President Obama thinks stock market is a good deal he doesn't care about

There is nothing like watching the daily polispeak dance that politicians like to do. It is especially interesting when the dance is being done by the President. Few Presidents are as skillful with polispeak as President Obama, which says a lot.

I mean just look at how President Obama has handled the complete meltdown of the stock market. The Dow Jones Index, along with virtually every stock on any exchange, have nosedived down a vortex nearly every day since he was elected. But this is considered merely “day-to-day gyrations” that are of no consequence.

An almost total freefall, some 26% since the first trading day of 2009, is a minor happenstance. This is hardly worth talking about in the view of the President. And if you must speak about it, it is all the fault of the prior administration.

Of course President Obama started talking to the markets and the nation months before he was inaugurated. He was dictating economic policy and outlining his initiatives well over 60 days before he was sworn in. And he has effected economic policy changes as well as given somewhat direct guidance on what steps he plans to take in these troubled times. But the current effects on the economy have nothing to do with his Administration.

I mean let’s just look at what he has done so far.

His Secretary of Treasury has gotten the remaining $350 billion dollars from the Bush mortgage bailout. There has been no word on how that money is going to be spent, if it has not been already, but he has the access to it.

He let the Democrat-led Congress loose on a stimulus package that swelled from the day he was elected (then a mere $50 billion dollars) to the final passage of $787 billion dollars. The package is all money borrowed from the nation to be repaid by taxpayers with interest in the future. But everyone who receives a paycheck will be able to make an extra $13 a week for 4 months – if they are under the class of rich which is $75,000 for individuals.

But besides the non-lump sum of $400, the public is also paying for honey bee research ($100 million), and moving Government Agencies at $500 million a move, and research to find a way to create usable green energy (~10 billion dollars - just to find a way to make it, not a dime to actually implement it since it does not exist and may not for a decade), and $100 million for moving fish barriers in mid-West rivers among hundreds of other spending programs.

All of this is to ensure that the roughly 500,000 people who were laid off from Circuit City and almost every other major private sector company in January alone will still have a job. I’m not sure how since I doubt most people have degrees in biology, physics, engineering, and so on, but he said it so it must be true.

President Obama also told the world that he was going to increase the tax on investments in the stock market. Because the fact that interest rates are too low to invest in bonds was not enough. Plus he intends to tax the hell out of those able to afford to invest. So you can understand why the world has rushed in to invest in our markets.

But in case anyone just wanted to hold onto their cash, President Obama is authorizing the Government to essentially take over banks. This way the Government can ensure that loans are made – as well as who will receive them (by the way, isn’t that part of the reason we are in this mess?). Plus the Government can be right on hand to wherever people are putting their money.

But lest you try to give away your money, to charity, the Government under President Obama has another answer. The taxes are to increase on donations. Thus you can give away all your money to a charity, and still owe the Government a huge sum of money. Because under President Obama the Government is smarter than the public and will decide where your money should go and who can receive it. Even though the Government can’t balance a checkbook and most of the public can.

Still just in case any money is not accounted for the Obama Administration has a plan. By increasing the cost of energy, like gasoline and electricity, with taxes they can scoop up more money. Even though this means the price of filling up a car, heating a home, buying food or any other consumer item will increase as well. But remember the Government gave everyone getting a paycheck an extra $13 dollars a week for 4 months to cover the cost of everything going up. If you make under $75.000 and thus not rich.

Yes, all of this. Yet the stock market has continued to sell off like a waterfall. Why should anyone be concerned. It’s not like the stock market is a forward indicator of the economy.

Still, just to cover his tracks, President Obama is now talking like he cares about the IRA’s, mutual funds, stock investments and retirement funds of tens of millions of Americans. He has now stated that “buying stocks is a potentially good deal”. Isn’t that great!

Oh I can see the crowds forming a line to just jump into the markets, with money left over from I know not where. Considering the prospects he has laid out, it’s easy to see how you can make all of 10% - before taxes and commissions – in about 2 years. That’s only a LOSS of maybe 20% after taxes and commissions. Why wouldn’t anyone want to get on that train.

And that loss should coincide perfectly with the $2 trillion in spending cuts President Obama plans to make, if he does not continue with his plans to spend $3.5 trillion on the national budget. Plus every projection he has made – that his own economists think are improbable – comes true exactly as he has stated they should.

Polispeak is a wonderful thing. Because after stating all these things, driving away investors and making every industry of business cringe, President Obama maintains a 64% approval rating. Just watch him dance

Why Socializing America is bad

I have heard a lot of talk lately about socialism and the idea of nationalizing various aspects of America. I have heard how this group or that think it’s a good idea. I have heard how some think this is a direction America must take.

But in every case I am aware of, not a single one of those people promoting nationalizing whatever have lived in a socialist nation.

I have heard how great national healthcare can be. Yet thousands spend enormous amounts of money to come to America for our capitalist, market driven healthcare. Because it is the best in the world.

When it comes to banks and finance there is much the same kind of situation. People speak of redistribution of wealth. Evening the playing field. And placing ever more of a burden on the ”rich” while ensuring that the poor have no option beyond the Government.

Let me say something of personal experience to all of this. I have lived in a socialist nation. I am not from one, but I did live - not visit or vacation - in the old Soviet Union. I lived in Moscow and Tsbilsi. I have visited Latvia, and other parts of the old communist regime. So I have some experience in this debate. Far more than those in favor of nationalization.

The fact is that I witnessed the healthcare system firsthand. It was deplorable. When I had a tooth that was in severe condition I went to a local Moscow dentist. The room was filled with people waiting to see the dentist. When I signed in, the only question I was asked was if I was paying in rubles or dollars. I had both, and was told dollars were better.

I was ushered into the dentist’s office, ahead of people that had been waiting hours, within 5 minutes of entering the office. My first impression of the room was a white ceramic version of medieval dungeons I had seen on television. The equipment I saw around the room were working versions of equipment over 30 years old.

When the dentist confirmed that I had paid the huge sum of $20 American, worth more than 500 times the fee in rubles, I was provided an anesthetic. This was something that only the international cash paying customers received. Novocain. Not watered down or otherwise diluted, nor other lesser medications that regular citizens receive. And I had my tooth pulled. I was out of the office in roughly 30 minutes.

And every face in that room knew they could not afford and thus would not receive the same service I had just gotten.

When it comes to finance I prefer to look at the daily life of the average person. I lived in an apartment like anyone else. The cost was a $10 a month, or 1000 times it’s value. I had someone who shopped for meat and bread for me. That cost another $20 dollars.

I went out a few times to get food from the store myself while I lived in Russia. The lines were at least an hour long, just for general foods. The cold cuts were of a quality too low to ever be served in any American store. The selection of foods were minimal. The cost was next to nothing. But when I say the quality was low, I mean that some of the canned meats were the exact look, smell, and consistency of middle brand dog food I served my pets in California.

But it was enough to keep me alive. Though if you have ever waited for 2 hours in a line during a Russian winter, you would question how much fun life really is.

Mind you that 3 blocks from the office I worked at in Moscow, there was a McDonald’s. At almost any point in the year there was a line no less than 3 hours long (the longest I ever personally saw was 8 hours) just to get into that McDonald’s. They would let in groups of 20 – 30 people at a time. It was the largest McDonald’s I have ever seen anywhere, and I believe it is the largest in the world.

You could cut the line for all of 500 rubles, which was an inordinate price for the average citizen. Inside I could buy enough food for a family of 5 for less than the equivalent of $5 American. That same amount of food required that the people on the line, from across the USSR, had saved money from the entire family for a year, just to spend a vacation to get to this fast food restaurant. Many would leave McDonald’s and start the trip back home, the vacation starting with and ending in that one place.

When I took a cab ride to anywhere it was always the same. A cab stops and negotiation begins. Where are you going, does the cabbie want to go there, what time of day it was, were you paying in dollars or rubles, how much are you willing to pay. If all of it lined up, you had a ride. If not, you hailed another cab. And there was always another cab to be had, since only the rich could afford such a luxury on a regular basis.

I recall watching people getting on lines at 4am because the bread delivery had arrived. If you waited you might not get any bread and there would be no more. The bread was free, if it was available.

I recall walking into stores that were completely empty, because there was no food delivered yet and the shelves were bare. And I recall the lines when a delivery came, while the best meats were sold out the back of the store to those that paid far more than most could gather on a regular basis.

And I recall the trading. A chit to get shoes traded for a chit for sugar. 2 of those could get you a chit for meat. And maybe 3 of those can get you a chit for vodka, which could get you a bunch of anything else.

All of this is not to say that the people were anything but fair and friendly. I never had a problem while I was living in the USSR. Well, except for the civil war and attempted coup. The people though were salt of the earth.

But when I listen to the talk of socialized this and that, from people who have never lived under such a way of life I shiver. I don’t like socialism, or communism. Not because of some ideology, but because I lived it. I lived it the best way possible and it still left me cold and miserable in a way that the worst winter storms and double pneumonia never could.

Ask anyone that has lived in a socialist or communist country. I’ve never heard one say that life was better there. And the person you ask can be poor as hell. Because the quality of life in America is about as good as you can get. Problems and all.

