Monday, December 22, 2008
Monday was a busy day and I was exhausted when I got home. The things I wanted to take care of before Thursday's surgery were put off until Tuesday night. Tuesday was another busy day and I was thankful for it since I knew I was about to be laid up for 2 weeks. The afternoon brought the beginning of the snow showers for the projected 1-3 inches and a phone call from my dispatcher. "Would you like to take a delivery to Chicago?", I was asked. "Does it pay more than fuel?", was my response. When I was informed what it would pay, I agreed to take the run. I was hoping I would beat the worst of the weather by running east out of town. I was also hoping that the minor headache feeling was not going to develop into a repeat of Monday night which was nearing migraine status as I lay on the couch feeling ready to puke at any minute.
As I got on the road I learned that the forecast for Chicago was 3-6 inches of snow and that it was already falling at a pretty good clip. "I'm doing this why?", I asked myself. The answer to that question is many fold. I cannot turn away work for mere laziness. I had a scheduled 2 weeks downtime about to begin. A group I belong to had prayed for work for me and I wasn't about to turn my back on an answered prayer. Business had been slow and the cash flow had been hurting. As long as it was better than a break even proposition, it was necessary that I accept the assignment.
As the time passed, the ride grew more intense. The snowfall got heavier, the road got slicker, and with nightfall the reduced visibility became worse. I was now looking at the 400-mile ride becoming longer due to the greatly reduced traveling speed. Couple this with the tendency of drivers choosing the better lane to drive in even if it is the left lane and they are backing up traffic by driving the same speed as those who are in the right lane. It could have easily been a very frustrating night without patience and accepting anticipation of these issues occurring.
About three hours into the normally eight hour drive was the first bit of excitement. While traveling eastbound on I94 just west of Madison, Wisconsin, I learned that my intuition to look out for others was correct. I was in the left lane of the interstate crossing a bridge. A red pickup was 2 car lengths ahead of me in the right lane and a snowplow was in the same lane as the red truck and approximately two car lengths ahead of it. As we neared the end of the bridge the red truck snapped loose and all of a sudden was doing a 360 spin in front of me. Fortunately the speed kept its forward momentum although the margin had shrunk to one car length. I heard myself repeating the phrase, "Lord, don't let him hit me." The truck spun back into the right lane. I watched as it squarely hit nose first into the guard rail which extended from the end of the bridge. The pickup bounced off and did a 180 and was now facing me. My anticipation was that it would continue its path and lodge under my truck. To my amazement, the spinning truck stopped in its tracks as I passed by, missing its nose by inches. Whether it was an answer to my hastily offered supplication or he caught a dry patch with good brakes, I was blessed by being spared involvement in the accident. The rest of the evening's ride was intense as the road disappeared below the blowing snow. I was trusting that the truck I was following was staying on the road as I kept it's lights in view and followed it with intense focus.
I decided to pull off the freeway at Elgin, Illinois, to get a room for the night. I was looking forward to getting something to eat while pulling out the laptop to check the status of my financial accounts to insure I had available funds for fuel and maybe pay a bill or two. I was also needing to adjust the lineups for two fantasy football teams I had playing in championship games this weekend. Well, that would have been too easy. My obsolete laptop was not finding the wireless internet from the motel and my frustration began to grow with my limited tech skills. I tethered my laptop to my cell phone which I use as my modem at home. I immediately realized I was dealing with a new problem as my computer did not recognize the phone. I had service, I had power and I soon realized I also had a low battery. The battery was supposed to be charging from the laptop. I headed through the snowy parking lot to the Kenworth and dug out the car charger. The phone was not recognizing the charger. I realized I had to begin conserving what power remained and had to forgo the internet activities.
What was pictured as an easy drive into the delivery site in downtown Chicago became a maze to be solved as I had to circle around a number of low bridges in the unfamiliar territory. The delivery was made, I successfully navigated out of town and made the trek back up to the Twin Cities. It was a long, uneventful ride for which I was thankful.
I then spent and hour and a half at the phone store seeking repair for my Blackberry. The jack for the cord was indeed the culprit and the phone needed to be replaced. I tried talking my way into replacing it with the new Storm at a reduced price, but I was unsuccessful. I wasn't surprised being that it is the brand new item that hasn't been out for two weeks yet. So replace the phone. Easy, right? Well, the word came that the data could not be transferred to the new phone since the malfunctioning jack was necessary to the process. Fortunately, I regularly synchronized my Blackberry to my laptop so the information would be readily available to transfer to the new phone. Or so one would think. As would be fitting for this week, the phone is missing something in the software so it is not acknowledging the request to transfer the data. So, back to the store or a call to customer service will be required, either misery of which will be better than manually entering 181 contacts, the full calendar and memos that existed.
