Take It All!

July 13, 2013

I had a conversation the other day with a neighbor.  A young(er) neighbor who had been a solid.  Now I'm starting to worry.

Stop me if you've heard this rant before, but bear with me, I may have something novel to put forth.

One of my favorite books, because it made me think the most appreciatively, is undoubtedly Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.  If you ever read it you'll know where I'm coming from,  if you haven't read it, I highly recommend it.  If you find my writing  disagreeable, read it.  You may still disagree, but I guarantee you'll think about things a good deal differently.

My conversation with C.  is probably worth retelling if for no other reason than my approach to presenting a differing view of his.  My friend was advocating wealth redistribution.  Full blown, rob the rich, give to the poor, they have more than they ever need,  its an immoral imbalance, wealth readjustment.  Seemingly its the fashionable thing to advocate now a days.

Everyone is doing it, so it must be good.  Oh, and by the way, when I say everyone is doing it.  Everyone is.  No one is unmoved by this mentality.  From the very rich to the very poor.

Voluntary or not.  I'll support that contention later.

I allowed C. to speak uninterrupted for long moments.  I interrupted at one point, it was obvious, asking how much he payed for the Washington Redskin branded mini football.

About twenty bucks he said.  O.K.  I answered.  He didn't get my point.  Of course high paid athletes were a target of his envy,  yet never once did he consider how much of his wealth he has distributed freely in the opposite direction of his prescription for what ails America.  But I withhold final judgement,  maybe he bought all his memorabilia before his socialist change of heart.

Trust me,  if he hasn't, and he broaches the subject again,  I'll feel compelled to point it out.  Hey, I can't have friends running around unprincipled.   Get rid of those brand name and star sponsored wares!

Right?  I mean if you are following the Kardashian's or Honey Boo Boo AND you complain about the wealth of stars, athletes,  or any otherwise blessed person of wealth,  then my friend, you and I ought to have a private conversation too.   Not to judge you,  but to cleanse you.   You think Che Guevara had a man cave?  Okay, he probably did,  except it had guns and books.

Not football and basketball trinkets.  He's fashionable today too.  For all the same reasons.

So back to my story, C.  had his say.  Feeling there was a certain thresh hold of wealth, and anything over that was unnecessary he saw it was right and just to take it.   Frankly,  instead of embellishing the story, I must point out he was sorely lacking on the practical aspects of his sentiments.  I never did get out of him who would take the wealth, other than it would be taken;  who would get the money, other than the poor;  or even how much money the emasculated tycoon would have left, which I think was a fair set of questions to ask.

I rebutted playing the role of Bill Gates, and why not,  he was once the wealthiest on the planet, he'd be one of the most affected, and I thought it would be neat to be in his shoes.

I asked C., "What gives you the right to take my money?"

I had too much. . . .

"If you take my wealth today, what do I do tomorrow?"

I go back to work, like nothing has happened!

"Why would I do that?"

Because that is what I do,  I work.

(hold the smirk)

"Why don't I just run my company and wealth into the ground before you take it?"

umm,  ahh.

"C.  do you realize how many millionaires, billionaires, and otherwise well paid people I've created?"

No.

"C.  Do you know that I'm giving away all my billions to help the people of the entire planet?  I intend to give it all away,  saving a modest some for my children,  before I die? "

No.

"C.  Do you know that Andrew Carnegie,  nearly a hundred years ago, formulated this philosophy of  philanthrophy and put it in a book, The Gospel of Wealth Essays and Other Writings (Penguin Classics), and many of the super wealthy have done just that over the years?  Or do you understand that there is a huge movement afoot, led by me and Warren Buffett to conspire and inspire the super wealthy of today to do just the same thing?  Give it all away before they die?"

No.

"So I should stop giving my money away, and instead allow who to take it?  The Government?"

"Why wouldn't I just leave the country before this plan of taking my money is ever put in place?"

Enough of the dialog.  But believe me,  it was real.  I really don't have to point that out do I,  that it was a real conversation.  'Cause we all know someone like this.  Someone bent on wealth redistribution.

