Please step away from the political race before the God damn Republican nominee has even been selected. I'll be honest--I didn't watch one minute of President Obama's speech. Obummer has me so frustrated at his political wranglings that I'm ready to move to Europe. (Just kidding...) But seriously, I decided that I would just wait for the print version and read it--which was a very enlightened decision on my part. Yes, he wants to pull out of Afghanistan. Yes, now he wants to focus on the economy. Yes, we, the American public, have spent a fortune on good will trips for the First Lady and daughters to explore the world (I know no different than previous Presidents, although I seem to see more and more of these ladies trips than the previous--either they're taking more or the media is over sensationalizing the whole thing--oh right, that's just me b*tching. That wasn't in the speech.) Yes, even though we are going to draw down in Afghanistan, we will ultimately build up along the Libyan border. Yes, even calling for Afghanistan to negotiate with the Taliban. (This would've shocked the hell out of me if I hadn't heard it last weekend. Thank God for small favors.) But really, as I read some of it, I just can't help thinking "campaigning already?"
Honestly, yes, I would like some focus on the economy, but Americans are "sick" of war? We definately don't want the war going on and on and on. However, let's consider "sick" in relative comparisons: During WW2, everyone was on rations. A household could only have so much butter and milk for crying outloud. Women couldn't have silk stockings because the material was used for parachutes. Women, everyday average housewives, were becoming Rosie the Riveters because all the men were at war--drafted and volunteered. We shoved Japanese Americans into camps, because we were afraid that they would turn on us. During Vietnam, the draft was full on. The protests were often ugly and deadly. Vietnam was horribly altering to the American psyche. We were defeated and not even definitively. There was no real winner--Vietnam was split, and many looked at it as us intervening in the last of the European colonies, on behalf of a dying empire (the French in this case--let's not even broach the concept considering that by then France was certainly not anywhere near an empire....a debate for a warm summer evening over bourbon with fireflies flashing by). But how "sick" are we? The military is still completely voluntary. There's no draft. We aren't on rations. Hell, the last time our country rationed something was in the 1970s when we could only buy gas on certain days of the week, and we weren't at war. I'm not sure any of us are really "sick" of the war, per se.
Maybe I would just prefer a more exact sentence like: "Americans are no longer at a point where we can afford the resources for a war." That's probably a more honest statement. We are well passed the trillion point for our deficit. We give and give and give. Why the heck are we always giving? Europeans and Americans give and give and give. Per a previous blog, we give to countries that can't or won't take care of their own. The truth probably is more like this: we're "sick" of giving and then finding out that half the world thinks that we are the bad guys, even after taking millions to billions of dollars of aid from us.
"When innocents are being slaughtered and global security endangered, we don't have to choose between standing idly by or acting on our own. ...(protecting) people and giving them the chance to determine their destiny." Ok, yes, the quote was in reference to President Obama's stance in regards to Libya and Libyan people. But really, how are the Libyans any different than the Afghans, the Iraqis or the slew that I tooted off in my last blog? Our being there is helping the people in the area--even in countries that we have no conflictual involvement with. They are finding their strength and giving collective voice to that strength. I have to agree with President on this one, but then, why doesn't it apply to Afghanistan? I know there are the arguments that Afghanistan has always been so divided, that even the Russians in the 70s and 80s couldn't get it under control. However, we are not the Iron Curtain of the USSR and we are NOT trying to control the Afghans. We want them to be able to have the same freedoms that we expect to be afforded to any human being.
President Obama cannot seem to understand that there is no distinction between what we want for the Libyans versus the Afghans, or Iraqis or Egyptians for that matter. I don't see the distinction. I'm sure those Americans that want us out of the Middle East don't see the distinction either. Either we're there in the Middle East (Northern Africa) or we're not. (Honestly, I read recently that some people don't realize that Libya and Egypt are in Africa...which is a whole different blog about the sinking of what used to be the greatest public education in the world...) I believe that we have to fight and defend those that cannot for themselves--I don't believe that Afghanistan is to a point where the average Afghan citizens will be able to keep control from the Taliban, some other extremist religious organization, or some wacked out dictator. They are just regaining their own footing. To leave them now, well, could be disastrous--not just for Afghanistan or the Middle East, but for the world.