That all made Thursday seem rather relaxing as I headed to the hospital for my scheduled hernia repairs. The pain over the past months from my abdominal hernia required the surgery. While there, my surgeon decided he may as well repair the herniated belly button I've had for the past 25-30 years. The surgery went well as I was in and out on schedule and sent home with the appropriate prescriptions and instructions. After 2-1/2 days of loving care from my beautiful bride I began to notice improvement and was quickly growing sick and tired of being sick and tired. The pain pills and I don't get along well and I look at them as a necessary evil. The groggy, woozy feeling gets old quickly. I am now lowering the dosage and frequency as much as I can.
So the weekend was spent laying low in the warmth of the indoors while the arctic air poured into the region. I have enjoyed watching my teams in their championship games as I have wrapped up one victory and I have the lead going into tonight with the other team. On the downside, the Vikings lost yesterday rather than wrapping up a playoff berth with a division championship. I look forward to relaxing and enjoying the holiday season as I heal up before heading back to work on January 5th to begin a couple of weeks of light duty.
Merry Christmas and God's blessings to you.
"And here's the point I want to make. Mark my words. Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he's gonna have to make some really tough - I don't know what the decision's gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's gonna happen. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate. And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you, not financially to help him, we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right. Because all these decisions, all these decisions, once they're made if they work, then they weren't viewed as a crisis. If they don't work, it's viewed as you didn't make the right decision, a little bit like how we hesitated so long dealing with Bosnia and dealing with Kosovo, and consequently 200,000 people lost their lives that maybe didn't have to lose lives. It's how we made a mistake in Iraq. We made a mistake in Somalia. So there's gonna be some tough decisions. They may emanate from the Middle East. They may emanate from the sub-continent. They may emanate from Russia's newly-emboldened position because they're floating in a sea of oil." - Senator Joseph Biden
Those are the words that have many people curious. Really though, with the amount of things going on in the world today, it will be no surprise that there would be a crisis to deal with. When has this country ever existed without something to deal with? I am curious why Senator Biden would speak of this as though it was a strength for Senator Obama. Maybe he was genuinely unaware of the pool reporters at the moment he said it. I understand that he was trying to pump up the supporters by telling them that Obama was ready to deal with any crisis that would arise, that he has metal in his spine. What gets my interest is he was telling the supporters that they would be needed for their "influence within the community, to stand with him." Is this to disseminate the truth or to enforce propoganda? Why does the administration need this help? Biden says, "it's not gonna be apparent that we're right." This type of comment leads me to believe that the response is going to either appear as weakness or go against a commonly accepted policy of past administrations. If it is going to appear as weakness, he must be saying that the response is actually a calculated decision to stand off for the time and let things play out. If it is a change in policy, what is it and why the change?What are the four or five scenarios that he could make his case from? Al Qaeda could be an issue as the Taliban re-establishes itself. Bin Laden is reportedly still alive and well in the mountains and villages along the Afghanistan and Pakistan border. With Pakistan in possesion of a nuclear arsenal, there is plenty to be concerned about considering the political episodes there in the recent past. What does Bin Laden have planned? Then there is Russia's aggresiveness as of late, notably their conflict with Georgia. I fear the USSR is being re-established, even if loosely done so. Keep an eye on their relations with Ukraine and their influence in Syria and Iran. Then there is the China and Taiwan issue for which we have a treaty to defend the independance of Taiwan, but China still sees the island as their territory. This has been an issue in the past and I don't recall it ever being totally resolved. At least not publically. This becomes more complicated in a way since President Clinton gave the communist country most favored nation status as a trade partner. Then there is the investment that China and other foreign countries have in our economy. Was part of the decision for the financial bailout based on this factor? Was it a preventative measure for fear that all their investments would be pulled out if they perceived insecurity thereby bankrupting us?
It's the fifth thought here that interests me, that being the brewing Israel and Iran conflict. There has been plenty of speculation for some time now about the U.S. and/or Israel attacking the Iranian nuclear capability. If Israel perceives a lack of loyal support from the White House, would they strike on their own? If Iran perceives weakness in a U.S. response, will they consider an attack on Israel? The Israeli strike seems more plausible, but I would not be at all surprised to see Iran step up hostilities against them through surrogates such as Syria or Lebanon. Here is a story today of Iran test-firing new missiles.
