Obama's Plan

President Obama has just released a booklet titled, "The New Patriotism".  In this booklet, complete with some flattering photos of him showing his constant and all-knowing concern for his adoring fans Americans, there are ten sections:  Economy, Manufacturing, Energy, Small Businesses, Education, Tax Plan, Health Care, Retirement and Moving America Forward.   This is his plan for American, if we kindly elect him for another four years.

Here are a few snippets (in red) and, of course, my thoughts.  

President Obama’s policies have helped manufacturing rebound, creating nearly 500,000 jobs in the last 31 months.

We own a small manufacturing business.  I have no idea what policies this is talking about. As far as the increase in jobs, it all depends on private vs government jobs, the timing, and a lot of other tedious factors which, if I listed them all, you and I would both collapse in boredom.  Just know that numbers and stats are easily skewed to make any argument look good.

Obama will strengthen our schools by recruiting 100,000 math and science teachers, training 2 million workers for real jobs at community colleges, and cutting tuition growth in half.

How will he pay for this?  Did you know that whenever the government subsidizes something, its cost will go up?  This includes education.  The rate of increase of college tuitions has far exceeded the rate of inflation.    

By eliminating special loopholes and tax breaks that benefit big business and the wealthiest – as part of a balanced deficit reduction plan that also cuts spending we can’t afford – we can grow our economy without burdening our children and grandchildren with debt. 

Isn't this exactly what Gov. Romney proposed, which Obama criticized for its lack of specifics .... ie. what loopholes?  

President Obama has put forward a specific, balanced plan of spending cuts and revenue increases providing more than $4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade, without ending guaranteed benefits in Medicare or slashing Social Security. 

In 2008, candidate Obama promised to cut the deficit, which feeds the national debt, in half.  As we all know, the debt has now topped 16 trillion.  So cutting 4 trillion from the deficit over the next decade, doesn't even bring the debt down to the 2008 level.

"I said I would cut taxes for small businesses - who are the drivers and engines of growth - and we've cut them 18 times.  

Again, as a small business owner, we are wondering about those 18 tax cuts.  

Upon taking office, President Obama inherited the largest deficit in history, 

largely caused by putting the costs of two wars on a credit card.

President Obama would commit half of the money saved from responsibly 

ending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to reducing the deficit and the other 

half to putting Americans back to work rebuilding roads, bridges, runways, 

and schools here in the United States.

If the cost of the wars was put on a "credit card", then with the end of those wars, how is it that we now have money to spend?   There is no money!   Doesn't this mean that all those roads, bridges, runways, and schools must ALSO go on that credit card?   This is the same rationalization I use when I return a $20 sweater to the store, then use that credit to buy a $20 pair of jeans, and then say that the jeans were free.

President Obama's plan keeps middle-class tax cuts in place and reduces the deficit by finall asking millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share.

The top 1 percent of income earners paid 38.7% of income taxes in 2009, and the top 20 percent paid 94.1%.  This means that 80 percent of the population pay only 5.9% of the nation's income tax.   Is THAT fair?  (If only Steve Jobs had given his money to the government to spend on Solyndra, or the Volt, or entitlement programs, .... instead of building Apple and creating all those darn jobs.)

"Asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes?  Most Americans would call that common sense."

This statement is misleading and our president knows it.  It is the classic apples and oranges comparison.  It does not explain the difference between income tax and capital gains tax.

Income is what we receive in our paychecks.  Capital gains is what we earn by investing our savings.  Those investments -- or in other words -- loans to others for starting new businesses, building homes, or other ventures ..... create jobs.  The returns we receive by investing our savings are capital gains.  If the tax on those returns goes up, money gained from investing goes down and as a result, we are more motivated to just stuff our savings into our mattresses .... so to speak.  Therefore, less money will be circulating and available for lending and growth.

Remember, all savings came from money that was previously earned and taxed as income.  Raising the capital gains tax discourages job growth.  Comparing the billionaire's income tax to the secretary's income tax, the billionaire pays a much higher rate.  Comparing the billionaire's capital gains with the secretary's capital gains, the tax rate is the same.

His statement above, is comparing the billionaire's capital gains tax (apples) to the secretary's income tax (oranges).  

Apparently Obama does not want us to understand this.  Maybe this is because the truth does not help his argument.

If you vote for Barack Obama, you are voting for his plan.  You really ought to read it.

P.S.  Please excuse the screwy font -- spacing, size, etc.  "Blogger" (the site) and I don't always get along.

Oh Joe ..... Really?

Vice President Joe Biden, who "always says what he means", offered the following in his low meant-to-invoke-drama tone, in the debate with Congressman Paul Ryan: 

"My religion defines who I am, and I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And has particularly informed my social doctrine. The Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who — who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help."

Really?  The Bidens reported an income of $349,000 in 2009.  Yet during the previous ten years, according to ABC News, they averaged only $369 annually in charitable donations.  We're talking of an average of barely over .1%.  Curiously, that amount did jump up in 2011.  But I'm sure that had nothing to do with public image .....

He also said, regarding his church's stand on abortion,  "I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others" ....

Yet, he believes in imposing his socialist views of wealth redistribution on others ...... others who don't believe that government dependency is healthy .... and who give a HECK of a lot more than .1% to charity ..... even when no one is looking.  

Does the word .... hypocrite .... come to mind?

Mature VS Boorish

The VP debate.  I'm still recovering.  Not from disappointment ... but from indignation at more rudeness than I have ever seen before, in a national debate.  All substance, no matter from whom, was lost on Vice President Biden's ridiculous behavior.  Who could focus on what was said, while being assaulted by constant smirks, Cheshire-cat grins, interruptions, disrespectful laughs, and eye-rolling that went on and on and on.  I've seen more maturity in 12 year olds.

