The AP has officially called Florida for Obama. So that is the fnal electoral college count. Obama won the sunshine state by just 74,000 votes and a final tally of 50% to 49.1%. And essentially that"s the story here - Obama sqeezed out every close state he needed to, and a few he didn't need. Look, we can go on and on about how close the popular vote was at 60.2 million to 63.2 million (that includes Florida), but when you take 8 of the 11 swing states, end up in the 300's electorally, and outpace your opponent's popular total by seven figures, by all rights you can claim a "mandate." I sure as hell would. And what's more scary is the blue that covers the two coasts on the electoral map is inching closer and closer in, sqeezing heartland and southern red.
Let's face it boys, either he succeeded in fundementally changing our country or he was simply smart enough to recognize it had already changed. Half of Americans want garuntees in life. And if the GOP thinks the lesson here is to "out garuntee" the Left via amnesty or state benefits, then they'll become a regional Party, at best. The only possibility is to offer a clear, bold alternative. And we have an ace in the hole - our math works, their's does not. We need only someone with the guts to say it, WITH PARTY BACKING. Look, the Romney-Ryan ticket won the popular vote among ages 40 and over, and particularly showed well in the 65 plus group. I think that shows a willingness to consider a Ryan-esque plan to make these entitlements solvent by incorporating the private sector as part of the rememedy. But the fact that we know it as the "Ryan budget" is exactly the problem in my estimation. The Party has to have the guts to say to the nation via an actual plan, what it portends to believe ideologically. Two or three bright Tea Party types left out in the cold to defend their individual plan is not enough. It should be a Party plank. You want to rebrand the GOP so that a majority of Americans will trust you with leadership? Be known as the Party with measurable and specific alternatives.
Unfortunately I have no faith whatsoever that the GOP will embrace my message. Which means the nation will only turn to Tea Party-like solutions (or just plain common sense) after we have a nationwide fiscal calamity on par with Great Depression numbers. And as we all agreed on the phone, that now seems inevitable at some point in the not too distant future. And as a patriot I am heart broken that my nation must endure such misery before it makes a course correction.
Batton down the hatches gents... something wicked this way comes. And that's not conspiracy theory talk, that's just math.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Friday, November 9, 2012
short answer: NEVER
I'm not being trite. I assume you mean the personal income tax and I am an advocate of a Flat Tax.
Let me explain...
I believe that history bares out that what markets and businesses from Main Street to Wall Street loathe above all is uncertainty. Specifically uncertainty in economic policy from their government. I posed (near the end of our New Deal debate) the theory that perhaps FDR's death ended the economic woes of the Great Depression era more than anything else. His year to year new proposals, the previous one's needing annual renewal, guessing what portion of the private sector he might wade into next, business didn't know what to expext. I dub it a policy of "systematic uncertainty."
What is its' opposite? A policy of systematic certainty. And nothing is more certain than a flat income tax. And as a means of getting the camel's nose in the tent, I'd even compromise to a three tier flat tax: 5% for $1 above the Poverty Line to $50k (incomes below the Poverty Line pay zero); 10% for $50k to $250k; and 15% for those at $250k plus. No deductions. Your tax returns are essentialy done on one peice of paper. To that, if we're talking what to do right now, I'd add a cut in the corporate tax rate, from 28% to 15%; and a cut in the Capital Gains tax rate, from 15% to 5%. Implement that and its morning in America again, on steroids.
Of course, I'd get hammered for, "Raising taxes on the poor and lowering taxes on the rich!", so I'm only talking about what could be done if adults ran Washington... which isn't the case..
Let me explain...
I believe that history bares out that what markets and businesses from Main Street to Wall Street loathe above all is uncertainty. Specifically uncertainty in economic policy from their government. I posed (near the end of our New Deal debate) the theory that perhaps FDR's death ended the economic woes of the Great Depression era more than anything else. His year to year new proposals, the previous one's needing annual renewal, guessing what portion of the private sector he might wade into next, business didn't know what to expext. I dub it a policy of "systematic uncertainty."
What is its' opposite? A policy of systematic certainty. And nothing is more certain than a flat income tax. And as a means of getting the camel's nose in the tent, I'd even compromise to a three tier flat tax: 5% for $1 above the Poverty Line to $50k (incomes below the Poverty Line pay zero); 10% for $50k to $250k; and 15% for those at $250k plus. No deductions. Your tax returns are essentialy done on one peice of paper. To that, if we're talking what to do right now, I'd add a cut in the corporate tax rate, from 28% to 15%; and a cut in the Capital Gains tax rate, from 15% to 5%. Implement that and its morning in America again, on steroids.
Of course, I'd get hammered for, "Raising taxes on the poor and lowering taxes on the rich!", so I'm only talking about what could be done if adults ran Washington... which isn't the case..
WTF?