President Obama isn't worried about the opinions that think we need to stay or go, to the best of my observations. He's a little self-absorbed. It's a good idea to be in North Africa, bombing Libya, but not so good where we already have started to help democracy entrench itself? I'm confused. (I know I'm not the brightest bulb, but I don't think it would be hard to confuse someone with this one.) Like I've stated before Obummer is worried about re-election, not the Afghans, not the Middle East, probably not even Libya--at least not at this point. But, act Presidential damn it and forget about the damn media, polls (yea, it worked for Billy Boy Clinton, but he was almost impeached for crying outloud so it wasn't working that well), and hell even my opinion. Don't draw down troops in Afghanistan just because of some campaign promise. Draw down because it's the right thing to do (which I'm pretty sure even President Obama isn't convinced of). Don't worry about the election--the damn Republicans haven't even begun their mud wrestling. Stay out of it. Don't get me wrong; I really don't want to see you re-elected. However, you start acting like a damn President instead of a politician and you may win my vote. Until then, I just sigh, "Obummer."
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Monday, June 20, 2011
talking with the taliban...
Apparently this weekend, it was leaked out by sources that we might be in negotiations with the Taliban. The Taliban!?!?! I was in utter shock. Ok, Obummer (yes, I'm assuming it's his idiotic idea), have you any recollection of history? Obummer has made it his end goal to keep his political promises--those promises made on the campaign trail are often so broken within months so I can honestly respect his end goal. But, the truth is that when dealing with terrorists, whether homegrown or Middle Eastern, we've had no success with negotiations--EVER. So I'm a tad nauseated that he, and his staff, would even consider it!!
Now all that aside, President Jimmy Carter (who I've compared President Obama to before) had a lot of luck negotiating the release of the hostages in Iran (feel the sarcasm). For those of you that need a refresher, Iran took Americans hostage as part of the Islamic Revolution. How dare Americans and Europeans bring our "live and let live" concepts to their hostile terrain? President Carter and all the rest of the "king's men" tried desperately for over a year (over a f*n year) to get Iran to release our hostages. President Reagan (pre-presidential year) basically promised to go in there and kick some Iranian *ss if we didn't get our hostages back. In the backroom negotiations once he was elected, he made it clear that was still his stance. He'd go to war over 50+ Americans. The stand-off ended for one simple reason--President Reagan was not taking it. America had been brow beaten for years due to greed (LBJ), corruption (Nixon), and wimpiness (Ford and Carter). From the Great Communicator came one message, no more crap. President Carter was not decisive and he was no military leader. He wimped out, and the result was 444 days for 50+ Americans kept in captivity as our nation held its collective breath. President Obama isn't really a wimp in the same sense, but unfortunately, he seems to be already focusing on re-election--keeping the promise to pull out troops. I'm not disagreeing with the concept...just the timing and moreover, the negotiations. The Taliban is a terrorist organization, not the Iranian government. Not a legitimate government of any sort--so frankly, I don't give a rats' buttocks what they want. There is no peace with terrorists. Period.
Heck, let me use our own idiotic homegrown terrorists as examples: Ruby Ridge. Waco. The Olympics Bombing. The Oklahoma City Federal Building. Homegrown morons with their own agenda. Ruby Ridge--no more taxes and stock pile weapons. Threaten government officials. Waco--same and more. Child abuse (marrying off multiple 12 year olds to your leader is at bare minimum child abuse). Anti-choice idiots--still completely perplexed how bombing the Olympics has anything to do with abortion. The Michigan Militia--how does bombing the Oklahoma City Federal Building have anything to do with taxes, not paying taxes, neo-nazism, et cetera? Not that the Michigan Militia has ever made much sense to me, but the point is that all of these groups have one thing in common. They don't stop until public opinion is too harsh for them to be as successful in recruitment. Period. They will always have some amount of people willing to follow like sheep, but their numbers dwindle when people, en masse, realize how ridiculous they are.