I advocate listening to them.  Its quite breath taking.  I had a long role play with my friend.  Perhaps its worthy of a play.   We'll see,  I can ask for money from one of those new crowd sourcing sights I read about.

In the end,  I'm left thinking,  maybe more than those advocating wealth redistribution,  if I were Bill Gates they would take my wealth away and then expect me to go to work tomorrow.?

What then are they going to do with my wealth tomorrow?

The Flaw

There is a problem with Socialism.  As there are with every political philosophy.  If this were not so, then humanity would be blessed by an intrinsic and universal idea of the best form of governance, and would be practicing it by this point in time.  You would think.  But it hasn't happened.

It hasn't happened because all political philosophies have flaws.  Socialism is fashionable, and despite of its alleged dominance with the electorate today it still has flaws.

Even if the eloquent disciples of the left elaborate around those flaws.  They are still flaws if they ignore them altogether as well.

Without speaking on a subject matter that I don't know in its entirety, the liberal mind -- for I do not have one, I will limit my opinion on one flaw of the philosophy of modern liberalism.  Its sustainability.

How do you sustain socialism through the years as its practiced today?

This is of practical concern.  Socialism today is unsustainable.  Its an elephant in the room and of some concern, but not too serious concern.  Posit this, when the socialists acquired control of government in its entirety in 2008 the first accomplishment was universal health care, not a balanced budget, nor anything close to a sustainable budget.

Now talk is cheap,  actions have consequences.  This behavior is unsustainable.  Talk all you want.  I know, I KNOW-- its the Republicans standing in the way of tax increases that would lead to a balanced budget by some far distant time in the future.  I heard it all before.

Fact of the matter is, Health Care, not universally wanted, was universally enacted.  Balancing the budget was put off.

This practice of socialism in unsustainable.  Everything falls  and fails after that.

You can't bring better life to all, if you are damning future generations to pay for what you spend now.  How is that improving their lot?

We argue about gun rights.  A debate allowed by the freedom of owning a gun handed down from earlier Americans.  An American in 2050 may or may not have guns, but you can be darn sure that that American is going to have our debt to pay back.

That bluntly speaking is robbing our progeny of life.  There will be only so much time in a life to live.  Paying taxes takes time in form of labor.  You work more hours to pay those taxes, or you accept less for your labors because of taxes, that's a life wasted away directly as a result of the grand socialism in fashion from earlier times.

This a practical concern.  It will catch up to someone.  Debt.

Liberals are very smart, ask anyone of them, or visit their sites.  They won't be too modest to tell you how right they are and how wrong you are.

So I direct my liberal minded citizens to look up how Austria-Hungary fell.  Or why the British Empire isn't so much of an Empire anymore.

That can wait, the crib note is DEBT.

Without controlling our debt, socialism's grand and beautiful plans aren't sustainable.

Socialism then has a task.  Perhaps they don't want to face it, but again its a matter of practicality.  Modern Socialism has to address the flaw in its being.  It has to address Debt.

A socialist might not like it.  After all, its much wiser and more altruistic to talk about the wonderfulness of Universal Health care and ignore the debt future Americans face from this fashionable politics of today.

Its cleaner to talk about the environment.

Its safer to blame some one else, like the loyal opposition.  Or just Bush.

But in practice modern socialism is adding debt not lessening the burden, and the burden is already unsustainable.

Then again, and I admit I don't know the entirety of the liberal mind, they may have a plan already worked out.  They are that smart, just ask them.

Until I see that plan in action though, its all talk.  Along with all the dreams of how great Socialism is.

Name me one great socialist state anyways?  It would help in understanding this zealousness and righteousness in Socialism.

Random Post Election Thoughts

Random thoughts I've had since the election.

Next time, if you want to save time and find out who won the election well before any network is airing it, pay attention to the talking heads from late afternoon on.  Sean Hannity goes on the air at three, and he was at first optimistic, then after he became privy to the exit polling data, he became desperate sounding.   Fox News, or Faux News as the liberals who never watch it, call it, was like a wake.  CNN was buoyant.  I started the day thinking a Romney win, but by six  it was dawning on me.

