Candidate v. President

Candidate Obama (18 Sept 2008):

"Senator McCain's first answer to this economic crisis was - get ready for it - a commission. That's Washington-speak for 'we'll get back to you later.'"

"Folks, we don't need a commission to spend a few years and a lot of taxpayer money to tell us what's going on in our economy," he continued. "We don't need a commission to tell us gas prices are high or that you can't pay your bills. We don't need a commission to tell us you're losing your jobs. We don't need a commission to study this crisis, we need a President who will solve it - and that's the kind of President I intend to be."

President Obama (18 Feb 2010):

Signed Executive Order:

“There is established within the Executive Office of the President the National Commission on
Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (Commission).”

Yea, what he said.

Thank you, Spaceman, for putting into words much of what I’ve been thinking about the health care debate. Your post titled “

A Few Reasoned Thoughts From An Outraged Retard

Really hit the spot this morning.  No matter which side you are on, you should read this for some independent, reasoned thinking.

A Thousand Words About Our President

Can you pick which two are friends?  Can you pick the racist?  Can you pick the one who is looking forward to the photo shoot?

 

Thanks StB.

The President Comments

So the President admits that he knows none of the details about the arrest of H.L. Gates, Jr.,  but comments about the actions of the police officer anyway.  Just how often does he make decisions without knowing what he is talking about.  Do you really want this guy running your car company?  Health care plan? You son’s military unit?

Obama and Taxes

"I can make a firm pledge.  Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

Barack Obama, Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12, 2008

 

"Listen now.  I will cut taxes—cut taxes—for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class."

Barack Obama, Nomination Speech, Denver, CO, August 28, 2008

 

"No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama's plan will see one single penny of their tax raised. whether it's their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax."

Joe Biden, Vice Presidential Debate

 

"Now in office, Obama, who stopped smoking but has admitted he slips now and then, signed a law raising the tobacco tax nearly 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes, to $1.01."

Breitbart.com April 1, 2009 (Day 51 of the Obama Administration)http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&show_article=1

OK, so what are G20 Protesters?

Pretty much says it all.

AIG and the President

Man, I keep thinking that I'm going to quit writing about politics.  I do worry that I'm angering more folks than I'm changing minds or informing, but it's what is on my mind, so here I go again.

But first, a little background to make sure everyone is up to speed.  American International Group put together many of the financial instruments that added to the current recession.  I don't think they caused it.  Lending to folks who could not afford the mortgage was the cause.  These financial instruments hid the problem and misstated the  risk associated so that good folks who were invested in these instruments got hurt.  For that, AIG as a company and those responsible inside the company should make those investor whole before they have anything in their lives beyond the necessities.  I don't that that much will get much argument.

What I have a problem with in the case of AIG is when the politicians involved know the truth and say things that ignore that truth for political gain.  The case here is the President and congress.  This week, the President has been out in public proclaiming his dismay at the 'bonuses' that are being paid by AIG after they have been bailed out by the American taxpayer.  Were that the whole story, I'd be right there with him.  In fact, I think that was my first reaction.  But there is more to the story.

Note: The facts following come from an article in the Washington Post (a more liberal paper does not exist).

The 'bonuses' are not really bonuses, but are retention payments, meaning, workers/managers who signed contracts agreed to stay through the year and in return, they would get these payments.  It is nothing more than restructured salary.  This was the conclusion of the Federal Reserve.  The administration agreed with this conclusion.  The payments were so well known that the congress made protection of this type of 'bonus' a part of the bailout bill.  It is the law now.  Here is the amendment as proposed by Sen Chris Dodd (D-Conn) and passed:

"Crack down on bonuses, retention awards and incentive compensation: Bonuses can only be paid in the form of long-term restricted stock, equal to no greater than 1/3 of total annual compensation, and will vest only when taxpayer funds are repaid. There is an exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009."