This is where past associations are of importance. Rashid Khalidi, for example, "has gained notice for his extremist views on Israel, including recent profiles in both the New York Times and The Washington Post. That extremism comes out when he calls Israel an 'apartheid system in creation' and a 'racist state' that 'brainwashed' Americans do not understand. Jerusalem, with its Jewish majority since the 1880s, he deems 'an Arab city' whose control by Israeli 'foreigners' is 'unacceptable.' " "When Barack Obama was a lecturer at the University of Chicago law school, he became friendly with Khalidi, who was then a professor at the same university. Obama and his wife were regular dinner guests at Khalidi’s Hyde Park home." Senator Obama has been on both sides of the fence, for the Palistineans and for Israel. The following article is interesting if one can get past the obvious slant and see the information for its own value.
How Barack Obama learned to love Israel
"If disappointing, given his historically close relations to Palestinian-Americans, Obama's about-face is not surprising. He is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to get elected and he will continue doing it as long as it keeps him in power." - Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 4 March 2007Politicians regularly couch statements and answers so as to do minimal damage or to achieve desired goals. Their political livelyhood is based on satisfying enough of the electorate to get into and to remain in office. How much of his support for Israel was real and how much was political necessity? The answer to that question may be revealed if there was an eruption in tht Middle East. Were the Middle East leaders rejoicing at Senator Obama's victory because he will stand back and allow hostilities toward Israel? Do such leaders have his support or do they see weakness? Of course the answer will be they finally have someone they can reason with rather than a cowboy in office. United Nations resolutions have solved nothing in the region. Whether this is THE TEST or not, it is sure to show itself as a major issue at some point in the not too distant future.
Well, maybe not slavery, but slavery-lite. At change.gov, the section America Serves has the following paragraph.
The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.
Aside from the expansion of big government and the associated costs (translated tax dollars), this potential program seeks to mandate volunteerism. If service is mandatory, it is no longer voluntary which makes it involuntary service. Until such time as the Constitution is formally rewritten, it is still worth referring to every now and then. Take for example the thirteenth amendment.
Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865. History
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
That's it, the whole amendment. It is pretty straight forward and easy to understand. Involuntary servitude is not constitutional. the phrase, "developing a plan to require" is the key point. If the service is required, it is involuntary.
The arguments will come that community service is a good thing, and it is. That it is good for our kids to do community service for others, and it is. But those are red herring arguments to divert attention from our Constitution which according to Senator Obama has a fatal flaw of not telling what the government can do to you or for you. The rule of law is based on the Constitution, but time and again our elected officials choose to ignore it and the judiciary has allowed it to happen.
What will be the policies to enforce this policy? No diploma for high school students. No access to student loans or grants for college students? Loss of benefits such as medicare to the seniors? Note that I did not use a question mark after the high school cost of non-conformity. That is because it is already a requirement for graduation in the school district in which I live.
Is this the change that was sought by those who voted for Senator Obama? It's also interesting that the site is called:
CHANGE.GOV OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT-ELECT
I didn't know we had that office. This is a first as far as I know. But to cut some slack, he is the President-Elect and it did come from his office at some point.
Congratulations on your election as President of the United States of America. This is quite an achievement for any person and you ran the campaign that got you to the goal. I will be interested to see how your followers react as you become engulfed in the realities of the office and the restraints that will be placed on you by forces beyond your control. One advantage you will have is not having the hatred built against you through the media that President Bush has had to endure. Although I oppose most of your positions on policy, I will not stoop to name calling and accusations that are contrary to the facts presented. I noticed in your victory speech that the soft shoe backpedaling has begun as you said that we will get there, where ever there may be, but that it may not be in the first year or the first term. I guess the campaign for 2012 has begun already. I'll be watching with great anticipation to see how it all shakes out. I'll also hope for the peace and security of our country and your success in repairing our economy. Good luck.
- Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
- A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
- Abolition of all right of inheritance.
- Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
- Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
- Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
- Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
- Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
- Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
- Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
These are the 10 Planks of the “Communist Manifesto” written by Karl Marx.
1)
Last night, 60 Minutes featured a story on "eminent domain," a law that normally allows government to claim private property (for a price) from its owner in order to build roads, schools, courthouses, etc. Actually, the wording is that whatever is being built is better for the "public good."
The problem with that wording is that now local governments are claiming the rights to private property in order to demolish it and sell the space to a builder to build more expensive private property. Why? Because then the town would get more in property taxes and that's considered "public good." Unfortunately, it leaves families out in the cold.
http://www.dailyping.com/archive/2003/09/29/2) IRS Tax Code
3) What's the inheritance tax up to now?
4) Well, not yet. But look at the harassment for those who dare to question Obama.
5) Federal Reserve, World Bank, federal bail out this month with equity position taken by the government.
6) More control coming all the time.
7) Farm programs and subsidies with regulations laid out by the feds.
