However:
In a meeting at the White House on Thursday evening, Obama also told lawmakers that he plans to keep a range of 35,000 to 50,000 support troops on the ground in Iraq after combat troops are out, the officials said.
Now, his plan is they will be there for training and Iraqi support missions only.
Now, the reality is he may not consider it combat, but I bet those opposing us being there will.
We’re going to be in a position where our troops will just be sitting ducks for every terrorist group in the Middle East.
The Obama administration plans to do away with the Bush tax cuts. And, their very popular “tax the wealth” mantra of his campaign is being implemented in DC as we speak. What I’m sure most people didn’t expect was Obama to target charitable giving.
Marc Ambinder had this inexplicable response regarding whether this would hurt charities:
But this sounds like a talking point. If wealthy people want to give money, then they should give, regardless of tax benefits. Also: if you’re inclined to oppose higher taxes on rich people, wouldn’t this be the first way you’d try to sell your opposition to the American people — by essentially fretting about the huge drop in charitable contributions? My thought experiment is: if tax reform down the line were to gut all deductions, would charitable contributions totally dry up?
“A talking point”? The very real reality is some wealthy people will continue to give. Bill Gates has his foundation already set up, he has no choice. Others are in the same boat. However, the tax incentives DO drive a lot of people to donate more than they would have. If they had $10,000 in disctretionary money to mete out, they could give $13,000 or so given the tax incentive. Now, that’s not there. If they have $10,0000, they have $10,000.
And, as usual, the defense of Obama goes over-the-top. No one is saying “charitable contributions totally dry up”. However, it will be a huge hit on charities at a time when we need those charities the most and those charities are already being pounded by increased costs and loss of donations simply due to the economy. The other defense is that if someone is using it for a tax dodge, then it’s not charity. Well, it is charity. It goes to a good purpose in most cases.
This is a horrid idea. The fact it’s gotten this far dumb-founds me.
What makes me nervous is the Obama administration is more than happy to choose a few charities to receive a ton of federal money. See ACORN.
How would these people supporting this idea feel if Obama didn’t prop up the charitable service they wanted and punished everyone who supported that pet charity by means of taxing them? And at the same time, using your tax dollars to support a charity you don’t like?
That’s exactly what is happening here. Catholic Services, Red Cross, American Cancer Society, they’ll get hit, ACORN will flourish with taxpayor money.
27
Feb
The Senate passed the DC Voting Rights Act. In order to get it passed, they gave an additional seat to Utah. Senator Joe Liberman was quite thrilled, as was Eleanor Holmes Norton. However, from a fiscally conervative standpoint, this is screwed up.
Now, the REASON the US Constitution made no mention of “districts” is because when they wrote this, “districts” didn’t exist. So, rather than doing the obvious, the Senate has chosen to do the opposite.
Since the Constitution made no mention of “districts”, and people seem to think it’s a mistake for the citizens of DC to not have a voting member of Congress, then the obvious solution would have been to do away with the District of Columbia and give the land back to the states it was taken from. But NOOOOOOO, they have to fubar the Constitution even worse by taking something the Constitution had no intent of ever dealing with and totally abandoning the Constitution by selecting their own representative proportion.
Now, this action may seem beign at this point, but the long run is that one seat is now guaranteed in DC. However, that one seat in Utah is not. The next census could very well dictate Utah losing a seat. If that’s the case, did they say Utah will never have less than four representatives while the rest of the country, barring DC, gets three? Guess what folks, that’s unconstitutional. As a citizen of one of the states that does not automatically get four, I am now being under-represented and feel my rights constitutional rights have been violated. No longer does the apportionment guarantee each US citizen equal representation in Congress. The Constitution in that regard is null and void.
Toss in the White House grabbing the census count for purely political purposes and you’ve got a real manipulation of the Constitution going on that makes anything Bush did look lame. The media should be outraged. This is one conspiracy theory already coming true. If Congress can randomly assign members by their own whim, the Constitution is for all intents is dead. The fact Obama can do this and the media winks and nods, that is Big Brother. People should be afraid, be very afraid.
Reaction to Obama’s speech in the media is about as predictable as you’d expect. Fox is finding all kinds of problems with it, CNN is lauding how their poll reaction was. MSNBC couldn’t contain themselves during the Republican response. I’d run a poll here, but I know most of my readers don’t like Obama, so what would be the point?
There are however, polls that go beyond politics and reflect the sentiment coming from DC in a purely unbiased form. The Dow Jones, NASDAQ, et al. They’re not worried about partisan politics, they’re worried about bottom line. Sure, there are individuals within the markets that have personal political preferences, but overall, the bottom line is their life, and when spread out over the thousands of companies in these markets, you get a good picture I think of the real sentiment. Bottom line for Obama’s speech?
- Dow down 80 points.
