Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Fiscal Cliff versus Fiscal Abyss

I would say that anyone who pays attention to politics or watches TV, should be grossly saturated with the political pundits new popular phrase "the looming fiscal cliff". The caveat to that, is that it is a gross over-estimate of the average American's ability to pay attention let alone understand what is happening, even while being slapped in the face with it.

Doubt me? I present exhibit A: Google Searches for "Who is running for president" spike on election day... in the graph, 100 does not represent hits, but rather 100% or the highest hit rate.

So yeah, over $1 Billion spent on the presidential campaigns, saturating the airwaves for months, and some of these registered voters still had no idea... scary isn't it?

Anyways, back on topic - Fiscal Cliff.

This of course, is in reference to the imminent expiration of Bush era tax cuts, 5% across the board for all taxpayers, the expiration of the 2% Social Security tax holiday, and the increase in capital gains tax rate, from 15% to 20% across the board, and some earners (over $200k/year) paying an additional 3.8% on their capital gains.

In the above article, it also describes the source of this 3.8% tax increase... from the healthcare bill, aka "Obamacare", passed in 2010:

Beginning in 2013, the national health care reform legislation that became law in March, 2010, imposes a new 3.8 percent tax on certain investment income. The new tax will apply to single filers with incomes over $200,000 and married taxpayers with incomes over $250,000.
This rhetoric being thrown around the nation's capital, is that if we do not raise taxes on the richest Americans, those who our Pretender-in-Chief claim can afford it (ie, anyone making over $200k/year) that all these wonderful tax increases expire on EVERYONE. That, and the deep deep mandatory spending cuts that are supposed to be automatic after the failure of the bi-partisan "Super" committee last year to arrive at a resolution to taxation and spending cuts.

You remember that of course, don't you? Where the Republicans refused any deal that would raise taxes and the Democrats refused to talk about spending cuts unless tax increases were on the table? And lest we forget, what resulted in the formation of the "Super" committee to begin with, where the Republicans staunchly refused to consider debt ceiling increases, and then caved in when our Messiah went public with scare tactics claiming if we did not raise the debt ceiling, that as early as the next month, people would stop receiving social security checks?

End result, Republicans caved and approved the debt ceiling increase, "Super" committee failed, automatic spending cuts are to take effect and tax increases go up automatically, and we, the American people get screwed!

And now here we are, with these Republicans having committed to a pledge 20 years ago to not raise taxes on anyone, now agreeing to go back on that agreement.

In that article, one Senator from Georgia, Saxby Chambliss is renouncing his pledge in the interest of saving his country... or so he claims.

"I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge," said Chambliss, who faces re-election for a third Senate term in 2014.
Referring to Norquist, who has vowed to oppose candidates who break the pledge, Chambliss said that "if we do it his way, then we'll continue in debt, and I just have a disagreement with him about that."
In response to Chambliss, Norquist told CNN that the senator "wrote a commitment to the voters of Georgia."
"He got elected and re-elected making that commitment," said Norquist. "He's never promised me anything."

Essentially, as most politicians are known to do these days, he promised one thing to those who elected him, then once elected, spits on that promise and goes about business as usual, telling himself whatever lies he needs to, in order to sleep at night and live with whatever remnants of a shriveled conscience remains in his dark soul.

But broken promises aside, the more revealing detail is his belief that raising taxes on the "wealthiest" Americans, will fix our debt issue.

And don't drink the "Cool"-aid presented in this article, where it claims:
Obama's victory this month with a slightly stronger Democratic majority in the Senate and a slightly weaker Republican majority in the House signaled general public acceptance of the president's main campaign theme: raising more tax revenue from the rich as part of a deficit-reduction package.
Obama in 2008, beat McCain by a score of 69.5 million to 59.9 million, roughly 9.5 million total votes. In 2012, Obama only beat Romney by a score of 64.9 Million to 60.5 Million or roughly 4.5 Million total votes. The long and short of that, is Obama lost almost 5 million votes he had four years earlier, and his challenger, gained over half a million votes. A win is a win, but it by no means implies general acceptance of his policies, but rather the exact opposite, that his views have lost favor with a large chunk of the voting population who used to back him.

