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. 





 

Randy Newman, I thought I had a friend in you.

Who doesn't love this song?

Well, sad to say, Mr. Newman is not my friend.   Here is one of his recent pieces of satire: (Printed lyrics below.)

“I’m Dreaming” Lyrics

George Washington was a white man

Adams and Jefferson too

Abe Lincoln was a white man, probably

And William McKinley the whitest of them all

Was shot down by an immigrant in Buffalo

And a star fell out of heaven

I’m dreaming of a white President

Just like the ones we’ve always had

A real live white man

Who knows the score

How to handle money or start a war

Wouldn’t even have to tell me what we were fighting for

He’d be the right man

If he were a

I’m dreaming of a white President

Someone whom we can understand

Someone who knows where we’re coming from

And that the law of the jungle is not the law of this land

In deepest darkest Africa nineteen three

A little boy says, “Daddy, I just discovered relativity.

A big eclipse is coming

And I’ll prove it. Wait and see!”

“You better eclipse yourself outta here, son

And find yourself a tree

There’s a lion in the front yard

And he knows he won’t catch me.”

How many little Albert Einsteins

Cut down in their prime?

How many little Ronald Reagans

Gobbled up before their time?

I don’t believe in evolution

But it does occur to me,

What if little William Howard Taft had to face a lion

Or God forbid, climb a tree?

Where would this country be?

I’m dreaming of a white President

Buh buh buh buh

‘Cause things have never been this bad

So he won’t run the hundred in ten seconds flat

So he won’t have a pretty jump shot

Or be an Olympic acrobat

So he won’t know much about global warming

Is that really where you’re at?

He won’t be the brightest, perhaps

But he’ll be the whitest

And I’ll vote for that

Whiter than this?

Yes

Whiter than this?

Yes

Whiter than this?

Yes

Whiter than this?

Oh yeah

*****************************

If you disagree with a president with a failing record because of his policies of increasing socialistic government, who happens to be black .... well then it MUST be because of his skin color!  His record CAN'T be the problem!  

(Note:  You might notice, if you watch the video, that -- along with the pictures of Reagan, Bush, Ford, Nixon, etc. -- shots of Carter and Clinton, both white presidents, were not included.  I wonder why.)

Long post made short ....  Ask any conservative Republican this question:  

Which would you prefer -- nine conservative black Supreme Court justices, or nine liberal white justices?

Their overwhelming answer, which says it all, would be the bottom line.  

And Mr. Newman, along with Leftist America, doesn't get it ....  Or he doesn't want to get it.  I'm not sure which.  Either way, a tremendous talent is wasted on perpetuating a lie.

And that was MY bottom line.

The Speech They Think Won Them the Election

I watched as much of the Democratic National Convention as I could stand and in the process, nearly drove off all my facebook friends with my rants.  The potential blogging material that came from it, could fill volumes.  I don't really know how much of it I have time to address.  But I'll start with the speech of former president, Bill Clinton.

Note:  Although he smartly stayed away from the topic of women's rights, that theme was covered repeatedly by other speakers at the DNC.  Bill Clinton deeply hurt the two women closest to him.  And he hurt a much too young female White House aide.  And a number of other women have stepped forward with claims of his unwanted advances, one claiming rape.  Not all of these other claims were pursued legally, yet common sense says when there's smoke time after time after time, there generally is fire.  Add to that, he is a documented liar, and was impeached because of perjury.

Now to his speech, which is overly long, so I'll just draw out some quotes.  His words are in blue.

We Democrats, we think the country works better with a
strong middle class, with real opportunities for poor folks to
work their way into it, with a relentless focus on the future,
with business and government actually working together to
promote growth and broadly shared prosperity.  You see, we
believe that ``We're all in this together'' is a far better
philosophy than ``You're on your own.''

Is he saying that Republicans don't care about others?  That we only care about ourselves?  It's well known that Republicans donate more money, time, and service to charities.  Look at Republican Representative Michelle Bachman, for example.  She and her husband cared for 23 foster children.  Read the speeches given at the RNC about Mitt Romney's selfless service to others.  Does that hold to what Mr. Clinton implies?

Now, there's something I've noticed lately.  You probably
have, too.  And it's this.  Maybe just because I grew up in a
different time, but though I often disagree with Republicans, I
actually never learned to hate them the way the far right that
now controls their party seems to hate our president and a lot
of other Democrats.

Is he kidding??  Remember the hatred towards George Bush?  "Bush lied, people died!"  He was mocked, derided, scorned, and vilified by the Left.   

One of the main reasons we ought to re-elect President
Obama is that he is still committed to constructive cooperation.

Upon hearing those words, I can imagine the looks on the faces of the Republican members of Congress who submitted ideas and proposals which were never used.  Phone calls to the White House which were never returned.  Deals taking place late at night or behind closed doors.  The Health Care Bill, which is the biggest piece of legislation in recent history, happened with very little Republican input allowed.  It was ramrodded through while Democrats had control of both the White House and Congress.  Even the outraged voice of the people didn't deter them.  Remember the town hall meetings?  Congressmen were reluctant to go home and face the wrath of their constituents.

