For those of you who fear the collapse of modern civilization, here's a calculator to help you figure out how much you need to stock up ...
http://www.thefoodguys.com/foodcalc.html
Monday, September 29, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Classic Biden
"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened,'" Barack Obama's running mate recently told the "CBS Evening News."
Except, Republican Herbert Hoover was in office when the stock market crashed in October 1929. There also was no television at the time; TV wasn't introduced to the public until a decade later, at the 1939 World's Fair.
... "Part of what being a leader does is to instill confidence, is to demonstrate what he or she knows what they are talking about and to communicating to people ... this is how we can fix this," Biden said.
Re-engineering Goverment ...
Ever wonder how we could balance the budget without huge tax increases?
Here's a great article discussing the need to re-engineer the Federal Government; it quotes the Grace Commission report which found that "... nearly one-third of all taxes collected by the federal government are squandered through inefficiency."
... 1/3 of all taxes would be more than enough to balance the budget at current tax rates.
Here's a great article discussing the need to re-engineer the Federal Government; it quotes the Grace Commission report which found that "... nearly one-third of all taxes collected by the federal government are squandered through inefficiency."
... 1/3 of all taxes would be more than enough to balance the budget at current tax rates.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Is Obama a Supply-Side convert?
"Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy." ... source
If you're admitting that taxing the rich hurts the Economy,you're actually admitting that the money the rich save on taxes, must TRICKLE DOWN into the Economy.
Yet in Obama's acceptance speech he made fun of trickle down saying: "For over two decades, he's [McCain] subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy -- give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else."
FYI - Supply side doesn't actually work on 'hand-outs' as Obama says above ... unless you consider letting someone keep more of what they make a handout. The philosophy posits that if you let people keep more of their income, that money will trick down into the Economy and grow the Economy.
I guess Obama is now a convert do that 'discredited Republican philosophy'.
If you're admitting that taxing the rich hurts the Economy,you're actually admitting that the money the rich save on taxes, must TRICKLE DOWN into the Economy.
Yet in Obama's acceptance speech he made fun of trickle down saying: "For over two decades, he's [McCain] subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy -- give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else."
FYI - Supply side doesn't actually work on 'hand-outs' as Obama says above ... unless you consider letting someone keep more of what they make a handout. The philosophy posits that if you let people keep more of their income, that money will trick down into the Economy and grow the Economy.
I guess Obama is now a convert do that 'discredited Republican philosophy'.
The Fannie and Freddie Enablers
Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008
1. Dodd, Christopher J, D-CT
2. Kerry, John, D-MA
3. Obama, Barack, D-IL
4. Clinton, Hillary, D-NY
Source
While Obama is only #3 on this list, he’s managed to move to 3rd place in only 4 (probably closer to 3) years of fund raising, compared to 10 years for the 2 placed ahead of him.
Change you can believe in? Change from people who, while accepting contributions from Fannie and Freddie, blocked calls for more oversight into these two GSEs. Now the tax payer gets to clean up the mess at a large cost. Thanks Obama for standing in the way of real change, change that might have helped to prevent this loss of over $300B. Just think of all those school teachers that could have been hired for that $300 billion.
1. Dodd, Christopher J, D-CT
2. Kerry, John, D-MA
3. Obama, Barack, D-IL
4. Clinton, Hillary, D-NY
Source
While Obama is only #3 on this list, he’s managed to move to 3rd place in only 4 (probably closer to 3) years of fund raising, compared to 10 years for the 2 placed ahead of him.
Change you can believe in? Change from people who, while accepting contributions from Fannie and Freddie, blocked calls for more oversight into these two GSEs. Now the tax payer gets to clean up the mess at a large cost. Thanks Obama for standing in the way of real change, change that might have helped to prevent this loss of over $300B. Just think of all those school teachers that could have been hired for that $300 billion.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
No free speech for this guy
My neighbor had a McCain lawn sign in his front yard. This morning he found that sign torn up, his house was teepeed, and he now has some Obama signs.
