Oct. 8th, 2008 | 09:44 am

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.�� —Ronald Reagan

During last nights Presidential "debate" Tom Brokaw asked both candidates how they would prioritize the three issues that most trouble the American public. He listed economy, social security and energy , and asked which would be the first to be acted on when one of the candidates was elected President?

McCain choose all three, and said no one issue is more important than the other two, and they all tie into a strong economy and our way of life.
Obama gave his usual "gobbly-gook" answer, that did not really offer any solutions to any of the three!
McCain missed an opportunity to reveal the true Obama,who speaks about lofty ideas but has a history of having no princiles, by not responding that Obama's real plan for Social Security will drive it further into default as the following facts will show.

Last week, Barack Obama revealed his plan to shore up Social Security's shaky finances by raising the income level on which the payroll tax is applied, says Donald L. Luskin, chief investment officer of Trend Macrolytics LLC.
Currently, incomes above $102,000 are exempt from paying the payroll tax, with that threshold rising every year indexed to wage inflation.

Obama would keep that limit in place, but then assess payroll taxes on incomes above $250,000.
Combined with Obama's other tax-hike initiatives, the total tax on labor would be close to 60 percent; in high-tax states like California and New York, the top rate would be even higher.This would take us back to top tax rates not seen since the 1970s. Obama's new tax would siphon off 0.4 percent of gross domestic product annually, says the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.For all those tax increases, Obama's proposal won't help Social Security's long-run solvency problems, says Luskin.

According to the Social Security Administration actuaries, uncapping all wages subject to the payroll tax (not just those above $250,000) doesn't make much difference to the system's long-run solvency.

If the increased payroll tax payments earn increased benefits, then only about one third of the system's 75-year shortfall is addressed. Even if there is no corresponding benefit increase, only about half the shortfall is addressed.The more taxes Obama's plan collects, the worse Social Security's long-term situation gets, says Luskin. That's because all plans based on collecting taxes and saving them in the Social Security Trust Fund for future benefit payments rely on the U.S. government being able to redeem the Treasury bonds that trust fund holds; the money to redeem those bonds can only come from taxes.

So ironically, any tax dollars collected today will have to be collected all over again -- plus interest, says Luskin.
Source: Donald L. Luskin, "Obama's Social Security Fine Print," Wall Street Journal, June 25, 2008. SOURCE:NATIONAL CENTER FO POLICY ANALYSIS

Social Security returned an average of slightly less than three percent on retirees' contributions, adjusting for inflation.Had they invested their contributions in a balanced portfolio (60 percent stocks, 40 percent bonds), those retirees would have earned, on average, 5.5 percent - a huge difference when compounded over a lifetime.In fact, the annual retirement income provided by a 5.5 percent return is double that provided by the three percent return of Social Security; even more compelling, an investment in the stock market averages seven percent real return, which would mean an annual income of three times what Social Security provides.

National Center for Policy AnalysisSTATES THAT Social Security, rather being a safety net, actually produces old age poverty in many senior citizens.
"SS" is often touted as a crucial safety net that protects American retirees from abject poverty. In reality, Social Security has made it harder for retirees to grow wealthier by reducing their ability to save and thus has contributed to poverty in old age, argues Texas A&M economist and Independent Institute Research Fellow Edgar K. Browning

The yield from Social Security looks even worse when considering that savings fuel investment and economic growth.It is likely that we would have fewer poor among the elderly had they been free to invest their taxes in private assets. Once Social Security's rate of return drops to below two percent, it will only continue to aggravate poverty in the future.
Policymakers are left with the decision to cut benefits or double the tax rates. Neither option is attractive, but the longer we wait, the harder it is to implement change and the more likely we will be forced to accept substantially higher taxes, concludes Browning OF THE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE

Senior Citizens and those "Boomers" about to enter the "SS" system, think on this before you fall for slick BHO in Novemeber!

