Moving the 47%

Obviously redistribution is here to stay.

In its most base form, redistribution is essentially government.  Or government is essentially redistribution.  But there is a Redistribution movement that gotten things all turned around.

Romney made his remarks about the 47%, which seemed to land on America like the pilgrims landing on the Indians.  Shocker!

There was never any doubt that the Democrat in a race would get the benefit of the doubt from the 47%.  But why is that?

A little examination of the recent history of the tax code is in order.

In my life, of just over four decades, there have been only Republicans who cut taxes.  Starting with Reagan, then Gingrich, and lastly Bush, the younger.

Increasingly, as the rates have been slashed, more and more Americans began to find themselves in the position whereby they do not pay federal income tax.

That 47% was built with Republican tax cuts.  Obama didn't build that.

Bill Clinton didn't build that either.

For all the animosity thrown at Republicans, that they only care for the rich, its all thrown blindly.

Some of the 47% equate their position as an act of generosity and love from the Democrats.  Loyalties are made from this notion.

But its just not true.

As to Romney, listen closely,  he promises tax cuts.  He says people on the low end will pay less.  He will grow the 47%.

The Numbers

Regarding the jobs issue, its such an easy identifier of integrity.

I remember when, eight years ago, John Kerry ran against the incumbent Bush, time and time again Bush's numbers were disparaged because his net numbers were the worst in decades.

Year	Qtr1	Qtr2	Qtr3	Qtr4
2001	8491(1)	7991(1)	7630(1)	7547(1)
2002	8071(1)	7868(1)	7630(1)	7483(1)
2003	7467(1)	7398(1)	7392(1)	7521(1)
2004	7715(1)	7754(1)	7633(1)	7844(1)
2005	7620(1)	7774(1)	7965(1)	7807(1)
2006	7797(1)	7758(1)	7499(1)	7740(1)
2007	7723(1)	7630(1)	7333(1)	7642(1)
2008	7234(1)	7255(1)	6893(1)	6698(1)
2009	5830(1)	6395(1)	6345(1)	6634(1)
2010	6246(1)	6969(1)	6685(1)	7009(1)
2011	6338(1)	6892(1)	7058(1)	6854(1)

But you see from this data, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, (  http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bd  ) that Obamanomics hasn't created as many jobs as his predecessor over the first term.

I bring up Kerry of course, because if I were paying attention then, and I was, then I would of been lectured day in and day out of how bad Bush was, and how much better that we could do.

I was a good student,  I learned a lot.

We aren't even doing a Bush now.

History repeats itself.  So why should I treat this re-election effort any different?  Why shouldn't I expect more?

The Proof of Earlier Post

This year will be no different, while some talk of helping the poor through taxes and government, others give to the poor without taxes and government. Odd isn't it that he who gives more is said to hate more, while he who wants to take more is thought to love more.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romney-gave-1000-times-much-charity-year-biden-gave-decade_652977.html

The Book of Jobs

Obama brags about job creation in his commercial, but he isn't promoting net jobs created.  He's talking about jobs created.

That's a huge difference.

Gross vs. Net.

For the jobs numbers to be impressive they'll simply by reflected in a low unemployment rate.

And its not.

Great commercial though.

Platform

I said to a friend, "I mean we could of told liberals and Democrats that number and its in one ear and out the other.  No they think they have Romney on not caring about 47% but we got them acknowledging the number.  I can't see how that number is a positive for anything but an argument for reform."

What Was With The Cold War

I've been wondering what all the brouhaha over the Cold War for fifty years was all about.  I'm one to wonder what those who defined the showdown between the U.S. and the West vs The Soviet Union and its communist allies as capitalism vs communism would think of how things are right now in the U.S.

I don't even want to get into how relationships with those former, ahem, enemies, has evolved.

But think about it, we got 47% not paying federal tax, we got a $15 trillion dollar debt and more than a trillion dollar deficit.

Most of us get something from government, something more than we put in.  From each according to his ability, to each according to their needs.

A big issue in this election is the rich aren't paying their fair share.

We could of avoided fifty years of nuclear arms build up....