So I don’t agree with celebrities, far-left liberals, politicians and so many others that think the idea in their head will be better than the lives we live. But if you let them keep changing the laws, and experimenting with our lives, you will know what it’s like to have less than you ever thought you could survive on.

I can only hope I am dead long before that day comes.

President Obama's first 100 days: a prediction

Ok, now that the Obama election win inspired drunkenness has passed the question for many is what is he going to do. Fantastic speeches, and pointing fingers at the past are wonderful ways to get elected, but mean nothing when you need to lead. What can we discern now?

Well we know that Obama is leaning heavily on his old Chicago political contacts. And so far they have been very non-partisan Democrats. I am speaking of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. So that means that bi-partisan policies are likely going out the window right after President Bush exits the White house door.

This bodes well for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the Democrat-led Congress. They will have a field day passing all the laws they hoped for. Whether that will be good for the Average American is highly questionable.

Speaker Pelosi is relatively giddy right now, because he 2nd stimulus plan is well on the way of being passed. After her failure to slip the plan into the $700 billion dollar bailout (then only a mere $50 billion plan) without notice – and the failure to fund ACORN and other pro-Democrat organizations with any proceeds from the bailout (instead of paying back Americans) – Pelosi didn’t give up. Her next step was to approach the Bush Administration with a $150 billion stimulus package, right after the auto industry received $25 billion for their woes. When that also failed (something Pelosi has been familiar with) she got quite and waited for after the election. And just as was expected President Obama has promised that a 2nd Stimulus Plan, for at least $300 billion will be passed.

The problem here is that it won’t work and will either increase taxes, the national debt, or both (most likely). Why won’t it work? The same reason the first was a failure. The economy sucks.

The stimulus plans are in essence the equivalent of adding more water to a leaky bathtub. It doesn’t solve the problem, it just gives you more water on the floor. The first time most took the money and paid down on their gas and oil costs. A few were able to lower their credit card debt slightly, and a small portion actually went and bought something.

That was all before several massive banks and brokerages failed, Fannie and Freddie died (to the apparent amazement of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank), several industries started to lay-off jobs or close, and the auto industry walked up to the free money line. And just as many are in danger of losing their homes, if not more.

What will a second Stimulus plan do? Well since gas and oil are cheaper, pay down mortgages, go into the bank savings incase you lose your job, buy extra food in case you lose your job, pay down on the credit card debt in case you lose your job – notice a pattern? Buying Christmas or Easter (depending on when the checks go out) gifts just doesn’t rate very high compared to losing your job, and thus will not promote the economy.

Another thing we can expect that has been stated is higher taxes. Yes the start of that plan is the $250,000 bracket. But with over $1.2 trillion spent this year, and other $837 billion proposed in new program spending, and $300 billion at least of a stimulus plan, higher taxes is not an exclusive tax the rich option. And we know President Obama favors removing the President Bush tax cuts, so that’s 3% more tax for everyone above $31,850. Expect quite a bit more very soon. My guess, a net 7% tax increase across the board.

To go with the higher taxes, expect higher unemployment and inflation. Someone has to pay for the higher cost of business, and corporations will always be the last to accept that bill. So the higher costs of everyday goods and fear of losing a job really kills the stimulus plan – which was a dumb idea in the first place.

To further ensure that the economy rattles at the bottom of the barrel capital gains taxes are going to go higher. This expectation is already hitting the stock market. As I was saying to a friend and former stockbroker

“The smart money is getting out. They started once it was likely that Obama would win the election. They cleared most of their positions before the election, waited for mom and pop to buy into the market before the election to raise prices, and the second President Obama won they started to get all the way out. My bet is that we lose 500 points on or in the week of the inauguration.”

I mean why wouldn’t you hold cash right now. Bond rates are useless, and capital gains taxes means you need a 35% profit just to break-even, which in a good market is tough to nail down.

You can also expect to see even less revenue in the media arena. Because of the Fairness Act, which requires that any talk show or political program must be followed with equal time of the same format for the opposing side. Liberals may love to say that the election was a mandate, but since liberal radio and programs lose money faster than Nancy Pelosi can increase stimulus plan budgeting it seems to be nothing but bluster. Still Air America Radio has a final chance to hit the airwaves again (they went bankrupt in 2 years because no one was listening). Until the loss gets so excessive that radio stations get rid of both liberals and conservatives.

What a great plan. If you can’t get anyone to listen to what you have to say, shut down your opponents from speaking too. Even if people are listening to what they say. Because silence is more fair than debate and criticism. It also helps to cut down on people noticing that your policies do more harm than good.

So far if the prospect of rising inflation, fewer jobs, higher debt, lower stock market, and the continued prospect of losing your home haven’t got you excited - while losing the distraction and/or conversation of talk radio – you can smile at the thought of higher wages. A minimum wage hike is very likely to come early in an Obama Presidency.

The hike must happen early in my opinion because the economy will worsen as the year progresses, and all the goodwill President Obama has will evaporate as fast as stimulus checks hitting the consumer market. But higher employee costs will mean more money the corporations have to pass off to the consumer, and more people that will need to be fired to maintain current (or even slightly reduced) profit levels.

Most of all this are items I expected and discussed prior to the election. And just as I predicted President Obama is following every step of what I mentioned. And the outcome is becoming more of what is obviously a bad plan. But there is something that most did not expect.

There will be no healthcare reform. Not in the first 100 days, not in year 2. The nation can’t afford it. The Government is too inefficient to run it. And because Biden believes that the nation will be under duress within the first 6 months of the Obama Administration, we will be too preoccupied (so much for a President doing more than one thing at a time). That campaign promise is out the window. As is stopping jobs from going overseas. In fact more companies will choose to go to cheaper markets rather than pay the rising cost of staying in America.

So in the first 100 days taxes will go up, as will inflation. The economy will get worse, and the stock market will drop to about 7600 – a true rout. National debt will increase, several more banks will fail. The auto industry will get a bailout of their own (around $100 billion at a guess), and so will AIG (again). Domestic drilling won’t happen, because that would make energy cost cheaper – which President Obama has directly stated he does not want. And we likely will have an international crisis that will bring us close to war, and cause Europe to go bi-polar again and dislike President Obama - though not as much as President Bush.

That’s my prediction of the first 100 days. I hope that I am wrong. I really want President Obama to hit the history books as a great President. I’m selfish and Black. I want to see his historical image live up to his speeches. But his policies as they stand means it won’t happen.

A real long prediction, President Obama loses in 2012 to a Republican. His legacy will be worse than President Carter. Expect inflation at about 15% and unemployment to match. And as I said Average taxes will be at least 7% higher across the board. Hope you’ve been saving money.

President Obama - the expectations start now

President Obama has won the 2008 election. I am as elated by that news as any African American or minority in America right now. But at the same time I am looking at what the nation said last night.

At 6pm initial exit poll results started to flow and there were several important facts that were provided by the polls, granted that the information was slanted as all exit polls have been shown to be.

While 93% stated that the economy was negative right now, only 47% thought the economy would improve in 2009 and 40% supported the $700 billion bailout package that is still working it’s way into the economy. This bailout may be part of the reason that 73% disapproved of the job the Democrat-led Congress has done. And it may also be part of the reason that 70% predict that taxes will be higher under President Obama.

And that’s the important thing to note. The economy was the single most important issue among those polled. 62% felt the economy was priority #1. It was that thought and the thought that Senator McCain would continue the policies of President Bush (50%) resonated with the masses along with the feeling that President Obama was in touch with them (57%).

Honestly these are dumb reasons.

Several key Democrats presided over the downfall of the mortgage crisis, thus directly requiring a bailout, which had it’s creation in the Democratic policies of President Clinton and Democrats pushing loans to people that did not qualify to receive them. Somehow this escaped the public notice. As did the thought that there is nothing to stop a Democratic President with a liberal agenda and voting record, backed by a Democratic Congress, from creating more bad policies that even more Democrats may ignore in favor of Party unity in a time of an economic downturn.

$1.2 trillion dollars may well look cheap before the next 4 years are up. Especially since President Obama has promised to expand the Government by $837 billion and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is waiting for the inauguration to present a $300 billion stimulus plan (at least, it may be higher by then based on her comments). That means 2009 may well start with a Congress approved budget, passed without consideration in full, with a stimulus plan that doesn’t work in an economic downturn. That’s another $1.1 trillion and that does not include anything necessary yet. And all of it must be paid by the American public at some point soon.

Still 51% felt that Obama’s policies were just right (obviously they didn’t have a calculator handy), though the polls also showed that 60% felt that Senator John McCain and not President Obama has the experience to traverse things properly.

And for those like Harry Reid that want to say that President Obama was elected as a statement of the people, the polls (which skew Democratic) stated that only 30% of voters picked President Obama because he shared their views. That’s piss poor low. What is more accurate and clear is that voters made a statement about President Bush – whose disapproval was just 2 points better than Congress at 73%. Sadly he wasn’t the one that was up for election so the point is moot.

It was the economy, and the promise of President Obama to provide money to low income Americans even if they don’t file taxes that made the election – which was stated in the poll by the 51% that thought the Government should do more to solve problems. So the more that pundits and politicians alike explained why this plan to offer the equivalent of welfare at the cost of the economy, the more it guaranteed a win for President Obama. For the 81% that feared that their family finances would be hurt by the mortgage crisis/credit crunch, it was like manna.

