Supporters of the Democrats will go on ad nausea over all the stories Bush has told ... but that isn't the point ... or is it? Democrats say they want a change but do exactly that which they accuse Bush of and not during office, but before they even get in to the office. Imagine what the whoppers would be if they actually won.
I will review what McCain has to say about various topics, at some point. I tend to spend less time on his issues or the Republicans because 40% will never believe a word they say and the other 50% do believe much of what they say. I am not interested in beating anyone over the head if they refuse to understand. Whereas that 10% who say they are a Democrat or believe in liberal policies, may be willing to open their minds to the reality of what is told to them as if facts.
In no particular order, promises made by the Democrats - either one at this point, and it does not matter a great deal which one for they both bookend the left side of the spectrum.
- The FEMA director will report directly to the president
Silly statement. FEMA director already reports directly to the president
- New Orleans is pretty much the same as it was in the days after the levees broke
The federal government has pumped in $122 billion, but that wasn't the start of it. First FEMA provided $2000 credit cards to everyone affected. Then came the private charity of over $4 billion.
Take the LA Earthquakes in 1994, Hurricane Andrew, every hurricane in 2004, and all federal funding for 9/11 recovery and that is less than half what the federal government has provided for Katrina.
The answer is not throwing money - we have thrown a great deal, of which several studies have suggested over 12% has been stolen. They don't need more money, they needed a more efficient
Do you have any idea how bloody stupid claims are that the federal government didn't do enough are? Perhaps to ensure 12% was not stolen yes, but 12% is over 14 billion dollars or 65,000 homes. Do you think 65,000 homes would rebuild New Orleans? Given that not all of the homes were destroyed or made uninhabitable to begin with, 65,000 would have more than covered the number of homes that needed to be destroyed.
Then we have the insurance monies, whatever amount they were, and then 4 billion in charity ... dear lord, what would you like - the federal government to rebuild your entire bloody state. Exactly was responsibility does the CITY have in the rebuilding process? What role should the STATE play? And NONE of the dollar figures include CITY or STATE, but it is doubtful they provided any as they quickly pushed it off entirely on to the federal government. The millions in budget funds for levee strengthening - where did it go? Who had no responsibility on the day they collapsed? Who blamed everyone and accepted no responsibility? Who took the federal money and demanded the federal government provide more even while 12% was being stolen by individuals. Who had a police force that disappeared and even before the flooding, had the most corrupt police department in America.
And a politician would go to New Orleans and pretend the federal didn't do enough. Only to the ignorant and stupid.
- Bush has banned stem cell research
There are two types of stem cells. Adult and fetal.
Bush did not prohibit research on the fetal stem cells that already exist.
Bush did not prohibit any research on adult stem cells.
Bush did cut funding to research on NEW fetal stem cell research.
Guess how much discovery has been made on stem cell research in the last ten years?
Now guess which stem cells those discoveries have come from?
- The levees would be rebuilt and made even stronger by 2011
This is a mute point. Had the corrupt governor and mayors of Louisiana not siphoned off millions for who knows where, had all the money allocated been spent on the levees, they would not need to be strengthened.
However, given the billions sent to Louisiana, the levees will be rebuilt before 2011 even without the hyperbole from politicians.
The speaker of the above statement would be able to prance into New Orleans and claim he had something to do with it. Something he is quite good at doing.
- Children's lunch boxes have lead contamination
So Bush is poisoning lunch boxes. Bush has allowed poisoned lunch boxes. We have laws about this. Lead on children's toys came from China as a result of export agreements her husband (Hillary that is) signed. Bush stepped it up, but he didn't start the snowball rolling downhill nor did he tell the inspectors to step aside as lead covered lunchboxes came into the country.
What Bill did do, was to waive and exempt Loral Corporation from national security exemptions and enabled them to sell missile technology to the Chinese that made it possible to launch and nuclear ICBM at the US. A little more problematic than lunchboxes.