Not part of the 47%

Not part of the 47%, but sure would like to know what's the plan? I mean, almost fifty percent on the dole?! That sounds horrible, to use polite words. And that's not judging. Dollar and cents. When does it end? What's the percent we looking for? Are we trying to turn this around, or are we taking on all comers?

What's The Plan?

Its sunday afternoon, the Steeler's play in a couple of hours so I have time to kill. I turn off the Cleveland-Cinncinati game, walk out to the front porch and open "No Easy Day" where Mark Owen writes, "I found other men just like me: men who feared failure and were driven to be the best." (page ix, Author's Note)

I look up and a man no more older than me rides by. Not in a car, or on a bike,

 but handling one of those sturdy motorized scooters.

What a contrast.

This contrast underlies the quinttessential question of the time for us Americans.

Is this nation going in the right direction?

My liberal friends would caution me here that I'm on the verge of not caring for the poor. But here goes.

I think I see someone elderly in one of those contraptions, I have a generous heart. I see someone my age in one, who I've seen around for years, who I know was doomed for that fate, I'm less generous.

I'm not alone, and you know what liberals, it doesn't make us bad guys, or gals.

What we absolutely don't want to see now, is two, three, a dozen more of these going up and down our street. Escpecially after taxing us to misery.

We have the right to question what direction this country is going in, and its not being racist or against the poor, or against the elderly.

Who's going to pay for this? Certainly not the guy in the scooter, his ink has been in the red for quite a while. Mine? Black. My whole life.

What preventions are you liberals implenting or have in mind to assure me, the stereotypical American male tax payer, that I'm not going to see more and more of guys my age, living a lifestyle to ensure this fate? On my dime.

Its not being poor, its living a lifestyle.

Living a lifestyle that matures into dendency, that wastes one life and ensures a tax on another life.

What's the plan? We had sixy, seventy years of progressive, liberal govenment and has it lessened the number of dependency?

We, those of us living in the black, would like to know, what's the plan that I can appreciate that will help the poor, not add to the poor?

And that, my friend, isn't anti-christian either.

Scrutiny and the Poor

What's the problem with America?

That's easy to answer, a dearth of honest scrutiny.

OH, there is plenty of scrutiny, that's easy to find.  But honest scrutiny?  It's harder to find than the charitable giving of those that say the answer is to tax the rich.

That's intended to show I'm not above my own criticism.  But I look for the other side everyday, I want to uncover what I don't know.  I want to understand why half of America believes in one party, while the other half believes in the other party.  I don't believe in either.

Likely I have an audience of one at this point.  Or two.

I read a post from a friend that quoted Cher.

"If Romney gets elected I don't know if I can breathe same air as Him & his Right Wing Racist Homophobic Women Hating Tea Bagger Masters." (all typos, capitals, and missing definite articles are in the original source, or not)

I think this is one of those quotes that changes every four years to damn the Republican,  erase Bush, insert Romney.

Of course, if you haven't heard how Obama wants to destroy America by now, email me, I want to find out where you've been.

I'm not fighting the battles for Romney or Obama,  I have my preferences, which isn't hard to discern.  I try to be civil, which isn't easy to sustain.  Everyone is so sensitive.

I watched an opinion video, with all the bells of whistles of authenticity, save the disclaimer that it is a farce, that compared the Tea Party to the Taliban.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGAvwSp86hY&feature=share

Scrutiny, or lack there of.

Liberals love to point out the mean and nastiness, the cold-hearted one liners of Tea Party luminaries, but what they fail to understand is that in this nation of two party domination, the Tea Party is the only faction applying scrutiny to the Party nominally on their side.

The critics of the Tea Party love to extract instances of anger and  animosity and wrap the whole movement in it.

But you do that to the liberals or Obama, and they are calling you a racist.

Contrast the two grass roots movements within the two parties, and there is no comparison.  One wants to reduce the size of government to manageable levels, the other wants to tax more.  One side peacefully demonstrates while the other side demonstrates its non peacefulness.

I reckon, that if the Tea Party ever garners the power the left fears, the first beneficiaries of that influence, which would be a leaner, less debt ridden government, would be the left.

But because there is no honest scrutiny, both sides have no real sense of what motivates the other side.