So not the President is out playing politics by expressing outrage and vowing to "pursue every legal avenue to block these bonuses."  Many regular folks are also outraged instead of informed and the employees of AIG who had nothing to do with this are under armed guard at work because of the threats caused by the President's grandstanding.  Many employees are not coming to work and some of their work is to unravel the mess made by those responsible.  If that does not get done, the economic situation can get worse for us all.

I would expect my president to stand up for fulfilling obligations, like employers paying employees, and to stand up for the law.   I certainly don't want him spouting off with false surprise because it will play well with the public.  In this case it is endangering the employees of AIG and the economy.

Give me a break indeed.

From Jake Tapper's (ABC News) blog (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/oh-that-joe-no.html)

"At an event at Union Station today where Vice President Joe Biden was heralding the $1.3 billion in investments in rebuilding train stations and passenger rails, a microphone picked up one of the former senator's myriad Senate colleagues addressing him, formally, as "Mr. Vice President."
That met with Vice President Biden's standard reply.
"Gimme a f*&$#ing break," he said, apparently unaware that the microphone was on."

This is news?  It sounds to me like the VP is being friendly and real person.  OK he said "fuck."  Good for him.  Jake, don't try to make news where there is none.  Concentrate on the man's policies and don't harp on this picky crap.  I didn't like it when you did it to GWB and I don't like it now.

Maybe it's just me.

Can you guess what website posted this?

On the Binyam Mohamed Case:

"...“Why the heck is President Obama protecting torturers?” <name redacted> writes, “Obama fails his first test on civil liberties and accountability — resoundingly and disgracefully.”

What makes this particularly appalling and inexcusable is that Senate Democrats had long vehemently opposed the use of the “state secrets” privilege in exactly the way that the Bush administration used it in this case, even sponsoring legislation to limits its use and scope.  Yet here is Obama, the very first chance he gets, invoking exactly this doctrine in its most expansive and abusive form to prevent torture victims even from having their day in court, on the ground that national security will be jeopardized."

So who wrote it?  Answer tomorrow or acknowledged in the comments.

In any case, it looks like the "Change Bus" ran off the road in just 22 days.

Politics and Reason

With all of the fawning over President Obama and the political arguments during the campaign just past, this little blurb from MSNBC struck me as quite funny and quite true:

"Are your political views backed by reason? If you're a staunch Republican or Democrat, they're probably not. Areas of the brain associated with reason are hardly active when dedicated partisans explain away contradictory statements made by their preferred candidates, according to brain imaging research."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28814417/?pg=2#Tech_BrainScience to view the page.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/08/the_political_brain_by_drew_westen.html for more details on the research.

Now, if you know someone who is always partisan (republican or democrat), they are likely feeling more than they are thinking.

What I like about Obama

It seems like everybody else is writing about the greatness of the current President.  I've been hearing about how much he got done on his first day in office (anyone could with 11 weeks to plan it), how he is having to stitch the Constitution back together (it's still in the glass box as far as I know), and how great a dancer he is (I think Michelle was leading - just kidding).

To be fair, I think I should write down the positive that I see currently.  Even though I'm a conservative libertarian (little "l", not the libertarian party), I can see that he does have his good points.  Even though his ardent supporters think he comes close to walking on water, that shouldn't keep me from seeing the good as well as the suspect.  Let me explain 4 positives that I see.

The economy needs a change.

Much of economics, as I understand it, is as much about human nature and emotion as it is about GDP, bankruptcies and interest rates.  Right now, the emotional state of the consumer is horrible, and for good reason.  Too many folks are losing their jobs.   Too many folks are walking away from mortgages that they can no longer afford.  Too many folks are not buying like they used to because they are scared about what the future might bring. 

It is that emotional segment of the problem that could make the downward spiral longer and deeper. A new man at the helm can help with this directly.  Just having him there has lifted the sprits of millions.  Hope for the economic future can help.  The new administration has probably 9 months to a year to show some progress before the 'hope' effect wears off.  The 2 or3 trillion dollars of stimulus/bail-out money should start having some effect before then.

He is Black.