I guess free speech only applies to Obama supporters. I know, I know, just a few bad apples; then again, Obama supporters had a reporter arrested for taking pictures of Senators with big donors ... maybe these bad apples are getting their ideas from other bad apples ... who are currently United States Senators.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
We elect a President, not a King
It's amazing how candidates, pundits, and assorted 'experts' seem to have forgotten the basics of how the US Government functions.
Places like the Tax Policy Center and innumerable articles have examined the tax proposals of both candidates, as if the winner will be crowned king.
I've only come across one article (out of probably 50 that I've read on the topic) that acknowledges the fact that the new President will have to get Congress to agree to his tax and spending proposals (as well as any other legislation).
Yet McCain happily stands up in front of voters and lists a bunch of tax cuts he is for; realize that none of those aimed at the upper income earners stand a chance of being passed. In fact, given the temporary nature of the Bush tax cuts, they will expire, and are their expiration isn't up for presidential veto.
Of course, McCain knows this, and the Democrats know this; however, both are ignoring the elephant in the room. The Democrats don't want to point this out, because it will take away their ammunition against portraying McCain planning to give big business and the rich tax cuts. The Republicans don't want to point this out; because they're trying to make the pitch that they'll stimulate the Economy with more tax cuts.
The likeliest outcome of a McCain presidency, is the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, with perhaps some relief for the middle class (as McCain wouldn't veto this proposal from a Democratic Congress ... after all, some tax cuts are better than none), but the Democrats are unlikely to pass any legislation that would reduce taxes on the rich. On the spending side, McCain will be far more likely to veto new spending bills from a Democratic Congress than Obama would be. Net it out, and a McCain presidency gets you higher taxes for high wage earners, marginally lower rates for middle & lower wage earners, and less spending, leading to a smaller budget deficit.
In the same vein; people happily forget that the president needs the approval of the Senate for a Supreme Court justice appointment. As such, a Democratic Senate can (and will) simply not approve a pro-life justice replacing a pro-choice justice today. All the alarm around McCain rolling back Roe v. Wade totally ignores the fact that (1) the Senate will be Democratically controlled and (2) the Senate can vote down any presidential supreme court appointment.
The voter needs to take it upon themselves to analyze all the proposed policies of both candidates in light of the fact that congress has to vote to approve laws and Supreme Court justice appointments.
Places like the Tax Policy Center and innumerable articles have examined the tax proposals of both candidates, as if the winner will be crowned king.
I've only come across one article (out of probably 50 that I've read on the topic) that acknowledges the fact that the new President will have to get Congress to agree to his tax and spending proposals (as well as any other legislation).
Yet McCain happily stands up in front of voters and lists a bunch of tax cuts he is for; realize that none of those aimed at the upper income earners stand a chance of being passed. In fact, given the temporary nature of the Bush tax cuts, they will expire, and are their expiration isn't up for presidential veto.
Of course, McCain knows this, and the Democrats know this; however, both are ignoring the elephant in the room. The Democrats don't want to point this out, because it will take away their ammunition against portraying McCain planning to give big business and the rich tax cuts. The Republicans don't want to point this out; because they're trying to make the pitch that they'll stimulate the Economy with more tax cuts.
The likeliest outcome of a McCain presidency, is the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, with perhaps some relief for the middle class (as McCain wouldn't veto this proposal from a Democratic Congress ... after all, some tax cuts are better than none), but the Democrats are unlikely to pass any legislation that would reduce taxes on the rich. On the spending side, McCain will be far more likely to veto new spending bills from a Democratic Congress than Obama would be. Net it out, and a McCain presidency gets you higher taxes for high wage earners, marginally lower rates for middle & lower wage earners, and less spending, leading to a smaller budget deficit.
