Archive for August, 2008

Addressing the “McCain voting with Bush 90% of the time” nonsense

Posted in Activism on August 29, 2008 by poyers

This is honestly one of the dumbest and most idiotic things that I have heard at the DNCC and in the talking points over the last couple of months as the Democrats try and tie McCain as the third term for Bush.  It is an effective campaign attempt but it does not make any sense.

Has it occurred to you that George Bush doesn’t have a vote in the Senate? So just how do you measure the percentage of times that McCain is voting “with” the president? Well, perhaps you could measure the number of times that a Senator votes with the Republican members. Ahhh … but remember, most Senate votes are unanimous. This would mean that the only way not to “vote with the president” would be not to vote at all. As Dick Morris wrote: “The fact that McCain backs commending a basketball team on its victory doesn’t mean that he is in lockstep ideologically with the president.”

Morris also points out a series of important issues on which Bush and McCain did not agree:

  • McCain fought for campaign finance reform — McCain-Feingold — that Bush resisted and ultimately signed because he had no choice.
  • McCain led the battle to restrict interrogation techniques of terror suspects and to ban torture.
  • McCain went with Joe Lieberman on a tough measure to curb climate change, something Bush denies is going on.
  • McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts when they passed.
  • McCain urged the Iraq surge, a posture Bush rejected for years before conceding its wisdom.
  • McCain favors FDA regulation of tobacco and sponsored legislation to that effect, a position all but a handful of Republican senators oppose.
  • McCain’s energy bill, also with Lieberman, is a virtual blueprint for energy independence and development of alternate sources.
  • After the Enron scandal, McCain introduced sweeping reforms in corporate governance and legislation to guarantee pensions and prohibit golden parachutes for executives. Bush opposed McCain’s changes and the watered-down Sarbanes-Oxley bill eventuated.
  • McCain has been harshly critical of congressional overspending, particularly of budgetary earmarks, a position Bush only lately adopted (after the Democrats took over Congress).

Using the same methodology you would probably find that most Democrat senators also voted with Bush 90% of the time.

I have to say more about the economic nonsense that Obama spat out yesterday: Obama’s response last night to the charge that he is going to significantly raise taxes on small business owners that are producing 80% of the new jobs in our economy was to say that “I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.”

Obama said he was going to eliminate capital gains taxes. These small businessmen generally don’t pay capital gains taxes. They pay income taxes. Obama’s plan is to raise the income taxes on these entrepreneurs. Telling the American people that he will cut their capital gains taxes is simply a charade.

Then there’s Obama’s line about the Republicans and McCain not proposing one penny of tax relief for over 100 million Americans. Sounds good. But if you’re educated; if you know the statistics; if you pay attention you will know that the bottom 50% of income earners in this country pay only about 3% of all individual income taxes collected by the federal government. When you get to the bottom 40% that percentage figures drops to zero. Now just what is our current population figure? Around 300 million or so? That would bean that about 120 million Americans have no federal income tax liability at all. Yet there’s Obama saying that McCain is offering no tax relief to these people. Relief from what?

There was another line in Obama’s speech that is very typical of far-left politicians. Obama seems to feel those with higher incomes in this country have not earned their way. Whatever the wealthy have was given to them, not earned. So Obama tells the adoring crowd that Republicans want to “Give more and more to those with the most, and hope that prosperity will trickle down to the rest.” As I said, this is a standard Democrat theme. Wealthy people didn’t earn what they have, it was given to them. And since it was given to them, there’s nothing really all that wrong with taking more and more of it away from them … just to even things out a bit. Remember, please, that Obama flat-out said that he wants to raise taxes on the rich not to bring in increased government revenues, but to make things more “fair.”

This idea that whatever wealthy or successful people have was given to them is reflected in the idea that people should “give back.” Charity isn’t recognized for what it is; one individual giving some of what they have earned to another in need. No .. it’s just someone giving back some of the stuff that was given to them. Accomplishment and the concept of earning seems to have no place in Democrat rhetoric.

Despite all of this, John McCain has a huge uphill struggle before him.  He better be on the ball.  Sarah Palin was a great step in the right direction but we will have to wait and see what happens.

Where do they get pro-growth from?