Don’t get me wrong, millions were voting in this election (in excess of 105 million by the last count I saw). Not all of those that voted agreed with all of the above. But more than enough did to provide President Obama with the win. Also in that group are Americans that voted for Obama based on race – some 47% believing that President Obama would mean an improvement in race relations for the nation. That part I hope is true, both for selfish and national reasons.

But while the electoral vote was huge, and will be the focus of comments by Democrats in justifying their agenda and giddy news media, the popular vote was quite close. For most of the race up until the well after 11:39pm there was only a 3% difference in votes (which was the margin I had previously mentioned I thought would decide the election). This was no landslide victory.

The nation is still as center-right as it was yesterday. But it will be lead by a left of center Government in the Executive, Legislative, and potentially by the end of 4 years Judicial branches. That means higher inflation, higher taxes, Government run healthcare (equal in stature and performance to the way the VA is run), retreat from Iraq and likely Afghanistan, legal abortion at any stage (so effectively an alternative contraceptive), gay marriage, public votes for unions, higher electricity costs, and no nuclear power. Oh I forgot fewer coal plants, higher demand for electricity due to electric car mandates and less supply, more ethanol gluts, and limited if any domestic drilling.

Doubt me if you will but just keep track of these items as the next 4 years go by. In fact I expect the 111th Congress to vote on these 4 items in January or February

2nd stimulus plan
Tax code change for people below $200,000 - $250,000 and corporations and investments
End of secret ballots for unions
Passing the Fairness Doctrine – effectively either limiting free speech that does not express liberal views or glutting media with liberal speech that would not make it without Government intervention

Some may find all the above appealing. But almost half the nation did not, and with reason. Reasons we all may well learn very quickly.

Not to mention the crisis that Vice President Biden promised to occur. And that President Obama would seemingly fail at, again as VP Biden promised.

But I could be wrong. The economy could rebound without help, or inflation and slowdown. The stock market might not sell off another 1000 points by the end of the inauguration in January. Americans might just go right out and spend all the credit they can find this holiday season and Wind energy may become effective in 6 months (much to the benefit of Nancy Pelosi’s stock account). I hope I am wrong.

Because I honestly want the First Black President to be the greatest President ever. I want him to be seen as a strong leader. A world leader that will defend America with force if pushed, with wisdom to improve – or at least stabilize – the economy. A President that lifts the nation such that teen pregnancy and high school dropout rates fall lower. A President that inspires small business start-ups and job creation. And if he can convince China to join us in cleaning the earth, and ensure quality healthcare I’d love it.

Throw in reparations and an apology for slavery and I’d be tickled pink.

But we all know that isn’t going to happen. But we will get change. And I will blog about the positives, negatives, promises kept and broken. And I’m more than willing to eat crow and say I was wrong – especially if the First Black President can sustain history in the manner I described above.

We will see. It all starts in 76 days.

Before you vote, questions you should have answered

The following is a transcript of the video. Just in case you missed something or wanted to quote and/or respond directly.

Over the next few days there will be a slew of television ads discussing the views of each candidate and why you should vote for them. Some will make sense to the one part of the public or another. But they are just polispeak and no decision should be made based solely on a 30-second ad.

Before you decide who to vote for in this critical election I suggest you think of these things:

In the last 20 months we have come to know Senator Obama, but do you know the relationship that exists with Bill Ayers today – He is an admitted terrorist and self-described anarchist without remorse as late as 2001 while he helped start Obama’s political career?

Senator Biden believes Obama will be challenged on the international stage if elected within 6 months, as he directly said. This is because Obama is inexperienced. Can America afford an international crisis while in a financial crisis and fighting 2 wars?

The major media is overwhelmingly biased in favor of Obama. They have used this bias to avoid asking tough questions, such that a plumber asked one of the hardest questions Obama has received in this election cycle. What has the media failed to let you know? And what will they receive as a benefit for this lopsided support?

The Government has not been able to balance it’s spending in over 40 years, which you and I do everyday. Considering that every department and agency of the Government costs more and runs less efficiently year after year, why would bigger Government cost less or be better?

After a century of running the post office, the Government still can’t get that right. What would make you think that they will be able to run the incredibly complicated task of healthcare better than delivering the mail?

We all want the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to end. But how they end is important. If you think an immediate retreat is best, think of the 3 million that were killed in Viet Nam after America retreated there. More importantly think of the fact that Al Quida and Iran will use a U.S. retreat as a sign of weakness and fear of their radical beliefs, which would spur future attacks. How we leave is as important as when.

Senator Obama promised to take public funding for the race against Senator McCain. He backed away from that promise. Senator Obama promised to speak to America with McCain in at least one if not more town hall events. Again he backed away from that promise. What other promises is Senator Obama capable of backing away from?

Higher taxes on business sounds great, but small business creates jobs. Higher taxes means less money to hire or employ workers. With business slowing down, less money means more unemployment. Is your job recession proof, especially if business taxes are higher?

I don’t proclaim to know all the answers. I admit I support Senator John McCain. But that doesn’t change the fact that you should know the answers to these and other questions before you vote.

Vote for whomever you believe in, but know what you are voting for. Vote for a reason, not a 30-second soundbite. Vote because you love America.

I’m Michael Vass, owner of M V Consulting, Inc. and I approved this message.

Need welfare? Elect Obama

As talk of the economy and taxes dominate the political pundits, and the Presidential candidates stump speeches, I again wanted to take a look at the reality of the Obama tax plan. In searching for those more intelligent than myself to evaluate the tax plan I came across the Wall Street Journal. Considering the daily focus on money and economics I doubt anyone could call them an unqualified source.

And while this article may be a bit dated I find it accurate. In fact since it was written the only real change ahs been the fact that Obama has promised, and virtually guaranteed, that he will give away even more money. Suffice to say that in total the Obama tax plan is really a welfare system.

“Moreover, the tax credits would mostly go to those who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes. His trick is to make the tax credits "refundable." Thus, if the tax credit is for $1,000, but the taxpayer would otherwise only pay $200 in taxes, the government would write a check to the taxpayer for $800. If the taxpayer pays nothing in federal income taxes, the government would pay him the whole $1,000.”

Giving people money that they have not earned and is not theirs is welfare. That is the core of his “share the wealth” redistribution of income he proposes as a tax plan. That is anything but the American way. It is far closer to a socialistic Government.

“Mr. Obama proposes a fully refundable Making Work Pay Tax Credit, which would have the government pay out $500 to each worker and $1,000 to couples -- reminiscent of George McGovern's 1972 election proposal for the government to send a $1,000 check to everyone.

His American Opportunity Tax Credit would provide a $4,000, fully refundable tax credit for college tuition expenses. His Mortgage Interest Tax Credit would provide a 10% credit -- refundable -- to offset mortgage interest payments for lower- and middle-income families. His Health Care Tax Credits, which the campaign says "will ensure that health insurance is available and affordable for all families," include "a new refundable 50 percent health tax credit on employee premiums paid by employers.

The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit would be made refundable and expanded to allow "low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit on the first $6,000 of child care expenses.”

This may all sound great, except it forgets something important. All that money being given to low income people and families has to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is feeling the crunch of credit and the slow down in the economy as well.

“The latest Congressional Budget Office data shows the bottom 40% of income earners already pays no income taxes. Indeed, they receive a net payment from the federal income tax system -- meaning from the taxpayers -- equal to 3.8% of all federal income taxes, because of the refundable tax credits under current law. The middle 20% of income earners, the true middle class, pays 4.4% of federal income taxes.”

So while those in the lowest income brackets make the most money, it’s all money that is undeserved. You might be saying, “I don’t care. That’s money coming to me and not out of my pocket.”

But that would be a lie. In fact that is the exact thought the Obama campaign and Democrats hope you think. Because money does not grow on trees, and deficit spending that the Government does so well must be paid off at some point.

The money comes from business, at least they hope. By increasing corporate taxes and that of those making over $250,000 the Government hopes to cover the costs of the ‘welfare’ and the bigger government Obama promises (costing $800 billion dollars on it’s own).

But those in the top income bracket have no reason to invest in or create small businesses. The capital gains tax means that investing is not worthwhile. Unless you can legally find a way to make 45% on investments in a down market (that would cover the 20% tax, 10% broker fee, and leave 15% which would be further hit by personal taxes – and for the record at the top of the internet bubble the average investment made 35% profit and this is far from that exuberant market).

And business will pass the cost onto consumers, while firing employees to make up the difference. Kind of like what Yahoo just did. And you can expect more of that from more companies if Obama is elected.

Welfare is not a bad thing in itself. Most of us need help at one point in our lives. But that is not the same as handing out someone else’s money simply because of envy that they worked hard and made more money. It’s not the same as the Government arbitrarily capping how much money you can make in your chosen field of work. It’s not the same as essentially working for the Government when you had struggled to be able to work for yourself.

The repercussions of the ‘welfare’ or effectively higher taxes, and higher unemployment that is the Obama plan are severe. And in a Democratic Congress that is more focused on placing blame on anyone else while spending money that does not exist those problems become more extreme.