I go online today only to find the news everywhere that ONE WEEK before he is slated to testify before congress on Benghazi, CIA director David Patraeus has resigned. The word is that the famous general turned director of central intelligence walked into the West Wing today and tendered his resignation because of an extramarital affair, and the president accepted that resignation. Umm, may I say... WTF?
First off, the Democrat Party doesn't force anybody to resign over affairs, that we already know. Secondly, the White House had to know this was coming before election day, and this is two days after news broke that Iranian missles were shot at one of our drones over the Gulf 5 days before voting day.
FOX News is now reporting that this resignation does in fact mean he will not be called to testify. My question is, why the hell not? Congress, in this case the Senate, has the power to subpoena any living soul within US juridstriction. Harry Reid is CLEARLY involved here. By the way, the DOJ leaked that Holder is stepping down asap as well. And Hillary has already flatly said she won't be part of a second term.
So let me get this straight, the man with the most direct knowledge of Fast and Furious - GONE. The woman with the most direct knowledge of Benghazi - GONE. Iran fires on a US drone - HIDDEN. And now the man who is unquestionably in a position to enlighten the rest of us on all three (to varying degrees) is also now - GONE. Okay, nothing fishy there. Please allow me a second, WTF?
Most disturbing to me is how plausible the Patraeus conspiracy theory, that I immediately jumped to, seems. Axelrod, et al, find a chink in the Patraeus armor, an affair. He is instructed to tow the administration line on Benghazi or risk exposure. He tells the administration to piss off, prefering to face personal shame rather than bring dishonor to the sacrafice of 4 dead Americans.
To my 60 million Obama-voting fellow Americans I offer today's third and final, WTF?
First off, the Democrat Party doesn't force anybody to resign over affairs, that we already know. Secondly, the White House had to know this was coming before election day, and this is two days after news broke that Iranian missles were shot at one of our drones over the Gulf 5 days before voting day.
FOX News is now reporting that this resignation does in fact mean he will not be called to testify. My question is, why the hell not? Congress, in this case the Senate, has the power to subpoena any living soul within US juridstriction. Harry Reid is CLEARLY involved here. By the way, the DOJ leaked that Holder is stepping down asap as well. And Hillary has already flatly said she won't be part of a second term.
So let me get this straight, the man with the most direct knowledge of Fast and Furious - GONE. The woman with the most direct knowledge of Benghazi - GONE. Iran fires on a US drone - HIDDEN. And now the man who is unquestionably in a position to enlighten the rest of us on all three (to varying degrees) is also now - GONE. Okay, nothing fishy there. Please allow me a second, WTF?
Most disturbing to me is how plausible the Patraeus conspiracy theory, that I immediately jumped to, seems. Axelrod, et al, find a chink in the Patraeus armor, an affair. He is instructed to tow the administration line on Benghazi or risk exposure. He tells the administration to piss off, prefering to face personal shame rather than bring dishonor to the sacrafice of 4 dead Americans.
To my 60 million Obama-voting fellow Americans I offer today's third and final, WTF?
This reminds me...
Ryan's comments on the Speaker's words made me think of something we "beefed" about a long time ago.
When are higher taxes "acceptable" in the eyes of the GOP?
If, correction pending as both Ryan and I suspect it is, we could mitigate the damage such a correction could do by increasing taxes by as little as a point or two before the correction occurs... would it be okay then?
My argument for Keynesian spending (oft used during the New Deal debates) falls apart when faced with a wall of debt already large enough to impede deficit spending during fiscal meltdowns. We weren't there in 1932. We weren't there in 1982. We ARE there in 2012... more debt than we can sustain, and no room for higher taxes if the economy is to grow.
I'm asking, not arguing... so please consider: When is higher taxes acceptable? Are we there yet?
When are higher taxes "acceptable" in the eyes of the GOP?
If, correction pending as both Ryan and I suspect it is, we could mitigate the damage such a correction could do by increasing taxes by as little as a point or two before the correction occurs... would it be okay then?
My argument for Keynesian spending (oft used during the New Deal debates) falls apart when faced with a wall of debt already large enough to impede deficit spending during fiscal meltdowns. We weren't there in 1932. We weren't there in 1982. We ARE there in 2012... more debt than we can sustain, and no room for higher taxes if the economy is to grow.
I'm asking, not arguing... so please consider: When is higher taxes acceptable? Are we there yet?
Thursday, November 8, 2012
A bit of politics...
Nice couple of posts there. You could make it easier on yourself and move into a neighborhood full of Mormons, hehe. I know Beck keeps advocating Texas and Oklahoma as self sufficient/minimum government states, but it occurs to me that rural Utah will have food and fuel for years after the Romulans blow up our sun.
