Change is good
It really is funny how politicians love polls when the polls go in their direction.
Remember Bill Clinton and Democrats loved touting the polls when the impeachment was going on. But when it comes to oil drilling and the majority of Americans in favor of offshore drilling, Democrats suddenly are against polls.
The same goes for Republicans too. They love polls in there favor and dismiss them when they are against them.
From Clinton's speech with Obama in Unity, NH:
"They may have wished that we wouldn't stand united to fight this battle with everything we've got. But I've got news for them. We are one party. We are one America. And we are not going to rest until we take back our country."
It sure as hell sounds like Clinton is preparing to eradicate the Republican party from this country. Apparently to her, one America means liberal Democrats and Republicans are unwelcome to live in her country.
I can only imagine:
"DATELINE February 1st, 2009 Washington, D.C. - Today, President Barrack Obama signed a presidential order barring the Republican Party as a political party.
President Barrack Obama said, "In this day and age when we are enlightened and trying to bring people together, I realized that as long as a political party is creating a divisive atmosphere, it just would be impossible to bring people together without eliminating that type of political party and membership within such a divisive organization. It is with a sad heart that i felt it necessary to such such drastic actions but in the long run i believe it will be of great benefit to the country as a whole. As soon as this speech is complete, i am sending legislation to the Democratic House and Democratic Senate for quick passage laws banning the Republican Party and laws ordering any person identified on voter rolls as being a Republican to a sentence of not less than 10 years for membership in a divisive organization or political party. It truly does hurt to have to take this action today but for the good of the country, it really was a necessary action."
Today, President Obama also appointed Hillary Clinton to head the Office of Subversive Activity. It will be her full time duty to round up all members of the Republican Party as well as other divisive groups and individuals who pose a threat to government unity.
Also today, President Obama created several other offices:
- The Office of Fair Compensation, which will be responsible for the setting of wages of all workers from CEO's to the lowest paid worker. CEO's will be limited to twice the annual salary of the highest paid employee.
- Office of Reasonable Profits. This office will determine what is a reasonable profit for each and every business and industry.
- Office of Business Nationalization: To nationalize all the industries that are necessary to Americans lives: food producers, oil companies and energy companies, health care companies, steel companies, and wood products companies, as well as any other business that may be determined to be required to be Nationalized for the benefit of the worker or the American citizen.
- Office of Government Ownership: They will immediately shut down all stock exchanges for a period of time to give them time to confiscate all the shares held in public companies. Ownership of the shares will remain in the hands of the US government. All monies over $10,000 and properties owned by individuals and corporations will be confiscated and owned by the US government for the benefit of the citizens. A proposal will be submitted to Congress banning the ownership of real estate or the accumulation of wealth.
- Office of Bank Oversight: Government will Nationalize ALL banks and financial companies for the benefit of society.
- Office of Media: The Government will immediately take control and modify any media outlet that is determined to be advocating subversive activities. Fox News will immediately be placed under government control until such time as they are reformed to reflect the needs and desires of society and government.
That is just a nightmare of what it could be like in the future. Oh, I know it won't happen in the near future but I wonder what it will be like in 30, 50, 100 years. It seems like more and more people are becoming more favorable to the idea of government controlling all aspects of ones lives.
Why is it Democrats are the only party that uses the phrase, "we will take back our country"? Hearing things like that causes me to fear what Democrats would do in the future. Is it really inconceivable that they could be like Venezuela or Russia and ban opposition, whether legally or through intimidation?
You already have radical groups like MoveOn protesting media who doesn't treat their favored causes or politicians the way they feel that they should be treated. MoveOn actually believes that the media should be controlled by them. To me that is scary that one single group believes that they should be able to control the questions and ideas that the media puts out over the airwaves.
Personally, I won't vote again because Republicans don't act like Republicans but it is going to get worse and worse as time goes on. Now I can understand why Democrats want to ban gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
There was an article in today's New York Times about how Medicare is spending much more on items like a walker ($110 vs $60 at Wal-Mart). As of JUly 1st, companies were supposed to be required to submit bids. Naturally, the companies involved began donating to congress and it appears to have influenced Pete Stark and John Dingall, both Democratic committee members as well as John Boehner, the House Republican leader, to submit a sprawling Medicare bill that would throw out the initial bids.
Of course the companies want to keep as much of the current House bill even if it does include a 10% fee reduction.
Some of the flimsy excuses given are that it:
Those are absolutely ridiculous. Taxpayers should not subsidize inefficient businesses just because they may go out of business. Also, the bidding process would require that there be multiple participants and not just one or two. So the odds that someone won't get something they need is practically not even worth considering, as the odds of that happening is very small.