In Tampa, the Republican argument against the president's
re- election was actually pretty simple, pretty snappy.  It went
something like this:  ``We left him a total mess.  He hasn't
cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in.''

Here's an interesting exercise:  Try googling "Bill Clinton and deregulation".  There is a lot of opinion out there that during the last part of his administration, he enacted some legislation that loosened up some banking laws (that were put in place after the crash of 1929) and the business of underwriting loans sprang to life.  This gave birth to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and Sen. Barney Frank's assertions right before the collapse, that all was well.  Now I don't understand it all very well, so I recommend doing the google exercise and see what you find. 

Look at his (Obama's) record.  Look at his record.  Look at his
record.
 
Yes, let's.

They want to cut taxes for high-income Americans even more
than President Bush did.  They want to get rid of those pesky
financial regulations designed to prevent another crash and
prohibit federal bailouts. 

The truth:  Republicans want to simplify the tax code and lower taxes for everyone.  But obviously, for those who pay NO income taxes, their rate cannot go any lower.  And does he mean to get rid of pesky financial regulations, like HE did?

And they want to make enormous cuts in the rest of budget,
especially programs that help the middle class and poor
children.

Classic Leftism:  Scare people with lies and exaggerations about the Right.  Look at what some Republican governors have done in their states.  They loosened the grip of public unions and reduced costly pensions and employee benefits --- allowing them to KEEP the services/programs.  Remember the cries of the teachers' unions when threatened with budget cuts?  "It'll hurt the children!!" they cried.  Instead, by making the changes I just mentioned, no teachers were fired, and the children were unaffected.  

Now -- but he has -- he has laid the foundations
for a new, modern, successful economy of shared prosperity.  And
if you will renew the president's contract, you will feel it.
You will feel it.
.
AKA ...... socialism.

I believe it because President Obama's approach embodies the
values, the ideas, and the direction America has to take to
build a 21st-century version of the American dream, a nation of
shared opportunities, shared responsibilities, shared
prosperity, a shared sense of community.

"Shared":  Code word for some people paying a higher (and continually rising) bill for those that pay nothing.  With the number of people paying the bill, shrinking --- and the number of people who pay nothing, growing.  It's simply not sustainable.

During this period -- during this period, more than 500,000
manufacturing jobs have been created under President Obama.
That's the first time manufacturing jobs have increased sincethe 1990s.

"Obama has claimed an increase of some 500,000 manufacturing jobs over the past 29 months. But this is cherry picking by the president. From the beginning of Obama's term 3 1/2 years ago, manufacturing jobs have declined by more than 500,000, according to the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics. Manufacturing jobs have been on a steady decline for nearly two decades."speech-article-1.1154028#ixzz25tfzAEz

First, individuals and businesses have already gotten more
than $1 billion in refunds from insurance companies because the
new law requires 80 percent to 85 percent of your premium to go
to your health care, not profits or promotion.

Have you seen a refund or a decrease in health insurance cost?  Me neither.  

Romney's plan is "going to end Medicare as we know it."  

Do you really believe this?  Do you really believe that Romney/Ryan plans to "push granny off the cliff", as the ads tells us?  That's absolutely insane!!  Again, the ONE thing that the Left does BRILLIANTLY, is to demonize the Right.  Everything else they touch becomes damaged.  Their message is:  Vote for us because the Right are MONSTERS WHO WANT TO HURT YOU!  It's so ridiculous it's almost funny!  Go here for the other side. 

Now let's talk about the debt.  Today, interest rates are
low, lower than the rate of inflation.  People are practically
paying us to borrow money, to hold their money for them.  But it
will become a big problem when the economy grows and interest
rates start to rise. We've got to deal with this big long-term
debt problem or it will deal with us.  It'll gobble up a bigger
and bigger percentage of the federal budget we'd rather spend on
education and health care and science and technology.  It --
we've got to deal with it.
   Now, what has the president done?  He has offered a
reasonable plan of $4 trillion in debt reduction over a decade,
with $2.5 trillion coming from -- for every $2.5 trillion inspending cuts, he raises a dollar in new revenues, 2.5 to 1.

Feb. 13, 2009, from the White House:  “Today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we’ve long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay — and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/obamas-broken-deficit-promise/

Obama inherited a deficit of 1.3 trillion.  As of 2011, it has remained about the same.  The deficit is the difference between what the government takes in, and what it spends.  It is what grows the debt.  And we all know that the national debt has doubled since he took office.  Therefore, if he failed to do as he promised when he was first elected, WHY should we elect him again?  

President Obama's plan cuts the debt, honors our values,
brightens the future of our children, our families, and our nation. It's a heck of a lot better.  It passes the arithmetic
test and, far more important, it passes the values test.

GIVE ME A BREAK.