Enter my next exhibit: Wall Stree Journal Article - November 28th, 2012.
In the interest of not receiving any copyright or infringement "cease-and-decist" emails, I will not copy and paste the entire article, though it warrants it. Instead, the summary of the article, is that the $15.9 Trillion deficit tied to our fiscal cliff discussion, and the $1.2 Trillion 2012 deficit immediately tied to it this year, is actually a staggering 86.8 TRILLION DOLLARS. That is the true debt the government owes not just to other countries and other people, what they always talk about, but how much they owe in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unfunded government pensions.

This number, 86.8 TRILLION DOLLARS is over five times (5x) our entire GDP. That means, our government would have to take EVERY dollar earned by EVERY person/family making over $200k/year (ie, the "richest" Americans who can "afford it") AND EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR earned by EVERY corporation in America, JUST THIS YEAR to cover THIS YEARS true deficit of roughly 8 TRILLION DOLLARS.

Of course, after you raped every corporation and "richest" family of every penny they owned, there would truly be nothing left next year to take from either of them. This would amount to a farmer eating all their wheat one winter, then wondering how they were going to grow crops since they did not hold out any for seed the following season.

So looming "Fiscal Cliff" or already here "Fiscal Abyss"? The answer is easy, unless you are one of those voters who had to look up who was running for president the weekend before the election...

Friday, November 9, 2012

That didn't take long...

So on Tuesday, the people spoke, and what they said was "Obama for President". Actually, that's the loose translation; what they actually said was "Baaaaahhhh". But you get the idea.

So there were two options. The first,  go to bed Tuesday night, wake up Wednesday and realize the world didn't end, business as usual and go about living, with a relatively oblivious and unchanged perception of reality. Or the second, scream the sky is falling, set your hair on fire and run around like chickens with our heads cut off. You know... act like most liberals do when they do not get their way, all because "The One" was re-elected, when a monkey should have been able to defeat him this election (enter Romney, an all new class of monkey).

Like watching the news these days, where you turn on MSNBC, listen to it, then turn on FOX, and after listening to it, add them together, divide by 2, to approximate truth - the reality of day to day life should be somewhere between oblivious blissfulness and the Michael Jackson in a Pepsi commercial squealing with his hair-on fire-antics.

So what happened? Page one, first paragraph, first line, first word from the liberal playbook, happened...

First line of that story: "Hours after U.S. President Barack Obama was re-elected..." Emphasis on HOURS!
Hours after U.S. President Barack Obama was re-elected, the United States backed a U.N. committee's call on Wednesday to renew debate over a draft international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global conventional arms trade
Long story short:
1. essentially, the UN Disarmament committee "moved quickly" following Obamas win...
*I'll bet they did*
2. Talks broke off back in July but not because Obama was running for re-election...
*Oh really?*
3. UN Officials REALLY REALLY wanted to vote before the election but Hurricane Sandy precluded it...
*And I have lake front property in the Sahara*

But typical gun-control lobby shenanigans aside, this next quote almost made me vomit.
Jeff Abramson, director of Control Arms, a coalition of advocacy groups, urged states to agree on stringent provisions.

"In Syria, we have seen the death toll rise well over 30,000, with weapons and ammunition pouring in the country for months now," he said. "We need a treaty that will set tough rules to control the arms trade, that will save lives and truly make the world a better place."
Here's a little known secret this guy apparently isn't aware of... The Syrian military already had guns and ammo and is the ones killing their own citizens, the 30,000 civilians of their country. So who is using these guns and ammo "pouring" into their country now? THE OPPRESSED CITIZENRY.

So why would some archaic neanderthal of a non-humanitarian want to stop weapons  from flowing into Syria now (since the rest of the world has turned a deaf ear to their citizens cries for help)? There is only one reason, to eliminate any opposition to the existent government structure.

Geniuses like this do not care about what people are using the guns for, to save their lives and their famlies lives from brutal dictators circa Nazis vs Jews. All they see is a chance to solidify the powers of government, to control people and to run their lives on every level, and without an armed society to fight back, they will win.

What did our founding fathers, the original, they the people, think about guns?