I guess that is stating the obvious, but it is a good thing.  There are a lot of white folk who carry around a lot of guilt over the way blacks have been treated through the years.  I hope this eases their pain some. 

There are a lot of folks (of both pallor and color) out there who feel like the system is a little less stacked against them now that the US has elected a person of color.  Taking an issue like this from "It can't be done" to "It has been done" in about 9 months is remarkable and inspiring.  It is a "stick in the eye" to all the bigot of the world that says "your time is past."  It also says to the Europeans who have been talking down to us for the last 6 years or so, "Hey, you've got citizens of color.  When are you going to catch up?"  I didn't vote for him, but I don't like outsiders talking bad about my country.

He is young and tech savvy.

I'm not so young anymore, but I work in tech and enjoy much that the latest computer and entertainment technology has to offer.  I can't stand the the old world monopolies of TV, cable, phone, High-speed Internet, etc. that old government think has brought us.  There are better ways.  Europe, for one example, is way ahead of us in high-speed Internet penetration.  Net neutrality and more choices in providers of cable and Internet would be great for the country.  We can even dream of legally depositing to on-line poker sites one day.  Sigh.

The conservative movement needs him.

Lord knows that the conservative movement has been lost since the end of the Reagan administration.  First GHW Bush compromised with the democratic congress and raised taxes while they ignored their side of the bargain (lowering spending).  That led directly to Clinton's election.  Since then, the democrats have talked more (yet done next to nothing) about conservative ideologies than have republicans.  The republican congress that came in with the Contract for America flittered away its leadership opportunity with moral and political corruption.  9/11 put the last nail in the conservative coffin by ending all talk of smaller government.

That is where the stomping of the republicans in the election of 2008 come in.  Now the conservatives will have an opportunity to get back to the values of smaller government, lower spending, strong national defense, and free enterprise.  Who knows, maybe the republican party will become the conservative party again.  At least I hope so.  It will be a while until the message is heard, but I believe that these principles are best for the country and all its people in the long run.  The liberal economics are like no-interest balloon mortgages.  They are great for those things that we want now, but maybe can't afford.  Things seem so much better for a while, until the real bills come due. (Note: I'm talking economic policy here, not social policy.  That will have to be another post.)

If President Obama embraces smaller government, lower spending, strong national defense, and free enterprise, I'll be among his biggest fans.  However, I really don't think he is strong enough to control his own party (read: Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, et al) and that will put a more radical wing of the democratic party in control.  I don't think most Americans will like the result.  I'm willing and able to wait and see. 

He is so Dreamy!

In the mean time, I reserve this space for picking on any Obama fans that are still acting like infatuated teenage girls (except for those that are infatuated teenage girls, of course).

Democrats Start Shredding the Constitution

I just got a peak at this little jewel:

Senate Democrats move toward seating Franken

The short of the story is that the Senate Democrats want to provisionally seat Al Franken as a US Senator.

I've heard a lot of heartache about how Bush shredded the Constitution in making up law as he needed.  Well, just over 24 hours into the new administration and the party that the new president leads is going to seat someone who has not been elected.  Yes, he is leading, but the state has a constitution and laws that allow for the current process.  He has not been elected.  So let's hear the same level of anger toward Biden (he chairs the Senate now) and the new party in power.

No, I don't expect to hear a thing because it is Democrats that are doing it and all the bullshit about Bush has just been partisan politics, not arguments with principles.  At least I won't be surprised.

Following up on yesterday's post - Who's to blame

This video goes down the same path I started down yesterday, but it goes further to the source with more details and it names names. The results are stunning. If you have any open mind about the upcoming election (sorry Tony, that leaves you out) then you should watch this video. It is stunning.

Thanks to 23skidoo for post this video where I would catch it.