Senator Obama is a good American, and his high hopes are laudable. But America cannot afford his socialist leaning views.

Presidential debate number 3 - initial thoughts

In watching and reflecting on the 3rd and last Presidential debate of 2008 there are a few immediate thoughts that come to my mind, a more detailed review will come tomorrow. The foremost is the thought that 3 debates, and only 1 for the Vice Presidential candidates, is far too few to really convey to the public the issues facing the nation. The next is that there were several inaccuracies by both of the candidates. And I have to say that this debate was by far the best of the 3.

Going beyond that I have to say that Senator Obama was very eloquent. His ability to debate is quite impressive. He made no major mistakes, and was very sure of his answers.

Yet I think that his answers were stylized and edited polispeak. He had poor answers to several subjects, which if you just listened in a cursory manner, or only heard him speak once, you might have missed. In fact if you have followed the campaigns since before the Primaries, as I have, you would find fault with several subject he spoke on.

Senator McCain was a bit more fiery at points tonight. It was invigorating when he got on the attack, which he has needed to do for some time. But at several points he disappointed as well. While he was less edited in his answers, he also failed to close a subject definitively several times. And he made a major gaff, in my opinion, when he was surprised by the answer of Senator Obama about the cost of healthcare on small businesses.

And speaking of Joe Wurzelbacher I’m not surprised that Obama did not want to discuss him much. The fact is that Obama has clearly stated that he wants to effectively cap the income Americans can make. That he will take money to redistribute to whatever he believes is best. That he does not trust the ability of individual Americans to use their wealth to the benefit of their families and the nation – preferring instead to grow a larger government that will oversee such decisions.

And by the way, Joe the plumber was not swayed by the argument of Obama. In fact he has clearly stated that he will not vote for Obama. Because the tax plans of Obama will mean that in buying the company he will lose money as Obama increases the corporate tax, personal tax, and capital gains tax nullifying future investments. Which means that Obama will either stifle growth of small businesses, or cause those businesses to fire or reduce the hours of workers just to pay the increased taxes.

Another fault of Obama, and this is more the problem of Democrats in general, was his insistence on being firmly focused on the past. He is fixated on placing blame, and living in the past descisions of President Bush. This lead to the best line for McCain

“I’m not President Bush. If you want to run against him you should have run 4 years ago.”

But McCain did not stay consistent in his strength. He failed to demand a clarification on William Ayers, which was never provided. The man was a terrorist, and it is unclear how much influence he had on molding Obama’s political career or when Obama became aware of the past of Ayers, or if their association has ever ended.

McCain failed to exemplify the importance of vouchers and better schools, not just more money for bigger Government run programs. McCain failed to deliver on the importance of having individual choice in healthcare, and how a system based on the Canadian or British models is a system doomed to failure. McCain failed to mention that there has never been a Government Agency or Department that has run efficiently or effectively in the last 40 years, at least.

McCain failed to mention that many of the economic proposals made by Senator Obama are similar to another President besides Herbert Hoover. That President was Jimmy Carter, and the result was double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and an overall malaise for the nation.

So in the end, the debate was a draw. Neither candidate shone more brightly than the other. Both were able to provide solid arguments for their proposals and views, and point out problems with their opponents position.

But Senator Obama was clearly the better debater. Of course this is not some school competition, there is no blue ribbon award for parsing huge subjects into the equivalent of a soundbite. The next president cannot be elected because of their composure in a debate, or the speed in which they respond to a question with bullet points of their stump speeches.

Polispeak may win elections, and look great on the television. But it does not prove the worthiness of a Presidential candidate. Nor does catchy phrases like “Senator Government” – even if it was an accidental blurb.

I have long ago declared that I am a supporter of Senator McCain. M V Consulting, Inc. has endorsed McCain for President. Evenso I can see and admit that Senator Obama does have some ideas of interest, surrounded and encompassed in a Government that spends far more than it can collect in taxes, is involved in more aspects of individual lives, and controlling the choices we are able to make. That is his national healthcare, federal education, higher corporate capital gains and individual taxes, unfettered abortion, and hand picked energy alternatives really means – Big Government to a degree unseen previously.

You may not agree with that conclusion. You may vote for Senator Obama. That is your right and I respect and admire that, even while I can disagree with your choice. But the debates have made one thing clear to me, we all need to vote because if we do not America may suffer as a result. And in making that choice of who to vote for you should review the records, votes, and campaign promises of each candidate.

Because in the end, 2 years from now, you can look backwards and/or place blame but you can’t undo your vote.

Joe Wurzelbacher comments on Senator Barack Obama's tax policy

Earlier I presented the video of Senator Obama as he spoke to a plumber about his tax plans. I discussed how I thought his answer fall flat when considered in the real world. The implications of his tax plan will not benefit the public, nor the economy in my opinion. But the plumber in question had his own answer about what he thought of the question, ‘How will your tax plan affect me?’



Not the American dream. That says a lot. A common American that provides jobs to others and works for a living. That’s who the Democratic tax plans affect. Not the CEO’s and multimillionaires that the polispeak ads and stump speeches try to convey, just people in the house next to you.

How normal is this part-business owner? Is he a mega wealthy tightwad that is unpatriotic as the Democratic ads, and potential VP Senator Biden would call him?

He lives in a home that is worth between $90,000 and $140,000 and can’t buy a bigger house because he can’t afford it. Sounds normal to me. Sounds like the people in Binghamton. Sounds like some of my readers too. And he doesn’t like what the Obama tax plan will mean to him. And as a result to his employees.

So is Senator Obama Robin Hood? Not according to this man. In perhaps the best description I have heard yet. About taxes he states clearly that Robin Hood stole from the greedy rich. Not just the rich, but the greedy to give to the poor. Small business owners are not the greedy rich that have been discussed in the media and Democratic pundits. They are not the people that the Obama tax plan would like you to believe. They are your neighbors and bosses.

In effect, what Obama is promising is that if you strive and save to be able to live the American dream of owning your own business and home, you will be punished for that achievement. That is the potential of an Obama Administration.

Does that in any way sound like a positive for the economy? Does that in any way sound like a benefit to 95% of paycheck earners?

The economy has finally taken center stage in the Presidential election. It’s finally on all the voters mind. And the Obama campaign has strived to tie Senator McCain to President Bush on this and other subjects. In that attempt they have obfuscated what the real effect of their proposals will mean.

Don’t believe me? Listen to Joe Wurzelbacher, a plumber and small business part-owner. Because if the tax plan of Obama doesn’t work for him, it means that employees will ultimately be hurt as well as the economy. And are you really voting to make things worse or better in a world that doesn’t react in a vacuum?

Obama essentially tells plumber ‘too bad’

Wealth redistribution. Senator Obama has promised it, Senator Biden feels it’s patriotic. Communist nations are built on it. But is it bad for America?



By now many have seen the conversation that Senator Obama had with a plumber over the weekend. This plumber, as I have seen reported, makes $280,000 and owns a small business. This is no fat cat Wall Street tycoon. This is no mega-corporation owner or major stockholder. This is a guy that comes to your house (or has employees that do) and fixes your pipes. No glamour, no excitement. And he might just live in your neighborhood, and his kids go to the same school your kids do.

According to Senator Obama, this man will pay more in taxes, and so will his business. Now plumbing is a decent living, but there is not growth spurts really. Plumbing companies don’t jump on the stock exchange, nor do they have 10 – 15% growth year over year. It’s likely that this guy makes 3 – 5% profit just like a grocery store owner or most other small businesses. And the 10% tax increase to businesses, plus another tax on him directly, means that he will be losing money in a company he may have been working on and living off of for 20 years now. Just because taxes changed and nothing else.

He will have 2 choices, raise prices – which most home owners can’t afford these days – or fire workers and cut their hours. And if Obama and Democrats can raise the minimum wage, he will likely have to do both with his higher taxes included.

But Obama doesn’t see that.



His focus is that people will have more money to pay the plumber. But he forgets that if more people are working fewer hours, if at all, then they make the same money or less and prices have to go higher just for the plumber to cover his breakeven cost. In the vacuum that Obama spins, changing how businesses make money has no effect on the people they employ. That’s polispeak. The real world means that if you change one part, the others react.

Personally I have seen a government that took money from hard working people to give to others. I lived in Russia in the 1990’s. And while I could afford to have people wait on line 2 hours to buy good meat for me, or 1 hour for bread, I don’t advise it. The people were great, but the style of life was – and continues to be – so far below the American standard that ex-patriots are often required to take vacations every 3 months and leave the country. America should not follow this path.

I’m not calling Senator Obama a communist. He is not. But his socialist plans do lead to a path where everything decreases the quality of life from what Americans are accustomed to and deserve. His economic plans are not to the benefit of the country. Wealth distribution benefits no one.

Bailing out the stock market, and killing the economy

Don’t you love when the Government spends your money? And they do it on a scale so grand that you just have to stop and go wow.

Currently the Government has proposed the best deal Wall Street has ever seen. After having spent over a quarter of a billion dollars on Bear Sterns and mortgage loans and other financials (like AIG), it is now going to by every bad loan of every financial company. Oh joy!