- Allowing political appointees to censor scientists on global warming.
This refers to James Hansen.
The same James Hansen that twenty years earlier stated he was certain an ice age was about to appear. The same James Hansen who was receiving a paycheck from George Soros.
He is as credible as Bigfoot hunters, unless you're Al Gore, in which case you have a centerfold of Hansen in your locker at the gym you don't go to.
- Denying the risks of toxins like asbestos in the air after the 9/11 attacks.
Hillary are you 1) stupid or 2) do you just pretend to be stupid or 3) do you just think we are all stupid.
Take the sentence apart - her words, not mine: That Bush (or Bush admin) denied the risks of toxins (like asbestos) in the air after 9/11. AGAIN - Bush denied the risk to workers of particles in the air. Particles akin to the effect of asbestos on the lungs. So BUSH ordered people to deny the risks? Or was it that he wasn't involved in the minutia of the moment and was busy with other issues - like planning the response of the US to Terry Taliban. So Hillary would have Bush intervene directly in decisions by medical officials? But she doesn't want him to intervene when the official is James Hansen? Only when the decision is - the air is not bad, at that point Bush was supposed to know it was bad, stop doing whatever he was doing, and run down and tell them to change their minds.
I think the answer is 3.
- Iraqs Civil War
Problem is ... it is less a civil war than an attack by Islamo-fascists on Iraq. I sorted this one out on Wednesday, February 13, 2008, God willing, it will be the end of al-qaida.
- Bring home the combat troops
Amazing. Do liberals realize just how brain-dead they are? Or do they care. NEITHER Hillary nor Barack will bring home ALL US TROOPS in Iraq. The one issue that drives liberals batty and gets them out to support Barack and or Hillary and neither of them said they would remove ALL US troops. BOTH have agreed and accepted that between 50,000 and 70,000 troops must remain. Some of these may move to Kuwait and the border area ... like 10 seconds and they are in Iraq but for their simple minded audience, the troops would have been removed!! What morons. It honestly says more about the voters than about Hillama.
Under Bush's proposal by the end of 2008, there would be between 75,000-80,000 troops in Iraq.
So ... for the simple people, what is the difference between 50,000 and 80,000 besides 30,000 given the numbers were 165,000. Less than 15% real difference. The entire left wing rose up in unison to defeat the Republicans because of a 15,000 person difference. More votes in California were thrown out during the primary election than exists the difference between Bush and Hillama.
Facts are inconvenient when you are not interested in the truth.
- When we end the war in Iraq we can finish it in Afghanistan.
We have over 25,000 troops in Afghanistan. We are not on fighting in marketplaces as we are in Iraq, instead it is a different field - one fought from the air, space, and troops sent to remove problems when discovered using our technologies. More manpower will not end the problem any sooner. It is not like 100,000 US troops would find bin laden faster than 25,000. In fact, probably slower due to the enormity of the size of forces involved. We know approximately where he is - an area the size of California, but much is in an area neither Kabul nor Islamabad control. Much of it falls in what we define on maps as Pakistan - thus, to sort it all out, we would have to invade Pakistan, an ally. Especially at a time when you want to mend relations with the world, invading an ally that is also a Muslim nation, would set the US back another 200 years and perhaps end in Pakistan falling to the Islamo-fascists.
A slow, steady chipping away works much better. People who blame Bush also tend to fall into the category of those who most likely have failed to understand what the threat is and how it operates and how much they want to kill us more than they want to live. For liberals that sentiment is wholly unknown for most would run at the first sign of a Frenchman chasing them.
One last bit on this - had our military not been ravaged in the early to mid 1990s, we would have many more divisions to send anywhere we might wish.