And you wonder why people dislike politicians. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you are on. ALL POLITICIANS ARE HYPOCRITES.
Remember when Democrats were bitching about bidding for Haliburton/KBR doing work for the military. So Dems only want competitive bidding when it comes to the military but not the rest of the government.
And the Republicans still wonder why the Republicans are losing elections. Perhaps it is because of the stupidity of people like John Boehner who, like many Republicans, refuses to act like what Republicans used to stand for.
I guess I should have learned by now never to expect anything different from politicians. They are ALL nothing but whores for companies who give money to campaigns.
So a Massachusetts high school had a surge in girls who became pregnant and wanted to. Unfortunately, teenage girls have a tendency to be stupid. I will never understand why girls think having a baby is a good idea. Many seem to think babies will give them "unconditional love", but babies and kids are users. They require a lot to take care of them. Does it really take a genius to figure out that it is difficult to care a provide for children?
It isn't just teenagers though. You have women in their early 20's who, for some reason, move from man to man, and feel as though it is their duty to have a child with each man they sleep with. I guess you just have to attribute it to the stupidity of most girls.
Personally, I think it would be funny if these teenage girls who became pregnant also got another nice gift like AIDS or some other STD. It would be sad if their bastard children got and STD but not if the girls got one.
That's what they deserve for doing something so stupid as to just pick a guy off the street as apparently at least one did. One of them seems to have gotten pregnant by a homeless 24 year old guy.
Teenage girls should realize that guys DO NOT THINK LIKE GIRLS. Clearly not in this case, but generally girls seem to think that teenage boys love them if they say they love them. It is not true. Many boys simply say they love girls to have sex with them. And often girls incorrectly believe that if they sleep with a guy, the guy will love them or stay with them. For most 13 - 20 year old guys, this is just not true.
I am a 34 year old guy who has never and will never be in love but I know how I felt when I was a teenager. I probably would have said anything to have sex with a girl even if it wasn't true. That's the way most guys are at that age.
During an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Obama expanded on his policy idea's:
"Sen. Obama cited new economic forces to explain what appears like a return to an older-style big-government Democratic platform skeptical of market forces. "Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers," he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably."
So there first was the idea, perhaps not of Obama's but of others in regards to high oil prices, to set up a Reasonable Profits Board. Well if Obama really does belief in wealth redistribution, they why doesn't he just suggest a Salary Equality Board. He could propose that such a board be set up to determine what a descent salary would be for every one, or every person within each industry. He could then propose that anyone earning more than said amount would have that amount confiscated by the government and it would be redistributed to those earning below the set salary.
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the current system. Here's a tip to those morons who believe in wealth equality: Work, Save, Invest, Start Business, Get Rich.
So he doesn't want people to get wealthy but rather, he intends to make the wealthy poorer.
Obama really scares me and even worse, the stupidity of young people who support him for no other reason than he is black and against the Iraq War.
With each passing day this country is becoming more Socialist. It is becoming clearer that Americans are losing any sense of personal responsibility and are desiring for government to constantly have a hand in every aspect of peoples lives.
However much one individual makes has ABSOLUTELY ZERO impact on other's lives. Money is not a pie that is to be divided equally, or for that matter, that everyone is fighting over. There is no static amount of money in circulation that is always constant and that everyone is fighting over. The amount of money in circulation is almost constantly increasing. The cash in circulation almost doubled between 1980 and 1990, and almost doubled again between 1990 and 2000.
Where did this notion come from that equality of wealth is such a desirable thing? Yes, in a Utopian world, it would be nice if lower class people can become wealthier but it should not come at the expense or punishment of those who have money.
Obama himself has said that people shouldn't go chasing after money and the big house and nice suits. My question to Obama is, what are you bitching about then? The poor don't have money and according to Obama, they should stay that way.
Some of Obama's other stupid ideas:
Obama says that the $15 Billion for investment in energy technology will be funded through basically a carbon tax on electric utilities and that it would generate $100 Billion a year. He says most of that would be rebated on customers utility bills. Okay, so his plan is that utilities increase the price to individuals for utility use and then he will give it back to consumers on their utility bills.
Now this is the most stupid idea ever. He wants to increase energy costs so that he can decrease peoples energy costs. Why not just skip the government and not increase peoples energy costs?