Of course the stock market is flying. Every financial company will now have the chance to load up the Government with every single bad debt they can engineer to be connected to terms of the bailout. And the people working at these banks are far smarter than the Government agencies that will take over these debts. Instantly the books of each bank and brokerage and insurance company will look astounding. All relevant economic guidelines will look solidly in the black: book value, loan reserves, earnings per anything, and so on. All it took is what will be over a trillion dollars of taxpayer money.

Add to this the face that 799 companies in the stock market are no longer allowed to be sold short and you have a market that has no choice but to go up. Like I’ve always said the financials always lead the market higher. Sadly this is bollocks.

The market is artificially propped up right now. Without this bailout, which will hurt the economy for the next President (no matter who it is), we would have found a bottom. But that means once all the crap is done the market will eventually find that bottom, and then exceed it. Just like what happened after the internet bubble burst. Trying to cushion that lead to the real estate bubble and it’s bursting, and now this will lead to another bubble that will burst as well.

Perhaps my time as a stockbroker gives me better insight on this but this is bad. We are talking about over a trillion dollars that will grow and become a bigger problem the next time.

And the Presidential candidates are showing us how they will deal with that next problem now. Senator Obama is waiting for information, instilling no confidence in the market or for investors. Senator McCain is looking for people to blame, which has about the same effect. The only difference is perhaps the fact that since the President must look strong to give the markets any feeling of safety Senator John McCain is looking more Presidential.

But taxes look that they will get raised. It’s the only way to pay off $1 trillion dollars. That means Senator Obama will definitely increase taxes on everyone, massively. And Senator McCain will have to raise them to some extent.

Obama already wants to raise corporate taxes, and increase taxes of everyone from $31,850 and up at least 3%, and raise taxes on energy consumption, capital gains taxes, and payroll taxes. Add this bill and those numbers increase almost exponentially. He will undoubtedly equal or exceed the economic environment of President Carter.

For McCain we will see the likely removal of the President Bush tax cuts. Possibly increases on capital gains as well due to political pressure. This means slower growth in the economy and tough times – not like some want people to believe exist now but will actually exist by 2010.

Here is one thing that I would love to see. I believe that any owner or CEO of a company deserves whatever pay they can justify. There is no limit on what they can be paid, if they have created a profit for their company. But that does not mean they cannot receive a tax, similar to a luxury tax, for a bonus in excess of say $25 million.

If a CEO can grow a company 15% or more and thus ensure everyone connected with the company is safe that deserves a reward. If they retire and the company had netted a profit over their time at the lead, again they deserve a bonus. Because after becoming a CEO of some of the largest companies in the world is likely to be the last job they will ever have. But again the extreme bonus tax should exist. They will still receive millions, so they aren’t going to a poorhouse or changing their lifestyle.

But if a CEO fails to create a profit, they should be restricted in their pay as well. IF a company must be sold to save it, or is cutting workers to stay a float, then management has failed the company. If the company must be bailed out by the Government, the CEO has failed it. Again I can agree that the CEO deserves to be paid their salary, but not a bonus. And if they are leaving the company and created net losses their retirement package should reflect that. So instead of $100 million as an example they would receive say $1 million for each year they were on the job, and still have to pay the extreme bonus tax.

And when I say an extreme bonus tax I mean that say 50% of any bonus over $25 million dollars is split between the company and the Government. The split is 33% to employees, 33% to the corporation, and 33% to the Government. That scenario benefits the company and its employees, hopefully increasing profitability and shareholder confidence. It also benefits the nation. And I can’t see how any CEO that would have gotten say $34 million as a bonus would be upset because they got a $17 million dollar bonus.

But that won’t happen. Just like taxes won’t go up because of this bailout, or that there will not be another crash in the markets because the Government has intervened.

I predicted a 10,200 Dow Jones Index by December. I stand by that. I stated that 9,300 on the Dow in 2009 was possible, I still believe that. And I said that I think $160 per barrel of crude oil would happen over the winter, which may be overly aggressive but still possible. This bailout does not remove these possibilities, it enhances them. Greater regulation does not prevent future problems; it increases the cost of identifying them. Preventing short sales does not help the market, it hides the weakness. And none of these things prevents bad decisions which are honestly the key reason why we had the internet and real estate bubbles.

The only questions that are left are when will the next problem become evident, and how much will the Government spend to bail that out as well.

Senator Obama talks around the economy on live television

It was interesting to listen to Senator Obama just now. He was speaking at 2:57pm, and it was televised live on cable news. Of course he was speaking in reference to the falling stock market with the Dow Jones trading down 220 points. He made absolutely no reference to AIG or the bailout made by the government.

But Senator Obama did state

‘John Mcain says he will root out the old boy network. The old boy network? In the McCain Campaign it’s called a staff meeting.’ [paraphrased due to lack of transcript]

Now that was said because Senator McCain has been in Congress for the last 22 years.

Of course Obama failed to remind the crowd that his Vice Presidential pick (Senator Joe Biden) has been in Congress for the last 26 years. He is in fact the 4th longest serving Democrat. He is as responsible for any failed economic reforms, energy policies, or whatever else Obama would like to claim along with McCain – if not more. If the old boy network is in McCain’s campaign, what the hell does Obama call the CEO of the network that is his second in command [who does not agree with Obama, nor thinks he should be President]. It would seem that if nothing else the men and women in the McCain campaign are unified – Democrats can’t say that.

Senator Obama went on to say

‘We don’t need a commission to get us out of this mess.’

Actually yes we do. The fact is that while Obama thinks he understands how this all started, he obviously doesn’t. If he did he would acknowledge that this started from the Clinton Administration. The fault started with the failure of President Bill Clinton to prevent or burst the internet bubble. Because he allowed it to happen, it led to this current crisis. In fact this is just a continuation of that original problem.

But since we can’t go back in time we have to focus on the resolution of the problem in the future. Senator Obama believes that raising taxes will resolve the problem, with the addition of creating new sources of energy without additional drilling.

Obviously he need some advice here. He is stating that he wants to take more money from companies (of all sizes) while they are scrambling to raise cash or meet loans. This is while they are receiving reduced income from sales. There is a good plan.

And he intends to make sure that companies receive less funding. All companies. But he expects that these companies will find money, obviously not from financial companies that need to lower their credit risk nor from investors that will have to pay more money on their investments and taxes, to invest into research to create alternative energy sources.

They will have to make money from thin air, to pay his higher tax rates, and increased worker costs, to lose money in developing biomass converters, wind tower generators, and advanced solar cells – none of which exist in any productive manner today. And don’t forget they need to create factories and distribution lines besides the engineering. And that is while energy costs fluctuate higher over time, further reducing every shrinking revenues.

And all this will help improve America. Obama doesn’t need a commission, or advisors to help him? I think I can give him a bit of help and it will be free. Get a calculator because the math you are doing in your head wouldn’t keep a lemonade stand running.

I wonder if he did not mention anything about AIG directly because he doesn't understand why the Government was forced to bail them out? heis comments would lead me to believe so.

Democratic tax plans: a look from reality

Let’s talk taxes and business. It’s one of the key items in the campaigns of each of the Presidential candidates, and I know its something average Americans are concerned about.

Now let me state something up front. I am a Republican, business owner, Black Puerto Rican, 40 year old man. I am voting for the McCain – Palin ticket. So if you cannot accept any of those thoughts, click away now.

I want to examine one of the tax plans that has gotten huge support and acclaim – that of Senator Obama. In reality this is a tax plan that the Democratic Party has always pushed for most of my life. It can be summed up in the following:

• Tax the rich
  
  
• Tax business
  
  
• Tax the stock market
  

Let me explain in simple terms why this is a stupid plan.

Assume that Senator Obama wins the election. And a Democratic Congress remains in force. And their tax plans are enacted.

First the President Bush tax cuts will be reversed. Based on the votes from earlier this year that would mean that every American making $31,850 or more would have a 3% tax increase.

Now add to this the thought that business taxes increase 10%. And payroll tax increases 3%. And short-term and long-term tax on investments increases 10%. And lastly the minimum wage is increased to say $9.

Middle and low income Americans should rejoice, right? The rich are now paying for everything like some believe they should. The economy will improve and everyone will get nationalized (meaning standardized) healthcare.

So if you were at 28% tax, you are bumped up to 31%, but you are making more money now so it’s ok? Well in a vacuum yes. But in the real world you are out of your mind.

As a business owner I have to pay corporate taxes as well as my personal taxes. So I am faced with a situation where my raw materials cost more, my employees cost more, and I pay more in taxes at every turn.

If I had a business that had revenues of $100,000, and 2 part-time employees, and paid myself a salary here is the rough scenario.

Let’s say that my cost of goods is only 10%, research 3%, location 15%, energy use 15%, corporate taxes are 39% and employees get $7/hr. This is before the tax increase and minimum pay jump. They become 49% and $9 respectively. So if my employees cost $9/hr @ 20 hours a week each they are a minimum of 17% not including tax for them. For simple math let’s just call it 20%.

That’s a total of 112%. Without assuming my cost of goods from other businesses in the same position have increased, or if the price of energy increases (which it has for every year since 1972), I am in debt 12%, or in this example $12,000.