DO PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR WHAT THEY WISH OR DO THEY WANT THE TRUTH?
« previous entry | next entry »
Oct. 7th, 2008 | 10:26 am

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.?? —Ronald Reagan

Never was the above statement more true than the present time. It appears that the "bail-out" is only the beginning of what could be the largest government intrusion into the private business sector in the history of this once great Republic.The existing legislation is a bandage at best. Americans are closing in on three trillion dollars in consumer debt. This liability leviathan is composed of our credit card debt and personal loans for items like automobiles and college. It does not include our mortgage debt. Seven hundred billion dollars is barely a band-aid on the credit market crunch; it is not a tourniquet. source: American Thinker.com

If you listen only to the Main Stream media, you will believe that it was President Bush and his administration that put the United States on the precipice of a "great recession". The television, newspapers and radio are filled with "experts" who heap the blame on Bush and say that McCain would be just more of the same.
The fact that the big LIE is wrong does not seem to impress the voting public. The truth has seldom seen the light of day except on the Conservative Internet sites like TownHall.com, The New Media Journal, and the Patriot Post.

"The fact that Senator Dodd and Congressman Frank did the bidding of the Left wing leaders of the Democrats who push affirmative action into the banking and home mortgage business does not seem to bother the majority of those who are potential voters.The following is an insightful analysis of the present economic status and it's cause . It was written by a great Economist Thomas Sowell.

"It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years-- including the present year-- denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis.

It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial crisis.

Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago.

Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration “right-wing ideology?? of “de-regulation?? that set the stage for the financial crisis. Do facts matter?"

The fact that the Obama campaign promises welfare programs that will cost over a trillion dollars more than our present budget allows, does not seem to concern the majority of voters. We have become a society that I call the "gimme-gimme" generation. Use the plastic to buy now and worry about paying for it someday!

The current market turmoil is a product of every bad trait the "Boomer Elite" has long exhibited in other social and political contexts: unbridled greed and hubris, exorbitant self-regard, breathtaking recklessness, insatiable appetite for immediate gratification, and a rollicking sense of entitlement.

Our Markets work because they reward good investments and punish bad ones. The legislation's effort to protect unsound investments seems to assume that investors will not take these protective measures into account in future financial speculations.
This quasi-socialist economics cannot and will not work. When a government nationalizes its country's debt, it makes rational assessments of risks in the private market all but impossible. Is it risky to invest in "The Fiduciary Bank of Loans to Unqualified Borrowers?" Who knows? Depends whether or not the bank's "troubled assets" have made the Treasury Department's list.

Sleaze, thy name name is Government Sponsored Enterprise. The top executives of these two GSEs,(Fannie-Mae and Freddie Mac) politically appointed executives, have stolen hundreds of millions of dollars in so-called "performance bonuses" from Fannie and Freddie. Christopher Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, has received over a hundred thousand dollars in campaign contributions from the very GSEs he is supposed to oversee. Yet this fact will never be heard on the National TV stations news!And if it was the supporters of the "messiah" Obama, would lie about it and most would believe them. After all it is racist to criticise Obama, don't you KNOW?

January, Somali pirates have attacked 63 ships, 26 of those ships have been hijacked and pirates are now holding 12 ships with more than 200 crew onboard, the International Maritime Bureau's Piracy Reporting Centre in Kuala Lumpur said.

It is the policy of the USA to not give in to terrorist demands, even when they kidnap Americans.The recent history of terrorist atrocities has included a new element of terror. The Waters off the African coast of Somalia has become the home of the 21st Century pirates.
In the past few years Somalia war lords have successfully pirated a dozen vessels and received 300 million dollars in ransom.The vessels are being held in Eyl, a port town in the semi-autonomous region of Puntland, Somalia.

Today off the Somali coast the pirates hold a Belize flagged, Ukrainian ship filled with 33 Russian tanks,and military weapons. While five US warships steam helplessly just over the horizon, and a Russian frigate is steaming at flank speed to join the watchers, the pirates demand 20million dollars to release the ship!