Posted in Activism on August 27, 2008 by poyers

A new Gallup poll says 50 percent expect their taxes to be raised under Obama, despite the complaints of his economic advisors that they’re only raising taxes on the top few percent.

And as the stock market looks on warily, falling slightly today after plunging yesterday, the lead story in this morning’s Wall Street Journal is a serious indictment of Obama’s economic program. “Senator Obama is proposing to use the government to remake economic policies in a way that hasn’t been seen in Washington in decades.” And if it’s a three-house Dem sweep, it will be Katy bar the door. Big-government spending programs, tax increases, trade restraints, a government health-care plan, cap-and-trade on climate change — all without any real deficit restraints, which are accorded a low priority.

Incidentally, while the public clamors for drill, drill, drill, Obama wants high-cost, cap-and-trade carbon regulation enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency. Now, McCain also wants cap-and-trade, but not if India and China don’t go along. Apparently Obama will not be constrained by the rest of the world.

Sure, the economy is languishing. But do we really want a big-government, high-tax solution? Do we really want higher investment taxes that would leave government bigger and private enterprise smaller? Do Americans really blame “rich” people? Or do they actually believe success is a good thing and should not be punished? Do rank-and-file working folks really want to do away with the secret ballot for unionization in the form of the so-called card check? And if there were a three-house Dem sweep, wouldn’t Obama’s middle-class tax credit be overturned in favor of even more government spending, just as Bill Clinton’s plans were subverted back in 1993? The National Taxpayers Union says Obama’s new spending would total $344 billion. That’s a big number. One has to wonder if that’s the opening bid or the final one.

The Obama economists sincerely believe that theirs is a growth program. His advisors are all terribly smart: Jason Furman, Austan Goolsbee, Robert Reich, Jarrod Bernstein.  But I question their economic model. Raising marginal tax rates will minimize — not maximize — economic growth and jobs. Ditto for enlarging the size, scope, and sweep of government.

Business cycles come and go. Each has its own set of excesses and subsequent corrections. It is the nature of free-market capitalism. But heavy-handed government solutions are being rejected worldwide, and it seems foolhardy for the USA to move away from economic freedom when virtually the rest of the world is moving toward it.

One of the greatest tax reformers of all time was John F. Kennedy. He slashed marginal tax rates across the board for businesses and people of all income levels. The economy boomed in the 1960s. Reagan copied the JFK model in the 1980s. Are we turning back this supply-side model? I fear the Obama men are doing just that. I think that fear is worrying the stock market right now.

John McCain’s economic program is certainly not flawless. And his ad bashing business, oil, and others nearly reaches the class-warfare level of Obama-Biden. It’s a Big Mac mistake. Nor does McCain have a solid tax-cutting program for the middle class.

Is Michelle Obama a Republican?

Posted in Activism on August 26, 2008 by poyers

Listening to Mrs. Obama speak last night, and seeing all of the excitement about her, it seems to me that this is a very Republican country indeed!  She sounded like she admired Ronald Reagen, the Bush’s, and even Nixon.  Amazing and very out of character for her and her party.  I was very happy to hear her patriotism and love and support of the American ideals that I share.  Say it loud and proud: I am not a victim!!!!

Have a read of the transcript and see the video:

http://www.eyesonobama.com/blog/content/id_28144/title_Michelle-Obamas-Convention-Speech-Transcript/

Russian Propoganda

Posted in Activism on August 18, 2008 by poyers

I think that it is a bit odd how many Russians are complaining about “US propaganda” in this recent episode with Georgia.  The land of the KGB is “just protecting its people” offering “peacekeeping” exercises and trying to maintain civility.

Yeah right!

Giving credit where credit is due, the European wire services AFP and Reuters as well as the BBC, Times of London, and even the Guardian have been giving extraordinarily good coverage on the entire Russian-Georgia conflict.

It was Reuters reporters who first uncovered the fact that the Russians were lying about Georgian attacks on the city of Tskhinvali. The Russians claimed 2000 civilians were killed and the city nearly razed to the ground by Georgia. In fact, Reuters got a couple of reporters in the city and saw immediately that Russia had wildly misstated the number of casualties while downplaying the fact that it was their artillery that did most of the damage.

The BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7567184.stm) has been doing a bang up job reporting on the diplomatic ins and outs – the unbelievable naivete of the French who keep getting the Russians to sign pieces of paper on a cease fire and withdrawal and then promptly ignoring what they just promised to do.

Now the Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4553499.ece) informs us that Russians have been forcing the people of Gori – an extremely important rail and road junction that is the lifeline for the capitol Tblisi – to leave. And they are killing them if they stay.

It has been 48 hours since President Medvedev signed an agreement that Russian troops would stop their movements and leave Georgia. But Putin sees no need to obey what is an unenforceable agreement so he continues his threats against the Georgian capitol, putting enormous pressure on President Saakashvili while the world waits and wonders whether Putin will take it upon himself to overthrow the Georgian leader.

But this move on Gori is perhaps the biggest threat to Georgian sovereignty. It basically cuts the country in two leaving the capitol defenseless and desperately in need of relief supplies. The Russians have also apparently blown up a railroad bridge that was a major link to the Black Sea port of Poti. In effect, Tblisi is isolated and ripe for Russian plucking any time they choose.

But I suppose that these foreign news sources are just poodles to Bush’s warmongering.

Democrat priorities with Russia

Posted in Activism on August 18, 2008 by poyers
Reportedly on the short-list to be Sen. Obama’s running-mate, Sen. Tom Daschle appeared on ABC’s This Week (http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek).   And he reveals the Democratic mindset by listing recruitment of Russian-cooperation on “climate” (see video, minute -5.33) as one of the principal national priorities compelling the US to maintain an cordial, open, diplomatic relations regardless of recent events.

 

So let’s review. Sen. Daschle expects that while the Russians are very busy invading Georgia, asserting strategic control over the fossil-fuel energy-flow to Europe, threatening Poland (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-time-to-calm-down-the-rhetoric-with-russia-900661.html) with nuclear weapons, judging carefully western countries’ political and military responses both individual and multilateral, and calculating whether to further escalate the conflict in attempts to reconstitute the Soviet Empire, they will also be prepared to simultaneously devote a lot of selfless attention and angst over a hypothetical climate-crisis with consequences that might appear 100-years hence.  Needless to say, Siberians would likely welcome as much global warming as they can get.

Olympic medals

Posted in Activism on August 17, 2008 by poyers

Can you believe that Canada just won its first medals???  Today, they have 3 in total.  3!  Canada has 170 athletes and 130 support crew; nearly 300 people and only 3 medals!!!!

Mexico only has one medal!  One!!!!  85 athletes and one medal.  No team sports made it.  Not even their soccer teams!

How pathetic is that.

http://www.nbcolympics.com/countries/country=can/medals/medalists/index.html

Soft power versus Russia

Posted in Activism on August 15, 2008 by poyers

It seems that America is one of the last countries on earth that has any understanding or reaction at all to moral dilemnas.  We are a moral country and have proved so over our entire existence.  The silliness of the moral equivalency arguments that are being spewed in response to the Russia offensive among others is very troubling; especially given that it is the so-called “educated” from higher learning that seeks to condemn America and its goodness with the most vile dictators and countries on earth.

Some questions from a George Will column today (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=303603753946116) regarding the presidential campaign and response to such conflicts:

McCain should ask Obama to join him in a town meeting on lessons from Russia’s aggression. Both candidates favor NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, perhaps Vladimir Putin’s next victim.

But does Russia’s behavior cause Obama to rethink reliance on “soft power” — dialogue, disapproval, diplomacy, economic carrots and sticks — which Putin considers almost an oxymoron? Does Russia’s resort to military coercion, and its arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles, cause Obama to revise his resistance to missile defense?

Obama, unlike McCain, believes Russia belongs in the G-8. Does Obama think Russia should be admitted to the World Trade Organization? Does Obama consider Putin helpful with Iran? Does Obama accept the description of the G-8 as an organization of the largest “industrialized democracies”? Does he think China should be admitted?

McCain is hardly the change many people have been eagerly waiting for, but Putin is part of the change we must confront. Until Russian tanks rolled into Georgia, it seemed that not even the Democratic Party could lose this election. But it might if McCain can make it turn on the question of who is ornery enough to give Putin a convincing, deterring telephone call at 3 a.m.