- NASDAQ down 15 points
- S&P down 6 points
Now, to me, that’s a real-life poll going on. The markets may recover as the day goes along, but that seems to be the initial reaction.
24
Feb
Hey Acorn peeps. I built a house and went way over budget. Knowing we were going way over budget, we decided to risk it and finish it as the builder wanted. Due to the market meltdown, we still own our other house which we rent out. We both have decent jobs. Our mortgage is just a little more than Ms. Hanks’.
Now, even though we can to some degree afford the mortgage, it’s a major headache as it takes away from most of the other activities I really enjoy. I’d really like an occasinal night out at the local strip joint. However, this $500 expense is not possible with this mortgage. I’d like a boat as well. Sure, we’re landlocked, but we have a heck of a lake. Boat fuel is just very expensive right now. And, I really think we deserve three new cars every year. I just do.
If I quit paying the mortgage, I could do all those things. Probably would have a little left over at the end of the month as well.
The question here of course, if I quit paying my mortgage and go into foreclosure, will you guys come and make a stink for me? This is a small town, it would get lots of front page news. I doubt the bank would like that too much.
If interested in going to bat for an average white guy not living in the ‘hood, leave a reply here.
For what it’s worth, I won’t be holding my breath.
Read this from the Kentucky Startup Blog:
And a nifty link was posted on how to contact your local representatives.
Being a niche site, I looked around. Other niche sites dealing with NIH SBIR/STTR programs feel the same way. They feel shocked and betrayed since Obama has touted small businesses as the main tool to economic recovery.
Well, Obama not doing what he said he was going to do is not new.
Obama showing contempt for private sector capitalism is not new either.
I will say I am surprised with this move. I’m not going to pin it on Arlen Specter tho. I could be wrong in that. However, the Republicans are generally much more pro-business than the Democrats. And, with some of the Democrat hardliners now in charge, I expect the anti-capitalist sentiments to expose themselves in very overt manners. Although this was not initially overt, it was an overly socialist piece of legislation that put all the of blame for the current problems on capitalism, and the only cure on government programs and spending ( socialism ). This week’s agenda from Obama is taxing everyone making more than $250,000 ( read small business peeps ). So, to exclude the private sector does not surprise me.
Capitalism in the United States is now under a full blown assault. I’m not sure why Richard Stump is suddenly surprised.
23
Feb
Just got the numbers for the Medicaid add-on from the stimulus package. I don’t deal with Medicaid directly, but it indirectly affects what I do in a large way. As such, I was interested in the numbers. However, the bigger picture bugged me more than the dollars I was assigned to look at. In essence, Barack Obama has preached bipartisanship. With the stimulus debate, although the Republicans were not allowed direct input into the final package, they were expected to vote for it purely in the spirit of bipartisanship. Now, bipartisanship goes a lot deeper than just simply voting as expected. Partisan politics permeates the entire government system. Now, if Obama wants bipartisan support from the Republicans, he needs to enforce bipartisanship throughout his administration. Given that, this is what bugged me. Here’s the breakdown of the Medicaid Add-on state by state with some additional data tossed in:
| State | Voted | Medicaid Add-on | Population | Avg Per Person | State Dev | |
| Alabama | McCain | $ 850,000,000 | 4,661,900 | $ 182.33 | $ (89.11) | -33% |
| Alaska | McCain | $ 220,000,000 | 686,293 | $ 320.56 | $ 49.13 | 18% |
| Arizona | McCain | $ 1,980,000,000 | 6,500,180 | $ 304.61 | $ 33.17 | 12% |
| Arkansas | McCain | $ 730,000,000 | 2,855,390 | $ 255.66 | $ (15.78) | -6% |