I've noticed this about Hannity years ago,  every four years I have a reason to listen to Hannity, and that is to determine, as soon as possible, how the night is going to go.


The talk about how the GOP needs to evaluate who they are is indeed relevant.  I dropped them like a bad habit, perhaps the only bad habit I ever dropped.  So no, Obama's win isn't shattering for me.  Long ago I realized my way of thinking isn't represented often in Presidential elections.  I'm O.K. with that,  not thrilled, but I'm O.K.

I had thoughts once, that coincided with a party, but not anymore.  I am a minority, I am the 3%.  Only I was hoping for at least 5%.


I was hoping for a Romney win, if only to enjoy the liberals complaining again.  They do it so well.  Realized that they blamed a hurricane on a President.  A hurricane!  When the conservatives tried to do that this year, it was like watching stand-ins on a Broadway hit.   One day maybe, but not that good right now.

Which brings me to the President.  One day maybe, but not that good right now.  But it may as well be him,  he's already there, and we've put difficult decisions off long enough.  Now with a second term, Obama is either going to accomplish something or not.  It's that simple.  Do something, or don't do something Mr. President.

It's going to be interesting.  It has to be, or you just aren't paying attention.  Serious problems confront us.  I wish him well.   

Congrats to Obama!

Congrats to President Obama.  By winning a second term you have created an opportunity for yourself to accomplish something that will span generations, again.  

Actions such as ObamaCare, are here to stay.  New ideas may find a place for the ages, while others may disappear altogether. 

As I said after every election, I hope you do well Mr. President.  Heck, that is an easy sentiment, every president- elect has promised the earth, sky, and sometimes the moon.

But can we all agree that it's in our best interest that things get better, and that that expectation should reign over party affiliation?

Everyone wants things to get better,  even those that don't vote.  Let's get some metrics together, so that in four years we all can be debating about something or some issues that are novel, or yet unseen.  Instead of repeating 2008 all over again.  

Did I say 2008, I meant 2012.  Sorry.

It would not only be a shame, but a strong indication that some ideas aren't just helping out, even though their intentions are paved in gold,  if we are giving a pass on some numbers, or blaming Bush still four years from now.  

Its not a metric, but can we not be blaming Bush, or lustily remembering how good the Clinton years were, when we have our next Presidential election?

Here's is a metric, unemployment.  It's about 8% right now.  Can we agree on a number where it would have to be, to validate Obama's policies?  

At least some scrutiny?

Listen, I know we won't have Obama to elect again, but honestly,  if its still at about 8%, and then some are still claiming we need to continue onward by electing the successor Democrat, they are out of their mind, not me.

Deficit.  I'm of the sort that believes zero deficit is about right.  Smaller than it is today would be a passable grade.  Little difference, one way or another, is a failure.  

Debt.  Another metric where zero sounds right to me.  But I'll face reality, if you do too.  We got to do something about this.  A big difference is needed, or I say failure.
  
Let's get together on some metrics.  People are posting and tweeting that we need to get together.  I agree.  But I don't believe in abandoning scrutiny.  

This year Obama won with horrible numbers by saying he needed more time.  O.K.  But we ought to be observant enough that in four years time, if the numbers are still horrible, we know the difference between talk and action.

I Endorse....!

My kids usually bear the brunt of my long soliloquies.  Especially when they are sick, as she is now, or when they broach a subject in the first place, not actually in search of a long dialog.  They prefer the shoe be on the other foot, and fire questions at me unceasingly.

Addie says they are voting in her class for President, and she only has two choices.  Which of course is a racket in any sense of the term.  Its typically called a monopoly in business circles, or near monopoly, and Governments usually force a change in the situation.

I told her simply.  Write in the name Gary Johnson or Mickey Mouse.  I mean gheeze,  there ought to be a write in.  I can know longer wonder why we only have two main parties, its inoculated in people from an early age.    I wish they inoculate the "Do not litter" campaign again, not a two party system.


But I digress, as I did with her.

In her situation, I said,  Obama hasn't earn your vote.  He hasn't earned mine.    