Liberals are often quoting Jesus, and casting Republicans as hypocrites because they want to reduce government.  But I can play the over generalizing game and point out that as a matter of record, the Republicans running for President over the last twenty years have out given, donated more, than their Democrat opponents each and every time, therefore the Republicans aren't hypocrites, the Democrats are.

Its not about not helping the poor, its about how to help the poor.  More government, or more personal.

I'm not a government guy, and that doesn't make me an American Taliban, nor at odds with helping the poor.

Where is the proof that more government is helping the poor, more to the point, where is the proof that more government has alleviated the need for more government?   Which to me is the ends to the means.  Helping the poor with more government when more government hasn't helped to lessen the poor seems a little like wishful thinking to me.

There is certain hypocrisy from the left when their Presidential candidates have been exposed as stingy givers all the while pushing the idea that their opponents don't do enough.

Pushing more government isn't equivalent to adhering to the word of God, and by implication, not advocating more government doesn't put you at odds with helping the poor.

Check out the charitable giving,  that ought to give a better idea of where these politicians stand on the poor.

p.s.

I'm looking everyday, the right is sometimes kooky and paranoid,  just as the left.  But the prize for nastiness and incivility is given to the liberals.  It seems endemic to them, but they wouldn't scrutinize themselves would they?  I've been looking for that too,  but there is no subset, like the Tea Party, on the left holding the liberals to honesty.

Give Him Time

Obviously I'm a political animal, but am I the only one that gives time to the thought and wonder at how all those people who complained every day about the Bush Administration are never heard of, or very little, complaining about the Obama Administration.

Foreign Policy, Economic Policy, Domestic Policy.

I could bore with examples, but why be specific when even the President isn't specific, nor accepting of responsibility.

Responsibility, I remember when even a hurricane was blamed on Bush, the President.  However, we can't pin anything on this President.

Give him time, we are told.  Was John Kerry put off because Bush needed more time?  Should Mitt Romney there fore get the same considerations?

I Like Ike

Here is an interesting quote that I came across while doing opposition research,

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history...and they are stupid.

Attributed to Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican.  I found more information here, on snopes.com.

This seems to make it rounds every four years by partisan Democrats to, in some way, highlight how stupid Republicans are today for following the GOP leaders.  The implication being that Eisenhower was different, and more in line with the thought processes of Democrats today.

Now Republicans may or may not be stupid, but its been my experience in engaging people who I like to call common folk of Republican leanings, that they are typically more informed than their counter parts in the Democrat circles.   I usually refrain from carrying the water of a particular candidate or party, rather I like to instigate the side I don't agree with, but reading the material above, within the context of a pro-Democrat submission, I felt I can take this on too, even if I have to defend Mitt Romney.

To propagate the words of Ike as an argument against the present Republican candidate seemed a little oblivious to me, so I looked it up.  I found a lot of quotes from Ike that would dissuade anyone desirous to promote liberal policies from using his words as a reference point.

Yet they take the quote above,  implication again, that the Republicans vying for office today are intent on abolishing "social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs."

I would think one has to be nearly completely ignorant of Republican ideology, to say nothing of the particular candidate running for office to buy into the idea that the serious candidate before them, as a choice over the Democrat, is going to do any such thing once achieving office.  Party loyalties prevent honest assessment of candidates, in my opinion.

In fact, the most powerful GOP leaders of my lifetime: Nixon, Reagan, Gingrich, and G.W. Bush all, to one extent or another, INCREASED the programs cited above, as well as many more.  But every four years that fear tactic, exemplified by using Eisenhower, of Republicans taking your check away makes its rounds.

Gingrich,  for all the caustic rhetoric thrown at him over the years, merely reduced the growth of federal programs.  Whether you call a reduction of growth a "cut" or not may be a personal prerogative, but its certainly not an elimination.

Romney?  Has he promised to eliminate any vital programs?  I suppose "vital" is a personal prerogative too, but I don't think so.

So if you see this quote, have some fun, go to any of the great sites that documents quotes, like

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/dwight_d_eisenhower.html

and send some Eisenhower right back at them.