The Taliban has every reason to "negotiate". Egyptians successfully called for a re-vamp of their political system and the "dictator" who had run their government since the 70s to step down. Libya's political unrest has our attention and support. Saudi women are driving in protest of not being allowed (yes people, it is illegal according to religious law for women to drive in Saudi Arabia). Countries like Qatar and Kuwait who have not continued the ridiculous power of extreme religion over all people (since after all, even Islam has different sects like Christianity, Judism, etc.) have flourished. Why would people of other Islamic countries want the same freedoms? The Taliban preaches an extreme interpretation of Islam--one where women and children are little more than cattle. One where death to all that stand (or even just talk) in opposition of their extremist view and implementation of their religion. Of course, they want to negotiate. They want us, the European and American influences, gone. It's hard to terrorize the people in those countries when they see Americans, Brits, Canadians, Aussies, Germans, Italians,..all these young men and women willing to risk their lives for the basic freedoms that we all believe natural human rights. Imagine the empowerment that must give people that the Taliban have terrorized in the past. It's not surprising at all that the Saudi women, the Libyians, the Egyptians are all standing up for themselves. The Taliban, like all of the extremists whether in the Middle East or here in the United States, are only as powerful as the people they are trying to intimidate and control are willing to let them be. The Taliban is losing control and the only way to regain it is to get us to leave. Yes, Obummer, they want to "negotiate".
If we leave now, we will be destined to repeat the mistake. Ten years will pass and we will be at the same impasse. Every time we have neglected this region the extremists have taken over. We always leave them splintered and do not stay long enough to ensure the extremists will not re-gain a foothold. Then we spend years trying to rectify our mistake, only to pull back out after only finishing half the game. That is a loss not just for us, because the biggest losers are the everyday average Arabs as the extremists take back over.
Let's take a lesson from one of our most successful wins--WW2. Japan and Germany were "occupied" for decades. Japan was by treaty to be occupied for 50 years. Japan is one of the most flourishing societies on the planet. Their country didn't have near the fanaticism that Germany had. The Germans have also rebuilt one of the best societies in spite of being split for the majority of the last century. Their economy has survived the economic downturn better than many of the other EU countries. These two examples should be our focus as we move forward.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not advocating NATO military presence for the next 50 years in the Middle East. All I'm stating is the obvious conclusions we can make based on history. We've got the Taliban on the run--to the point they'd like to trick us out of the region. The extremists are on the run, not just from our coalition, but from their own, everyday, ordinary people that wish to live in their homelands with the freedom to have opinions of their own, the freedom to choose how to live their lives without fear of reprisal from religious extremists, the freedom to live as human beings. But should we to turn tail and run to keep a political promise made before President Obama even had access to what only the President and his top aides have access to? He kept us there through most of this tenure for a reason; he found out why GW kept us there. Now is not the time to suffer tunnel vision and leave those people counting on us, rising up because of us, to the wolves that have made them suffer for so many decades. Lest we forget, the same wolves brought down our World Trade Centers. If we do, shame on us for leaving this for the next generation to have to re-fight and shame on us for deserting those who only want what any human being should always be afforded.
Now all that aside, President Jimmy Carter (who I've compared President Obama to before) had a lot of luck negotiating the release of the hostages in Iran (feel the sarcasm). For those of you that need a refresher, Iran took Americans hostage as part of the Islamic Revolution. How dare Americans and Europeans bring our "live and let live" concepts to their hostile terrain? President Carter and all the rest of the "king's men" tried desperately for over a year (over a f*n year) to get Iran to release our hostages. President Reagan (pre-presidential year) basically promised to go in there and kick some Iranian *ss if we didn't get our hostages back. In the backroom negotiations once he was elected, he made it clear that was still his stance. He'd go to war over 50+ Americans. The stand-off ended for one simple reason--President Reagan was not taking it. America had been brow beaten for years due to greed (LBJ), corruption (Nixon), and wimpiness (Ford and Carter). From the Great Communicator came one message, no more crap. President Carter was not decisive and he was no military leader. He wimped out, and the result was 444 days for 50+ Americans kept in captivity as our nation held its collective breath. President Obama isn't really a wimp in the same sense, but unfortunately, he seems to be already focusing on re-election--keeping the promise to pull out troops. I'm not disagreeing with the concept...just the timing and moreover, the negotiations. The Taliban is a terrorist organization, not the Iranian government. Not a legitimate government of any sort--so frankly, I don't give a rats' buttocks what they want. There is no peace with terrorists. Period.