Let us ask Thomas Jefferson:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AGAINST TYRANNY IN GOVERNMENT".
Or maybe George Washington:
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have SUFFICIENT ARMS AND AMMUNITION to maintain a status of independence from ANY who might attempt to abuse them, which would include THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT".
Can James Madison shed some light on the issue?
"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
Remember that "Give me liberty or give me death" guy, Patrick Henry?
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
And finally, good 'ol Noah Webster, of Webster's Dictionary fame...
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
And now how about a Dictator to play devils advocate for me?
"History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall."
Thank you, Mr. Hitler...

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Voter Fraud: Fact or Fiction?

Let's start with a link from ABC:

According to this story:
"Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud, according to a Department of Justice study outlined during a 2006 Congressional hearing. Only 26 of those cases, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas."
That is just over 1 in 1 million, by ABC and Department of Justice (run by Eric Holder) calculations? So how is it that we have such a non-existent problem that is taking up so much voter and politician time?

Before continuing on about voting, I will reference a document describing firearm purchases and denials statistics, for 2009:

Consider this first, that in 2009, 6,083,428 applications for a firearm were submitted to the FBI NICS (National Institute for Criminal Statistics) for consideration under the Brady Law. Of those applications, 67, 324 (1.1%) were denied. Now, remember, this application form has a great big warning on it saying:
"I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law."
Of all of those denials, or people that said they were able to own firearms, only 140 cases were referred for prosecution, of which 45% (63) were denied or not further pursued for prosecution, meaning only 77 cases were followed through for prosecution. So 77 prosecutions out of 67,324 denials, and not just denials, but FEDERAL FELONIES punishable by UP TO 10 years in prison AND a $250,000 fine IN ADDITION to state prosecution. So 77 divided by 67,324 = 0.11 percent of the denials prosecuted, or just over 1 in 1000????

Oh, and for good measure, some more math, 77 prosecutions divided by 6,083,428 total applications = .0012 percent.

Keep those numbers in mind now, as we talk about voter fraud. The article referenced above at the start of this blog, would make us believe that because it is such a low number of actual voter fraud cases, that there is no need to pass voter ID laws, or voter reform laws, and that states should stop wasting their time on laws such as these, because they are useless.

First, if we discard laws that prohibit even a minute fraction of voter fraud, then why have the NICS checks? Such a SMALL percentage of people get denied anyways, less than 1% and then when its all said and done, only 0.1% are prosecuted... but again, only .0012 percent of all gun purchases in 2009 were prosecuted. Where are the liberals who are saying we do not need voter ID laws at, defending the uselessness of this federal gun law?

Make no mistake, they are embracing the anti-gun laws, including these NICS checks, with every breath of their being.

Ok, but now, since I said "First" it stands to reason I must follow with a "Second" and that is exactly what I intend to do. The SECOND I wish to discuss, is the fallacy of the ABC article data, making lite of how severe a problem voter registration fraud actually is.

The GAO (Government Accountability Office) released a study:

This article goes on to say that in one district court, as much as 3% of the jurors reporting for duty were dismissed because they were not US Citizens. THREE PERCENT! Do you know where jury duty members are selected from? Exactly, REGISTERED VOTER ROSTERS.

SO in just ONE district as much as THREE PERCENT of the registered voters got out of jury duty because they were not US Citizens? Less than one percent spread warrants a recount in most elections, and if you remember the Bush - Gore election in 2000 when Florida was a swing state with all kinds of shenanigans going on, recount after recount, throwing some ballots out, bringing others back in... THREE PERCENT would have swung that vote either in favor of the losing candidate or pushed the winning candidate beyond recount realm.

So why the spread? Why does one article claim less than .00000013 percent of voter fraud while the GAO is claiming as much as 3%? For the same reason that only 77 out of 67,324 FEDERAL FELONIES pertaining to unlawful gun purchases by lying on the form, were prosecuted in 2009. The government just does not care. Just because some governmental instution does not choose to prosecute, does not mean the crime is not being committed, it just means the government would rather look the other way.

Here are a few links of actual counties where there are more registered voters than actual people in the county: It is in states and counties that are both red and blue, some which waiver back and forth.