Who's to Blame

There has been a question rolling around in my head for the past week. It concerns the current economic crisis. To set the stage, let's go over the problems that led up to where we are in my opinion. It started with the banks loaning too much money to home-buyers who cannot afford to make the payments on the interest and the principle. This really kicked into high gear about 6 years ago. Since the terms for many of those loans were for zero interest for 5 years, many of those loans started to default about a year ago. (This is all just off the top of my head so feel free to correct if my misstatements make a difference to my argument below or sue me).

In other words, 6 years ago, many poor people (single mothers and african-americans among them) were able to buy homes for the first time.

Back when these loans were being written, the banks were repackaging the loans (bundling them up into groups) and selling that debt as investments to each other. These are shown as assets on the books of the holders of the repackaged debt (instruments or derivatives). When the holders defaulted, the assets became worth a fraction of their original worth and the banks began losing tons of money. Since they don't have enough assets, they can not make new loans.

With me so far?

Now here is my question: Who could have possibly stopped this from happening? President Bush? Congress? The Banks?

In a way, the answer is all of the above. Any of them literally could have stepped in and stopped allowing the loans to be made. But practically, none of them could have stopped it. President Kerry would have loved it if the mean-spirited GW Bush would have cut-off poor minorities from home ownership. Congress could have, but they have no political will. Had the banks done it, they would have been accused or red-lining and would have had to relent to pressure from everywhere.

I think that looking back in this case will help us to avoid this problem in the future. There will have to be national minimum requirements for obtaining loans. Notice I didn't say mortgages. There is a ton of other debt (credit cards) out there just waiting to cause the same or bigger problem. Just as banks have to have a certain level of assets backing the loans they make, consumers are going to have to have certain levels of income and or assets backing the loans they accept. Terms for those loans will also have to be more uniform. This will slow the economy in the short and mid-term, but will avoid a melt-down in the long term.

There will either be action on this, which will include hateful accusations against whoever tries to fix the problem, or we will be right back here in less than a decade. The era of creative and flexible financing is most probably over.

Thoughts?

Patriotism

A friend on another blog posed the question, "What good is Patriotism?" He went on to write that he found no good in it.  I have to disagree.

First, I need to define what I call and feel as Patriotism.  It is pride in the ideas that make our people great.  It's not really about the country.  It is more about the idea of freedom and just government than about borders.

It is not pride in the flag.   The flag is a symbol of this country.  The meanings of symbols change, both for the good and the bad over time.  The both the swastika and the cross have been symbols that have been both positive and negative depending on when they were used and who was using them.  Who knows what this country will represent in 100 years, 500 years, or more.  To pass laws that requires a special treatment of a symbol is dangerous.  When the government of this land tries to pass such laws, the patriotism in me says No,  We should protect that freedom of expression (like flag burning) against the government for the future when it might be well warranted.  (Having that right today makes it a lot easier to pick out the wackos)

It is not pride in the government.  A certain amount of government is necessary for the operation of a society.  Government should help a people to band together to do things that are for the common good that would otherwise not happen if left to the private sector.  Road, utilities, schools, protection, and law enforcement(very different from protection) come to mind.  The purchase of art, funding of unnecessary projects, and passage of unnecessary laws (laws banning poker for one) are corruption of the governmental process.  Patriotism tells me speak up about the wrong that government does especially the waste and corruption that exists.  Patriotism is a check on the power that still allows the people to govern.

Patriotism makes me cheer when a people rises up to throw off the shackles of oppression.  When the people of a land rise against a Marcos, or apartite,  or a politburo, my heart cheers them on.  When they try and fail like Tienamin Square, my heart cries for them, because Patriotism isn't about this country, it is about the ideas of freedom that founded this country.  When those ideas spring up elsewhere in the world, I know it is their Patriotism that makes them act and keeps the ideas of freedom alive.

I think my friend and I have different definitions for the word patriot.  What he calls patriotism, I would call blind faith.  Patriots follow and protect freedom.  Blind faith follows people and political parties without thought.  If I'm right about the definitions, then my and my friend agree.