Essentialy, we agree. Now perhaps to talk in terms of "the end of America" is the wrong phrasing and a bit extreme. But certainly, CERTAINLY, it's now prudent to talk (and prepare for) in terms of a major, sharp "correction" on par with the Great Depression. As we discussed, at some point the math wil kick in, and that "at some point" will likely look very, very ugly.
The politics I eluded to in my title: I found this shocking... 3 millon LESS Republicans turned out to vote for Romney than did McCain. I couldn't believe this at first. Now remember, Obama beat Romney in the popular vote by 2.8 million. Those 3 mil were registered Republicans. Romney didn't close the deal with his base, let alone Independents. Why? I have long thought that the man best able to turn out our base was President Obama. Is it possible that because the GOP nominated another moderate the base was supressed? Titus mentioned on the phone that had that been a Ryan-Romney ticket we would have done better, that we have to stop giving the nomination to the guy who came in second the last time. I think that 3 million number proves him right. A stark choice, a bold contrast instead of pale pastels as Reagan said. How often do you hear the word "Libertarian" these days? When we were growing up that word was non existent in everyday conversation. These are ex Republicans, fed up with the GOP. And now John Boehner, arguably the most powerful Republican in office now as Speaker of the House, says that they will consider tax hikes when negotiating with the PoTUS, "under the right circumstances."
Wow. Nice John. That's sure to roust those 3 million Republicans off the couch.
Essentialy, we agree. Now perhaps to talk in terms of "the end of America" is the wrong phrasing and a bit extreme. But certainly, CERTAINLY, it's now prudent to talk (and prepare for) in terms of a major, sharp "correction" on par with the Great Depression. As we discussed, at some point the math wil kick in, and that "at some point" will likely look very, very ugly.
The politics I eluded to in my title: I found this shocking... 3 millon LESS Republicans turned out to vote for Romney than did McCain. I couldn't believe this at first. Now remember, Obama beat Romney in the popular vote by 2.8 million. Those 3 mil were registered Republicans. Romney didn't close the deal with his base, let alone Independents. Why? I have long thought that the man best able to turn out our base was President Obama. Is it possible that because the GOP nominated another moderate the base was supressed? Titus mentioned on the phone that had that been a Ryan-Romney ticket we would have done better, that we have to stop giving the nomination to the guy who came in second the last time. I think that 3 million number proves him right. A stark choice, a bold contrast instead of pale pastels as Reagan said. How often do you hear the word "Libertarian" these days? When we were growing up that word was non existent in everyday conversation. These are ex Republicans, fed up with the GOP. And now John Boehner, arguably the most powerful Republican in office now as Speaker of the House, says that they will consider tax hikes when negotiating with the PoTUS, "under the right circumstances."
Wow. Nice John. That's sure to roust those 3 million Republicans off the couch.
Images my wife likes...
Liz seems to be developing a rather nostalgic appreciation for JFK. She's "liked" and posted these images on her Facebook page.
Again, I ask... How many Democrats today would listen to the words of JFK, without knowing their source, and accept them as the "platform" of the DNC in the modern era? How many liberals would read or hear read Kennedy's Inaugural Address and think it was something they could embrace today as representative of the Democratic Party's goals?
I'm constantly asked by my wife how I can still consider myself "Democrat"? Truth is, I can't. That's why I haven't been able to vote for a Democratic candidate since 2000... and why I firmly believe that someone standing up today and saying the same things Kennedy said in 1960 would NEVER even be considered for the Democratic nomination... more likely, he'd become a Republican and win a ticket.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
A talk with F. Ryan...
So, Ryan calls me... and we'd still probably be talking had Jacob not come home and needed help with homework.
Jist of it was that he's wondering if the Obama re-election means that America has proven that it is now dependent on a welfare state system. I'm inclined to think it is.
More than 58% of America is now, or will be soon, retired and thus, dependent on Social Security for their livelihood. Love it or hate it, SSI is a fact, and can't be ignored. We can argue and debate what it will take to keep it solvent, but whatever happens, the tax remains for those that are nearing retirement, and those that are decades away from even thinking about it. Someone has to foot that bill.
47% of America (according to Romney's now famous line) is dependent on some form of assistance from the Fed, in the form of food stamps, WIC, unemployment, etc. and that number is expected to grow (by both parties) over the course of the next 6 years. Someone will have to foot that bill, too.
Nothing about the Federal Government is going to "shrink" in the next four years... not the rate it grows, not its size or cost, and certainly not is ability to intrude on our daily lives. We can expect government regulation of business, finances, environmental issues and educational matters to probably increase substantially over the course of the next four years, and YES, someone will have to pay for that, too.
As has been said hundreds of times on this site alone... you could take ALL THE MONEY that the top 1% of Americans make (and have in savings) and it wouldn't run the government for 30 days. A 100% tax rate for the top 10 percent of wage earners will only feed the beast for three fiscal quarters... leaving a fourth quarter unpaid for each and every year the nation operates. The math simply doesn't add up, yet the American people want more and more of what Obama has been promising.
