Jul

30

Barack Obama. Protector Of Liberty?

Category: Economics, Politics | Comments Off | 225 words | Print

Oh. My. Gawd. What would we do without Barack Obama looking out for our liberty?

Barack Obama told House Democrats on Tuesday that as president he would order his attorney general to scour White House executive orders and expunge any that “trample on liberty,” several lawmakers said.

The liberties granted to us by the Constitution should be protected at all costs. No matter what the price, one should always be willing to give their time and effort to guard against any encroachment of these rights. It takes quite a man to stand up and do everything necessary to protect the liberties of over 300 million people.

Too bad Barack Obama is not that man.

If he was truly interested in protecting the liberties of the American people he would have been in the Senate on Saturday making sure that Section 3091 of “Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008” didn’t make it into the bill. If he truly wanted to expunge anything that “trampled on liberty” he would have done whatever was necessay to help expunge that section from the bill before it was passed by the Senate.

Actions speak louder than words Mr. Obama, and your actions indicate that you’re no better than the other 72 Senators and 272 Representatives who voted to trample on our liberties this past weekend.

Sphere: Related Content

Jul

28

Do You Have Any Idea What Congress Is Doing?

Category: Economics | Comments Off | 376 words | Print

Our Congress has let us down once again, and soon, so will our President.

Congress approved mortgage relief for 400,000 struggling homeowners Saturday as part of an election-year housing plan that also aims to calm jittery financial markets and bolster the sagging economy. President Bush said he would sign it promptly, despite reservations.

I don’t think you realize how much this “housing bill” is going to cost the American taxpayer. I don’t think you realize exactly what this bill will do. This bill will not help 400,000 struggling homeowners, I do know that.

This bill allows the FHA to spend $300 million to back new mortgages (where the homeowners showed they could actually afford a new loan anyway).

This bill allows Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to buy home loans as high as $625,000. It also allows them to buy mortgages at a rate 15% higher than the median home prices. This section alone will cost the taxpayers billions of dollars. Just watch.

This bill allocates $180 million in “pre-foreclosure counseling” for struggling homeowners.

This bill includes $3.9 billion to “fix up” neighborhoods.

This bill gives $15 billion in tax cuts to first time home buyers, and a tax-credit of $7,500 for people who purchased their homes after April 9th of this year. Funny, I thought it was the people who bought their homes before this year that had issues. Huh, silly me.

Oh yeah, and the powers that be in Congress increased the limit of our national debt by $800 billion to $10.6 trillion dollars. TRILLION.

Do you know how much a trillion is? 1,000,000,000,000. That’s a huge number.

If you go back 1 trillion seconds, you would be in the year 29701BC.

If you had a spaceship with enough fuel to travel 1 trillion miles, you could travel to the sun and back 10,752 times.

With the current population of the United States standing at just over 300 million people, if our national debt was $1 trillion, each citizen would owe more than $3,320.

Then again, we don’t have a national debt of one trillion dollars, right now, it’s almost $10 trillion and Congress just made it worse.

Break out the checkbooks people. You elected these morons, and now you’re paying for it.

Sphere: Related Content

Jul

26

“Saving California” Starring Arnold Schwarzenegger

Category: Economics, Politics | Comments Off | 523 words | Print

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has come up with a sure-fire way to destroy the California economy.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is threatening to pay thousands of state employees the federal minimum wage of $6.55 an hour until lawmakers reach a deal on California’s overdue state budget.

Ha! Let’s see. Here’s are my predictions if he actually did this.

#1 – On the day he announces his plan is going into effect, 10% of the state’s employees will quit. (They just can’t afford to work there anymore).

#2 – On the first payday under the new plan, of those who didn’t quit another 10% would decide to quit. (Look at the money the state will saving in salary expenses).

#3 – Because of that first paycheck, 90% of the state’s employees won’t be able to make their next house payment. Have you seen the prices of houses in California? (Uh oh. Someone better warn Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that they will be needing to tap the American taxpayers for some more support very soon).

#4 – Twenty-five percent of those employees who didn’t tell Schwarzenegger to stuff it will file lawsuits against the State of California, Gov. Schwarzenegger, and anyone else involved with the hairbrained scheme, telling them to stuff it. They won’t like being forced to loan the state money, or the undue financial burden that is placed on them because lawmakers couldn’t learn to work together. (This will end up costing the state 3 times the amount saved by cutting the salaries in the first place).