That says nothing of paying myself anything. Add in a modest living of $35,000 for owning the business and you get even more debt – but let’s say that I just have it at no cost to the business – though I am paying at least 31% on that money (including the end of the Bush tax cuts) as well.

So I am now in debt. Where can I cut cost? Raw goods and energy are essentially fixed to me. Location is fixed. Taxes are fixed. I could increase prices of my finished goods or services, but there is no guarantee that consumers will pay the higher price. Plus I still have to pay everything first to even test if consumers will pay a higher price.

So a smart plan is to increase my sale price by no more than 5% - small enough to test if the new price range will work, and most won’t notice it. Still I am short the upfront money to get the goods. The only variable left is to cut what I can affect.

I would need to cut either the number of employees and/or their hours until I can bring costs to just even (and probably take a pay cut). At that point I can see if I can make a profit with the price increase.

Now this scenario is overly simplified, given. [A more realistic view is location 11%, Energy 4%, Advertising 1.2%, Raw Goods 3.2%, Communication 4.2%, Operation 2.35%, Outsourcing 2.2%, Employees 32%, Tax 34% - which nets 94.15% of Revenue. Increase cost of higher taxes means that the 6% profit becomes 11.5% in debt.] But the theory is sound. So please explain to me where the higher taxes benefit the 95% of people that receive a paycheck? They will get more money, but fewer of them will be working – and working less hours with higher expectations at that.

The pressure to make a profit increases exponentially if that company has stock and needs to make a profit for investors. And higher profits than normal since they have to make up for the loss incurred from taxing investments.

People that have investments so they can retire are now hurt as they either have to wait longer to retire, or must lower their quality of life. I don’t mean the CEO’s on television quality of life, I mean papa Joe who built up positions in GE so he could sell it over time to make up the difference between SSI (which will be going bankrupt shortly) and his pension that was cut after the company lost it’s ass in the internet bubble crash.

Feeling cheerful? Taxing the rich sound good still?

Add in the cost of higher raw goods since those companies have to make more money too. Add in the higher cost of energy – either because of higher oil prices or the cost of creating and converting to alternative energy. Remember ethanol is only ¾ as efficient as gasoline, so you will need more of it and thus spend more money for the same usage. Plus building solar plants, wind power generators, research and development of biomass, geothermal, and the rest.

And these costs go up every year.

And don’t even mention paying for healthcare, which employers have to cover.

So someone please explain to me how the Democrats plan to raise taxes will benefit anyone. Like I said earlier, it looks great in a vacuum but I own a business in the real world and it doesn’t look so good there.

Senator Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention

I listened intently last night as Senator Barack Obama accepted the nomination at the Democratic National Convention with some 70,000 democrats looking on. If Senator Obama didn’t want to look like a celebrity, this was not the way to do it. But as the first African American to reach this history making level a bit of fanfare is warranted.

Now I could rip into Obama’s speech, line by line. I can highlight all the improbabilities, and all the things that will end up costing America more than we can afford. I can even point out all the mistakes of Presidents Carter and Clinton that he seems to be determined to repeat.

But instead I will just make this easy (my shoulder injury has not healed yet). Senator Obama promises to lower taxes of 95% of Americans receiving paychecks. He plans to increase taxes of business. That is a problem. Because I expect that this will equate to less hours at more pay for the average American, and adding in the higher cost of food (because of expanded corn ethanol production) and the increase taxes and cost of energy will mean less money overall. And that’s before a nationalized healthcare plan.

With nationalized healthcare will come lower quality medical treatment and lines for x-rays and doctor visits – like those found in Canada and England right now. Seeing a doctor will become a trip to the post office, won’t that be great?

Obama is a great speaker, and part of a President’s job is communication. But also part of the job is the ability to pass legislation, which Obama is not bi-partisan enough to do. A President must be able to show strength, which Obama’s demand to run from Iraq does not inspire. And a President must have a unified Administration, which Senator Biden does not provide (he opposed several policies of Senator Obama, as well as believing he is not qualified for the Presidency – as he has stated).

Senator Obama is a strong intelligent capable man. He loves America and has a great vision for the future. But he has neither the experience, nor political flexibility, to achieve his grand plans. No matter how you want to do the math, his initiatives are more expensive than he has claimed requiring more of your money than you may think. His voting record shows his desire to stand by the most far-left of Democratic policies, and that is too extreme for the centrist average of America.

But I will leave you with the speech that Senator Obama spoke yesterday. I remind you that Joe Biden represents the same ‘old’ politics that McCain supposedly embodies. I remind you that the Surge has worked. I remind you that the economy is slowing, and energy prices are rising – both are equally the fault of Democrats and Republicans.

Senator Obama is a great man, creating history before our eyes. But as you listen to his speech ask yourself is he a war-time President, that can stimulate the economy and move America into a safer better America – which requires more than just words.


Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4

Senator McCain - Saddleback Civil Forum, 2 points

There is a lot of review and commentary on the Saddleback Civil Forum today. And I don’t doubt that we will see even more about it in commercials in the near future. But I have some further thoughts about the event as well.

I already mentioned that my first 2 questions from the event were about Senator Obama; and dealt specifically with his answers on Darfur, America’s aid to foreign nations, and taxes. I felt that he failed to provide serious answers to either question, and in fact raised more questions by the manner of his answer.

Before I continue to make other comments I will address how Senator McCain responded to those same questions.

In listening, and then reviewing the answer by Senator McCain on taxes I note that he too failed to give a proper response. While Senator Obama was very vague about how his policies might affect single Americans, and/or any business owner – whether the business is small or large – McCain was no less vague. He too avoided giving a significant defined number to qualify ‘rich’.

The way he avoided the answer makes it seem like neither candidate knows what is a rich person. McCain did emphasize his desire to not redistribute wealth, and to further ensure that the income that all Americans make will tend to stay in their pockets rather than go to the Government.

Still this was not a satisfactory answer.

As for his comments about Darfur, McCain stood head and shoulders above Obama. Where Senator Obama ignored the troubled region in the Sudan, John McCain directly addressed it. He noted the acknowledgement of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, that Darfur is a genocide and has been for years. He noted that we need to do more.

McCain could have made far more significant answers on this issue. He could have noted that Congress has failed to act, and that because of this inaction America is still funding the murder of children in Darfur – right now. He did not go nearly as far in addressing this as I would have preferred. But he went further than Senator Obama by miles.

I was very displeased with the responses by Senator Obama and McCain on these 2 issues. Neither was very direct or informative about their future plans. And these are questions I want to see addressed more fully in debates and as they clarify their full policy plans in the near future.

But overall, I have to give the edge to Senator McCain on these 2 issues. While neither was clear about taxes, the general issue seems more favorable from the McCain view than Senator Obama’s. And considering Obama’s complete dismissal of Darfur when asked about it, McCain shone brightly by comparison.

Senator Obama - 2 questions from Saddleback Civil Forum

So just a few quick thoughts about Senator Obama’s comments at the Saddleback Civil Forum.

There were 2 items that stood out in my mind. Darfur and taxes. I am passionate about both and have written a great deal on each subject. So his answers were very important to me.

In terms of taxes I noticed that when Obama was asked to directly quote a single amount that qualifies as rich he could not do so. He in fact avoided the answer. He responded with the answer that if you make $150,000 or less – depending where you live in America – AS A FAMILY then you are most likely middle-class. And he stated that basically if you are a family making $250,000 or more you are in the top 1% of the nation, again depending on where you live. He then promised that families making $150, 000 or less will receive a tax benefit from his tax plans, and those above it will pay more.

That answer is both insufficient and deceptive.

He did not address individuals. Does he mean that $75,000 and less is middle-class? Or under $150,000? Or are you rich? He did not make it clear.

And what if you are a business owner? He wants to increase business taxes; and roughly 60% of businesses in the nation are small-businesses owned by individuals and families. So does he count raising the business tax in his promise to lower taxes of those families as well?

So if we follow what he is saying, and has said, it is very possible that people other than just the ambiguous ‘rich’ will have their taxes increased as well. Which says nothing of the 94 votes he has made to date to increase taxes, including the most recent that would increase taxes of Americans making as little as $31,850.

On top of that is this bit of intuitive thought. America, from a federal tax basis, is not New York City, or Chicago, or Little Rock, or any other region. The IRS does not adjust our taxes based on where your income comes from. The IRS has fixed numbers on what is rich, middle-class, and poor. Any candidate that fails to answer this questions fails to give America a real chance to make a choice.

The other issue that caught my intention is Darfur. When Senator Obama was directly asked about what America should do about places like Darfur where perhaps 1 million men, women and children have died in the last 4+ years – and where America has done nothing (look up the history on HR 180 IH).

Senator Obama completely bypassed Darfur. He went directly to Georgia and other areas. Now I realize that Georgia is a hot topic these days. But this was an opportunity to address a genocide that America has blocked out. I mean a virtually complete major media blackout. And it was a credit to the Minister to bring up the issue as the media has not.

Senator Obama had a chance to go beyond the popular, and to make America aware that if we want to obligate ourselves to international issues, places with no oil and little strategic importance are as valuable as those that do. Simply because there are people, children, that are being murdered – and that is wrong.

Senator Obama failed on that question. That seriously pissed me off.

Now I will be looking forward to the responses of Senator McCain on these same issues.