14 out of 102 counties in Illinois (roughly 1 in 7)

15 out of 114 counties in Missouri (almost 1 in 8)

1/3 of Mississippi counties

7 counties in Nebraska

6 counties in Alabama

6 counties in Utah

Make no mistake, the liberals will grab your guns every chance they get, they will tout their anti-gun laws, throw statistics out there, put spin on the numbers, then spin their spin.  DO NOT turn a blind eye to this, nor to the very real issue of voter fraud. Electing our leaders is a right of US Citizens, not immigrants, not terrorists, not foreign nationals. Is 3% a small number? Maybe, but it is MUCH MUCH larger than .0012%, a number which liberals embrace and justify our tax dollars being wasted on NICS checks to stop all those evil gun owners from getting hands on a gun. After all, if you tell them they cannot have a gun, they will stop committing violent crimes right?

I know, it's been a few months since my last post, but I was inspired by the upcoming election, and a reader who posted earlier this month on my blog and said it was a must read for him. My apologies for taking such a long break, sometimes it seems as though I'm talking to the sky, because no matter what forums, blogs, websites those of us with intelligence post on, the not-so-bright keep on supporting failed liberal ideology.

I cannot post as often as I wish, but I'll try to post a bit more often, to confuse those of liberal pursuits, with the facts.

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Boycott Bank of America, Bass Pro, and Wells Fargo

Generally, when writing, you establish your opening paragraph with a thesis, build supporting topic paragraphs, then summarize your paper with a closing paragraph. Think of a pyramid, building the base, and working your way to the top with support.

Today, I say screw that, here's my closing statement... BOYCOTT BANK OF AMERICA!

Ok, now I'll build this pyramid the proper way, to avoid any angst from teachers I have had in the past, who may happen across this (not likely, no one reads this blog hardly anyways).

So there is a company called McMillan Group International who sells some of the best after-market rifle stocks in the industry. Almost every custom gun builder uses McMillan stocks. In recent years, they have become a custom firearms manufacturing company as well. Canadian sniper, Rob Furlong, used the McMillan "Tac-50", a bolt action 50 BMG rifle, to make what at the time, was the record for longest confirmed killshot, at over 1.5 miles.

Here is a picture of that firearm:

Anyways, they provide firearms and accessories to the U.S. Military, our allies, law enforcement and government agencies, and civilians. In this recession (which "allegedly" ended in June of 2009, but we working class know better) firearms and related businesses, have boomed. Record gun sales, record background checks reported by NICS (National Instant Background Check System), and ammo shortages all attest to this fact. Last Christmas, as reported by USA Today, NICS ran a record 1,534,414 checks in December alone. Many of those are multiple gun purchases, not just a one to one ratio. So the firearm business is doing fine, while many other industries are struggling.

A few weeks ago, April 19, 2012, as reported on McMillan's facebook page:

McMillan Fiberglass Stocks, McMillan Firearms Manufacturing and McMillan Group International have been collectively banking with Bank of America for 12 years. Today (April 19, 2012) Mr. Ray Fox, Senior Vice President, Market Manager, Business Banking, Global Commercial Banking came to my office. He scheduled the meeting as an “account analysis” meeting in order to evaluate the two lines of credit ...we have with them. He spent 5 minutes talking about how McMillan has changed in the last 5 years and have become more of a firearms manufacturer than a supplier of accessories.
At this point I interrupted him and asked “Can I possible save you some time so that you don’t waste your breath? What you are going to tell me is that because we are in the firearms manufacturing business you no longer what my business.”
“That is correct” he says.
I replied “That is okay, we will move our accounts as soon as possible. We can find a 2nd Amendment friendly bank that will be glad to have our business. You won’t mind if I tell the NRA, SCI and everyone one I know that BofA is not firearms industry friendly?”
“You have to do what you must” he said.
“So you are telling me this is a politically motivated decision, is that right?”
Mr Fox confirmed that it was. At which point I told him that the meeting was over and there was nothing left for him to say.
I initially came across the story from another news article I was reading, linked from one of the forums I frequent, Always the skeptic, I did a little research, found a few more references to it on various other news outlets, none of which started with MSNBC, CNN, ABC, or CBS (no suprise there). So I took it on myself to write an email to McMillan, following their link from their website.