The rights and liberties of the individual have now become secondary to the needs and wants of the majority. This is the direction that we have chosen. I, personally, think it is the wrong choice... but that is just me.
Am I worried about the situation? Frankly, yes... but not to a point where I'm ready to panic, or declare the United States "dead in the water" as some pundits are doing. This current trend towards a more liberal (I think that means "European socialist") model of government is doomed to fail from the very start. Catch phrases like "wealth redistribution" and "progressive fiscal agendas" are more than simply words thrown about in heated political debates... they are milestones on the road to socialism in America, and as I have said a thousand times before: Socialism cannot work in a macro setting without lowering every facet of society to the lowest possible denominator.
I can tell you this, right now, officially and with great personal conviction: I think that when the time comes for the "correction" to occur (and a correction is coming, one way or another), it is going to be every bit as painful and costly as the correction that we now refer to as the Great Depression. I am obligated to my family and my children to ensure that all that I can do to prepare for this and mitigate the problems that will arise from such a situation are done well in advance of it actually occurring. If I learned anything from my experiences during the single largest crisis in my life (Katrina and the three years of financial disaster that followed) it is simply that counting on the Federal Government to do ANYTHING to help or support you in a time of need is taking the biggest gamble of your life. Not only will no help come when it is actually needed, it couldn't be provided to most people in serious need across vast regions even if it was available. The Supreme Court of the United States has already determined that there is no "obligation" for assistance or aide from the government (or any agency or institution therein) to the individual... only to the general population.
If you want to be sure you are adequately protected from hardships, deprivation, disaster or disease... then you had better protect yourself. I promise you, no one else will. That includes Barack H. Obama.
Jist of it was that he's wondering if the Obama re-election means that America has proven that it is now dependent on a welfare state system. I'm inclined to think it is.
More than 58% of America is now, or will be soon, retired and thus, dependent on Social Security for their livelihood. Love it or hate it, SSI is a fact, and can't be ignored. We can argue and debate what it will take to keep it solvent, but whatever happens, the tax remains for those that are nearing retirement, and those that are decades away from even thinking about it. Someone has to foot that bill.
47% of America (according to Romney's now famous line) is dependent on some form of assistance from the Fed, in the form of food stamps, WIC, unemployment, etc. and that number is expected to grow (by both parties) over the course of the next 6 years. Someone will have to foot that bill, too.
Nothing about the Federal Government is going to "shrink" in the next four years... not the rate it grows, not its size or cost, and certainly not is ability to intrude on our daily lives. We can expect government regulation of business, finances, environmental issues and educational matters to probably increase substantially over the course of the next four years, and YES, someone will have to pay for that, too.
As has been said hundreds of times on this site alone... you could take ALL THE MONEY that the top 1% of Americans make (and have in savings) and it wouldn't run the government for 30 days. A 100% tax rate for the top 10 percent of wage earners will only feed the beast for three fiscal quarters... leaving a fourth quarter unpaid for each and every year the nation operates. The math simply doesn't add up, yet the American people want more and more of what Obama has been promising.
The rights and liberties of the individual have now become secondary to the needs and wants of the majority. This is the direction that we have chosen. I, personally, think it is the wrong choice... but that is just me.
Am I worried about the situation? Frankly, yes... but not to a point where I'm ready to panic, or declare the United States "dead in the water" as some pundits are doing. This current trend towards a more liberal (I think that means "European socialist") model of government is doomed to fail from the very start. Catch phrases like "wealth redistribution" and "progressive fiscal agendas" are more than simply words thrown about in heated political debates... they are milestones on the road to socialism in America, and as I have said a thousand times before: Socialism cannot work in a macro setting without lowering every facet of society to the lowest possible denominator.
I can tell you this, right now, officially and with great personal conviction: I think that when the time comes for the "correction" to occur (and a correction is coming, one way or another), it is going to be every bit as painful and costly as the correction that we now refer to as the Great Depression. I am obligated to my family and my children to ensure that all that I can do to prepare for this and mitigate the problems that will arise from such a situation are done well in advance of it actually occurring. If I learned anything from my experiences during the single largest crisis in my life (Katrina and the three years of financial disaster that followed) it is simply that counting on the Federal Government to do ANYTHING to help or support you in a time of need is taking the biggest gamble of your life. Not only will no help come when it is actually needed, it couldn't be provided to most people in serious need across vast regions even if it was available. The Supreme Court of the United States has already determined that there is no "obligation" for assistance or aide from the government (or any agency or institution therein) to the individual... only to the general population.
If you want to be sure you are adequately protected from hardships, deprivation, disaster or disease... then you had better protect yourself. I promise you, no one else will. That includes Barack H. Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