In the same vein; people happily forget that the president needs the approval of the Senate for a Supreme Court justice appointment. As such, a Democratic Senate can (and will) simply not approve a pro-life justice replacing a pro-choice justice today. All the alarm around McCain rolling back Roe v. Wade totally ignores the fact that (1) the Senate will be Democratically controlled and (2) the Senate can vote down any presidential supreme court appointment.
The voter needs to take it upon themselves to analyze all the proposed policies of both candidates in light of the fact that congress has to vote to approve laws and Supreme Court justice appointments.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Equal Rights?
Whether you like or hate Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate, one has to wonder whether questions were raised about Joe Biden's ability to be a US Senator and single dad after his wife was killed in an automobile accident. Worst of all, it's a liberal woman making this attack; you'd expect her to be defending Sarah Palin's choice to raise her family and pursue her career.
SALLY QUINN (Washington Post): "And I do think, too, that you have to weigh the situation. It's one thing to have one or two or three children, especially if they are healthy children. And everyone knows that women and men are different and that moms and dads are different and that women — the burden of child care almost always falls on the woman. But I think, when you have five children, one a 4-month-old Down syndrome baby, and a daughter who is 17, who is also a child and who is going to need her mother very much in the next few months and years with her own baby coming, that I don't see how you cannot make your family your first priority. And I think if you are going to be president of the United States, which she may well be, I think that's going to be a real stretch for her." (CNN's "Newsroom," 9/2/08)
SALLY QUINN (Washington Post): "And I do think, too, that you have to weigh the situation. It's one thing to have one or two or three children, especially if they are healthy children. And everyone knows that women and men are different and that moms and dads are different and that women — the burden of child care almost always falls on the woman. But I think, when you have five children, one a 4-month-old Down syndrome baby, and a daughter who is 17, who is also a child and who is going to need her mother very much in the next few months and years with her own baby coming, that I don't see how you cannot make your family your first priority. And I think if you are going to be president of the United States, which she may well be, I think that's going to be a real stretch for her." (CNN's "Newsroom," 9/2/08)
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Polls Schmolls
Despite the fact that our electoral college system makes state elections more important than national numbers, numerous media outlets will spend lots of money, doing these mostly meaningless national polls.
For a better map of where things stand, go to:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/
For a fun interactive website to play what-if scenarios with various states, go to:
http://www.270towin.com/
For a better map of where things stand, go to:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/
For a fun interactive website to play what-if scenarios with various states, go to:
http://www.270towin.com/
Monday, September 1, 2008
Which America do you live in?
Following the narrative provided by the Democrats last week in Denver; one could be left feeling pretty awful about the state of the US. In fact, one wonders why we haven't had major protests in the streets, if we are in fact in such dire straights.
Then I read two articles (links below) and realized I was being sold a storyline; one that does not reflect the lives the vast majority (over 85%) of Americans are living. I don't doubt that life is hard for the 15% of Americans at the bottom, and life at the top is pretty easy in comparison ... but for the 70% in the middle, life is going just fine (according to polls at least). Of course, that would not really make for a compelling campaign slogan.
Most interesting is that polls show that while a vast majority of Americans are happy with their current situations, they do believe the US is headed in the wrong direction.
The policy implications seem clear, make policies to improve the lives of the bottom 15%; but don't screw up the other 85% while you're trying to fix the bottom 15%.
Political Diary WSJ
I'm alright, but country isn't; Times Online
Then I read two articles (links below) and realized I was being sold a storyline; one that does not reflect the lives the vast majority (over 85%) of Americans are living. I don't doubt that life is hard for the 15% of Americans at the bottom, and life at the top is pretty easy in comparison ... but for the 70% in the middle, life is going just fine (according to polls at least). Of course, that would not really make for a compelling campaign slogan.
Most interesting is that polls show that while a vast majority of Americans are happy with their current situations, they do believe the US is headed in the wrong direction.
The policy implications seem clear, make policies to improve the lives of the bottom 15%; but don't screw up the other 85% while you're trying to fix the bottom 15%.
Political Diary WSJ
I'm alright, but country isn't; Times Online
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)