8) More regulations and mandates coming. Will there be mandated health care for employers to pay for?
9) The Metro Council in our area regulates urban sprawl. It's kind of the opposite since they are trying to keep people in the city rather than have urban sprawl. Either way it is population being controlled in the manner desired by the government.
10) Free education. Nothing is really free, although one might think it is at times considering the quality some days.
I post this just because there seems to be an eerie resemblance to the way our society is moving.
It was communist revolutionary Lenin who said, Give me one generation
of youth, and I will transform the entire world (Microsoft Encarta
Encyclopaedia 2002).
So today it is revisionist history, global warming and global community. Forget about individual rights and responsibilities. Socialism is the growing way, depending on government. The schools moved from the states to the national association with all the propaganda that accompanies that.
I have heard Senator Obama say that the current economic situation is the worst it has been since the great depression. What I know is the landscape doesn't look like anything from the movie The Grapes Of Wrath nor does it seem to be as my grandfather described in the stories he has told me about those times. I will allow for a certain amount of hyperbole as all campaigns bend and stretch stats and records to make their point or attempt to fit their claim into a set of circumstances. However, this over the top claim is curious when compared to his statements that the opposition is using scare tactics. I would think the proper revision to his statement would be to say we may be in the worst economic situation since the Carter Administration.
I am not an economist, but I have run my household for almost 30 years, managed in business for others and owned a business of my own. I know what it means to balance a budget, save for a rainy day and save for the future. Part of the problem is the government attitude that spending is what is important, then tax the people to get what the government needs to cover the bill. I wish I had such a luxury with my budget. I went through some government sites and just pulled out some numbers that I put in a table so I could do some comparison. I didn't seek out categories that I thought would work one way or the other, just familiar numbers we hear in the news. Inflation, unemployment and the consumer price index are regular staples on the nightly news. I am sure there are other numbers to look at if we were trying to go in depth into economics, but I was looking for a base to compare against the depression statement.
Let's take a look at some numbers from the past 34 years.
| YEAR | PRESIDENT | CONGRESS CONTROL | INFLATION PERCENT | UNEMPLOYMENT AS % OF LABOR FORCE | CONSUMER PRICE INDEX |
| 1974 | FORD - R | S-D H-D | 11.03 | 5.6 | 49.3 |
| 1975 | FORD - R | S-D H-D | 9.20 | 8.5 | 53.8 |
| 1976 | FORD - R | S-D H-D | 5.75 | 7.7 | 56.9 |
| 1977 | CARTER - D | S-D H-D | 6.50 | 7.1 | 60.6 |
| 1978 | CARTER - D | S-D H-D | 7.62 | 6.1 | 65.2 |
| 1979 | CARTER - D | S-D H-D | 11.22 | 5.8 | 72.6 |
| 1980 | CARTER - D | S-D H-D | 13.58 | 7.1 | 82.4 |
| 1981 | REAGAN - R | S-R H-D | 10.35 | 7.6 | 90.9 |
| 1982 | REAGAN - R | S-R H-D | 6.16 | 9.7 | 96.5 |
| 1983 | REAGAN - R | S-R H-D | 3.22 | 9.6 | 99.6 |
| 1984 | REAGAN - R | S-R H-D | 4.30 | 7.5 | 103.9 |
| 1985 | REAGAN - R | S-R H-D | 3.55 | 7.2 | 107.6 |
| 1986 | REAGAN - R | S-R H-D | 1.91 | 7.0 | 109.6 |
| 1987 | REAGAN - R | S-D H-D | 3.66 | 6.2 | 113.6 |
| 1988 | REAGAN - R | S-D H-D | 4.08 | 5.5 | 118.3 |
| 1989 | BUSH - R | S-D H-D | 4.83 | 5.3 | 124.0 |
| 1990 | BUSH - R | S-D H-D | 5.39 | 5.6 | 130.7 |
| 1991 | BUSH - R | S-D H-D | 4.25 | 6.8 | 136.2 |
| 1992 | BUSH - R | S-D H-D | 3.03 | 7.5 | 140.3 |
| 1993 | CLINTON - D | S-D H-D | 2.96 | 6.9 | 144.5 |
| 1994 | CLINTON - D | S-D H-D | 2.61 | 6.1 | 148.2 |
| 1995 | CLINTON - D | S-R H-R | 2.81 | 5.6 | 152.4 |
| 1996 | CLINTON - D | S-R H-R | 2.93 | 5.4 | 156.9 |
| 1997 | CLINTON - D | S-R H-R | 2.44 | 4.9 | 160.5 |
| 1998 | CLINTON - D | S-R H-R | 1.55 | 4.5 | 163.0 |
| 1999 | CLINTON - D | S-R H-R | 2.19 | 4.2 | 166.6 |
| 2000 | CLINTON - D | S-R H-R | 3.38 | 4.0 | 172.2 |
| 2001 | BUSH - R | S-D H-R | 2.83 | 4.7 | 177.1 |
| 2002 | BUSH - R | S-D H-R | 1.59 | 5.8 | 179.9 |
| 2003 | BUSH - R | S-R H-R | 2.27 | 6.0 | 184.0 |
| 2004 | BUSH - R | S-R H-R | 2.68 | 5.5 | 188.9 |
| 2005 | BUSH - R | S-R H-R | 3.39 | 5.1 | 195.3 |
| 2006 | BUSH - R | S-R H-R | 3.24 | 4.6 | 201.6 |
| 2007 | BUSH - R | S-D H-D | 2.85 | 4.6 | 207.3 |
Inflation by Year
http://www.miseryindex.us/irbyyear.asp
Unemployment as a percent of labor force
Persons 16 years of age and over
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt
Consumer Price Index
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt
A Visual Guide: The Balance Of Power Between Congress and The Presidency
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm
Now what I see above is that the statement is a bit over the top playing on the frustrations of the housing market and the gas prices. The inflation has been below 4% back to 1991. The unemployment number seems to be reasonable compared through the 90's. The consumer price index doesn't appear to be growing any more than other periods in recent history.
What isn't in those numbers is the housing starts which is cyclical to some extent. The current mortgage market meltdown is the result of policies that were enacted back into the Carter era and reinforced through the present time. Also missing in those numbers is the oil price volatility that has affected each of us at the pumps. Again, this is the cumulative effect of the policies over the past 20 or more years. I concede that the President has some effect on the markets based on his policies, his appointees and his leadership. The purse strings, the laws and the pace at which things do or do not happen are under the control of the legislative branch. Look at the table above one more time and examine who was in control of the legislative branch at what times. It appears that Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr were the only two who never had a chance to work with a legislative branch under the same party banner. So to put everything on the President, from whichever party, is a narrow view of things.
I know times are tough for everyone including myself, my family and my neighbors. It is simply magnified by the election cycle and the big ticket meltdowns that are affecting the markets. It does trouble me to see the housing and banking markets being nationalized with the potential of healthcare following suit. Other than the military, not the wars, just the military, what has the government ever run well? There is reason for concern in the future. We already have a mix of socialism and capitalism and, in my opinion, the closer it gets to the socialist end of the spectrum, the more burdensome and poorly run this country's markets will get.
Those are some thoughts in general. Now I will look at a few items specifically concerning Senator Obama and his proposals.
Under the Obama Plan:
- Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan.
- Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
- Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.
- http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/
The vague "middle class" designation is never truly defined by anyone, at least that I know of. But that aside, the promises of providing tax cuts is nothing new. I am not in an upper income bracket. My household income has never been within half of the $250,000 line. This does not change my objection to raising taxes on the wealthy. This is a fundamental difference between a conservative and a liberal. Where a conservative sees the confiscation of one's wealth as exactly that, confiscation, a liberal sees it as an act of fairness to the "less fortunate" as if the wealthy were simply lucky to have it and are obligated to share their wealth with the unlucky.
Look at the line in the final bullet point above, "The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000." Am I to assume that it is okay to confiscate another person's wealth because the numbers work out in a net cut? Am I to say it is okay because I will theoretically receive a cut, but it's okay because there is a wealthy person to make it up? Am I supposed to be inspired to grow my trucking company knowing that I'll be subsidizing others who have no desire to make the same effort?
"Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility." He will ask? Can these families say no? Give back? Is this voluntary? A portion of the tax cuts being removed means the taxes are going up whether he says they are being raised or not. The same is true when the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire rather than being made permanent, even if he doesn't do it right away. Who is the fairness being restored to? Not the person working hard to generate the wealth. Not to the person receiving the breaks, though it would easy to buy that pitch.
The wealthy are the ones who make the jobs possible. The government doesn't create jobs, contrary to popular belief, other than the jobs to run the bureaucracy created to administer yet another program. Every dollar taken from those who run the businesses is one less dollar with which the business can be run. When the working capital is restricted, a business has a more difficult time growing, or in some cases even surviving. This Robin Hood approach is not a sound plan for the business environment. If a company needs to reduce costs to compete, but the taxes increase, what is the business to do? Some of the possibilities are reduce costs in overhead, materials or labor. Move to a state with lower taxes. Move to a country with a more friendly business environment. This speaks to corporate tax rates as well. Corporations don't pay taxes as if they are an external item having no effect on the operation of the business. Taxes are part of the cost of doing business. Payroll taxes, social security taxes, real estate taxes and employee benefits all play into the cost of doing business and are reflected in the cost of goods and services to the consumers.