| California | Obama | $ 11,230,000,000 | 36,756,666 | $ 305.52 | $ 34.09 | 13% |
| Colorado | Obama | $ 880,000,000 | 4,939,456 | $ 178.16 | $ (93.28) | -34% |
| Connecticut | Obama | $ 1,320,000,000 | 3,501,252 | $ 377.01 | $ 105.57 | 39% |
| Delaware | Obama | $ 320,000,000 | 873,092 | $ 366.51 | $ 95.08 | 35% |
| District of Columbia | Obama | $ 300,000,000 | 591,833 | $ 506.90 | $ 235.46 | 87% |
| Florida | Obama | $ 4,390,000,000 | 18,328,340 | $ 239.52 | $ (31.92) | -12% |
| Georgia | McCain | $ 1,730,000,000 | 9,685,744 | $ 178.61 | $ (92.82) | -34% |
| Hawaii | Obama | $ 360,000,000 | 1,288,198 | $ 279.46 | $ 8.02 | 3% |
| Idaho | McCain | $ 300,000,000 | 1,523,816 | $ 196.87 | $ (74.56) | -27% |
| Illinois | Obama | $ 2,900,000,000 | 12,901,563 | $ 224.78 | $ (46.66) | -17% |
| Indiana | Obama | $ 1,440,000,000 | 6,376,792 | $ 225.82 | $ (45.62) | -17% |
| Iowa | Obama | $ 550,000,000 | 3,002,555 | $ 183.18 | $ (88.26) | -33% |
| Kansas | McCain | $ 450,000,000 | 2,802,134 | $ 160.59 | $(110.84) | -41% |
| Kentucky | McCain | $ 1,030,000,000 | 4,269,245 | $ 241.26 | $ (30.18) | -11% |
| Louisiana | McCain | $ 1,660,000,000 | 4,410,796 | $ 376.35 | $ 104.91 | 39% |
| Maine | Obama | $ 470,000,000 | 1,316,456 | $ 357.02 | $ 85.58 | 32% |
| Maryland | Obama | $ 1,630,000,000 | 5,633,597 | $ 289.34 | $ 17.90 | 7% |
| Massachusetts | Obama | $ 3,090,000,000 | 6,497,967 | $ 475.53 | $ 204.10 | 75% |
| Michigan | Obama | $ 2,270,000,000 | 10,003,422 | $ 226.92 | $ (44.51) | -16% |
| Minnesota | Obama | $ 2,030,000,000 | 5,220,393 | $ 388.86 | $ 117.42 | 43% |
| Mississippi | McCain | $ 790,000,000 | 2,938,618 | $ 268.83 | $ (2.60) | -1% |
| Missouri | McCain | $ 1,600,000,000 | 5,911,605 | $ 270.65 | $ (0.78) | 0% |
| Montana | McCain | $ 180,000,000 | 967,440 | $ 186.06 | $ (85.38) | -31% |
| Nebraska | McCain | $ 310,000,000 | 1,783,432 | $ 173.82 | $ (97.61) | -36% |
| Nevada | Obama | $ 450,000,000 | 2,600,167 | $ 173.07 | $ (98.37) | -36% |
| New Hampshire | Obama | $ 250,000,000 | 1,315,809 | $ 190.00 | $ (81.44) | -30% |
| New Jersey | Obama | $ 2,220,000,000 | 8,682,661 | $ 255.68 | $ (15.75) | -6% |
| New Mexico | Obama | $ 630,000,000 | 1,984,356 | $ 317.48 | $ 46.05 | 17% |
| New York | Obama | $ 12,650,000,000 | 19,490,297 | $ 649.04 | $ 377.60 | 139% |
| North Carolina | Obama | $ 2,350,000,000 | 9,222,414 | $ 254.81 | $ (16.62) | -6% |
| North Dakota | McCain | $ 110,000,000 | 641,481 | $ 171.48 | $ (99.96) | -37% |
| Ohio | Obama | $ 3,010,000,000 | 11,485,910 | $ 262.06 | $ (9.38) | -3% |
| Oklahoma | McCain | $ 960,000,000 | 3,642,361 | $ 263.57 | $ (7.87) | -3% |
| Oregon | Obama | $ 830,000,000 | 3,790,060 | $ 218.99 | $ (52.44) | -19% |
| Pennsylvania | Obama | $ 4,070,000,000 | 12,448,279 | $ 326.95 | $ 55.52 | 20% |
| Rhode Island | Obama | $ 470,000,000 | 1,050,788 | $ 447.28 | $ 175.85 | 65% |
| South Carolina | McCain | $ 860,000,000 | 4,479,800 | $ 191.97 | $ (79.46) | -29% |
| South Dakota | McCain | $ 120,000,000 | 804,194 | $ 149.22 | $(122.22) | -45% |
| Tennessee | McCain | $ 1,620,000,000 | 6,214,888 | $ 260.66 | $ (10.77) | -4% |
| Texas | McCain | $ 5,450,000,000 | 24,326,974 | $ 224.03 | $ (47.41) | -17% |
| Utah | McCain | $ 320,000,000 | 2,736,424 | $ 116.94 | $(154.50) | -57% |
| Vermont | Obama | $ 280,000,000 | 621,270 | $ 450.69 | $ 179.25 | 66% |
| Virginia | Obama | $ 1,470,000,000 | 7,769,089 | $ 189.21 | $ (82.23) | -30% |
| Washington | Obama | $ 2,060,000,000 | 6,549,224 | $ 314.54 | $ 43.10 | 16% |
| West Virginia | McCain | $ 450,000,000 | 1,814,468 | $ 248.01 | $ (23.43) | -9% |
| Wisconsin | Obama | $ 1,240,000,000 | 5,627,967 | $ 220.33 | $ (51.11) | -19% |
| Wyoming | McCain | $ 110,000,000 | 532,668 | $ 206.51 | $ (64.93) | -24% |
There are some deviations from the conclusion, but not many. To come to a simple conclusion of your own, just match the colors. See how many are red on the left side, and on the right. Then look to see how many are blue on the left, and blue on the right. Some conclusions from the Medicaid release:
- States that voted for Obama got over $65 billion in Medicaid funding. States that voted for McCain, $21 billion.