Heck, let me use our own idiotic homegrown terrorists as examples: Ruby Ridge. Waco. The Olympics Bombing. The Oklahoma City Federal Building. Homegrown morons with their own agenda. Ruby Ridge--no more taxes and stock pile weapons. Threaten government officials. Waco--same and more. Child abuse (marrying off multiple 12 year olds to your leader is at bare minimum child abuse). Anti-choice idiots--still completely perplexed how bombing the Olympics has anything to do with abortion. The Michigan Militia--how does bombing the Oklahoma City Federal Building have anything to do with taxes, not paying taxes, neo-nazism, et cetera? Not that the Michigan Militia has ever made much sense to me, but the point is that all of these groups have one thing in common. They don't stop until public opinion is too harsh for them to be as successful in recruitment. Period. They will always have some amount of people willing to follow like sheep, but their numbers dwindle when people, en masse, realize how ridiculous they are.
The Taliban has every reason to "negotiate". Egyptians successfully called for a re-vamp of their political system and the "dictator" who had run their government since the 70s to step down. Libya's political unrest has our attention and support. Saudi women are driving in protest of not being allowed (yes people, it is illegal according to religious law for women to drive in Saudi Arabia). Countries like Qatar and Kuwait who have not continued the ridiculous power of extreme religion over all people (since after all, even Islam has different sects like Christianity, Judism, etc.) have flourished. Why would people of other Islamic countries want the same freedoms? The Taliban preaches an extreme interpretation of Islam--one where women and children are little more than cattle. One where death to all that stand (or even just talk) in opposition of their extremist view and implementation of their religion. Of course, they want to negotiate. They want us, the European and American influences, gone. It's hard to terrorize the people in those countries when they see Americans, Brits, Canadians, Aussies, Germans, Italians,..all these young men and women willing to risk their lives for the basic freedoms that we all believe natural human rights. Imagine the empowerment that must give people that the Taliban have terrorized in the past. It's not surprising at all that the Saudi women, the Libyians, the Egyptians are all standing up for themselves. The Taliban, like all of the extremists whether in the Middle East or here in the United States, are only as powerful as the people they are trying to intimidate and control are willing to let them be. The Taliban is losing control and the only way to regain it is to get us to leave. Yes, Obummer, they want to "negotiate".
If we leave now, we will be destined to repeat the mistake. Ten years will pass and we will be at the same impasse. Every time we have neglected this region the extremists have taken over. We always leave them splintered and do not stay long enough to ensure the extremists will not re-gain a foothold. Then we spend years trying to rectify our mistake, only to pull back out after only finishing half the game. That is a loss not just for us, because the biggest losers are the everyday average Arabs as the extremists take back over.
Let's take a lesson from one of our most successful wins--WW2. Japan and Germany were "occupied" for decades. Japan was by treaty to be occupied for 50 years. Japan is one of the most flourishing societies on the planet. Their country didn't have near the fanaticism that Germany had. The Germans have also rebuilt one of the best societies in spite of being split for the majority of the last century. Their economy has survived the economic downturn better than many of the other EU countries. These two examples should be our focus as we move forward.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not advocating NATO military presence for the next 50 years in the Middle East. All I'm stating is the obvious conclusions we can make based on history. We've got the Taliban on the run--to the point they'd like to trick us out of the region. The extremists are on the run, not just from our coalition, but from their own, everyday, ordinary people that wish to live in their homelands with the freedom to have opinions of their own, the freedom to choose how to live their lives without fear of reprisal from religious extremists, the freedom to live as human beings. But should we to turn tail and run to keep a political promise made before President Obama even had access to what only the President and his top aides have access to? He kept us there through most of this tenure for a reason; he found out why GW kept us there. Now is not the time to suffer tunnel vision and leave those people counting on us, rising up because of us, to the wolves that have made them suffer for so many decades. Lest we forget, the same wolves brought down our World Trade Centers. If we do, shame on us for leaving this for the next generation to have to re-fight and shame on us for deserting those who only want what any human being should always be afforded.