Patriotism is what makes the people "The People."  It protects our way of life when it drives people to act in protection of their rights.  Patriotism has grown and suffered over the years.  It was strong in the 1940's and helped to keep the western world free.  I'd have to say it is down today.  But it is not dead.  It slumbers, waiting for a tyrant to step over the line.  Patriots and patriotism will protect us so long as the idea of freedom lives.

Keep the dream alive.

Palin

The Republicans may have the wrong person at the head of the ticket. If you listened, you know what I mean.

I don't know about McCain or Obama. Hope is slim.

Now is the time that our country needs patriots. I wish I saw one running for President, or Congress, or Dog Catcher. In this context, a patriot is someone who is willing to face harm for the love of one's country. Our soldiers are the most obvious example. A politician that is willing to talk straight about who his plans will help and who they will harm would be a patriot. That person would not do such a thing for his own gain. His political career would be harmed. I thought McCain might be that person, and maybe he will be later in the current campaign, but he is playing it safe for now if he want so get elected. Obama has "changed" most of his platform since the end of the primaries in order to appeal to the center of the political spectrum. That's smart, too, and for the same reason. It looks to me like they are appealing to the feelers and not the thinkers among us. Their "changes" appeal to those not paying attention or with short memories. Worst of all, they don't have to worry about the idiots who wouldn't vote for an _________ if they were the only party running.

Let me explain. If you say that you are willing to kill a child to save a thousand, you would be vilified as a monster, a Nazi, or Jessie Helms. On the other hand, if you came out in favor of saving the child without mentioning the thousands that would be killed instead, then you are told by the feelers in the electorate that you have your heart in the right place and it was good to try. That is an extreme example, but sums up politics today. The obvious right answer to this hypothetical is to hate it, but let the one child go. The politician that saves the child and fails to tell us the truth about the thousands the best gets elected and that is what both sides are trying to do. And we are getting what we vote for, liars.

So my dear friend Falstaff has posted about his support for Barack Obama (here). After reading his arguments, I appreciate his reasoning, but he needs to look again. He may come up with the same conclusion, but he has come to his conclusion based on the wrong facts.

Most telling is that he knows that Obama will raise taxes, but all of the things that he lists that would raise taxes, those are not paid for by taxes paid to the federal government. Sure, those tanks and guns are bought by the feds, but if you end the war, spending on those things will go down. He also lists garbage collection, education, sewage, police, and fire protection. In order, those things are the responsibility of the county, state, county, city, and city.

If Obama raises our taxes, he will be spending them on things that will get them more into your life, not less. Your choices on healthcare will certainly be less. Your choices on how you use your electricity will be less. Social programs will grow, and grow more wasteful. I'm not even going to get into what our current social programs have done to the fabric of poor families in this country since the start of Johnson's war on poverty, but the fact is that 30% of children in this country are born to single mothers and that puts them at a huge statistical disadvantage right from the start. That is one thing that will need to change and bigger and more social programs will not change this situation in the long run, and it must change.

Does Obama say that taxes will go up if he is elected? No? Liar. Does McCain? No? Probably a liar.

Obama promises to "change" the economy. I don't want the economy to change that much. That sound a little crazy given what we are told by the media and politicians. The the truth is that the GDP of the United States has grown every quarter of the Bush presidency. Every single one! Oil prices are up, but they are coming down. Housing prices were up, now they are coming down. If you don't like either one, just wait a bit. You may say that the rich are getting richer, but the poor are also getting richer, just at a slower rate. But Obama is going to "change" the economy. I can't wait. You can be sure that the poor will get poorer of the economy contracts.

We've got the terrorist on the run. He's going to change that, too. Oh, Joy.

I'd like to see some changes. Let's require underage girls and single mothers looking for assistance ID the fathers and force them to provide for their children (or prosecute them for rape in the case of the underage girls). That should free up a lot of money for children in greater need. I'll bet adding more responsibility to social programs is not on Obama's list.