I found this one,

We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security.

and this one,

This world of ours... must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

this is a favorite,

Politics ought to be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage.  (Italics added by me)

What I Learned

A brief history of time, not so long ago when I was naive but my fellow countrymen took my hand and showed me the path of righteousness.

I go back now a decade and more, though the awakening within my being to something amiss goes back even farther.  I was ignorant a long time,  it took a long time to get to where I am today.  I have been illuminated.(shout out to my co-conspirators!)

I remember when it was 2001 and we had a new president, and the economy was not so hot, another period of recession in fact.

If you don't recall, and I can't fault you if you can't, the duration of that recession, the unemployment rate, and decline in GDP were in nature milder than they are now.  As you can see from the link above, so don't take my word for it.

It was a horrible time back then,  roughly seven months into this recession, those nuts took out the World Trade Center.  A target selected to impact our economy while we were experiencing a economic set back already.

By November of that year we were out of recession.

Never ones to give George Bush any credit, my Democrat friends explained patiently how miserably the whole situation had been handled by the President.  In fact they also placed all the ills of NAFTA on the President too, though I knew enough that that agreement was signed almost ten years before he came to office!(My first clue something was amiss.)

Oh how I remember when John Kerry and the honorable John Edwards campaigned across the country civilly explaining that millions of jobs have been lost under Bush, and that we can do better!

The unemployment rate in 2004?  A high of 5.7% in January falling to 5.4% at election time. That just wasn't good enough I was taught, and I was a good student.


One thing I remember vividly, and the facts support me, is that the recession under Bush began less than two months after he took office.  Proof, his critics said that his policies have failed.


Alas, Bush won a second term and John Kerry was silenced.  But not the whole Democrat establishment.

For the next two years, with unemployment continuing its free fall to the mid 4%, the loyal opposition groused and groused, day in and day out, about how faulty the President's policies were, and how much better we, as Americans, should expect from our leadership.

In 2006 the Democrat leadership came up with a great idea, take power away from the miserable policies of George Bush and the Republicans in power.

And they Did!

Unfortunately, beginning in April of 2007 the unemployment rate began to escalate from 4.4% to 7.3% by the end of 2008.  That's quite a climb!  Worse than what the nation was doing when John Kerry was saying we needed a change.

Having no regard for what they were teaching me just fours years earlier, nor what they promised merely two years ago, the Democrats nominated a new standard bearer for their party in 2008 -- the eloquent and young Mr. Barack Obama.  Wasting no time, and even less regard for accuracy, the candidate again pressed the issue of the economy, that Bush was at fault and that He(Obama) can do better.

So the Great Recession, as they say, became not a product of the Democrat policies of Congress which usurped power from the President in 2006, but a claim supported by Bush's very own signature on all those Democrat legislative initiatives.

But truth is as you perceive it, and I've wondered how they can sell the "Great" when clearly the recession of the Carter years was statistically worse.  But maybe they knew it was only to get worse when they controlled  both congress and the presidency.

And it sure did!

Today Mr. Obama is running for re-election.  His four years of policies were preceded by two years of Democrat policies in Congress that bore the rubber stamp of George Bush.  Today unemployment is about 8.3%.  A number made worse by the acknowledgement that millions have fallen out of the labor force and are not counted anymore.

And still they blame Bush!

Leadership,  Mr. Kerry taught me, is what this nation sorely lacks.

Or am I not suppose to remember?

Poltics, Politics, Politics

"Politics, Politics, Politics," said Comicus to Nero in Mel Brooks', "History of the World, Part I".

He was trying to be funny, he wasn't.

"When you die at the Palace, you really die at the Palace."

Politics is serious stuff, we all give up a little of our esteem to politicians and parties who will disappoint us time and again, and then boldly go out on the limb for the next party favorite when the cycles begins again.

Esteem?  How else does a Barack Obama gain stature with no previous experience running a large organization.  He got respect from the esteem given to him by people who had esteem to waste.

We'll hand over our esteem when we put a sign in the yard, promote a candidate, and then vote.  I hate doing that.

But I do it every time.  Usually, my esteem is wasted on someone with a dismal chance of winning.  I don't give up much, but I don't have much to give.