In my opinion there is no reason for allowing this drama to persist.
Piracy in Somalia is nothing new, as bandits have stalked the seas for years. But this year's surge in attacks,nearly 30 so far,has prompted an unprecedented international response. The Faina has been the highest-profile attack because of its dangerous cargo. The U.S. fears the arms could end up in the hands of al-Qaida-linked militants in a country seen as a key battleground on terror.source:AP News

The United States has been leading international patrols to combat piracy along Somalia's unruly 1,880-mile coast, the longest in Africa and near key shipping routes. In June, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution that would allow countries to chase and arrest pirates after attacks increased this year.Blogger note: why do we need UN approval?

An analyst in Washington, said that unless the roots of the problem are solved _ poverty, disease, violence _ piracy will only flourish. "You have a population that is frustrated, alienated, angry and hopeless," Dagne said. "This generation of Somalis grew up surrounded by abject poverty and violence."

I beg to differ. The excuse all liberals have for crime is poverty. The implication being that if we eliminate poverty violent criminals will stop their criminal activities. The largest American cities where welfare has been heaped on the citizens, Chicago, Detroit, LA and New York, still have high crime rates.Some of the most heinous serial killers have been from families that were not what we call poor.
Jeffry Damler, killed 17 boys in Milwaukee, Ted Bundy, a law student, killed 35 women in Florida,Gerard Schaefer was a police officer in Florida,he killed 30 women while on the force. And in England, a medical dotor, Harold Shioman killed 215 people, In Russia, Andre Chikatilo killed 52 women. He was a skilled telephone engineer.I could list more , but you get my point. Many people suffer the cross of poverty, and personal abuse as a child and do not become criminals. The answer is to make it not profitable to be a criminal!

The way to eliminate crime and terrorists is not to reward their behavior, but to make our reaction to crimes so drastic that it deters the potential criminal. You cannot kill them all, but if we stand by and do nothing we are only playing their game by their rules!

Knowing the ship is in international waters and carries weapons of population destruction that our intelligence tells us are destined to be in the hands of Muslim terrorists. We should announce to the terrorist that they have one hour to give up, or we will sink the ship and all it's contents! A couple of torpedoes would do the job!

If you think this is too violent I remind you of what happened in Beirut on October 23,1983. Why did over 240 Marines and sailors die while performing a mission described as peacekeeping and non-combatant?
The answer is both simple and complex at the same time. Terrorism defies the normal application of logic and reason.It transcends the bounds of human decency and makes a
mockery of any semblance of morality. It respects no laws,beliefs, or norms. It is ruthless, mindless violence designed to shock and horrify both its victims and its
audience. It is effective. It is here to stay! Unless we act and not participate in the watch and wait game!

To better understand our specific national policy regarding terrorism, the following three principles are
listed.
(1) All terrorist actions are criminal and intolerable whatever their motivation, and
should be condemned.
(2) All lawful measures to prevent such acts and to bring to justice those who commit them will be taken.
(3) No concessions to terrorist blackmail will be made, because to do so will merely invite further demands.

Oct. 2nd, 2008 | 08:40 am
The truth never needs to be explained or apologized for.It stand alone as a sentinel for freedom of expression.

The idea of sending a man or woman to Washington is that he/she will represent the best interests of the citizens in the state that elected him.
Unfortunately that is not always the case. Once the dust settles and the battle to get elected is over. Congress People are bombarded by the lobbyists who come to the “Hill�� bearing gifts from their special interest principals. The gift is usually money to help keep the person, who has a seat in either the House or Senate, in the “princely�� position for as long as they “play ball�� .

A Washington Post article (6/22/05),points out that there were nearly 35,000 highly paid registered lobbyists in Washington in 2004 who spent $2.1 billion lobbying the White House, Congress and various agencies on behalf of various interest groups. Political action committees, private donors and companies give billions of dollars to political campaigns.