Friday, June 17, 2011
OBummer, Part Deux
So yesterday morning I was getting ready for work. Part of my normal morning ritual is to turn on the news—before 7 am, it’s the local news, then followed by CBS’s morning news. They are, of course, buzzing all about that moron House member who blogged various naked pictures of himself…this is truly exciting stuff. He has a prego wife, he’s a moron, and he has an idiotic name. Yep, very amusing (can you feel the sarcasm?!?!). Yes, with the fires in Arizona, the flooding along some of the midwestern rivers, the scorching heat in the entire southern United States…well, you get my point. They dedicated a moment blurbage to these things (although the other week when NYC was scorching hot they dedicated almost what seemed like a lifetime—of course, they’re in NYC and doesn’t the closeness for them make it oh so much more important for the rest of us…), meanwhile hyping up this scandal. Ok, let’s blurb up my point of view of the scandal. The man has been married for a year. Yes, a year. Sounds like a marriage made in heaven. Move on. The weather concerns me—I’ve vaguely caught how many people have died. How the electricity has gone off in some areas. Yada, yada, yada. However, here’s my assessment. It’s cyclitic. The weather that is. Eighty years ago-ish, the plain states suffered a huge draught, horribly cold winters (estimated worse than the Blizzard in 78)--terrible heat, followed by insufferable cold. Hmmm, sound familiar…anyone, anyone?!?!?! Hell, has anyone heard hide nor hair of the Japanese nuclear plant? Nope. Not a word. Old news…although the added heat to the atmosphere, that floats over the Pacific to find landfall in North America…ah, right, there I go thinking again. That wouldn’t have anything to do with the unusally high temperatures that we are experiencing in the South. I can’t understand why anyone would continue to consider that newsworthy!! Hell, even the 1st Republican debate only received a noteworthy 2 minutes tops. (And this is CBS!! The most “fair” of the big non-cable televison networks… but, of course, “fair” is relative…) The news seems more like a visually active version of the National Enquirer anymore—which, as usual, is a b*tch for an entirely different blog…
Because this blog isn’t about that. It's about the economy and it’s about the insufferable amount on non-blame being put on Obama for the economy. They spent 10 minutes-ish yesterday morning talking about his visit to Puerto Rico to “win” the hispanic vote. (Yes, his visit to Puerto Rico actually received more coverage than Weiner did.) First off, Puerto Rico is NOT a state!!! Really, seriously, Puerto Rico is a territory and as such, Puerto Ricans have no vote. Would the media be equally excited if he went to our territory of Guam and started kissing babies and shaking hands there? No (ok, maybe, the morons), but they went on and on about how this trip was to help him with the hispanic population. OK, so apparently, the Mexican American population is supposed to be won over with a visit to Puerto Rico?!?! How stupid do they think we are? How stupid does Obummer think the hispanic population of this country is? Second, they pointed out how important the hispanic population is to a re-election run. Yes, absolutely. But how about the economy? Does Obummer seriously think that hispanics are so stupid that they will be so impressed by him shaking a few hands in a territory that they will go completely brain dead as far as his lack of doing jacksh*t about our economy?!?!? Perhaps, he’s going to impress the upper-class, white-protestant liberals who like to pat themselves on the back for the menial dollars that they throw at Goodwill after someone points out how many homeless veterans there are in the United States. These people are often all about what they can do to “help”, but somehow their version of volunteering, all too often, is going to $100 per plate dinner for their favorite politician and writing it off on their taxes. Yes, Obummer, please impress them with your trivial trip to Puerto Rico.
In the meantime, when the news does talk about the economy, they point out it’s getting worse. North Carolina is still at 9%+ unemployment. Almost all of the automotive manufacturing dominated states are still in or damn close to double digit unemployment. Automotive, although on the path to recovery, can only recover as fast as the rest of us are willing to run out and buy a new car. However, people, average Joes like you and me, are not spending money. Our taxes are set to be up to double for many of us at the end of this year. We’re all freaking out that when we complete our tax forms next year we’ll be screwed writing checks to the IRS rather than breaking even or getting back something. We’re all still afraid that the economy isn’t making a turn around and tomorrow could be our last day of work—even those of us that feel we’re ok for now are unwilling to risk that the economy gets even worse and we’ll be in the pooper tomorrow.