Unless there are corresponding spending cuts, the tax cuts are the equivalent of a spending program that is being billed to the wealthy. Or in Senator Obama's terms, spreading the wealth around. Here again is the fundamental difference between conservative and liberal viewpoints. The wealth is not the property of the government to spread around. The government does not have the constitutional right to CONFISCATE the wealth of some people to REDISTRIBUTE to other people.
That ties in to the proposed programs by Senator Obama. If there is currently a deficit, any additional program will increase the need for taxes to be raised to pay for it. Again, no matter where the taxes are raised, personal or corporate, wealthy or middle class, the result is the same. Everyone will be affected by the cost of the program. It doesn't even matter if the programs are near one trillion dollars or one hundred billion dollars. The dollars still need to come from somewhere, or more precisely, someone. List whatever programs he proposes and add up the costs. For purposes of this discussion it doesn't matter what the total is really, just understand that the money will come from our pockets in some form or fashion.
I decided to post this since it fits into the theme of what I am currently posting. The question keeps coming up to who is he deceiving, those he spoke to or those he is speaking to? Either way it lacks credibility at best and is a dangerous thing at worst. Keep all the "Bush lied, people died" slogans in mind while reading his own words and ask yourself how this appears to be any different. Party politics or good of the country. I have trouble ignoring the strong signals of our country being on the edge of a downward spiral. Senator Obama himself said recently, speaking on the economy, a country cannot have a strong military force if the economics are weak. Combine that with raised taxes to further weaken the economy and raised spending to take money away from defense with the potential of questionable alliances and the possibility of our demise as a world leader is in sight. I am not as some might say using scare tactics. This is a real possibility in the state of the world we live in today.
Following is the post from the friend's page.Couldn't say it better.
By Cheri Jacobus
Just how much Senate experience does Barack Obama have in terms of actual work days? Not much.
From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State
Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential
exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate.
That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working.
After
143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be
Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of
Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan.
143 days -- I keep leftovers in my refrigerator longe r than that.
In contrast, John McCain's 26 years in Congress, 22 years of military service including 1,966 days in captivity as a POW in Hanoi now seem more impressive than ever. At 71, John McCain may just be hitting his stride.
Think you know who this man is?
This possible President of the United States !! Read Below and
ask yourselves, is this REALLY someone we can see as the
President of our great nation?
Below are a few lines from Obama's books; In his words!
From Dreams of My Father:'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'
And FINALLY the Most Damming one of ALL of them!!!
From Audacity of Hope:'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'
* If you have never forwarded an e-mail, now is the time to Do so!!!! We CANNOT have someone with this type of mentality running our GREAT nation!
18October08 6:00pm
Religion has come up in this campaign as an issue in a couple of forms during the past months. Whereas ethnicity has no direct bearing on my vote, I confess that religious beliefs carry some weight as it goes to the character of a person. Most of the time it is not even the beliefs of the candidate as much as the consistency of stating them and living them out. I am not seeking to judge his character for the sake of tearing him down or to degrade him. I do believe it is important to understand his character as a barometer of how I perceive he will act when in office.
I am a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ as my Lord and my Savior. I am not perfect and I have no expectations that anyone else is either. I know what it is to stumble and not be true to the profession being made. I also know that the call on a Christian is to progress on a path of holiness, changing the life of the believer from sinful habits to being more Christ-like. When observing the life of someone who makes the claim of being a follower of Christ, their should be a visible progress over the course of time. In our society it is easy to claim to be a Christian being that we are not in a part of the world where the claim could cost one's life. In this country the cultural christian believes oneself to be a follower of Christ when it is really a religious claim and not a committed lifestyle adhering as much as possible to the teachings of Christ and the Word of God, the Bible. God will be the judge of where we each stand in that regard for our eternal reward or punishment. I need to make a judgment for the sake of discernment in this election.
The following points are of concern to me.
- There were Senator Obama's own claims of Christianity as his religion.
- There were attacks on Senator Obama because of his Pastor, Jeremiah Wright.
- The position Senator Obama has taken on the issue of abortion.