My question to you: Do you think that these people are spending billions of dollars to assist presidents and congressmen to better perform their sworn oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the U.S. Constitution? If you do, you’re a fine candidate for THE “LOONY BIN�� .

For the most part, the money is being spent to get politicians and government officials to use their coercive power to create a favor or special privilege for one American at the expense of some other American. THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN DO THIS IS TO TAKE MONEY FROM THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE MONEY IN THE FORM OF TAXES, AND SPEND IT OR SEND IT TO THE SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP. THIS IS THE WAY IT IS, AND WILL BE UNLESS WE CHANGE THE RULES, AS CONGRESS MAKES NO MONEY!

What I propose is that WE start a movement to limit the time elected officials have in office. This Country was founded as a Republic with elected representatives who made their living in other endeavors than politics. They came to Washington to do the People’s business, and they then went home.
Today, we have members of the House and Senate who have done nothing but occupy a seat in the Congress of the USA for more than thirty years!

There is no dearth of talent in the USA to represent the people in USA, and the old argument that we must re-elect our Representative because he/she has been there and knows how the “machine works�� . Is no longer valid, since the lobbyists and special interest groups who put large sums of money in the campaigns pull the strings of our elected representatives–not us at home.

Oh, they throw us a bone now and then to confuse the issue, but the longer an elected person spends in Washington, the more they become disinterested in the wishes of those who elect them. This debacle going on now over the Economy is a perfect example of the finger of special interest stirring the pot!

If two terms are good enough for the highest office in the land. It should be the right thing for members of Congress! Two terms of four years each is what I think should give the Senator or member of the House of Representatives, time enough to get his/her bearings, and represent the people who are responsible for putting them in Washington. It is short enough to prevent the development of the present mentality of too many elected officials, that it is a life time job if only they can raise the money to stay in this Princely place!

This would eliminate the power of Lobbyists and Special interest groups to a great extent.And it would return the control of Congress to those who elect them.

The truth never needs to be explained or apologized for.It stand alone as a sentinel for freedom of expression.

The strangest thing is happening in the USA before our very eyes. The three most often quoted polls show that Democrat Obama is leading Republican McCain by from 3 to 8 points in the race for the Oval Office.
Why is this strange? Because when you take a poll consisting of the issues that both candidates have taken a position during their campaigns, you find that Senator Obama is on the wrong side of most issues important to the voters.

The following is a quote from the New Media Journal, today’s Internet issue.
Policy
? America is 80% dependent upon fossil fuels and Obama wants to increase taxes on all fossil fuels. 35.5% of Americans foolishly agree, but 60.9% DISAGREE!

? Obama opposes drilling for domestic fuel in ANWR and 36.3% foolishly agree, but 54.1% DISAGREE!

? Obama opposes increased off-shore energy production and 27% foolishly agree. But 73% of Americans DISAGREE!

? Obama wants to increase environmental regulations that will increase the already high cost of energy and 32.5% foolishly agree. But 49.1% DISAGREE!

? Obama wants to raise tariffs on imported energy sources and 30.1% foolishly agree. But 61.9% DISAGREE!

? Obama opposes safe clean nuclear energy and 12.8% foolishly agree. But 58.6% DISAGREE and say we should produce as much nuclear energy as possible.

? Obama believes that eco-nut environmental initiatives are more important than domestic energy independence and 34% foolishly agree. But 60% DISAGREE!

End conclusion – Obama is WRONG on Energy!

Tax Policy
? Obama wants to increase taxes on investment earnings which will negatively impact investment at a time when America is in desperate need of new investment. 25.6% foolishly agree, but 65.9% DISAGREE!

? Obama wants to increase the “death tax” on income already taxed multiple times and 37% of Americans foolishly agree. But 52.6% DISAGREE!