I expect more, and that's just not a campaign slogan from Romney.  Its been what I think, that a President should live up to and behave in the highest of manners and standards. 

He's the ruler of the world, so to speak.  History.  This isn't the PTO presidency.

I'm not voting for Obama.  I expect better.  

But you all go ahead and vote the next president out of the two main parties,  I'm note particularly afraid of either one.  Romney or Obama.  I'd prefer Romney.  But I have no way of knowing if he'd turn out any better.  Because of that, my vote is for change.  

I don't think any one person now a days can do the job well enough for widespread acclaim.  Or in other words,  the job is too big, and the situation too screwed for any one person to be well accomplished.

Obama is the devil I know.  Literary speaking.  I mean no slander beyond the old adage.  I've read enough, by credible sources, that I don't believe Obama is driven by any damn America agenda.  He's a liberal.  That's bad enough, and destructive enough.

He's well-intentioned, but obviously in over his head.  

Romney isn't exactly the new embodiment of the most, well,  of , well, of whom ever is the worst conservative the liberals are afraid of.

Which is to say,  he and Obama aren't that much different.  But I prefer him.

But you all go elect him.  If he does well,  I got his back next time.  

That's all I can promise.

One lasting thought,  Romney thanked the crowd in front of him remarking that they all support him, even though he isn't promising a big check to any of them.

I like that kind of promise from a politician.  It seems more honest.  Its not a promise at all.

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?

In Times Gone By

I've been reading Truman, by David McCullough, a Pittsburgh area native and two time winner of the Pulitzer Prize.  Its a mamoth book on the Democrat President who proceeded FDR.

Legendary basketball coach and President of the Miami Heat, Rick Riley is said to of been so inspired by its in depth portrayals and details that he changed his style of coaching as a result.

I read a lot about a lot, but not so much about Truman, so I'm learning a lot.  Especially a lot about what Democrats where like back in the proverbial day.  Take a moment to read this excerpt from congressional testimony of David Lilienthal, head of the TVA(Tennessee Valley Authority) and prospective head of the Atomic Energy Commission.  He was asked about his stand on communism, which in the day was the big Red Scare and politicians feared them lurking every where.

Regardless, the view on communism is one thing,  his interpretation of what it means to be American, coming from a son of Eastern European immigrants is quite the point for me.

Democrats, do they believe this way today?  Do people who vote Democrat, because they always do, ever think of these things, or think of them this way?

Conservatives do, liberals don't I reckon.  What about President Obama?  Actions speak louder than words, do I have to list the encroachments on personal liberty?

Read and think on this:

I believe in, [he said] and I conceive the Constitution of the United States to rest, as does religion, upon the fundamental proposition of the integrity of the individual; and that all Government and all private institutions must be designed to promote and protect and defend the integrity and the dignity of the individual...

Any forms of government, therefore, and any other institutions, which make men means rather than ends in themselves, which exalt that state or any other institutions above the importance of men, which place arbitrary power over men as a fundamental tenet of government, are contrary to this conception;  and therefore I am deeply opposed to them...The fundamental tenet of communism is that the state is an end in itself, and that therefore the powers which the state exercises over the individual are without any ethical standards to limit them.  That I deeply disbelieve.

It is very easy simply to say one is not a Communist.  And, of course, if despite my record it is necessary for me to state this very affirmatively, then this is a great disappointment to me.  It is very easy to talk about being against communism.  It is equally important to believe those things which provide a satisfactory and effective alternative.  Democracy is that satisfying alternative.

And its hope in the world is that it is an affirmative belief, rather than simply a belief against something else....

I deeply believe in the capacity of democracy to surmount any trials that may lie ahead provided only we practice it in our daily lives.

And among the things that we must practice is this:  that while we seek fervently to ferret out the subversive and anti-democratic forces in the country, we do not at the same time, by hysteria, by resort to innuendo and sneers and other unfortunate tactics, besmirch the very cause that we believe in, and cause a separation among our people, cause one group and one individual to hate one another,  based upon mere attacks, mere unsubstantiated attacks upon their loyalty.... 