- States that voted for Obama averaged $403.36 per person. States that voted for McCain got $231.77.
- The state that got the most per capita is New York at $649.04, which went to Obama. The state that got the least per capita is Utah at $116.94, which went to McCain.
Draw your own conclusions. These are the numbers given to me by Medicaid. It can be argued that demographics and such mixed into the numbers. However, this is an add-on. It’s not the actual expenses per se. I don’t know what the actual criteria was for determining the add-on values. But, I just don’t think a person needing Medicaid assistance costs nearly five times as much in New York as they do in Utah. If that truly is the case, then we need to start moving those people to cheaper places. However, before we go to that extreme, I’m gonna guess it doesn’t really cost five times as much and something else affected those numbers.
Think about that the next time Obama preaches about bipartisanship.
20
Feb
This is so amazingly stupid I don’t even know where to begin. The New York Post ran a cartoon intermingling the events of the violent monkey getting shot in Connecticut and the recent stimulus bill. Looking at it for two seconds, I got it. I thought it was very accurate. This stimulus was so bad a monkey could have written it. That of course, is not how Al Sharpton saw it:
If it weren’t for accusing everyone but himself of being racist, Al Sharpton would cease to exist. This is just stupid. CNN is doing a poll asking if the unnecessary New York Post was appropriate. So far, 52% think it was unnecessary. Count me on that side. CNN however, does not ask if Al Sharpton should apologize for seeing racism in everything black.
Note to all editors, from this point forward, all animals must be white. No one cares if a white is getting shot.
18
Feb
This is fun. This is another one of those “fun with numbers” things I like to do. I got this via email, so don’t really know it’s source. I have verified the list itself ( it’s dated, but accurate ), I have not verified the added content. If anyone finds an error, just holler.
TOP TEN POVERTY CITIES
- Detroit, MI hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1961
- Buffalo, NY hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1954
- Cincinnati, OH hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1984
- Cleveland, OH hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1989
- Miami, FL has never had a Republican mayor
- St. Louis, MO hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1949
- El Paso has never had a Republican mayor, TX
- Milwaukee, WI hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1908
- Philadelphia, PA hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1952
- Newark, NJ hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1907
Every now and then, not really too often, I feel like I am the only one with the insight and divine intervention of knowing what the heck is going on. That’s not necessarily an arrogant feeling. It’s more like a frustration thing. It’s obvious what’s happening, but no one else sees it. Instead, they just keep plowing deeper into the mess instead of stepping back and recognizing the obvious problem and addressing it. Such is the credit/housing issue we’re dealing with now. Then, along comes someone who seems to get it as I have. It never really solves the problem, but it makes me a little less lonely and little less feeling that I must have something terribly wrong since no one else sees it.
In order to illustrate what I am getting at, I’m going to have to steal some of Thomas’s text. Now, be sure to read the entire thing here. Although I’ve said it before here, he has a much larger medium and apparently a lot more impact.
In order to keep my post under 10,000 words, I’ve linked Thomas’s text to my previous comments. Let’s get at it, shall we?
That should be a very alarming and very obvious fact, but has gotten little to no airplay.
That IMO is the root of all this evil. This legislation, along with the strong arm of the Department of Justice, told banks they had to make risky loans that they otherwise would not have made. However, the trade-off was the banks could pass the risk to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. If anyone remembers, the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were what kicked this recession into overdrive. Now, before last year, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac operated as government agencies with the legal status of a private corporation. For all intents, it’s no longer private in any capacity. It was the collapse of those two that triggered the private sector collapses such as AIG and the like. Rather than seeing the obvious, that a socialist model was killing the capitalist model, people went the opposite route and blamed the capitalist model for not bailing out the socialist model. That has been the prevailing sentiment from DC since Fannie Mae got in trouble.
Those who warned of the dangers had their warnings dismissed. Now, apparently, we need more politicians intervening in more industries, if you believe the politicians and the media.
My references to this part are numerous. If you read any of my other comments, you’ll get it.
Now Obama is tossing out the concept of socializing the US banking system. Before he goes too far with this, people do need to know that this is not a novel idea. The US toyed with federal banks in the early years of our nation. The First Bank of the United States, as well as the Second Bank of the United States, both failed within twenty years of their inception. With the fox watching the chickens, both were ruined by corruption by both the congressmen assigned to oversee them, and corruption within the banks. So, when Obama tells you that the federal government is the only one who can fix the banking system, point out that all federal banks in the US have failed, and that the US private sector banking system was doing just fine until it was socialized in 1977 by the Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac.