He also wants to "invest" $60 Billion in high speed rail. If investment in high speed rail is so important the private sector will do such things and they will charge users prices which both make a profit and allow for the upkeep of such a system. There is absolutely no reason taxpayers should fund such a system. It's bad enough that we are funding Amtrak when it is more than obvious that a national railway can not be successful. If Amtrak were smart they would sell off all routes and trains and just keep their Northeast corridor. If states and their taxpayers want to fund such a high speed rail, then leave it up to the individual states but don't tax somebody in Louisiana for a train in California.
He also plans to subsidize High-Speed Internet hook-ups and I say why? If you are so poor that you can't afford to get high speed internet, then you probably won't be able to afford the $40 - $60 monthly fee for such service and it is not my obligation to subsidize poor people to watch high quality porn. They can watch low quality porn like we all had to 15 years ago.
I have no problem with the $4000 college credit so long as it is funded by those attending college. But taxpayers should not pay it. It should be funded by increases in college tuition for those currently attending college. Or if they do implement such a plan, they should have to volunteer (and politics should not be counted as public service) at the rate of $1 for 1 hour. They should be required to do 4000 hours of community service for that $4000 college credit.
But there is absolutely nothing wrong with working while you are attending college or taking out college loans. If Democrat's really believe people can't afford college, then why don't they propose that professors and other educators not be so damn greedy. Tuition is rising at what 8% to 12% annually. Why? There is absolutely no reasonable reason it should be increasing year after year. They are not in the business of manufacturing that requires raw materials. They are educators. I'm sure some of the costs for labs and science departments may increase but they should raise tuition only on the science and technology students, not everyone else.
Government in general has a poor history when they put money into various research projects. Clearly Obama has the intention of doing anything possible to get more and more people onto the government payroll when we should be doing exactly the opposite. We should be dumping people off the backs of the taxpayers and let private industry and private capital do what is required.
I hear a clip of Obama played on a news radio station in which he said:
"The technology exists to get 100 miles per gallon."
If that really is true then surely someone would develop such a vehicle. The auto manufacturers have no reason they would not develop such a vehicle if the technology really did exists. Sales of such a vehicle would absolutely go through the roof if they manufactured a vehicle that could achieve such a feat.
Also Obama has proposed instituting the payroll tax on those making over $250,000 per year. So his plan is people would be subject to the payroll tax from $0 to $102,000, then not be subject to it between $102,001 - $250,000, and then again be subject to it over $250,000.
I have to wonder why he would phase it out between $102,000 - $250,000? The only reason I can think is he is thinking of his friends both in private industry as well as the House and Senate, so that they would not be subject to the payroll tax on their income after the first $102,000.
It seems like if he truly wanted the payroll tax to be applied to wealthy people, it should apply to all wealthy people. He wants to reward people who earn more than $102,000 but less than $250,000. So he basically plans to raise the cost for both business and individuals.
$250,000 is really not that much money. How many small to medium sized businesses that are run by the owners have the head of the company earning $250,000 to $400,000. It looks like he could have looked at BLS statistics and the mean wages of Chief Executive Officers is about $151,000. He may have exempted those between $102,000 - $250,000 based on this so as not to punish most companies who have executives in this pay range.
I'm not sure if he would also limit the amount that people would get in Social Security
I am not a big fan of taxes but I am a fan of government agencies being self supporting. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) could be one such agency.
I looked at the number of shares traded yesterday. It was 4,734,240,000. If the SEC were allowed to add just 1/10 of $0.01 or $0.0010 on each share traded it would generate revenue for the SEC of $1.18 Billion dollars annually. It would fluctuate depending on the number of shares traded and the number of days annually that the stock market is open each year.
However, it would be better than to depend on Congress and the President to allocate funding to the SEC. In 2005 Congress allocated $888 Million to the SEC so this would be more than is currently alloted.
The problem however would be ensuring that the SEC received all the monies such a fee would generate and making sure that Congress could not get there hands on it. In addition, the current tax rate should be reduced by an equal amount so that Congress does not get to spend that extra $888 Million on other wasteful government spending programs.
So Obama urged graduates of Connecticut's Wesleyan University to devote themselves to "collective service":
"No one is forcing you to care,'' Obama said. ``You can take your diploma, walk off this stage and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy. But I hope you don't.''
Ahh, it must be nice to be Obama, living in his $1.65 million dollar house, all the while asking college graduates not to thrive for a nice house like he is living in. What kind of moron is Obama and the idiots who listen to him. Hell, why didn't he just say, "I wish you hadn't gone to college."
He acts like there is something evil or immoral about making money. It's quite sad that the country is headed in this direction, the collectivist mentality. Obama clearly wants to create a society of dependence on the taxpayers of the country.