As I said yesterday,  I can understand why my grandfather was a Democrat.  But to think that being a Democrat today is the same as being a Democrat back then is mere fiction.

There are a million reasons to be for one party over the other, and we all do find that one weighty issue that defines for us our loyalties, so be it.

Would it be that harmful though to look past some of the innuendos and sneers, against the 'rich' for example,  and do a little internal reflection on what our loyalties, by way of a vote, for a party really support?

Not A Democrat

"Now let me urge upon you:  Get in line, get on the team, do a little work; help make the United States what it must be from now on:  the leader of the world in peace, as it was the leader of the world in war.  I urge you to be good workers in the ranks."

     ~ Harry S. Truman

Now then,  I can understand why my grandfather was a Democrat.

However, have you noticed what the Democrat Party encourages now a days?   Welfare, amnesty, blame it on Bush.

Undeniable.  

That's why I'm not a Democrat. (but not the only reasons)

On Greed

For just a moment, if we can spare one, I'd like to share my thoughts on greed.

Greed is a hot topic for many people now a days if for no other reason than the soon to be GOP nominee for President is a wealthy man.

Admittedly now a tax payer! (There had been some speculation that he hadn't been, but Harry Reid smoked him out.)

Some may never mind that the Treasury Secretary had tax issues, or lack there of, and so did the much ballyhooed oracle of Omaha, and eponymous tax rule proponent,  Warren Buffet.

Let's be frank, we are all greedy.  To those quick to pin that on Romney, as though you've made some profanely and insightful commentary, one question please.  Did you find such an insidious trait in John Kerry?

But its not about wealth then, now is it?  Its really about party politics, and I can spend more than a minute on that, but I want to point out the greed.

I believe its an even more diabolical greed that dwells in the beings of those that don't dwell on the concept that if the government is spending more than its taking in, that's greed too.

I believe that when we have to borrow trillions of dollars, on a yearly basis, that has to be paid back tomorrow, that's greed.  That's out sourcing our future to the Chinese(mostly.)

I believe that when we vote, and we don't pay mind to leaving our children with our debt, we are greedy.

Now Romney may or may not be greedy, any more so than the rest of us.  I don't know.  But I do know that he has asked the lead player inside the beltway with any credence on reducing the debt and deficit to join him in making a case to run this country.

Obama, who may or may not be as greedy as Romney, had a chance to live by his promises, too many to produce, too few fulfilled, but reducing the deficit being one and he failed.  Miserably.

So do we point out the greed in others only and damn the wealthier candidate, unlike in 2004 when the wealthier candidate was John Kerry?

Or maybe lets think about what kind of greed is more detrimental for all of us?

I know this, Romney may have more wealth than many of us, but his efforts to amass that wealth far surpass  the efforts many are taking in their own lives and his taxes paid are doing more for the balance of payments on our greed than many of us commit to, even when its our children that will bear most of the burdens that Barrack Obama and his lot has cast upon us.

Two Sides of the Story

Just yesterday I had an encounter with a clan of Democrats, pure lever pulling Democrats, that could be construed either as direct evidence that Obama is going to win, or quite the contrary, that Obama's base is not fired up, and therefore less likely to show up.

There were about five of them, at a festival, having a good time.  One came right out and asked me if I want to talk politics!  Does shit stink?

But it soon devolved into, on their part, a demonstration of all the nonsensical reasons to vote for anyone, but particularly linked to the liberal left.

Feelings, wasted vote, straight party proclivities.

I attempted one plea,  "Why should I vote for Obama?"  That was after honest assertion that I didn't know who I was voting for in November.   Left unanswered

I also attempted one point, that I was Catholic and cherished religious freedom and that Obama Care is at odds with that constitutional plank.  Lost.

Its not that they couldn't comprehend my concerns if they understood me, but I was left with the impression that they had no idea what I'm referring too.

Catholic Hospitals forced to perform abortions, 'natch.

So there you have it, my contention is that Obama does not suffer from loss of support of the people who voted him in in the first place.  They don't care much about anything other than the letter "d" after his name.

