Category: Romney

President Demand Obedience to His View

http://news.yahoo.com/president-obama-demands-action-transportation-bill-student-loans-100034841–abc-news-politics.html  The President gets more specific today with his cynical assertion that the Republicans of the House of Representative are to blame for the grid lock in legislation.   This writer wants to state his belief that until today the President has been very selective whenever criticizing the legislative branch by always referring to the grid lock in Congress.  Granted, technically the Congress is the House of Representative, but for most ordinary people it refers to the whole branch and therefore lays blame on the majority party.  However, the facts remain that the blockage is the Senate with “dead on arrival” Harry Reid completely blocking all legislation from the House that does agree with President Obama’s personal directives to his Democrat henchmen in the Senate.  Yet, very good legislation of a myriad type has been passed by the House but stopped “dead on Arrival” in the Senate.  It seems to be that our nation is served by a President who constantly blames the Republicans for every ill and exonerates his own Democrat party for everything.  Today we heard more of the same, when Obama said that the White House and the Democrats in the Senate have done everything right on Transportation and Student Loans while it is the House Republicans who, Obama claims, bicker, back bite, and block progress.  I have come to the conclusion that whenever Obama blames somebody for something, I will look at the ones he excuses, including himself, and there I will find exactly the behavior he publicly and cynically denounces.  I guess that Obama regards the American people as stupid enough to elect him on a hope and a chance of change, and now he believes they will continue to believe whatever he says to be true, as true,  although the facts regularly indicate the reverse.

Media Undermines Supreme Court

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/only-44-percent-americans-approve-supreme-court-143823818.html  I can only come to one conclusion, namely that the writer and her parent organization intend to undermine the authority of the Supreme Court.  It is sad that in our day we are seeing the major vehicles for democracy instead undermining the very democracy that allows them to flourish.  The writer of this blog is a product of 1960’s and 70’s American education and popular culture.  Reflecting on it, I see that the key theme of that education and culture was to debunk the very society that was the foundation of freedom.  Lately, I am seeing a resurgence of that debunking, only this time, it is not the hippies and yuppies.  It is the main stream public press that has decided to hold American political and public institutions up for ridicule.  This, of itself,  might be seen as a core part of a free press, however, the free press is revealing itself to be extremely partisan and supportive of one political party over another.  I believe that the public media is constantly attempting to undermine anything in our society that could unseat Barrack Obama.  Not a conspiracy, indeed.  But, it is a culture of selective reporting and deep editing that allows the news organizations to portray, for instance, the US Congress as a blocker of the progressive Obama agenda.  However, the broad brushed phrase, “the US Congress” is an editorial against the House of Representatives while subtly excusing the Senate.  A cursory read would have us believe that the whole Congress is a do nothing institution.  However, the House of Representatives has worked very hard to make budgets and pass them, to formulate legislation and pass it and to attempt every day to act in response to the needs of the nation.  But each effort is stopped, stonewalled or declared “dead on arrival” by the Senate.  Significance?  House =Republicans.  Senate = Democrats.  Therefore the broad brush of the Press organizations blames everything on the Congress, seldom mentioning the achievements of the House and the total dereliction of duty by the Senate.  The cited article above in another form of main line Press and Internet attempts to influence public opinion against a branch of government, namely, the Supreme Court.  Why?  Because of the perception that the Court may find ObamaCare unconstitutional.  Therefore, let’s publish derogatory articles depicting the court as unfavored and out of touch so that people can ridicule the soon to be announced decision on the President’s “signature” legislation.  Now, even this would not be too bad, if like Fox network and others, the press explained that its reporting was actually propaganda and talk radio like opinions.  But when the media portrays its articles as factual and worthy of the title News, this writer feels they are being disingenuous. And that’s a memo!!

Snotty Washington Post Writer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romneys-faith-is-his-business/2012/06/04/gJQAdpGMEV_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions_Tue  Although I agree relative to Mitt Romney’s religion being his own business and it was written by me on this blog months ago, I really dislike snots.  This writer revels in his odious arrogance and is proud to stereotype, name call, and with a real intolerant attitude, to denigrate Mr. Romney.  However, I believe that it is just this kind of elitist attitude that makes writers like him and papers like the Washington Post representatives not of journalism but of intolerance and priggishness.

New Taxes Coming?

https://www.forefieldkt.com/kt/htmlnl.aspx?type=fca&id=28&mid=134251&iplf=tv&ciid=512454&emailid=c7aa898d-9722-4276-8e48-258adaf1e5be  I guess the 1% starts with a married couple who earn $250,000  I put this up for your info, if you think others may be interested in this information, pass it on.  I am not making a political statement here, I am just passing on information that I think other people may be interested in having.