Professor Tremblay supports Senator Obama with polispeak

I love polispeak. It’s my own descriptor for the inventive and nuanced manner in which pundits, candidates, and often bloggers discuss politics. It’s worse than spin, and almost always is based in facts - usually after it’s been spun through a blender and strained.

I cannot say that I am immune from this. Like every single pundit, blogger, and politician I hold an opinion, thus I am biased for or against various issues, policies, and/or proposals. I try to be honest and clear in my view. But not all are.

Here is a case in point. Professor Rodrigue Tremblay on globalresearch.ca has an impressive title. One would assume he has his facts in order and is presenting them clearly. But bias seeps in apparently, or the Professor is using faulty information. So sadly, those that rely on his opinion are being misguided. Of course they may not care, since we all tend to go to the source we prefer for answers we generally want.

Still some things are facts and they should be stated correctly.

First, in the quotes he uses of Senator McCain and Senator Obama, the bias becomes clear. He quotes McCain speaking on Iran alone. He then quotes Obama speaking about retreating from Iraq, and then the issue of Iran. It may not seem like a big deal, except in doing this he creates the impression that McCain has nothing to say on Iraq. That only Obama has a solution, which is false even if you don’t like McCain’s solution.

Considering he is using his title, as he is due, I have to believe he is aware of the effect of his selective quoting. Thus he is purposefully guiding the reader to a conclusion that he endorses, rather than allowing them to make the choice based on fact. I presume that either means he does not believe his readers can make the choice based on facts themselves, or he believes they will make a conclusion that he does not support based on the facts. But I could be wrong.

He then goes on to correctly point out that race is a major issue in this election. That the racial past of America provides perhaps the biggest hurdle, and makes any presumptions of polls useless.

Having set the stage to enforce the idea that race should not hinder this candidate (which I agree with) he then jabs at the current administration. While true that the President has remarkably low approval ratings, he skipped over the fact that the Congress – led by Democrats for 2 years now – has even lower approval ratings. What may be most revealing is that neither the President, nor the Congress is leading the nation in the right direction – meaning that both political parties have failed the general public substantively at the same time. But to say that detracts from his theme, though it is more grounded in fact.

He goes on to note that both Presidential candidates are moving along their party lines. That both are swaying towards their centers to gain more of the general populace. The impression is that in Senator Obama moving from the hard-core liberals of the far-left he is moving directly towards the center of the nation. The main complaint is that he is being a politician, which is what he is. Of course this ignores the fact that studies done over decades find that the majority of Americans are neither to the extreme right or left politically. Americans generally are centrist, perhaps leaning overall to the right (conservative) with exceptions on some issues. But that isn’t important to understand the moves each politician is making is it?

[by the way, Senator Obama has been rated, multiple times, as the most liberal Senator. So a shift towards the center keeps him firmly liberal and off the national center. Senator McCain has consistently been viewed as left of his Party’s center, and thus his move places him generally at the national average.]

Of course this all leads to the Iraq war. As already set up, Professor Tremblay has a skewed view on this issue. To further that view he then directly misquotes Senator McCain, with a quote that has been misused and explained for over a month now. But why let good rhetoric go unused even if it is false?

“Indeed, McCain voted for the Iraq war in October 2002, and he would be very happy to continue Bush's policy in Iraq, even to the point of extending the military occupation of that country “one hundred years” into the future.”

Yes McCain did vote for the war, as did almost every politician serving at the time – Republican or Democrat. He did not make a separate choice, nor was he the only voice. In fact I recall many video clips of Senator Clinton making an impassioned plea for the war, based on her extensive review of the facts. Thus the Democratic Party was no less involved than Senator McCain on this issue, and to isolate him is just a means of guiding the reader to a conclusion.

And as I stated there is the misquote. McCain did not imply or state there would be a military occupation (interesting choice of words there) of Iraq. He did state that America could have a presence in Iraq for 100 years, just as we have in Germany and Japan for 55 years and counting, Korea for 50 years and counting, Viet Nam for 30 years and counting. Note that not one of these countries is occupied yet we have had a presence (which McCain stated) there for longer than some voters have been alive, and thus it would be no surprise to have a military base (ie presence) in Iraq either.

But Professor Tremblay then goes on to point out what he wants his readers to accept as differences, each guiding them to his own desired conclusion.

He uses Social Security. He implies privatization is a bad idea and that Government support of SS is preferred. But isn’t the Government regulation of SS the reason it is going bankrupt and has no solution. Has it not been the political foot dragging of both political party’s that has kept the impasse going for at least 30 years while the problem got worse? And aren’t IRA’s privatized yet working well for millions of Americans for decades? So how bad is privatization.

On health care we are presented an idea filled with holes. Yes Senator Obama promoted Government lead universal healthcare. But name one department of the Government that has run efficiently or on budget in the past 40 years. If the Government has yet to run anything as simple as the Post Office or the VA in the past 2 generations, why do some suppose it will run our medical care better?

And this implies that our healthcare is bad, which is a lie. We are leaders in the world with thousands coming to America for our treatments as opposed to waiting for Government run medical care in their own nations. So if other nations can’t get this right, why should we try it? Is cheap and/or free bad care better than proper care that costs more? And if the Government is willing to provide $5,000 in credits (which is the correct amount I am aware of) to help pay to get that better care why is it bad?

As for abortion (which is not the sum of all women’s rights issues) I am conflicted. While I respect a woman’s choice, she is not the only voice in the matter. Responsible men, something downplayed severely by the general media but yet still existing, should have a voice as well. My opinion has nothing to do with religion or government. So I will leave that alone.

As for Supreme Court Justices, individuals that should have no party affiliation and can make decisions as they chose for life, I believe that it is not a major issue. It may be a secondary, or tertiary consideration for President – but there are far more pressing questions that need to be asked. And keep in mind that Congress can block any potential Justice, as they have in the past and will in the future. Professor Tremblay seems to forget to remind his reader that the President’s choice is still under the sway of Congress.

On taxes we again get a myopic view of the candidates. Senator McCain is proposing to cut taxes, Obama will raise them. That much is clear fact. The question is who is affected and how.

According to the Professor, cutting taxes is bad. Yet that is the only plan that has been theoretically and in the real world effective in helping the economy and the Average American. Raising taxes, especially in a economic downturn has never worked and is theoretically dumb. Those old enough to have live through President Carter know that this can lead to 13% unemployment and similar inflation.

But let’s take this to the real world. More money in people’s pockets is good. We all agree on that. Raising taxes prevents that. And Senator Obama has already voted to increase the taxes on those making as little as $31,850 or more. I would never call that rich. So in comparison we have one candidate willing to do what has worked for decades in various Presidencies and another that has proposed one idea, yet voted the opposite in the same election year he is running in. Or perhaps the Professor and I have different ideas of rich, as Senator Obama seems to.

Lastly is the big question experience. The Professor would praise Senator Obama, who lacks experience, for surrounding himself with politicians that have the experience. But at the same time he denounces Senator McCain for that same experience. Don’t be fooled by the use of terms like lobbyist, both politicians have them.

How can you say that McCain is bad for having experience, working with Democrats and Republicans to pass laws, and the relationships he has built over decades: and then praise Senator Obama for the lack of all these things – but the wisdom to have people with those same qualifications advise him. Is it not more logical to believe that an experienced leader would better be able to interpret and solicit advise from peers than an inexperienced politician from those that are his superiors (in age, experience, and political clout only – for those wondering the racial aspect of that statement).

He then throws all his preconceived ideas out the window and suggests that Al Gore is the best Democratic Presidential candidate. I am unconvinced.

Polispeak, it’s wonderful when a title and careful wording can be used to misquote, misinterpret and misguide the general public. But it should not provide you with the answer for whom to vote.

And for the record, I have yet to decide whom I wish to be President, though I do lean to Senator McCain. I just dislike blatant polispeak and engineered writing designed to use the reader.

Taxes: the real Presidential candidate issue

With all the attention being place on oil and energy in the past few days I thought I’d take another look at taxes. One of the least popular issues that every Presidential race focuses on. And consistently the public has the same request, lower taxes.

For 2008, the ‘election of change’ [a dumb concept considering that is a fact], we have 2 very explicit views. I say explicit, but if you don’t listen carefully or check any other details you may be distracted of confused by the polispeak that each candidate employs. So I want to take a moment, before the rhetoric switches back after the energy issue stops catching headlines, to look at their stances clearly (as found at The Tax Foundation).

Deferring to experience I will start with Senator McCain.

Originally opposed to the President Bush tax cuts, Senator McCain now is in support of this tax plan. He also favors cutting corporate taxes by 10%. For those that suffer from estate taxes he plans to implement a move to only 15% tax on estates over $10 million. He wants to remove the alternative minimum tax, which affects many middle-class families which it was not intended to tax, and he is strongly against any increase in taxes related to Social Security.

Now for Senator Obama.

While he has already voted to increase taxes for anyone making $31,850 he has publicly stated that he will only repeal the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% of the nation. How such a law could be enacted is unknown, and considering that proposals and campaign promises of a similar nature have never occurred his repeals may include more people. He has also promised to eliminate taxes for all seniors that make less than $50,000. When it comes to corporations Senator Obama has stated he will “close loopholes”, which means whatever you wish it to. He has no expressed plan for estate taxes or the Minimum Alternative Tax, presumably leaving them both in place. But he does have a defined plan for the Social Security tax, which he plans to increase – directly coming from wages. There may be an exemption for those above $102,000 but it isn’t clear.