#5 – Schools will be forced to close because the teachers, who make peanuts as it is, know how to subtract and will realize how screwed up the governor’s plan really is. (Imagine how much money the state will save if entire schools are forced to close).

#6 – Banks and finance companies will be hiring new foreclosure and repossession personnel to handle all the houses and vehicles that will be abandoned. (Wow, the governor thought of everything, just think, some of the state employees might be able to nab these jobs).

#7 – Cities will begin to feel the “trickle down” effect because people won’t be spending as much money, therefore shuttering a few private businesses along the way. (But that won’t matter. Due to the governors “cost saving” measures, cities will feel the pinch and be forced to cut their budgets on everything from non-essential personnel to public safety and other essential personnel long before the politicians in Sacramento get around to working on a solution).

#8 – Politicians on both sides will argue for years, assigning blame and making spectacles of themselves over something they could have settled long before Gov. Schwarzenegger had time to think of such a hairbrained scheme. (Like politicians ever do anything besides assigning blame and making spectacles of themselves).

#9 – Arnold Schwarzenegger’s political career will end.

There you have it. Those are my predicitions for the state of California if Gov. Schwarzenegger is permitted to enact his plan.

What? Do I sound a bit extreme? Everything is extreme in California.

Sphere: Related Content

Jul

25

Just Wondering

Category: Education | Comments Off | 474 words | Print

It’s a sad day when a headline like this doesn’t even garner a second glance from most readers.

Food Bank answers school bell

Why is it so easy to ignore this story? Do people see the words “Food Bank” and figure it’s just a story about poor people, so why bother? Are we so insensitive about the well-being of other people that we no longer have time to care about their situation?

But, this story isn’t just about poor people, or the Food Bank. It’s about the teachers that are trying to change the lives of the children in their classrooms.

It’s tough trying to teach a child when his stomach’s growling. Or when she can’t afford notebooks or pens or backpacks.

…

With school starting as early as next week in the metro area, Griffin and Ross were among 40 metro Atlanta teachers stocking up on hundreds of dollars of free school supplies at the food bank’s downtown Atlanta warehouse.

Teachers were given a clipboard, a shopping cart and 30 minutes in what can only be described as the ultimate teacher’s supply closet. Shelves were stacked with copy paper and lined filler papers – coveted items among teachers. Barrels of pens. Notebooks. Rubber bands. Glue sticks. Bins full of small decorative letters. CD cases.

In the end, most hauled away nearly $800 each in free school supplies from the food bank’s Kids in Need program.

Every year I read stories about teachers spending hundreds of dollars on extra supplies and snacks for the kids in their classrooms. Every year I hear about organizations that step up and try to help bridge some of the gap between the funds the state makes available and the actual cost of running a classroom. Every year I hear about “how generous” our governor is for giving teachers a $100 gift card to help with their expenses. Don’t even get me started on the fact that teachers can only write off $250 in supply costs on their income taxes.

It’s time something was done about this. When the food bank has to step up and dole out almost $800 per teacher, it’s well past time to look at the system and start making these school districts accountable for the money they spend. They sure aren’t spending it on the students.

We all know the public school system is in trouble. The evidence is in the test scores year after year. Just imagine what would happen if school districts were forced to start spending money on educating students, instead of lining the pockets of the very administrators who are responsible for the problem in the first place.

Imagine what they could do if they actually spent the money on making an effort to teach the children.

What would happen if they stopped overlooking the obvious? Just wondering.

Sphere: Related Content

Jul

20

What Really Caused The Mortgage Crisis?

Category: Economics | Comments Off | 375 words | Print

This special message is sponsored by the letter “D” and the number ’0′.

It’s no secret that Countrywide Home Loans, with the help of a shady mortgage broker, took advantage of a couple people I hold very dear to my heart.

Just over two years ago, they realized they had been duped into a mortgage they were not going to be able to afford. With the adjustable rate climbing, and the mortgage barely within their ability to pay, they took action trying to prevent disaster before it happened.