Those of us that are middle class (the rich, according to Obummer) are worried that the definition of rich for a family of 4 is now $80K a year. This coming from an idiot that lives in a 50K square foot home--provided to him for free including all of the needed utilities, with a salary of over $400K, who made millions on the people that bought his book. He wants to talk about deficit reduction…I’m all for him giving over his $400K a year. How about anyone in the US Government that has an income of more than $500K of their own go ahead and forfeit their government salary for the year? It’s not unheard of. Several major corporation CEOs took no income as a gesture of good faith to prove that it wasn’t about the almighty dollar. Let’s see Obummer do it. Nancy Pelosi? Hillary Clinton? John Edwards? (Oh wait, his rich wife left his cheating ass…) How do we seriously expect these people to know what it’s like to suffer when they can write all the bounced checks they want, never with a fee, against our own Government’s bank? They want to buy something, and unlike the rest of us, they literally aren’t out of money until they run out of checks!!!! Yet, somehow to the news media, even the less rampantly left media, no one seems to be to blame when the economy comes up. It's all about the economy failing, and gee whiz kiddies, isn’t it so sad that the average minions are suffering? (YES, for clarification, I do consider a family of 4 with $80K a year the minions!!)
My personal favorite from this morning, “Wall Street analysts are ok with the last 6 weeks of downturn, because it wasn’t as bad as their projections said.” Ah yes, because every guy and gal that makes money on stocks going up in price doesn’t mind a loss across the board as long as the loss was less than they thought. Yes, aren’t we all just thrilled that the analysts estimated even bigger losses. Bonds (the safest bet) were estimated to lose 20%...some of those retirees must be so excited that they only lost 15%. Seriously!?!?! With the last 6 weeks of downturn, I want personal tax cuts!!! I want corporate tax cuts!! I want true incentives to get the economy rolling—lower interest rates on car purchases, household purchase incentives, government incentives for investing that aren’t regulated to those people that know how to manipulate the system and have the high amount of money to make it worth their effort like the Rockefellers or Kennedys.
I know, I stated it: TAX CUTS. Individual, corporate, across the damn board. Bet most of my readers are completely unaware that several major corporations have moved their headquarters to Europe because their taxes on corporations are cheaper!!! Cisco Systems literally moved all of their top executives to Europe, bought homes for them to live in, and pay to send them and their families home to visit the United States (Americans, people) because it’s cheaper for them to do that than pay the taxes our government has levied on them. (Yes, really, look it up.) Cisco isn’t the only one. And do the math folks, people, American or not--overseas, build overseas, employ overseas, buy overseas. A measly two weeks out of the year they’re here, and the rest of the time, they are feeding the EU economy. Not helping our economy one bit.
But our greedy government doesn’t give up there. No. Now if a company wants to bring capital (cash) into the United States for building a new plant, adding a new department, hiring new people, capital is now taxable!!!! Corporations pay taxes on money earned just like any average Joe does. They put it in a working fund (I’m not an accountant so I have no idea what they really call it) kinda like any average middle class citizen would put money in a savings account. Now we already paid tax on the money we earned—how would average Joe feel about putting $1000 in his savings account then deciding to buy a new dryer but paying tax again as he took his money out of his savings? Not the sales tax. No, no. At the end of the year, he pays 15% to the federal government. How many of us are ok with that? We all know how 401Ks work. We don’t pay tax on that money, but we pay tax and penalties if we take it out. Would we be ok with paying tax and penalties on money that we already paid the tax on? If not, why in the hell would we be ok with corporations doing it? Especially if it means investment in the American economy, on American soil, and American jobs? (Don’t get me wrong here—I believe in a world economy, but the world economy is as interdependant on the American economy recovery as EU’s recovery.) My point is our laws, more importantly, our tax structure is not helping us recover.