Collectively though, someone could use all those small doses of esteem and put it to good use.  Theoretically.

Speaking of theoretically, I recently read a scare tactic about abortion.  Saying Romney will prevent women raped from  the ability to abort their unborn children.  The only thing that came to mind? That's odd,  the GOP women are weary of Romney because they think he WON'T prevent women from killing their unborn children.

That's what party politics get us.  Contradiction.

What about Hollywood ties to the Parties?  The right always uses the the left's cozy relationships with A-listers' as proof  the left uses flash and celebrity, not substance and values, to win elections.  Until that is they use a legendary Actor as a surprise speaker on the big night of the convention.

My personal favorite, something I learned from watching partying politics closely --  its horrible when they do it, but quite alright when we do it.  I can use that on just about everything.

I'm going to spend some esteem now.

Secondary issues hardly seem to change, but are what people use as their reasons for loyalty -- like Abortion, Supreme Court nominations, and social welfare. Even so, there really is a big difference in the candidates this time around.

That to me is a relief, because its usually not the case.


Now maybe those secondary reasons to vote for some are very important for you.  Your primary reasons.  OK,  fine.  I won't fight that,  but the big reason to make a selection this year is the economy.


Collectively, we've all spent a long time muddling in mediocrity.  The last two years of Bush's second term and the first three and a half years of Obama's term have been, frankly, unacceptable.  Economically speaking.

(You think the government is debt ridden now?  Wait till the truth about Social Security becomes common place.  All these unemployed aren't paying into the system.  A system that needs current pay-ins to remain solvent, for a while anyways.  Long term the system will fail anyways,  but that failure point is coming quicker than advertised because the number of workers paying into it has fallen substantially over the last five years.)

We got two candidates that can differentiate themselves in where it matters most for us, the common people trying to make a life for ourselves and our offspring.  I rather be a part of America's lore that did something noble, if not grand.  Not part of the history that left huge, unpaid bills for our kids.

We've had the performance of the amateur.  Now I won't personally disparage Mr. Obama.  No need to, and while I probably slip from time to time, I try to be civil.  But his policies aren't working.  What's more, his penchant for blaming Bush falls on deaf ears for me.

The fact is in 2006 Obama and his cohorts in the Democrat Party ran a national congressional campaign the likes of which had not been seen since 1994 when Newt Gingrich ran a national congressional campaign.

The unemployment rate was around 5%, ( data )  and that just wasn't good enough for the good old boys who knew so much.

They ran and promised better times and better numbers, and they won.  Winning both Houses of Congress.  So they really removed Bush from office with two years left on his term.  Its the history,  not my opinion.

Since then, 2006, the numbers have gotten worse and worse.  Again,  its history, do a google search on any economic benchmark.  GDP.  Unemployment.  Inflation.

Blame it on Bush?  Why when the facts are the Democrats ran on taking power from the 'failed' policies of Bush in 2006 and have been doing it their way ever since.

So back to my story,  its been five and a half years of moribund performance, and its been five and a half years of Obama/Democrat control.

How much longer do we need to recognize it isn't working?  History will judge us on this, not to be too dramatic, but its true.

So if your going to spend some esteem this November,  wouldn't it be more thoughtful to look at the performance and records of the candidates on a matter that is vitally important?

I've seen president come and go, but abortion has never drastically been limited, nor has it ever been unfettered.

Supreme Court Justices do what they wilt, its the law of the land.  Justice Roberts was so demonized by the left when he was nominated, that he threatened to pull out of the circus.  But he didn't and subsequently sided with them on ObamaCare.

Social welfare?  What's so social about leaving a tab for our kids to pay?  The two parties attempt to explain their differences, but they are both going to spend a heck of  a lot on people who need social welfare, its built in and it isn't going to change regardless of which party is in power.

Programs may not grow so much every year(as the budget process allows) under Republican control, but it would be wrong to think they will be eliminated altogether.  (though my hope is for change)

A bad economy for five and a half years is embarrassing.

I'd like the esteem I'm voting with to go to to the candidate without a failed record this time.  You can't say Obama wasn't given a chance.

His campaign motto is FORWARD.  Over a cliff?