- The deception I perceive in his answers about very specific points and how they change over time.
a) In the Gospel According to John it says, "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.' " Senator Obama contradicts this core belief of the faith in a statement he made on March 26, 2008, in Greensboro, N.C., when in his address he stated that his mother, by being kind, decent and generous, has her place in heaven even though she was not a believer. While I cannot state authoritatively whether or not his mother is in heaven, I can state that his reasoning would not be the reason she would be their. The Bible clearly teaches that salvation is not earned by our works but is a gift given by God based on one's faith and trust in Jesus Christ. (sound clip)
b) Again in John's Gospel, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God". According to Senator Obama, good and moral Jews and Muslims are also "children of God" supposedly without ever needing to profess faith in Jesus Christ. There is no need to dispute the goodness or morality of a person since the determining factor is faith in Jesus Christ as Savior. Whereas popular belief is that we are all God's children, the true statement is that we are all God's creation which is not the same as being His children. This would be a theological discussion for another time. (sound clip)
c) Could a true believer make these comments? Certainly. I believe many true followers of Christ are biblically illiterate or are not well versed in the doctrines to which they profess. The pattern and cumulative effect of examples like these are what raises questions in my mind about the authenticity of his profession.
2. Senator Obama has endured questions about his Pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Is he responsible for the teachings of another person? No, certainly not. Does he have the freedom to sit under this man's preaching and teaching? Yes, certainly so. If he makes the choice to do so for a considerable length of time, is it reasonable for him to claim that he was unaware of the radical preaching or that he didn't share the same attitudes? My answer is no, that is not a reasonable claim. He was an adult who was able to decide whether or not to attend church, not a child required to be in attendance by a parent.
a) Jeremiah Wright was separated from the campaign in mid-March, 2008, as videos of his inflammatory preaching hit the airwaves. In the linked video clip, Senator Obamaworks around answering the question directly as to whose decision it was for the departure. He claims to have never heard such preaching although he characterizes the style as a social gospel (again, a theological debate for another time). He defends his Pastor leading to the belief that the examples used are exceptions rather than standard fare. (video clip)
b) On the ABC News site is a story containing this, "The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor for the last 20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's south side, has a long history of what even Obama's campaign aides concede is "inflammatory rhetoric," including the assertion that the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks with its own "terrorism." " The article goes on to say that it isn't an isolated time or two, but, "An ABC News review of dozens of Rev. Wright's sermons, offered for sale by the church, found repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans." You can read the article for the phrases that have been repeated frequently in other reports. I don't believe Senator Obama is responsible for the preaching of another man, however, I do question why he would sit under it for 17 years as he stated in the above referenced video clip.
c) The peculiar theology of black liberation is a story on black liberation theology. Again, it is not Senator Obama from the pulpit, but how could he spend 17 years around this without being influenced? I can't say why he attended this church. I know I attend the church I attend to hear the Gospel and apply it to my life. Any other reason for me would be a waste of time. That is the paradigm I use, a grown man, choosing to attend, learning and applying in the life being lived out.
d) Can any of these things be out of context? Certainly, they could be blown up. Is it reasonable for a man to sit under the preaching of another man that he respects for a period of 17 years and not be influenced in some way? I don't see how that is a reasonable conclusion without involving an emotional agument.
Related Links
Los Angeles Times story on where the realtionship was forged.
Blurb on Wright's departure. I found the venomous comments of Democrats curious.
*****NOTE*****
I will finish up points 3 and 4 later. I have a few things to go take care of.
19October08 1:00am
3. The ever volatile abortion issue. With today's technology it baffles me to understand how anyone could still argue a life being a life and not a blob of tissue. This is certainly another issue charged with and argued with emotion. Where the issue is for me these days is when somebody tries to soft sell a position rather than just stating their position on the matter. I have less sympathy for someone who claims to be a Christian and tries to defend the abortionist position. Rather than getting into the whole abortion issue I'll just look at a couple of specific items.
a) To campaign on the stance of reducing abortions is a good thing, but it is only a part of the picture. He is truly a supporter of abortion and from what I have seen, a supporter of abortion at any stage, even after the birth. Read this excerpt from a speech given to Planned Parenthood in July, 2007. "We know that a woman's right to make a decision about how many
children she wants to have and when— without government interference—is
one of the most fundamental freedoms we have in this country. . . . I have worked on this issue for decades now. I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught constitutional law. . . So, you know where I stand. . . The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."
The idea here I suspect, and this is my opinion, is that supporters such as Planned Parenthood want something federally that would forever prevent the issue from going back to the states, which is where I believe it truly belongs. The video on the same page which I linked for the previous quote shows his round about non-answer to a straight forward question. This is not the only subject I've heard him do this on and I find it very frustrating. I don't think I am expecting too much to want a straight forward answer on a subject of this magnitude from anyone who is running for a national office. He is masterful at turning the question into a comparison with something or someone else which he hopes listeners will decide justifies his position no matter how vague his answer may be. The vague and indirect answers are inadequate and the comparisons do not justify a position by being able to merely point a finger at someone else. I understand that in politics some questions are set up to entrap a candidate when the answer really depends on variables in the equation, but this is not such a question. At what point does a baby get human rights? "Above my pay grade" is not an adequate response when running for the highest office in the land. If he is referring to God, He is quite clear on the matter.
b) Partial birth abortion is particularly gruesome and is only exceeded in disgust by allowing a living child who survived a botched abortion to die. You can read about the actual first hand experience of an Illinois nurse in 1999, here is an excerpt. "BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens.
Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother's right to "choose" stopped
at her baby's delivery. The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went
neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA
would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002. But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed,
thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in
2005, after Obama left." She also has a site where she continues to carry the fight and has a section entitled barack obama’s radical positions on abortion. Of special interest in that section ia his Illinois voting record on the subject and his ten reasons for supporting infanticide. Here is a link to view the alledged 4 lies by Senator Obama on this subject in the third debate. You can read them and decide for yourself where the deception lies. You can learn more for yourself at abortionfacts.com which has many quotes by doctors including:
Perhaps it’s her only choice."There are no medical circumstances in which a
partial-birth abortion is the only safe alternative. We take care of pregnant women who
are very sick, and babies who are very sick, and we never perform partial-birth abortions.
. . . There are plenty of alternatives. . . . This is clearly a procedure no obstetrician
needs to do." F. Boehm, Dr. OB, Vanderbilt U. Med.
The Washington Times, May 6, 1966, p. A1
4) There appears to be a few subjects that have evolving answers in addition to the deceptive statements already mentioned. Again, from the viewpoint of his self proclaimed Christianity, this is disturbing. Vague answers and non-answers are bad signs when one is expecting to hear a truthful statement or an accurate description of ones position. Points 2 and 3 above have exposed some of these instances of deceit or partial truths and what some would call outright lies. Point one is a little more sketchy in that if he is lying, that is playing the role of being a Christian to garner needed votes, that is a dishonesty that is very anti-Christian and dispicable at best. If on the other hand he is merely ignorant of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and the means of salvation, what does that say about the teaching and preaching he sat under for those many years? It does not appear to me to be a good scenario either way it is answered. As I continue in other subject areas, I will be pointing to more of these situations that does not promote trustworthiness in the statements he makes when compared to the record of his performance. One such case is the William Ayers controversey which began as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood", but grew over time as more information was uncovered. Regardless of the Ayers issue itself, the ever changing answers reveal a lack of candor that is disturbing. A straight answer right up front would diffuse the situation much quicker as opposed to allowing suspicion to fester as people wondered what he was trying to hide.
18October08 3:00pm
Through a short series of articles I seek to raise questions to challenge the intellectual side of voting for Senator Barrack Obama. I know the die hards of the political parties are locked into their views by emotionally charged thoughts and feelings, but none the less, I aim to reach to the pure logic of the situation. I also have no intention of playing the comparison game between the two Senators who wish to win our votes in November. While neither is conservative enough for my tastes, either socially or economically, I have determined my vote by determining who I cannot vote for in good conscience. by now you should have determined that I will be voting for Senator John McCain. Again, it is not because of something that he stands for that draws me in, but rather, I find his positions to be less offensive to my beliefs, principles and desires than I do those of Senator Obama.
I request in responses to these articles that the same attitudes be taken as those I am using to write the blogs. The attitudes include an effort to be fair in context and respectful in person without resorting to personal attacks that are demeaning or condescending. Let me state for the record that ethnicity has no issue in my decision although the reference to it will certainly be raised in the context of some issues. I will be dealing with groupings of items rather than to have one long, drawn out blog. I also anticipate that I will not complete it today and may in fact return to add information to an individual article. If I do add anything, I will make a notation that it was added after the initial writing in a way that will be clear to anyone who takes the time to look.
I reiterate that my stance is not to campaign for Senator McCain, but against Senator Obama. The result, I realize, could be the same outcome, but the nuance is different. I did not make my decision based on Republican Party talking points or propaganda, just as I did not do so based on those of the Democratic Party. My decision is based on my belief that the country, my family and myself would be worse off with the presidential office being occupied by Senator Obama. I have been registered in both parties at various times of my life. I have no allegience to either party because I do not believe that I can ever be in 100% agreement with either party and I do not believe that either party is innocent of plunging our country into the turmoil in which it exists today. That said, I do not consider myself to be one of the sheeple that blindly follows the party line. I do believe, whether we agree or not, that I did my best to intellectually, and in good conscience, make what I believe to be the best choice in this election.
Thanks to The Wilkow Majority