I know, Obummer is so worried about the deficit. My Grams used to say “a time and place for everything”. This is not the time, unfortunately. (If you’ve read any of my previous blogs, you know where the US stands as far as deficit compared to other countries’ deficits.) While I agree our deficit is amazing (in that whole sarcastic, holy sh*t batman, who let it get that out of control?!?!), it’s the spending that is the real problem. Our government still spends thousands of dollars on non-value add crap—there are still government watchdog organizations that can show them spending $10K on something average Joe could buy for $500. They lost, LOST, $6.8 BILLION in the Iraq Recovery Fund--LOST!!! Money went over there and we have no idea where it went, but we know it didn't go to the recovery. Hmm, what if we had applied that to our deficit. But even that only received a 30 second blurb on the news!!! The bottom line is no matter what higher taxes aren't the answer. Hell just the fear of higher taxes is keeping all of us from spending any money at all. The fear factor alone is stagnating our economy. No one wants to spend in case they lose their jobs. No one wants to spend if they might be paying higher taxes. No company wants to pour in capital or hire if they might be hit with higher taxes. Here's a clue Obummer: If no one is working, no amount of taxes is going to help the deficit. Can’t squeeze the lemon dry if the lemon doesn’t have any juice.
President Obama has an agenda—perhaps, with the best intentions. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Tunnel vision about his view of the new world order, tunnel vision about the deficit in a time that needs tax cuts and spending cuts to be effective, tunnel vision about healthcare reforms that most of us that had good insurance are still scoffing at what we lost, tunnel vision about the environment which he can’t even get to (thank God!!), tunnel vision about what Americans and the United States of America are, represent and should be. Tunnel vision is a limit. There’s no left, no right, no other direction but forward. And unfortunately, Obummer is missing that there’s no way to get to the end of the tunnel in this economy. He doesn’t have the money to reform healthcare…he did it anyway. He has a vision and he wants someone else to figure out how to get there (his budget actually gives numbers while not actually deciding how to get to those numbers). All fine and good. But, there’s a hell of a lot more going on than those great ideas in his head.
Frankly, he reminds me of Jimmy Carter—except Jimmy Carter knew he couldn’t get his vision to fruitition. (For those of you that don’t remember, Jimmy Carter wanted farm subsidies and serious aid to American farmers. During his Presidency, President Carter kept pushing it, but to no avail. Ironically, the farm subsidies and aid did come—during President Reagan’s administration.) President Carter was side-swiped by the American hostages in Iran. His Presidency was marred by the fact that he had plenty of vision and no idea how to get there—very similar to President Obama. The same failing economy, horribly high gas prices, rising prices on just about everything, high unemployment, and issues that never seemed to end with the Middle East. Ironically, there was only one hope in that situation: a President that not only had a vision, but a plan to get there. President Reagan was different in that his only ideal, his only vision: The Greatest Nation in the World—Proud to be American. The plan to get there—“carry a big stick” and burying the Iron Curtain, threaten Iran if they didn’t return our people, hire an economic think-tank to figure out how to save the economy. He had a plan, he wasn't hell bent that it had to be "his" plan, and the Great Communicator could sell it. President Obama is very likely to be destined to be like President Carter. A lot of talk, a LOT of ideas—some very good, and no plan to make anything come to frutition. Perhaps like President Carter, he will be a far better politician and man after office than during--just wonder what kinda spin CBS news will put on it…
Politicians just really don’t get it. How can most of them? They enter the political scene as soon as they can out of college. They start being a cog in the wheel immediately—dependant on how much money they can raise, if their political allies get into office, et cetera. If they are elected, well, they are distanced that much further from the rest of us—better health care than any American (working or not), a bank that pays all the bounced checks with no penalties (really, I’m just so flabbergasted by this I have to beat the dead horse), paychecks for the rest of their lives, guaranteed retirements…ah, the list goes on and on and on and on…Really why worry that the rest of us are on edge about losing our jobs? They’ve got a job, a paycheck, oh and if we get fed up and vote them out of office, they’ve got other politicians that they can work for. Amazing. Don’t get me wrong; I’m a HUGE fan of our political system. Not a huge fan of politicians. They voted in their own pork bellies (decades ago,so really most of them are dead that actually put the initial pork bellies in), but the idiots in office now aren’t clamouring to get rid of those pork bellies….and actually, every so often, have the audacity to add a new pork belly for themselves. Obummer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)