- Mortgages and funding for those who had foreclosures
No politician can say this but they all know it ... MANY of those people who are in foreclosure and or lost their homes bought the home sometime between 2004-2006. They applied for and received mortgages that had little to no down payment, low monthly payments, and a balloon payment in 3-5 years. These people were fed the crap by their realtors - buy now, live in it for five years and like a majority of Americans sell it, make money and buy up. Instead of getting a 30 year fixed, paying $1200 a month with 22% down on a home, they opted for little to no money down, low payments and a balloon payment at the end of the period they planned on remaining in the home anyway. THEN ALONG CAME THE PIN TO BURST THE BUBBLE. Now they can't sell their homes and the value has dropped and the balloon payment is almost upon them. What to do? Refinance - some did, and ended with higher payments they could not afford. The rest ... foreclosure. Now the politicians want to bail them all out with tax payers money.
- set high standards for our schools
And how would you do this without teacher testing? Ask everyone nicely. Perhaps pay students to go to school!! In addition to the thousands the government spends to educate each student why not spend thousands more bribing them. Pay teachers what they are worth. Says who? According to whom? I think $100,000 is good. And this additional ten gazillion trillion will come from where? And paying the teachers more will set high standards? How? But top the brain dead who simply hear words and emote ... it does sound good.
Setting standards would however interfere with the Teachers Unions and result in no funding from the teachers (lobbyists galore) and neither Democrat would ever agree to tests and standards as in standards in testing and competency. That is a Republican thing.
- Students monthly payments would not exceed a certain percentage of their income
First, Citibank already considers (as does Chase and all Fanny Mae) income for student loans. Second, they want their money back and will work with you. This is really a mute point. You go to college and borrow their money and you have a responsibility to pay it back - when they want it, not when you feel like it. It is very strange that this generation feels it is entitled to a loan and entitled to set the conditions on the loan and when the bank does not agree, you cry and they change their mind and give it to you at the rate you demand. Is there something wrong with this? I like unicorns and rainbows as much as the next person, but it doesn't work that way.
The government may not tell private industry what they may and may not charge, exactly, and Obama is making it seem like he will spearhead a drive to tell companies what their rates are. Yes, he could tell them and they would thank him very much and leave. They would not need to enact anything he suggested. They could lower rates and limit who could receive funding that would again hit the poorest hardest.
- Reduce the influence of lobbyists and special interests
This is one of those stupid statements made for stupid people to hear. There are over 20,000 lobbyists in DC and surrounding areas. They serve a purpose - when legislation arrives on the desk of a congressman, a staff of 4-10 will wade through parts, if that is their area of specialty. You don't have aides who are scholars on foreign policy wading through legislation on birds. So who do you call? Lobbyists appear with cliff note versions of the legislation (that bill of 10,000 pages sitting on the outer foyer table, too heavy to lift and too thick to read). You take all the various cliff note versions that are given and then have staff read them and give you a summary of the cliff note version.
That is how it could work, but often money and dinners and plane trips are part of the cliff notes. Mr Obama couldn't reduce the number of lobbyists if he was God. You cannot prevent people from appearing on your doorstep - 1st Amendment. You cannot possibly, as a Senator or Congressman, read every piece of legislation - you will therefore call someone to give you information. That SOMEONE is a lobbyist. Obama either is stupid or thinks we are too stupid to figure it out. Clearly, for some, they are too stupid to tie their shoes and go hysterical when he recites this litany of change he will bring (which he cannot in this reality bring to Washington, for he has used lobbyists and or didn't vote on most legislation - those are the choices).
- New GI Veterans Bill
This silly malicious idea has been floating about for years and then stories appear about Walter Reed that reinforce lies, but all have a tiny bit that seems accurate. We have all heard the stories of Walter Reed and the issues that place had. All Bush's fault. He doesn't care about the military and that proves it. The problem with Walter Reed is, the conditions were the same under Clinton and he went there many times for photo ops and never a negative word was said. More to the point - the Bush administration has increased funding for the GI bill, increased veterans benefits, increased medical coverage, and generally provided more to the troops than when he took office. So why do we need yet another bill - to do what?