However McCain has insisted that Americans serve:
"A national purpose that is greater than our individual interests."
It is clear to me that Obama thinks everybody should work for non-profit organizations and not make money because money corrupts your soul. At least that is what I suspect Obama believes.
As an individual, I have absolutely no moral or ethical obligation to volunteer or donate any excess monies I may have to charities. I have no moral duty to my neighbors who are facing hard times. Life is hard, deal with it. Without money, this country would be nothing. But I guess Obama would believe in money or at least the government having it all. Does he think every person should be paid the exact same wage? It sure sounds like it.
The fact is nobody deserves the same pay. There are jobs that are more important than ochers. Doctors are much more important than autoworkers or janitors. Yes, they may all be necessary but they are clearly not entitled to the same amount of pay.
I suppose it makes sense for Obama to target speeches to new college graduates or high school students. Otherwise, people would realize that money can provide for many things both for individuals and families. It just makes me sick hearing about these speeches urging people not to make money to provide for themselves or their families.
I bet Obama craves that great collectivist countries such as Cuba, North Korea, etc. Those great utopian societies..
In a speech during the campaign, Obama said:
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes at 72 degrees at all times... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."
That is exactly what I do. And since when do we ask permission of other countries how we live our lives. Oh, I guess that is Obama's wonderful plan: To let foreign governments dictate what kind of lifestyle we should be permitted to live.
Sadly, when Obama talks, morons listen. And this country is going to decline as soon as the suckers select him as the dictator of the US. The only option I have is to begin sheltering as much of my limited income as possible because it doesn't matter what he says. Taxes will still go up for most working people.
I do not blame others for me not being wealthy and the wealthy should never feel guilty even though that is what Democrats desire. They want to make neighbors feel bad for being successful and they literally want to punish success when we should be punishing failure.
So I look forward to seeing what Obama's Utopian Collectivists Society looks like.
So the Belgian company InBev is making a bid for Anheuser-Busch. Already politicians are trying to scuttle any possible deal because it would cost American jobs.
"Shareholders should resist choosing dollars over American jobs," Ed Martin, former Chief of Staff to Missouri Governor Matt Blunt, said in a statement Wednesday night. "Selling out to the Belgians is not worth it -- because this is about more than beer: it's about our jobs and our nation."
I have no direct investments in BUD but as an investor, I have no obligation to concern myself with whether American jobs will be lost or not. My only duty is to myself. As an investor I would have to evaluate the offer to determine whether it makes since and what the prospects for my investment would be as a stand alone company.
I would have no obligation to worry about whether American jobs would be lost unless I worked in the company. Otherwise there is no moral obligation to concern myself with irrelevant factors such as losing jobs or a well known American business.
But those who are against such an acquisition are more than free to get a group of supporters together and make a higher offer for the company. But under no circumstances should politicians be allowed to get involved to attempt to stop it. There are no national security concerns in the making of beer.
US Representative Sander Levis thinks adding unemployment benefits would aid the economy.
Levin's office estimates each $1 in unemployment insurance can provide $1.73 in economic stimulus.
I'm sure sending $1 Million to each citizen would help the economy too but it doesn't mean it should be done.
What are the current unemployment benefits? At least 13 weeks. Now they want to extend benefits by 13 weeks and an additional 13 weeks for hard hit areas. So in certain states, you would be eligible for up to 39 weeks.
That is complete bull crap. Paying people to sit on their asses not working. I'm not totally heartless about the unemployed.
If I were the benevolent dictator that I someday desire to be I would be kind enough to the unemployed.
I would bring in large boulders or an area with clear land. I would limit the weekly amount to $300 and if you really want the taxpayers money, we would make you work. We can make you dig holes and then fill them in, dig, fill, dig, fill, over and over again for 8 hours per day. Or if you wouldn't want to do that, we can make you break up large rocks with a hammer.
At a minimum, if the unemployed wants taxpayer money, they should be forced to go to government offices and the government will call all the local fast food restaurants and similar jobs until we locate a job for you.
Too many people don't seriously look for work until the benefits are close to ending. Almost all McDonald's or Wal-Marts are hiring. But too many people view those jobs as being beneath them. If you REALLY want a job, then you should be willing to accept those types of jobs.
I'm just guessing but I would bet that most of those who are unemployed are not college graduates with degrees in desirable areas. Most are probably High School dropouts or High School graduates with limited additional education.
You should NEVER be permitted to just sit at home doing nothing, periodically submitting resumes, especially when low wage jobs are available.
Recent Comments