Over the course of these past two years, they tried working with Countrywide. Countrywide wanted no part of it. The only assistance Countrywide offered, was negotiating a new mortgage (which would have caused them to default even faster). They placed the house on the market immediately.

Because of the turn in the market, they couldn’t even get anyone to look at the house. Countrywide still ignored them. When they did receive an offer, they inquired about short-selling, but Countrywide slammed the door on that idea.

Nine months ago they were forced to walk away from the house. Countrywide gave them no choice. Several months ago, they foreclosed on the house. Last month, the house sold to another person for less than half what was owed on it.

And now? Countrywide actually sent them a letter telling them that their mortgage payment had been “adjusted” into a fixed 7.25% interest loan, with payments that were very reasonable, and in fact, affordable. One month after the house sold.

The people at Countrywide are “d”umbasses. They were screwing people over for years, and now they are sending out these fake “we’ll help you now” letters to convince the government they are actually trying to help them. They have to. It’s the only way they can guarantee that the government is going to help bail them out.

Countrywide was, and still is, run by a bunch of people with ’0′ (zero) common sense. If they had actually helped the homeowners who didn’t want to walk away, rather than ignoring them, the mortgage “crisis” might not have become much of a crisis at all.

Sphere: Related Content

Jul

17

I Voted

Category: Politics | Comments Off | 343 words | Print

Yesterday was our “official” primary day. You know, the day when you vote for candidates not running for president for 2 years.

I have to say, with the exception of one race, I am quite happy with the way things turned out. One thing that annoys me though is the number of candidates unopposed in the primary. Why the hell do they waste the time to put their names on the ballet? Seriously.

There were at least 15 candidates listed with no one running against them in the primary. Since they are unopposed, they automatically face their challenger from the other party in the general, so why bother making thousands of people select their name on the ballot?

Maybe it’s a test to see how many of us vote for someone when they are the only choice? Who knows. Anyway, back to the primary.

Vicki Bearden won in the primary race for Tax Commissioner (remember, she is the only candidate I have officially endorsed this campaign season). Congratulations Vicki! Good luck in the general as well.

My choice for County Commissioner also won. Her name is Ashley Hendrix. I have to be honest though, I really only voted for her so one of her opponents wouldn’t win. I really, really, didn’t want him to win. Thank God that scare is over. I won’t get into details, but it’s suffice to say I am happy with the outcome.

The one race I am not too happy with was the Democratic race for U.S. Senate, where Vernon Jones captured 40% of the vote over Jim Martin’s 34%. Now those two have to have a run-off, and I just can’t imagine why people are actually voting for Vernon Jones.

Way to go people, now the two candidates have to keep putting ads on the air, and honestly, there’s only so much Vernon Jones a person can take.

Oh, and I still have no idea what I’m going to do where the Presidential candidates are concerned.

Sphere: Related Content

Jul

14

Cynthia McKinney And The Presidency

Category: Politics | Comments Off | 276 words | Print

Cynthia McKinney is back, and she’s back with a vengeance. You see, no matter what you think of Cynthia McKinney, she has now made history. For the first time in the history of our country we have two black presidential candidates. Of course, one of them is going to get about 100 million more votes than the other, but it is historical.

The liberal environmentalist Green Party nominated former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney as its presidential candidate Saturday. Cynthia McKinney represented a suburban Atlanta, Georgia, district for six terms as a Democrat.

McKinney, 53, held off three rivals to win the party’s nomination during its convention in Chicago, Illinois. She picked journalist and activist Rosa Clemente as her running mate.

Green Party spokeswoman Scott McLarty acknowledged McKinney was a “long shot” for the White House, but said, “Every vote that she gets helps the Green Party.”

Every vote she gets helps the Green Party? How? The most a political candidate from the Green Party has received is 3% isn’t it? Wasn’t it Ralph Nader who grabbed that many votes in 2000? Unless she gets more than 3% of the vote, which I can pretty much guarantee she won’t, how do those votes help the Green Party?

Funny thing. She stands to do best in her own former home district, you would think, right? Too bad it won’t help her. That’s right, the Green Party failed to collect enough signatures by the deadline to get her name on the ballot. Now we won’t even know if she would have received 3% of the votes in her former home district.