Maybe some people are used to this.  I'm certainly not.

Last weekend I attended our church's semi-annual General Conference in Salt Lake City.  We walked past scruffy street protestors with their signs and sidewalk sermons.  Apparently they frequent the entrances of Temple Square, hoping to dissuade anyone they can from the Mormon "cult".  I have to wonder if they have a clue as to the contrast between them, and what we received that day in the conference sessions.  The conference speakers were reverent, dignified, humble, sincere, uplifting, and inspiring.  Not to mention, groomed and dressed in a manner respectful to God's spirit.  The feeling inside was worlds apart from that of the men who toted signs outside on the sidewalk.

Back to the debate -- again, the contrast was stark.  Paul Ryan kept his cool and spoke calmly.  He knew his facts and tried to voice them in between Joe Biden's interruptions and verbal elbowing.   By the end when Biden finally lowered his tone, it was too late for me.  I was done with his circus act.   For me, who is used to quiet maturity in public speakers, as in that conference session in Salt Lake, he was beyond offensive.

Maybe, if your church exposes you to a lot of pulpit-pounding, you found Biden's energy invigorating.  My religion does not.  So maybe my reaction to the debate is just a matter of perspective.  Either way, I was appalled and embarrassed to call this man my vice president.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness..." Exodus 20:16

Two things:  

First -- During the 2008 campaign, it drove me crazy how the Left ignored Obama's obvious side-stepping about his relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright.  He described Wright as a close friend, a mentor, his pastor of 20 years, who performed the Obama's wedding, and baptized their daughters.  No one with a functioning brain would believe that he did not fully know of Wright's anti-America and racist views.  

According to Wikipedia:  "Obama stated that he was aware of Pastor Wright's controversial comments, and had personally heard 'remarks that could be considered controversial' in Wright's church, but denied having heard the particular inflammatory statements that were widely televised during the campaign. Obama was specifically asked by (talk show host) Bill O'Reilly, if Reverend Wright had said white people were bad, to which Obama replied 'no.'  In his book 'Dreams from my Father', Obama had quoted Reverend Wright as saying in a sermon 'It's this world, where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where White folks' greed runs a world in need.'"       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright_controversy


Second -- In 2007, then Senator Obama gave a speech castigating the administration, for its neglect of the Hurricane Katrina victims.  He talked about the Stafford Act which is that the local community is to contribute 10% of the relief funds that it receives from the national government.  In both cases of 9/11 and Hurricane Andrew, that 10% requirement was waived.  Obama loudly railed on the government, insinuating that for New Orleans, the Stafford Act had not been waived.

From the 2007 speech:  “When Hurricane Andrew struck in Florida, people said, ‘Look at this devastation. We don’t expect you to come up with your own money here. Here’s the money to rebuild. We’re not going to wait for you to scratch it together, because you’re part of the American family,’” Obama said.  "What's happening down in New Orleans? Where's your dollar? Where's your Stafford Act money?"

However, Obama does not mention that two weeks prior to his speech, HE WAS AMONG 14 OTHER SENATORS WHO VOTED AGAINST WAIVING THE STAFFORD ACT FOR THE KATRINA VICTIMS.  Nor does he mention that more money was sent to rebuild New Orleans, than for 9/11 and Hurricane Andrew, combined.

It could be said, in Obama's defense, that he was against the legislation to which the Stafford Act waiver was attached.  That legislation was about sending more money to our troops in Iraq and Senator Obama was openly against that war.  Obama knew the legislation would pass and the money would be sent to the Katrina victims, so he was safe to make his anti-Iraq-war statement via his vote.  

However, there is NO excuse for his speech, directed to an audience of black clergymen.  His speech was meant to heighten division and resentment.  He knew Congress had waived the act.  He knew money had been sent to help the victims, with more money to come.  He KNEW he was deceiving those ministers, who would then take his false message back to their congregations.  

And he knew Jeremiah Wright.

(From the Sean Hannity show.)

If the video does not work, here is the link. 

We are followers of Jesus Christ

According to this article, phone calls have been going out to voters in Ohio, asking the question:  "How can you support a 'Mormon' who does not believe in Jesus Christ?"  The calls came from a group called "Catholics for Obama".

The misconception that Mormons don't believe in Jesus Christ has been circulating for too long.  It is incorrect and it stops here.

As you see in the sidebar of this blog, the true name of the Mormon religion is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The very title of this religion bears the name of him whom we believe authored and leads it.  A summary of our doctrine known as the Articles of Faith, starts with, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost."

After numerous online discussions with Christians who are anything but willing to share the Christian title with those of my faith -- just as we are unwilling to share a title with fundamentalists who currently practice polygamy ..... I understand some of their reasoning.  They believe a person is saved once they accept Christ into their hearts, thus making them a Christian.  Christianity, to them, means they have been saved.  Mormons, they say, have NOT been saved and therefore, cannot be Christians.  They say our "version" of Jesus Christ is not accurate, or in other words, we believe in the wrong Jesus.

Please understand ... we believe in the ONLY Jesus Christ of the Bible.  The one who was born of Mary, who cleansed the temple, who called to Peter, James, and John to follow him.  Who walked on water and fed the 5,000 on a few loaves of bread and fishes.  Who was betrayed by Judas, nailed to a cross, and died for the sins of this world.  Who died for me ... and for you.  He is our Redeemer, Savior, and Advocate.  We pray to God the Father, in the name of Christ.  He is the literal Son of God and only through him and his atoning grace, can I return to my Father in Heaven.   If you know of another Jesus, please let me know.

In the Book of Mormon -- another testament of Jesus Christ -- it says, "And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins."  (2nd Nephi 25:26)

Do we believe in Jesus Christ?  

Absolutely we do.