I received the following reply, from Mr. Kelly McMillan (to whom I must now apologize, for referring to him as "she" in other correspondence and on forums):

Kelly McMillan []Actions
To:MMcCall, Shannon
Friday, April 20, 2012 9:21 PM

The statement posted on the McMillan Group International Facebook page is exactly as it happened and accurate. I would ask that you redact the gentleman's name but leave his title if you repost the statement. Thank you for your support.

Kelly D. McMillan
Director of Operations
McMillan Group International, LLC
1638 W Knudsen Dr
Phoenix, Arizona 85027
McMillan Integrity-Global Vision

For the naysayers out there, Snopes already has this on their website, though their conclusion at this point is "undetermined".

So essentially, Bank of America told a thriving business that they no longer wanted them as a customer, because they deal in the manufacture of firearms. This is a legal business, following all State and Federal regulations, providing weapons that serve to protect us and citizens, in the hands of law enforcement and military personnel around the world.

Of course, with the backlash from the firearms community and supporters of Second Amendment rights across the nation, Bank of America denies this claim as false. Bank of America spokeswoman, Anne Pace, even pointed to BofA's dealings with the "Freedom Group" as proof that this story could not be true. Her reference was to an article in the Chicago Tribune, that has a snippet down near the bottom.

Personally, I think uncommon sense dictates that IF Bank of America is indeed supporting firearms companies, such as the Freedom Group as their press release and slanderous statement against McMillan's claim states, and are trying to make a profit on the other firearms companies in that group (Remingtong, Bushmaster, DPMS, Marlin, H&R, etc) then the more likely cause of all of this commotion, is trying to muscle out a company producing a superior product that competes with the companies they are buying up or investing in!!!

That, or the more nefarious "buy up all the gun companies then close them down when we own them all" approach... I'll let your inner optimist and pessimist duke this one out.

But no one wants to be "that guy" who has to admit either to opposing the Second Amendment, opposing small business, or trying to bully out the competition...

One thing to note, Bass Pro Shops (an outdoor sporting good store, that also sells firearms) issue their customers credit financed by Bank of America. So why did Bass Pro "disseminate" Bank of America's corporate response to this issue?
"However given Bank of America's significant involvement within the... industry, the information regarding the termination of this relationship was misrepresented or misinterpreted."

Maybe Bass Pro does not want to piss off mommy dearest, who funds the customers buying on credit, essentially transferring wealth from us to them, by selling over-priced guns, camping gear, and clothes. But seriously, coming to the defense of someone trampling on a small business, to protect their corporate interests? I guess the Supreme Court nailed it on the head when they said the Bill of Rights applies to Corporations as well...

SO here's my question... if McMillan is issuing false statements, slandering Bank of America, spreading false information around the web, where's the cease and decist orders? Where's the army of Armani suit-wearing lawyers crushing all opposition to what should more appropriately be called, the "Bank of Unamerica"???

There are hundreds if not thousands of people already closing their Bank of America accounts over this, just based on Facebook, blogs, and forum comments. Chump change to B of A? Probably, I mean, they DID just lose a TWENTY BILLION DOLLAR settlement for unlawful and illegal forclosures in the last couple of years. From the NPR article:
"B of A and Countrywide also failed to foreclose on mortgages that were in default, choosing instead to keep taking the fees received for servicing the loans, according to the investors. B of A has denied the claims."
Seems like Bank of America has this denial thing down!

Since my topic said to boycott Bank of America, Bass Pro, AND Wells Fargo, I should touch on why Wells Fargo is on that list.

From BuyMilSurp:

Wells Fargo/Wachovia/Central Payment/iPayment closed another gun companies account, held $17,000 and demanded that he submit "a recent profit and loss statement, balance sheet, and three months of checking account statements and I will CONSIDER  releasing SOME of YOUR funds on hold".

These are banks that took TENS OF BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars in bailouts, who pay HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars to their CEO's, even when the CEO runs the company into the ground, and who feel they can pick and choose the winners and losers in a given industry, and tell everyday Americans running these businesses to take a hike.