Senator Obama also has several other plans related to taxes that Senator McCain has no comparable for. Senator Obama will create several ‘credits’ for various Americans. One credit will apply to those that work and make over $8,100 – the credit will be for $500 or $1,000 for families. He would also create a 10% credit for all homeowners with a mortgage. This mortgage owner credit would amount to about $500. There would also be an earned income credit for those making minimum wage and working full-time for $555, if children are being supported “responsibly” [how and who determines that?] then another $1,110 is available. For those in college up to $4,000 can be forgiven. Lastly Senator Obama wants the IRS to issue tax forms that are partially pre-filled to reduce the time in filling out the forms.

Now I’m sure both plans have their appeal points, and many with children like the comments by Senator Obama. But let’s look at this in total.

Senator Obama has already voted to increase taxes of most Americans 3%, which he publicly stated he would not do. Because of that I feel every other statement about taxes he has made is in question. In addition every attempt to isolate any singular group of Americans to pay higher taxes has failed. Inevitably Americans not expected to be paying higher taxes do so.

I agree with the concept of excluding taxes for senior citizens that are making enough money to survive on their own. I do not agree on the fixed price or the cap. While $50,000 may sound comfortable today, not long ago $30,000 sounded the same. Any provision that does not take into account the increase of cost of living, nor the cost of medications (which older Americans have higher budgets on disproportionately) fails those it is meant to help.

While spouting polispeak about corporations and their earnings is a winning strategy with unions and newspaper headlines, it is not an effective tax plan. There are some loopholes in the corporate tax code that should be removed, but the real boost to the economy is decreasing tax rates. This allows businesses to increase the number of people employed, or raise their pay, or fund research, or expand to increase scales of economy. Whichever is done the economy for the nation receives more revenues in multiple areas that were stagnant prior. Raising corporate taxes has the opposite effect.

Estate taxes are a special situation that most Americans don’t fall under. Even so, for those that do have to deal with these taxes, they are huge. While most like to point out the multi-million dollar estates, those with far less pay the same tax now. Again this limits gaining revenues on these funds from other sources that could stimulate the economy. But I don’t have a strong opinion on this point.

Social Security is commonly called the “third rail of politics” and it is aptly named. Older voters are sensitive to anything that might affect their money. Considering that most voters are older, and this number is about to swell as baby-boomers age, this is an issue that none want to be on the wrong side of. Then again, younger voters have little interest in funding a program that they in all likelihood will never receive a dime from. SSI is a flawed program that has never worked exactly as planned. Increasing money by raising taxes on those that can’t afford it does little to help anyone beyond actually pushing its problems onto either another administration or generation. Senator Obama’s plan sounds exactly like that.

Senator Obama’s plan for college students sounds eerily like the short-lived plan proposed from then-potential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton. This plan forgives money instead of providing it though. A major question is this though, who will pay the $28.8 billion that this plan would absolve each year. [That assumes that only 7.2 million Americans go to college - and would this include those who take college courses online?] The money from this would have to come from somewhere, which means higher taxes.

I like a 10% credit for mortgages, as I will soon own a home. But in reality I don’t need it. My home purchase is based on the fact that I can well afford the mortgage, and that it is a fixed rate. Those that prepare properly for a home purchase have no need of a credit. Those that do not will not be saved by what would amount to maybe 2 months payment on their obligation. If this plan were less polispeak, it would be designed to help stimulate the economy – especially since 96% of all mortgage holders are paying on-time.

I can’t think of anything more to ask about a credit for those that have children [specifically it seems targeted to fathers paying child support] than who and what criteria equate to responsible. How would this be enforced. Under it’s current wording this implies that the Government would be involved actively in raising every child in America, under arbitrary and politically motivated rules. And what happens if the Government claims you are not being responsible? Do they take the children from the parents, or incarcerate them, publicly ostracize them or penalize them in some other way? Considering that the Government can’t balance a checkbook or check out foods for potentially deadly diseases I don’t trust their opinion on what is “responsible” in child rearing.

And lastly the IRS tax forms. It’s a nice polispeak rabble rouser. It gets headlines. It sounds great, until you think about it. How long do you think it will take to mail out tens of millions of printed tax forms? How will those who have never filed a tax form prior file? How much will this cost to be made? Especially since each and every form will be individual so scale of economies will never take place (never mind the fact that it would likely cost more each and every year – like stamps).

And perhaps most importantly, how will the Government ensure that every document is sent out to the proper person. Because if even one were to be mishandled, or one employee were paid off, identity theft would be rampant. Some would counter that the government send out documents now though no numbers exist on how many are improperly delivered. But the counter would accurately be that the Government is inefficient in every department, what would cause the IRS to suddenly become so?

So in honestly reviewing the tax positions of Senator Obama and Senator McCain, on balance I see McCain with better plans and more effective for the nation. You may not agree, and if so I’d love to hear where I got it wrong. And if I got it right let me know. [please remember I’m not an economist so don’t get too technical on me.]

Presidential election 2008 priority issues

As the race for the Presidency of 2009 reaches its next stage I feel it’s important to go back over several issues that were ignored in the recent past. Issues have been broadcast for days and weeks now about the character of associates of the candidates, and race and gender. Yet most pundits and major news media have seemingly forgotten the issues in their never ending desire to promote their ratings.

So let me present the issues that I have noticed are truly important to the majority of Americans.

1. The war in Iraq.
No matter your opinion of how correct we were to get into the war in Iraq, America is fighting now. Placing blame on the past decisions has kept many busy, and used up valuable energy, but resolved nothing. The issue at hand is simply this; either we win or we run away.

If we run away, the results will include the instability of the region, the empowerment of Iran, an increase in the cost of oil, likely heightened threats against Israel, and inevitably attacks against Americans and America. When I say attacks against us I mean just that, terrorist acts on varying scales killing civilians in their homes and work on our soil. Because the various factions that take over Iraq in our absence will definitely (fairly and unfairly) blame every ill on America, and the orphaned sons and daughters will eventually be coerced to seek out and kill Americans.

Conversely if we go for the win we must commit more funds and resources, risk international disdain, and lose members of our military. Ultimately we will have to have a military base in Iraq, not unlike Japan or Germany. As much as ultra-liberals may like to misquote Senator McCain’s comment, it is likely that winning the war in Iraq will require our PRESENCE over the next several decades, with some portion of that time being in various levels of actual combat.

2. Education
There is little argument that the children in public schools today are dumber than the generations that preceded them. It may not be the nicest statement, but it is accurate. Children today are less creative, active, and deductive than perhaps since the start of the industrial revolution. They are being asked to memorize various facts, yet comprehension of those facts are at record lows. Fewer know what is in the Bill of Rights, can identify North America on a map, or how to properly structure a sentence. And this is while there is unprecedented access to the knowledge base found on the internet, and more instantaneous connectivity then ever before.

Kids today are being taught less and retaining bare minimums. While this may be most obvious in cities throughout the nation, it is a national event. The long term effects of this will be devastating to the nation.

3. Economy
While the unemployment levels are hardly at levels in the 70’s many are feeling like they have less money than in decades. Interest rates are incredibly low, yet tens of thousands are on the edged of losing their homes. Average wages are up from the past and discretionary spending is high (unless you count an iPod as essential) but the average person has $6,000 in credit card debt. Few feel secure in their jobs.

Considering that crude oil prices are brushing against my prior year high estimate, gasoline and winter heating oil prices are sure to hit millions hard. Add to that the higher cost of food due to ethanol production, and that glut levels are increasing with Federal production mandates, and you find consumers with less money than may have been planned. This says nothing of the potential inflation that may be caused with interest rates as low as they are.

The Presidential candidates have offered 2 different ideas. One is to take more money from taxpayers, the other to cut taxes. While the tax increase is stated to target only the “rich” such a definition is vague at best. Recent votes in Congress have included those making $31,850 or more for increased taxes of at least 3%. The tax cut is stated as being universal, with a goal of affecting the middle class primarily.

4. Safety
National safety from internal and external sources. While some would prefer to think that America is safe from future foreign attacks, the reality of the world is that we are not. Like the best of safes, eventually someone will break in and in like manner America will be attacked. Minimizing the nature and scope of such an attack is vital. A madman with a gun or suicide bomb is unsettling, but far less devastating than airplanes as weapons, a radioactive ‘dirty’ bomb, poisonous gas, or other mass attacks.

As far as I am aware, these are the most critical issues facing America. These are the questions that need to be answered by our next President. There are other issues but these seem to be the primary ones.

This is what we need to hear the candidates answer. This is the planning that we need to understand. These are the things that will provide us the best President for the nation.

Any other reason or issue is secondary in my opinion. Even worse, the attempts by the media to grab ratings distorts the answers we need to hear and blocks the things we need to know. Answers and plans.

As this final phase of the Presidential race continues I suggest we all keep these issues in mind.

Remember you only get one vote, and once you have you don’t get a do-over.