Let's really educate all children. What a great investment that would be. Let's provide vocational training for those who won't be going to college instead of tearing those programs apart. Let's add an advanced diploma for the gifted students who are working to get into the best universities. Let's get disruptive children in a highly disciplined environment (boot camps come to mind) where they can be free from distractions. I'd pay for those things gladly.

Let's build out and harden the Internet 2. The internet is doing for our economy now what the interstate road system did for us in the 60s and 70s. It deserves massive investment. And while we are at it, let's get everyone free basic internet. Wi-Fi is not that expensive. We just have to get the cable monopolies out of the way. Then poor children would have as many resources as the rich kids. Yes, we would have to find them computers, too. That not that huge a problem.

And the list goes on and on.

Of course, most of what I've listed here are local or state matters. Truth is (IMO), the federal government gets in and takes a ton of our money and leaves the responsibilities for our services to us and other governments. Think of all the great work the TSA does in helping you get on each and every flight. So it doesn't bother me if Obama or McCain get elected to be President. Unless they do something really stupid like trip up the economy or bring a war to our country, it probably won't matter a whole lot. I don't think either man will have enough power to do either one. One or both of them need to stop lying to us about how great things will be when they are elected. It won't be. It will be a bit better for some and worse for others and none of us can be real sure who is who.

Obama speaks a lot prettier than McCain and that can inspire people. Reagan and Clinton spoke well and inspired people, but then so did Hitler. Both men say they want more alternative energy used, but neither will tell you that doing so will increase the cost of energy that we will all pay. That will mean that someone will not be able to afford something they really need. Are you ready to pull the food from Granny's mouth to get a solar powered house? McCain will try to get more land opened for drilling than Obama. That will lengthen our dependence on oil, but will keep energy costs lower in the long run (but not in the short run).

The biggest difference is that we know a lot more about McCain and what he stood for before the campaign than we know about Obama. You may like what you know, or not. There are reasons to like and dislike each side or maybe both sides. I would much rather have to straight talkers that give me the good and the bad so that we could all make truly informed decisions. I don't like gambling on which man will become what after the election. But I can understand that for one to do that in this day and age would be political suicide.

But what I can not understand are the anit-patriots who say that they would never consider voting for X party. BTW: Falstaff does not qualify here. These are the feelers who would rather pick a side like it was a sports team rather than think about the issues and look at the man or woman running for office. I would hope we could all look for the patriots and sing their praises when we find one in hopes that someday we could get better leadership than we are offered today.

BTW: I'll probably vote for McCain as an obstruction to the other party so that only the plans on which there is some agreement make it into law. However, I'm still looking for the patriot.

I'm an anti-Obama Poker Playing ex-blogger

This blog is now doomed.

This past week has seen the web giant Google (owners of Blogger) block access to several of my friends blogs. Pauly, Al, and others lost their ability to post to their blogs after years of regularly posting their entertaining content. They were told they had been identified as Spam Sites and would have to undergo a formal hearing in order to get their sites back or see their sites deleted in 20 days. If you are wondering, a Spam Site is a page that contains mostly links to other pages, thus increasing the link counts of those pages and moving those pages higher in search engines (like Google). Just a quick glance would show anyone that none of these sites comes anywhere close to this description.

So what's up. G-Rob has written a great post that may explain what is going on. In short, someone is complaining to Google about poker related content on the Internet and Google may be knee-jerking those sites away from their authors. It is a better explanation than Google has offered to date. They have offered no comment.

So what is the anti-Obama thing all about? Just as control had returned to most of the poker writers above, I ran across this article which showed the same thing is happening to some anti-Obama blogs on, you guessed it, Blogger. It looks like some Obama supporters are complaining to Google/Blogger that not everyone sees the presidential race the same way that they do. So Google/Blogger pulls the sites and does a review. Those sites are also back up after a day or two.

I wonder what would happen if I complained to Google that they are not living up to their promise to "do no evil." Would Google go down for a day?

Now that I have outed myself to the blogsphere as an anti-Obama poker player, let's see how long it takes for Blogger to track me down and review this. Probably not more th