So in conclusion (see, summary statement, as promised near the opening of this blog) here is a list of the companies that we should be boycotting:

Bank of America (public enemy number one)
Wells Fargo/Wachovia
Central Payment
Bass Pro

And one more, for good measure:
PayPal (they will freeze your account and seize your funds if they find out you use their services to transfer money used in the purchase of firearms or anything related).

From the Acceptable Use Policy agreement from PayPal:

"2(i) ammunition, firearms, or certain firearm parts or accessories, or (j) ,certain weapons or knives regulated under applicable law."
So they are banning their service for firearms, parts, accessories, ammo OR certain weapons or knives regulated under applicable law... They are NOT saying ILLEGAL firearms, parts, accessories, just all guns, ammo, and parts... They are NOT saying illegal knives or weapons... just those that are regulated under law, which includes pretty much all knives/blades that aren't bought in the kitchen section of your local store...

And apologies again to MISTER Kelly McMillan for referring to him as a female!

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

What was January 24th?

It passed us by with hardly a notice, aside from the almost two hour Obama campaign speech, er, State of the Union address, which allowed him to talk un-rebutted, heavily rehearsed and teleprompter assisted rhetoric, which amounts  to nothing more than his usual talking points/bullets he's said over and over again while accomplishing little.

What passed us by you might say? What were we distracted from, by the Pretender-in-Chief's monotonous speech?

It was the day that marks 1,000 days since the last time Congress passed a budget for our nation. That's right, well over two-and-a-half years, since April 21st, 2009.

How long can the government continue it's policy of passing measures to fund this group, that group, etc??? And don't forget, not only are they 1,000 days delinquent in actually doing the ONE FRICKING THING the federal government should ACTUALLY be doing (instead of officially declaring pizza a vegetable, for example) they actually FORGOT to fund the FAA before going on a week long break (as reported on the Communist News Network, aka, CNN).

Remember when the Senate defeated House Budget Committe Chairman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) bill 57-40, without ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT voting for it?  At least the House of Representatives is somewhat doing their job, as outlined in the U.S. Constitution:
“Article I Section VII - All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”
If only our government were as committed to operating on an approved budget, doing what they are elected to do, as they are in spending money and raising the debt ceiling. Of course they CAN take the time to vote down a balanced budget amendment proposal to the Constitution, saying something to the effect that the repurcussions of a balanced budget would be far more damaging than the benefits... ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

Sure lets have talking points on why it should be an amendment... sure, maybe it's a tough call in economic downturn. Ok, I get that, BUT if you were passing a budget every year and made that argument, for short term issues, sure, people might buy it. BUT YOU MORONS HAVEN'T PASSED A BUDGET IN 1000 DAYS (AND COUNTING). Guess what, you don't get to talk about Congress ceding powers to the courts, social welfare spending, and repurcussions, because YOU FAILED AT YOUR JOB ALREADY.

There are 435 House members, and 100 Senators... that's 535 people that should not have a job over the next six years of elections. FIRE THEM ALL!

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Post for one of my daughters

One of my daughters presented me with a graph she found from a friend's page on facebook, claiming that Obama has increased our national debt by a smaller amount than any president since before Reagan. I told her that she should never believe anything she simply sees on the internet, and that I would show her some facts/research, to prove that just because something is on the internet, ESPECIALLY on facebook, does not mean that it comes anywhere near the truth.

So this is for her, but feel free to enlighten your liberal friends as well...