Others may read into the lack of energy and particulars among his supporters as evidence of tepid support in  November -- low turn out.

I'm Sooo Not Alone

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-senate-texas-20120801,0,4846333.story?track=rss

I've been adrift a few days, taking in life, mostly learning; today I got back to the gym and back to giving out my life's advice.

I guess I've been looking for signs that my contrarianism hasn't regressed to individualism because I've been finding them.

Take the story above,  the Tea Party movement is indeed a live and well, and that makes me smile.

I don't know what constitutes membership in the Tea Party, which isn't to say I'm longing to find out, because I do like my own private individualism, albeit with a Republican registration.  I do however feel a kinship with those good people.

Presidential elections, I believe, are the litmus test of Americans.  We dip that stick in the mud every four years and analyse the numbers and results. Obviously, but where I go is that as an individual, what does how I vote mean?  Further, is it a validation or disregarding of any learning I've done in the previous four years, or a turning my back on positions I'd taken since the last election.

The voting booth is sometimes the most courageous event we take, one that sometimes requires a tremendous leap of faith, a blind turn if you will.

That's my generalization, voting is a courageous act, because courage is linked somehow to doing an act that has great trepidation attach to it.  A sense of danger.   Voting has never been that way for me, but based on the statistics, not many people change the way they vote every four years.  Which I find uncourageous because people change and political parties change, although much slower.  Voting based on party loyalty, if not based on principles is also an indication of no personal growth.


For those people, whether they know it or not, voting is a courageous act.  So courageous in fact that many blow it and do nothing but the usual,  pull the party lever.   To hell with that point about immigration or deficit spending that was so vital to hold as the loyal opposition, its the Party on election day, not the principles.

Principles take courage.

Principled also vote for something, not against something.  That would be against principles, unless of course if your principles and the opposition candidate were your only choices.


Yes, if every four years you compromise on your education and principles and vote party, rationale being against the other candidate, that to me is simply lacking courage.  Maybe this year its because this is the most important election ever and the fate of the nation hangs in the balance.  Reflect on twenty years of that rationale and I think its safe to say one's principles aren't so important after all.

A devout liberal or conservative voting Green or Libertarian is likely principled based each and every time, but some of those folks I've run into over the last ten years have complained about so much, but only when as it applies to the other party.

Take this years election.  Hypothetically,  Obama vs. Romney vs. Tea Party.  What would I do?  Principles. Tea Party.  That's for me.  Maybe for someone else its Romney.

We'll see what happens, how the numbers come in on the first Tuesday in November,  hopefully the numbers show a true reflection on the principles of America, not just how lacking in courage we are.  Either way the numbers will become truth, and quite possibly halt the last best chance America has to changing the system or at the very least providing real pressure to change the system.

Occupy protesters were ardent, but disruption in the voting booth is where it matters most.  The Tea Party may be our last best hope.

I'm Not Alone

Just read "Be Evil"  by Anil Dash in the current issue of Wired, 20.08.

Topic matter is the unshackled Microsoft after 9 years of living under the Clinton era consent decree, but what I really enjoyed were the lines about iTunes.


I've been shunning iTunes since iTunes was a baby, but recently I've downgraded my opinions on it even more since I bought my son an iPod a few years ago.  What specifically flames my ire is the ad nauseum request for your username and password.  


What originally repelled me were it share restrictions.  Which for all I know are long gone.

But I thought I was alone, out of touch, and cranky until I read today:

"Renewed aggressiveness from Microsoft could do the whole tech industry a lot of good.  iTunes is as bloated and user-hostile as Outlook was in the '90s.  That old embrace-and-extend mentality could give us an iTunes competitor that would import your playlists and sync your iPod without making you want to gouge your eyes out."

No further comments needed.

Playing Both Sides

I was wrong, but I am right!

Last weekend I cautioned against the tact of using Obama's words about who built what to gain an advantage in this race, as that approach might backfire.  I even posted a day ago that the President campaign began hitting back, very much along my logic.

However, it appears Romney does have something here, and the polls are demonstrating that.

Good for him,  I hope this works to his great advantage.  I do, truly.