Paul Krugman’s Comments A Fraud?

http://news.yahoo.com/paul-krugman-paul-ryan-budget-romney-supports-fraud-181245136–abc-news-politics.html  Maybe it is not Mr. Krugman’s analysis that is fraud.  Maybe it is the reporting.  What this article says is that Mr. Krugman’s opinion is that Representative Ryan’s plan is not a plan and that President Obama’s plan is a plan.  Now to say that Rep. Ryan’s plan is a fraud is to say that the Ryan plan is based on lies.  Mr. Krugman tried to disarm his own biting criticism by saying that he is not personally attacking Mr. Ryan, but that he is just saying that the plan Mr. Ryan put forward is a fraud.  I think a fraud is a lie and therefore a person who puts forth a fraud is a liar.  Is that reasoning flawed?  I am just trying to get to the facts and not the spin.  Then we read that Mr. Krugman is in favor of the Obama plan.  He says that is a plan he understands.  He does not comment on the validity of the Obama plans numbers, approach or process.  So, I take it he likes the plan.  So, what we have here is a report about Mr. Krugman saying he doesn’t like the Ryan plan and therefore Mr. Ryan’s plan is a fraud and by inference, Mr. Representative Ryan is a liar.  And that Krugman likes the President’s plan and therefore Mr. Obama is not a liar.  Seems to me that the liar and fraud here is Mr. Krugman, who makes broad accusations against a U.S. Congressman and excuses the President.  How to solve this?  Take Mr. Obama’s own words to heart and instead of name calling and innuendo just say plainly, I, (Mr. Klugman) do not agreed with the Ryan plan for this and that (specific) reason and I agree with the Obama plan for this and that reason.

Wrong math?

Thank you to the commenter who corrected my math by pointing out that we pay taxes on income so that if Senator Lautenberg increased his taxes to 55 % of income then he would still be richer year after year.  The writer also commented that I probably pay too much taxes.  I might, but I am comfortable with taxes as they are now because I actually do feel that taxes are a requirement for living in this great and wonderful USA. However, I don’t like giving the government additional powers over my life, and taxes are one way for governments to exert power.  It may not be one persons fault, Obama, because under our present understanding of government, taxes are used to employ people. These many millions in positions of government authority want job security and for them taxes on everybody so that they can be government employees may seem the right thing.  This includes pensioners and Social Security and Disability recipients. But I do not think of employment as a primary objective of taxes.  I think that we need to limit government’s control over the individual and that includes the wealthiest among us.  Specifics?  Actually, I could list mine and say that I am right.  But then, you would list the opposite position and say it is right.  So, there is an impasse.  However, at least for now, we still have a Congress and an independent judiciary and both are benevolent.  So my fears are allayed and I am secure.  But I will remain vigilant to safeguard the freedoms enjoyed in the USA.  And granted, nothing, even freedom, can be absolute.  But any curtailment should be through vibrant and even  very robust public debate with the decisions made in open meetings, (no back room politics please) and with a rule that the separation of powers be not only respected but demanded by the electorate.  A long way from wrong math?  Yes, but my stream of consciousness writing style took me there.  And such fault, if it be a fault, is not Obama’s and not George Bush’s.  It’s mine!

Senators Are Old and Wealthy

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/lautenberg_frelinghuysen_among.html This article points us to two facts, the Senator from New Jersey is very wealthy and 88 years old.  I am not prejudice against either situation.  I want to get old and be healthy as is Senator Lautenberg and I want to be a 48 millionaire like him.  To his credit, the Senator made his money by hard work, entrepreneurial acumen and vision.  Very good qualities indeed and ones to be held up for imitation.  However, the Democrat President Obama has declared class warfare against the wealthy.  In his book he speaks forcefully against the avarice and greed of white Americans.  In his public statement Democrat Obama has spoken repeatedly against the wealthy saying that they must be taxed a lot more, their tax-free foundations abolished and their tax exemptions closed.  But does Senator Lautenberg agree and does it matter if he does.  I should think that people like the Senator are needed in the private sector to create companies like ADP and to lead job creation.  That is not done by Senators voting on Gay marriage and Pro Abortion and trade bills that make America less competitive in our world.  If he agrees with Obama and the so-called Buffet rule then he should voluntarily write very big checks to the US government and I would suggest, renounce his pay, perks, and pension for surely he needs none of them.  But does he agree that the wealthy are to be maligned and that a federal policy of “leveling the playing field” would best benefit the nation?  Well, let’s just say that as a very liberal Democrat who seems to wholeheartedly support the Obama agenda, Senator Lautenberg writes an additional 20% check to the IRS.  So we take 48 million and reduce it by 9.6 million.  How much is left? Let’s round it to 38 million.  Can Mr. Lautenberg live on that.  Yes, he can.  So the next year he does it again.  This time the check will be for 7.6 million bring him down to 30 million.  Next year it is 6 million bring him down to 24 million.  Then it is 4.8 million bring him to 19.  Then it is 3.8 leaving 15 million.  Then to 3 million making him a twelve millionaire.  Senator Lautenberg may agree to such a reduction in his wealth but it would still be a private matter and he would end up after a mere six years as only 1/4 of what he had to start.  Some readers will say,”good.”! But should that process be applied to all people with over 250  thousand dollars in wealth?  Should it be applied to your bank account or stock fund or 401 K or inheritance?  If it is good for one, say Senator Lautenberg, then it should be fair to apply it to everybody.  So, the question is,  Are you willing to be worth only 1/4 of what you are  worth today.  Now, philosophically, you may say “Yes.”.  But remember, Senator Lautenberg still ends up with 12 million.  If it is you, what do you end up with?  I will not do the math for you but I will suggest that although the formula is the same, you, at 250 thousand, will end up with not enough to pay for you childs junior college in state tuition.  So there is a difference.