? Obama plans to raise taxes on the self-employed, which provide 95% of the jobs in America today. 10.5% foolishly agree, but 84.5% DISAGREE!

? Obama plans to raise taxes on all small Sub-S corporations and only 8.7% foolishly agree. But 85.4% DISAGREE!

? Obama believes that a 35% tax rate is not enough for Americans earning more than 1 million a year. 33.2% agree, but 51.7% DISAGREE!

? Obama wants to increase the top 1040 tax rate to 55% and 12.1% agree. But 48.5% DISAGREE and want to see the top tax rate reduced back to 28% like it was under Reagan.

? Obama is proposing over $900 BILLION in new social spending during his first term and 35.8% foolishly agree. But 50.8% DISAGREE!

? Obama lies to the American voter when promising to reduce individual taxes for 95% and increase taxes for only 5%. But only 5.1% are stupid enough to think those new taxes on the “wealthy” won’t be passed on down to consumers, employees and shareholders. 55.5% think those tax increases will be passed onto consumers and 19.9% think the new taxes will result on job layoffs. A full 94.9% DISAGREE with Obama!

? Still 35.7% of Americans believe that Obama’s overall tax plan will help average Americans while 51.8% DISAGREE!

End conclusion – Obama is WRONG on Taxes!

Voting Rights
? Like all Democratic Socialists trying to hijack all future American elections, Obama wants felons, non-US citizens, dead people and duplicate voters to be counted in every national election. 21% stupidly agree, but 70.1% DISAGREE!

Second Amendment Rights
? Obama wants all US gun manufacturers to be held legally accountable for all crimes committed with a gun. 13.9% stupidly agree, but 76.2% DISAGREE!

? 36 states have concealed carry gun permit laws on the books and Obama wants to eliminate all of them at the federal level. 14.8% foolishly agree, but 77.6% DISAGREE!

? Obama wants new tougher gun control laws, taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens and leaving them only in the hands of people who don’t care what the laws say. 35.1% foolishly agree, but 60% DISAGREE!

? Obama favors banning the sale of handguns in America and 36% foolishly agree. But 59% strongly DISAGREE!

? Obama wants to ban the sale of standard hunting rifle ammunition in the US and 9.4% stupidly agree. But 77.1% DISAGREE!

? Obama believes that Americans DO NOT have the right to use deadly force in self-defense, even in the case of violent home invasion. 7.9% stupidly agree, but 87.7% DISAGREE!

? As a state senator in Illinois, Obama favored raising taxes on gun and ammunition sales by 500% in an effort to slow down purchases of both and he wants to do the same nationally. 39.8% foolishly agree, but 54.2% DISAGREE!

End conclusion – Obama is DEAD WRONG on the Second Amendment

Social Spending
? Obama plans to drastically increase the power and budget of the federal government to do more social engineering. 43% foolishly want the same government who has wrecked everything they touch to “do more.” Only 49% are smart enough to DISAGREE!

Defense and National Security
? Obama wants our law enforcement agencies to wait for a court order before stopping the next 9/11 in the ongoing war on terrorism. 41.9% foolishly agree, but 56.1% DISAGREE!

? Obama wants a criminal court order before federal agents can perform a standard search and seizure of property where people are suspected of terrorist activities. 63.2% agree and only 33.5% DISAGREE! Everyone should keep this in mind the next time our agents are unable to stop the next 9/11. This is what kept the US from stopping the first 9/11.

? Obama wants known terrorist operatives in America to be afforded full unfettered civil rights equal to that of every innocent American citizen. 30.1% foolishly agree, but 64% DISAGREE!

? Obama believes the President should openly negotiate with terrorists and anti-American rogue regimes, such as Iran, without any preconditions. 21% agree, but 62.5% DISAGREE!

? Obama demands an arbitrary troop retreat in Iraq over the next 18 months, no matter the conditions on the ground in Iraq or the consequences left behind. 43.6% agree, but 51.3% DISAGREE and are smart enough to rely upon commanders on the ground to make such vital defense decisions.