- Make college affordable
This is two parts. First, the two year schools. I can only speak for one college, but a sizable percentage (read this as: many) are on governor's waivers - they pay nothing or near nothing for college. How much more free can it get?
How about college tuition deduction? Well, what do you think - that students will never speak to their parents and or their parents will not admit - they already deduct their child's tuition. The Hope deduction is $2000, raised from $500 under Bill. The Lifetime is up to a $10,000 deduction. Those deductions already exist.
Now the second part of the second part is - deductions.
A very simple and flawed example because I am guessing at many numbers but the point is still valid: Parents make $80,000 a year combined. They receive $3000 child deduction. They receive $5000 mortgage deduction. They receive $3000 deduction for donations and charity. they have other odds and ends - medical insurance payments and costs. So we have $80k, 16k is deducted in taxes. - 3k - 5k for mortgage and then we deal with the tuition ... say $2k on the hope and $5k on the lifetime. They have $15k in deductions and paid $16k in taxes.
Along comes I and offers them a $50k deduction for tuition and unicorn / rainbows deduction.
Question: How much of that $50k can they use?
Answer $1k BUT it won't make any difference anyway because a family of 3 would get more back even without the final $1k deduction taken.
The issue of the refund or rebate or deduction is mute. They know that most people cannot take it and will not and will be unable to ... so they are a) stupid or b) think we are stupid.
I think the answer is B.
- tax companies that ship jobs overseas
great idea, but let's look at how this all began so we understand the ten second answer before we jump to taxing and suing companies.
By the end of Reagan's administration, the ball had been hit into the corner of trade. The EU was a growing economic power and the US saw an advantage to do the same with Canada and Mexico (later it would be with all of the Americas). By Bush 41, this globalization effort was put in to high gear. We need to, they said, because everyone else was. Stupid reasoning. Any parent says this to their kids - would you jump off the building if your friends did? yet, the US, under the control of grown-ups, opted to plow ahead (I will omit their rationale for globalization because it stretches incredulity a bit and by 2000, it most certainly does). Under Clinton, what Bush 41 had started, was pushed over the cliff and we were tied to the globalization engine as it plowed downward. The jobs began leaving by 1993/94 and the giant sucking sound was 98-99, although some jobs had already been sent south between 1993-1997, the largest moved abroad after. Bill believed as does one line of this reasoning, that we can buy our enemies into democracy. We can make them capitalists and then everyone will get along, if we would only trade enough with them. Phooey. That is the silliest of nonsensical ideas. None the less, moving on -
Company A has offices (factories) in 3 countries: US, Mexico, China. It has closed factories in the US, laying off 25,000 employees but has kept its headquarters here while its daily production moves to Mexico and China.
The Democrats think / believe they can change the entire system by taxing the companies that export jobs. They believe in fairies and unicorns as well as leprechauns. Silly Democrats, thats the reason important things should be left to grown ups.
They fail to understand that as long as we have NAFTA and its ancillary forms, we will have the loss of jobs. They also fail to admit to the American people that you can't just cancel NAFTA. Canada is our largest oil exporter and we their largest purchaser. Mexico is number 2. And the Democrats want you to believe we will renegotiate NAFTA or pull out (so said Obama!). Never would happen even if every factory job was lost. Never. And anyone who says otherwise is either lying to you or ignorant of the reality of the situation and does not deserve to get within a mile of the White House.
Setting all that aside - taxing a company for jobs overseas. And what would stop the company from breaking its companies up into two parts. one called Company X and another called Company Y and X remains as a subsidiary of Y while Y moves to Mexico with 20,000 jobs. You can't tax a subsidiary.
They are lying to you because they know all of the above. They cater to our small minds and play off our stupidity, or I am wrong and they are just stupid (in which case they do not deserve to get within a mile of the White House).
