of $1.1 TRILLION. Go to:
http://www.costofwar.com/
9. The total lack of protection for our troops cost lives in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush failed to provide body armour, and heavy armour for vehicles. Families were purchasing body armour for their kids and sending it to them in Iraq to see to it they were safe.
10.Bush changed focus from Afghanistan to Iraq for no other reason than to get the guy that threatened his father George H. W. Bush. Changing the war in the middle of an invasion let bin Laden escape into Pakistan.
Tomorrow I'll finish my 20 reasons that "W" Bush is responsible for where we are now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)