Before Bush: 1/1/2001 - $ 5.7 TRILLION Total National Debt
After Bush (8 years): 1/1/2009 - $ 10.7 TRILLION Total National Debt ($5 Trillion increase in 8 years, or $625 Billion/year)
Obama (3 years): 1/1/2012 - $ 15.2 TRILLION Total National Debt ($4.5 Trillion increase in 3 years, or $1.5 Trillion/year – 2.4 as much debt per year as Bush)
Last two years of Bush’s presidency under a Democratic controlled House and Senate:  $8.7 Trillion Total National Debt when Democrats took control, minus $ 10.7 Trillion under Bush when he left, for $ 2 Trillion increase in two years, or $1 Trillion/year. That means that for the first 6 years under Bush, with a Republican House and Senate, the Republican’s raised our debt from $ 5.7 Trillion to $8.7 Trillion, or $3 Trillion over 6 years, for only $500 Billion (half a trillion) per year increase in debt WHILE lowering taxes by 5% across the board, and fighting two wars, rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina, and recovering after 9/11.
Myth of the Clinton surplus… used by permission of Mr. Steiner.
And remember, even if you claim Clinton had a surplus and refuse to believe the article and the facts contained within, then consider that 1994-2000, basically ¾ of Clinton’s presidency, the House and Senate were Republican controlled, meaning the national budget each year, was originated in the House, ratified by the Senate, and sent to Clinton to either sign or veto.
And using that logic, remember that the last two years of Bush’s presidency, 2007 and 2008, the House and Senate came under Democratic control, with an almost philibuster proof majority in the Senate.
Ultimately, both parties are irresponsibly raising our debt rather than getting us out of it, but do not believe the liberal lie that Clinton somehow paid off debt and left Bush with a surplus, and that Bush increased our debt far more than Obama has. And remember, per the United States Constitution:
“Article I Section VII - All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

That means quit blaming the President for all the problems, and quit giving him credit for all the good stuff when it comes to budgets. Blame the House of Representatives, and to a lesser extent, the Senate. Then, and only then, blame the President for not vetoing the garbage budget proposed for him to sign. Of course, since we are 1000'ish days since actually having a budget, and the Executive and Legislative branches have been playing the "pay as you go" system and have not issued a budget for over THREE YEARS it is hard to actually assign fair blame to anyone in particular, so to hell with all of them.

Say no to 535 Congressmen, the President, and the Supreme Court. This is our government, not theirs.

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Election predictions

Obama beat McCain by 7.2% popular vote.,_2008

Popular vote 69,456,897 for Obama, vs 59,934,814 for McCain. Thats a percentage of 52.9% vs 45.7%

If 3.6% of the people that voted for Obama last time, change their vote to the Republican candidate this year, thats a tie in popular vote. I guarantee there is at least that much in swing voters pissed off and voting him out.

That does not account for those that "turned out the vote" that didn't normally vote, but made a point to, because Obama promised the world, was called "The One" by Oprah Winfrey (referring to a question asked in the fictional novel "The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman" if different newborn babies were the ones who would save african-americans and bring them equality) promised his FIRST ACT as president would be to bring our troops home and that we could "take that to the bank". Of course, that video clip was Oct 7th, 2007, and THIS ONE is Oct 21, 2011, a solid FOUR YEARS TWO WEEKS LATER where Obama takes credit for the troop withdrawal "as promised" but which was promised under the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) signed and ratified in November of 2008, under then President Bush... People were pissed at Bush and voted against his party. Alot of those voters are going to be sitting at home this year.

To say nothing about McCain running a weak campaign...

So I think Obama IS easily defeatable BUT the issue to overcome, is conservative voters being dissatisfied with the GOP's "more of the same" candidate choice.

A little over a year ago, the House of Representatives went from Democrat to Republican by the largest single swap since 1948. That is conservative voters making their voices heard.

Now the GOP is trying to shove Romney down our throats (most think because of a back room deal during the McCain campaign, where he was one of McCains biggest challengers for the GOP nomination, and bowed out from a strong second, and endorsed McCain). I absolutely believe the GOP promised him he would be their choice this election. And thats's the point... facts do not really matter, only perception and beliefs.

Where Obama can win, is where those among us will vote for a 3rd party candidate, or write-in Ron Paul, in protest against the GOP (something I plan on doing not to protest the GOP but because it's my vote, and I intend to cast it for someone I believe in, not someone who is electable).

And besides, I don't think Romney is electable this year.

And if the GOP loses just 5% of it's voter base to disenfranchisement, who vote for 3rd party or write-in candidates or who just stay at home election day, Obama probably wins by a narrow margin.

That, or we can see yet another election where a president wins the electoral votes required to be president, but loses the popular vote... and expect a recount or two.

Just my take on it.