- heal and lead this world
Heal the world? Heal the US? Americans? A suggestion to whoever it was that driveled this nonsense. 50% of the country is not interested in you healing anything. The other 50% are interested in fluff, so save yourself the time and simply tell them you healed them and they will believe it.
Heal the world? Millions want no part of your healing, just part of your scalp. The Germans are not interested in hugging. The French will suspect you of lifting their wallet. The English do not hug. The Russians - well, you can't even pronounce their leaders name and or you simply agree with the other person about them. The Canadians - well, you want to reconsider NAFTA so they won't much like you nor want to be healed by your healing waters. Who in the heck is it that needs to be healed????? Honestly. Who. The Iranians? They want to destroy the US if at all possible in ordcer to facilitate their rise in the Middle East. Who, Iraq? The country you want to flee from as quickly as you can pack your bags? Who? Pakistan? One of you wouldn't put aside the possibility of invading Pakistan (which tends to not help with healing) - Si se puede.
- health care affordable - universal health care by the end of the first term
Phooey. Another silly story that is too complex for the candidates and beyond mind-numbingly boring for the constituents. Make it more affordable and available to every American.
- free the nation from the tyranny of oil
And exactly how will this be accomplished?
The US, on average (based on the link above) imports 12,781 thousand barrels of oil into the country per month. In 1991, the average was 7,457 thousand barrels of oil per month.
Wind - hot air blown up your backside
Solar - really hot air blown up your backside
Hybrids - we are already producing record numbers of these vehicles. Orders outstrip supply and they are working as quickly as possible (hopefully) to get the vehicles on the road.
Were we not oil dependent in 1991? So what will these characters do to get us from 13,682k barrels per month down to less than 7,457k? Cut our economy in half? Raise gas prices to $9 gallon? And what would that do? Save fuel? It would provide a burden on the poorest of Americans. Clooney and Gates will still drive whatever vehicle they may choose as will Sarandon and Penn. Will raising gas taxes do anything to make us less dependent on oil?
We need to be less dependent upon FOREIGN oil. We need to use government tax breaks to allow oil companies to explore shale oil on government property throughout the US. There is, by some estimates, more oil in shale oil in the US than has been used or produced since man discovered oil. At $75 / barrel the price for digging and pumping became profitable. SO ... PUSH this exploration. Within 5 years we can be energy INDEPENDENT which is, after all, what everyone wants.
You might also want to consider that since 1991 the population has increased from 248 million to 300 million. 52 million more people and millions more drivers using thousands of more barrels of oil (gas).
Finally, in 2004, the US government increased the size of the federal petroleum reserve and more fuel was needed to fill it up (resulting in a dramatic 15% increase in purchases).
As the population increases, every new person wants to drive a car and use gas. They have, after all, a God given right to drive around because they are American citizens. This number will only increase and oil importas to satisfy the growing user population (READ: immigrants because the naturalized population are not reproducing at the same rates as immigrants enter the country).
All this can be settled if we begin exploring and pumping from shale, using new technologies to extract more oil from near depleted wells, and requiring more consideration from Mexico in terms of oil, as well as from Canada.
We could also work toward undermining and destroying OPEC. There is no reason Non-Opec need to charge the same price. they should be able to charge whatever price they would like, not something set by OPEC. The time of OPEC can be over if grown-ups who want change really want to make a difference.
- investing in an emegency energy fund to help families with the high cost of energy
Better idea. Use $20 billion and provide incentives for people to change their heating systems from oil to electric. That way people using heating oils would not need the immediate costs and would be par with the rest of us for costs. At some point these people chose heating oil for their systems, let them choose electric and provide rebates. It is their home and the value of the home benefits (and the government does not receive any of the benefit) so make it a rebate. They incur part of the cost and the government assists. It would be cheaper than creating a new government agency to oversea funds for the NE of the US.