End conclusion – Obama is WRONG on defense and national security

Trade
? Obama wants to increase taxes, tariffs and trade restrictions. 34.1% agree and think Obama will improve trade by these means. 49.8% DISAGREE!

Health Care
? Obama wants the same folks who bankrupted Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and now our independent banking system, to run the entire health care and health insurance systems. 35.1% are stupid enough to agree, but 59.9% are smart enough to DISAGREE!

Social Values
? Obama supports abortion even when the abortion fails, leaving a living breathing fully developed infant struggling for its life. 17.7% of Americans agree with Obama, that doctors should not make any attempt to save the survivor of the most brutal abortion efforts. But 67.8% DISAGREE!

? Like China, Obama supports a woman’s right to abort her fetus on the basis of the baby’s gender alone. 12.3% are evil enough to agree. But 82.2% DISAGREE!

? Obama opposes parental rights notification before their child can have an abortion and 19.7% are foolish enough to agree. But 77% DISAGREE!

? Obama says he has no idea when life begins and 7% are foolish enough to agree. But 58.9% DISAGREE, believing that life begins at conception and another 34.1% say that life should be protect at birth at a minimum, no matter what.

? Obama believes that the pursuit of material goods is more important than the teaching of moral values and 6.1% agree. But 88% of Americans DISAGREE!

? Obama says that America is no longer a Judeo-Christian nation. Sadly, 40.3% of Americans say they agree with Obama’s secular socialist American vision today. But 44.4% still DISAGREE!

? Obama believes that abortion should always be legal, no matter the circumstances, even once the baby is born alive. 31% are evil enough to agree with Obama. But 69% DISAGREE! 40% believe it should be ILLEGAL with few exceptions and 10% believe it should be ILLEGAL with NO exceptions.

? Obama supports giving alternative sexual lifestyles equal status with the traditional family unit. 36.3% agree, but 58.3% DISAGREE!

? Obama seeks special rights based upon race, gender, sexual preference and national origin, for taxpayer funded employment. 39.6% agree, but 53.6% DISAGREE!

? Obama has never given much in the way of charitable donations and has never even offered to help his brother living in a hut in Africa. 6.5% see nothing wrong with this in a man calling upon all others to be more charitable. 83.8% of Americans DISAGREE, saying they would never allow their own family members to live in such conditions.

End conclusion – Obama is WRONG on Trade, Health and Social Values

Justice
? Obama says the courts are “too conservative.” 32% agree, but 64% DISAGREE!

Crime
? Obama thinks it’s okay for convicted criminals to join street gangs and 12.4% agree. But 81.7% DISAGREE!

? Obama supports the socialist push to end secret balloting where labor unions are trying to force their way into companies, making employees have to publicly oppose the unions in front of their co-workers and employers. 15.4% agree, but 78% DISAGREE!

End conclusion – Obama is WRONG on Justice, Crime and workers rights.

After realizing that Barack Obama stands completely opposed to most Americans on almost every issue under the sun, it is hard for any informed thinking individual to comprehend how in the world this particular candidate is even in the race, let alone running ahead or even tied.

If you doubt any information contained in this column, take a few minutes to go take this Obama Test here and learn the real facts for yourself. http://www.barackobamatest.com/

This Is Where The Lying Comes In…
Without looking at a detailed list of official Obama positions on the issues, like the list I have provided here, most Americans have NO idea what Barack Hussein Obama actually stands for. He doesn’t tell you, directly. He talks in hopeful sounding platitudes. He sticks to a handful of buzz word talking points and regurgitates them over and over and over again, until they begin to sink into the numb and confused mind of the average American voter.

Based upon the list of issues that Omama is on the opposite side of the “fence”. Why do the polls show him ahead! Perhaps the pollsters like the Leftist Media, has an agenda that compels them to state what they hope will happen, and not what is actually happening!?