'cause if he starts whipping Obama's butt, then I ain't voting for him.

Here's one of the reasons why.

Mitt is going around now saying how the automatic cuts across the budget shouldn't affect the military, he wants monies protected for our defense.

Well, I don't think what we need from a president is a type of leadership that makes it even easier for nothing to get done.

The automatic cuts concept was a result of not acting on budgetary reform as proposed by a commission, the commission that proposed budgetary reform was a result of no congressional reform in the budget, no congressional reform is the product of do nothing, third rate actors playing the role of Senator or Representative.


To hear Romney remove any sliver from the notion of "across the board" just reminds me how close Obama and Romney are, and how far I am from them.  They got to get something done Mitt,  its already been too long.

Austerity is chic, albeit forced, in Europe today.  It should of been here a long time ago, but even now I don't think many of our Leaders know the word.

The Right Stuff

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/23/romney-reprises-obama-build-that-criticism/?hpt=hp_bn3

This is CNN.com finally reporting on the "You didn't build that." fiasco.

You'll find at the end, which in total I thought was a fair piece save that confusing paragraph near the middle, an Obama defense and counter thrust that is effectively my cautionary words a week ago taken up by the Forward campaign.

Also, I wrote yesterday that NCAA penalties levied on Penn State should include vacating the wins during that ugly cover-up era.  I was right on that one too.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8191027/penn-state-nittany-lions-hit-60-million-fine-4-year-bowl-ban-wins-dating-1998

But I'm not one to gloat....

Lose to Win

Ahead of tomorrow's release of NCAA punishments on Penn State, it seems to me that it should begin with the vacating of all the victories accredited to Joe Paterno from the start of his cover up until the very end.

The School as well.  That seems the least they could do, but just a start.

Love The One Your With

I ought to read my own blog posts.

Conservatism is dead and I have no business giving Mitt Romney advice on how to win the minds over.

Forgive me.

Its a shame though, and this President is so out of whack with my values that I have no recourse but to support Romney.

Its tough though, like a recovering alcoholic, I want my conservatism, I crave it at times, I argue for it.  But I can't have it.  I shouldn't argue about it.  I will learn to live without it.

This is the most important election in my lifetime, and the fate of America hangs in the balance.

Until the next election anyways.

Any takers? I got a hundred dollars on ObamaCare NOT getting repealed.  Not very Romney like in terms of cash wagers, but I'm not very Romney like in many ways.

But I'm a whole lot closer to his views than Obama's....bowing to foriegn heads of state?  I'd never do that.

Give To Live

Here is where the GOP needs to go on the flap about success and the American Dream interpretations from the President.

Its not about getting help for success, and its not about government playing a role, for both of those generalities are correct.    What the key to the American Dream is, is a work ethic.

Put an effort into life, and see what you get out of it.  

I'd love to hear Mitt Romney or John Sununu emphasize more of that positive generality than acting aghast about the words of Mr. Obama, which essentially he's earned the right to say, he's an elected President.

In another consideration, did you hear all the people cheering for what he was saying?  Those are wayward voters there.  Generally speaking, not enlighten to the conservative interpretation of American Exceptionalism.  

The tact of the opposition to the liberal reinterpretation I don't think is going to do much to appeal to the intellectual curiosity of the cheering Obama-ites.  It places Mitt as out of touch.  Let the words as the President lay, its not helping.

Promote work ethic.  That doesn't oppose the president.  The people who like the president have their reasons, and they don't likely like being debased for that like.  They'll become defensive, harden their support.

Mitt needs to crack the mindset.  One way maybe to link success as an effort, link taxes as what they are, a deterrent.  Repeat over and over again that the best way for us to move Forward(steal the slogan) is for all of us to put an effort in.

Taxes just rob life, spending too much raises taxes, needing government begets more spending, working hard for your gains in life ends the downward cycle, and precipitates personal vitality.  

That's the conservative message.

Denying government and others help plays a role in success is absurd, we know that Mitt and Sununu and any other GOP politician have spent careers building just the opposite.  Let the first politician who has not tweaked government to encourage success in his or her district throw the first stone.