- raise minimum wage every year
Let's hold hands and sing Kumbaya. let's just for example take someone working a 40 hr a week job being paid $7 per hour = $280 week X 4 = 1120. Taxes - say 20% = $896. Apartment is $750 = $146. Electric and phone = $100 = $46 left for food and everything else. This person is unable to get ahead. He shops at the small corner shop near his apartment building and relies upon others for help. So the Democrats want to increase his wages. Say $9 hr. he would jump from $1120 a month to 1440 = $320 more per month. He can now afford ... well wait a minute. Taxes will increase, providing more revenue to this president to spend (one way to do it without raising taxes and you think they did it because they like you) and that leaves him with $1152 versus $896 or $256 more a month ... except now that the owner of the small shop on the corner has to pay his employees $2 more per hour he has also raised his costs 3%. The restaurant, gas station, grocery store, book store ... all raised their costs to compensate for the increase in wages. This person would end up using over $250 of the increase to pay for increased costs. His net gain would be $6. Until the end of the year when he owes state taxes and would need to borrow money to pay the state.
It is not federal taxes that the poor are burdened with - they get all their federal taxes back. Rather it is the state and the states need more money and will continue to tax and reduce exemptions and there is nothing any Democrat or all Democrats can do to slow this tide from washing over us.
- End homophobia!
With a sweep of the hand and a stroke of the pen. Change social and cultural beliefs. Do you really want the government to tell you what you can and cannot disagree with. This may be fine, but what about the next - whether you can believe in X or Y ... even for good cause.
- Stop racism
And why not end world hunger and bring intergalactic peace. A president does not change social and cultural and racial beliefs. That is NOT the role of president. He is not your minder nor is he your guardian angel. He is the representative of the American people. You really do not want government forcing people to behave in a specific way / manner as much as it may be for the better. Government should not and must not be in every bedroom, every home, every garage, kitchen, office. That is not and must not be the role of government.
- restore our moral standing
Then Bill should not be permitted back into the White House!
- increase number of property rentals in New orleans so the cost will go down
- loan forgiveness for people who give to the community - teachers and others
- there will be no invisible Americans when she is president
Invisible? Does Hillary profess to believe in invisibility? Is she suggesting that among us run invisible people we do not see who conduct mishief and she will put an end to it! Or, those who have quiet voices and are not heard, those who vote - 2.3 million votes in Michigan and Florida, and who do not get their votes counted by the party of Hillary, their voices marginalized, invisible. If this is how she handles invisibility as a candidate, it will be earth shaking how invisible 50% of the country become as president.
- reward schools that graduate more students
Silly rabbit. Education should be left to grown-ups. The word reward caught my attention. And guess what - everyone in my school will graduate even if I have to re-arrange the letters on their report cards myself! And then I will be rewarded. Screw the kids, they can't read but they will graduate. OH but you would have standards and apply tests to determine ... but now you are talking about No Child Left Behind ...
- homeowner relief - tax credit that would cover 10% of their mortgage payment
I think I am pretty simple and typical. My mortgage interest is about $13,000. 10% = $1300. Then what Obama would do is allow that as a credit. The thing is, you can't use more credit than is allowable so if your mortgage credit already maxes out your available credit, another $1300 will not get included. But I will promise it anyway. Bush on the other hand sent out a check in the hand of near that much to some taxpayers. A lot more useful than a deduction you can't use.
- provide all children with a 'world class education' from birth through graduation from college.
Already have part of that promise satisfied. Our universities are the best in the world. But to provide the best education does not just happen. You have to recruit the best teachers. My question is how? And based upon what criteria are they the best? Those requirements imply (at this point) objective facts (which the unions oppose and consequently will never happen as a result). It requires testing of the teachers - that they know their subject and teach well ... and that requires testing which requires exactly what Bush wanted with the No Child Left Behind program. In fact, it is the No Child Left Behind reformulated for Democratic palates.
Perhaps to you the above is the least important points they made ... well, I will add more as I have the energy to wade through the crap and not become too depressed.
Posts