Sphere: Related Content

Jul

10

A Flip-Flop Of John Kerry Proportions

Category: Politics | Comments Off | 205 words | Print

Last October, Barack Obama’s campaign spokesman Bill Burton said,

“Senator Obama has serious concerns about many provisions in this bill, especially the provision on giving retroactive immunity to the telephone companies. He is hopeful that this bill can be improved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form, he would support a filibuster of it.”

In December, his office issued a written statement,

“Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies… granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster [blocking] of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same.”

Yet today, just eight months after he claimed to have serious concerns about retroactive immunity, and just six months after he claimed that same immunity undermines the constitutional protections of Americans, he completely flip-flopped and joined 68 other Democrat and Republican senators to pass the measure.

That’s right. There is no mistaking this one. There is nothing to refine with this one, it’s a blatant flip-flop of John Kerry proportions.

For the record, Hillary Clinton voted against passage, and John McCain was out there somewhere brown-nosing the Hispanic community.

(Photo courtesy of www.changewecanbelievein.com)
Sphere: Related Content

Jul

6

Constantly Refining Barack Obama

Category: Life | Comments Off | 650 words | Print

Many things in this world are refined. Metals, sugar, petroleum, and even our behavior can all be refined.

Refining metals makes them more valuable by removing the impurities within them.

Refined sugar is what many people define as just plain old regular sugar. If they ever saw raw sugar, or tasted it, it may change their opinion dramatically.

Until it is refined, petroleum is of no use to us. Refining it purifies it from a big sloppy gooey mess into a highly efficient fuel that powers our automobiles.

We have read about refined women throughout history, and without them who knows what civilization might have become.

Reading books helps you refine your knowledge.

But what about our politicians? Should they be refined? If so, how much refining do they need before they reach a “pure state”, or become more fine and polished?

It seems one of the candidates for President is in constant need of refinement, since he’s been doing it for the better part of a year now.

Obama Refines His Position on Coal (06/26/2007)

Obama Refines His Closing Argument (12/27/2007)

Obama Refines Foreign Policy Position After Backlash (05/22/2008)

Obama Refines Iraq Attack On McCain (06/12/2008)

Obama To ‘Refine’ Iraq Plan (07/03/2008)

Obama Refines Plans for Germany Trip (07/05/2008)

Obama Refines the Blame on Iraq Miscue (07/05/2008)

Based on the way the press has treated Barack Obama over the course of the past year, I was under the impression that he was near perfect and was not in need of such constant refinement.

How, exactly, does a politician refine his position? Isn’t that like changing his mind?

And what about an argument? Once he makes it, how can he refine it? Changing his argument after the fact makes him just like all of the other politicians, doesn’t it?

When a politician speaks out on a subject, such as foreign policy, and he suffers backlash because of his position, how is changing his position considered “refining” it? The mere definition of the word “refine” says nothing about change. In fact, refining is not changing, it is making something more pure, more elegant, or more cultured. If changing positions because people don’t agree with him makes him more cultured and refined, then he, and just about everyone else in Washington D.C., must be cultured beyond belief.

So, why does the press keep using the word “refined” every time Barack Obama changes his position? Why do they consider him “refining” his position when he sometimes changes his entire direction on a subject? Maybe he, and his campaign, want it that way.

Here’s a quote from Barack Obama,

For me to say that I’m going to refine my policies I don’t think in any way is inconsistent with prior statements

I beg to differ. “Refining” his policies is completely inconsistent if he is simply using the word refine instead of change. His stance on an issue takes on a whole new meaning if he changes any part of that policy. Many people call that “flip-flopping”. Why is John McCain considered “flip-flopping” on an issue when he changes his mind or alters his policy, but Barack Obama is simply refining his position? I see no difference at all, and that’s coming from someone who has a refined way of thinking.

Think about it. Refine does not mean change. But if you take the word ‘change’ and replace it in every one of the headlines above, each headline is still pertinent and on topic with the included article.

The official motto of the Obama campaign is “Change we can believe in”. How can we believe in that change, if it’s constantly being refined? Something tells me that the ‘change’ people believed in earlier this year, is no longer the same ‘change’ we’re supposed to believe in now. Unless of course, that’s changing too.

Sphere: Related Content