Monday, May 28, 2012

FOX news without OBAMA.

 Rush Limbaugh won't have a job without Obama, ratings could fall.
Without Obama what would the right wing media do? They would surly go out of business because they won't have Obama to attack any more.

Think the inevitable Obama loses to Mitt Romney , the shock value just wont hit the Democrats . Most of all  it could hurt Republicans . The Right Wing news media outlets would all faultier . FOX news has made it a stable diet on it's shows like HANNITY to constantly destroy Obama . RUSH Limbaugh's radio show wont have any "theme" anymore . Ya Limbaugh would go out of business . A multi -billion dollar industry would collapse in one night if Obama loses in November . Just would would GLEN BECK do ? His books over the last few years were all best sellers , their popular theme "up the ante on Obama" . The anti Obama machine has been a industry of books , conspiracy theories on the evils of a Marxist Obama . FOX news should hope that Obama wins , or else talk Radio just would be boring as hell with nothing to criticize. Remember it was Obama that blamed Fox News for his political woes in a private meeting with labor leaders in 2010, saying he was “losing white males” who tune into the cable outlet and “hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7,” according to journalist David Corn’s new book, “Showdown.”In a more than 8,000-word interview with Rolling Stone Magazine, Obama compared the cable news channel to papers owned by William Randolph Hearst at the turn of the 20th century that unabashedly pushed the media titan's own political views.Of course he hates Fox News. Fox News is moderate to conservative. Obama is left moderate to way left liberal. Fox News calls him on every spending program that he doles out with Pelosi and calls him on his lack of experience for his job. Of which he probably has the least experience for a President in recent (life time) history. No one likes a critic, but particularly when they are faster, smarter and can give a solid reason for their position and you can not give one for yours. It's much easier to just say they are evil and racist a perception of FOX news had become since Obama's election to the Left Wing Media .

OBAMA outspends  Since launching his campaign about 13 months ago, Obama has held more fundraisers than most recent presidents combined, bringing in $233 million from big donors so far. Obama is betting for a second term . Money walks , and you have to be a rich to eat with President Obama . By the way, the price tag for the Clooney-Hollywood dinner was $40,000 a plate. Four times the amount he said gets you “access” that you “can’t imagine.”  It only shows that you can't be an average Joe to run for a public office anymore . Mitt Romney so far has kept low key . Here's a scoop . The Mitt Romney campaign is hopeful an opportunity to dine with Donald Trump will bring in donations. By donating $3 online, people will be entered into a raffle for a chance to have dinner with Trump and the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.
The winner will also stay at the Trump International Hotel & Tower New York and tour the Celebrity Apprentice Boardroom. For a Rich man  Romney has it a bit meager to contrast the millions poring into the Obama campaign. Still Romney has his rich donators  as well . There is much speculation on how much the Mormon Church as poured into his campaign , I would not elaborate it here . Trump although has made some donations to Romney as much as the secretive Soros did for Obama . Stay tuned here!

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Media hysteria.Left & Right.

The News Media has begun to change sides . Mitt looking more positive to the public , while Obama is teetering.

The Media has now begun the shell game of endorsement . Recently Newsweek and Time magazine seem to be doing bio's on Mitt Romney mother, Lenore the focus of the Time magazine article titled, "The Mother of the Mitt Campaign." The article features rare pictures of a 23-year-old Romney and his mom as they hit the campaign trail while he was a college senior. The story tells how the young Romney traveled to every county in Michigan in a blue truck with a Lenore logo on it. The Story in Time magazine is obvious propaganda to help  Romneys image  after the bulling story .  If I am not getting it . The news media  Now seems to be shifting towards the right  The portrait of Obama now in the media  is of a struggling President  . The message for Obama is "Get your act together, buddy, before it’s too late!"  Just a few weeks ago, the conventional wisdom was that the President was virtually unbeatable: game over. Now many media savants and political insiders have spotted an alarming wobble in his victory march back to the Oval Office. “Obama Stumbles Out of Gate,” blared a Friday morning headline on Politico, home base for political junkies of all stripes.In attempting to rally the base and raise money, Obama has moved from one issue to another over the past few weeks. Surely, he needs to articulate a clearer vision of where he intends to take the country and how he intends to kick-start a slowing economy. While Obama is not gay , the media ripped him when he decided to support gay marriage The Newsweek cover that slapped a rainbow halo on the man it called “the first gay president”. It's important how the public perceives a candidate regardless of his or her support of a political issue , but Obama is now being criticized by the same media that made him President of the United States . The Media hysteria has begun. There is another indicator, however, and it is far more reliable. The left-leaning media is getting hysterical, launching over-the-top attacks on Romney and moving to protect President Obama as they see the public turning away from their man.


Here are two questions from the ABC News/WaPo poll:

Q: Regardless of who you support, which candidate do you trust to do a better job handling the economy? A: Obama: 46%, Romney: 47%
Q: Regardless of who you support, which candidate do you trust to do a better job creating jobs?
A: Obama: 47%, Romney 44%

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Sizzle, fizzle IPO.

Mark Zuckerberg. The Genius who made "suckers" out of Investors.

Facebook IPO--Sizzle, fizzle. The "sizzle" side goes something like this: "Are you kidding me? This is huge and everyone got what they wanted. The company got its valuation of $104 billion; Zuckerberg got his $19-plus billion; about 400 millionaires were created; the bankers got what they wanted -- sizzle enough for you? Oh, and Mark and Prsicilla got married the next day. So, say what you like, but this is SIZZLE, baby." Once again, the small investor was taken to the cleaners and they have only themselves to blame. Did anyone think it through before buying into this hyped stock?  This was a classical plumb and dump, only the pump and dumpers didn't even know it themselves.  Even with 900 million subscribers who pay nothing for the right to use it's site, these new tech generation people will jump ship once a new product  comes along or they get to see advertisements every time they check their messages.  Advertisements are going to kill off the goose because Madison Avenue Ad agencies will never be able to justify paying for ads that no one looks at on a 2 inch screen. Facebook and its lead investor, Morgan Stanley did contribute, however.  If they had stayed with the original asking price of $28 and offered a few million shares less, Facebook’s IPO is likely to have result in a modest but healthy success–but a little greed set in. Morgan Stanley s also rumored to to have bought back millions of shares in an attempt to shore up the IPO stock price. What happens to the price when the underwriter starts selling them off again? Facebook’s disappointing public company debut has drawn a great deal of media scrutiny and criticism. But the finger pointing has not been contained just to the front pages of the newspapers. Disappointed investors have also now resorted to the courts, and further lawsuits seem likely to follow.First, on May 22, 2012, an investor who claims to have purchased shares in the Facebook IPO filed a purported securities class action lawsuit in California (San Mateo County) Superior Court against Facebook, CEO Mark Zuckerberg, CFO David Ebersman,   seven outside directors, and 32 offering underwriters.In support of these allegations, the federal court complaint cites a May 19, 2012 Reuters article entitled "Morgan Stanley Was a Control Freak on the Facebook IPO -- And It May Have Royally Screwed Itself" (here) and a May 22, 2012 Reuters article entitled "INSIGHT: Morgan Stanley Cut Facebook Estimates Just Before Facebook IPO" (here). Facebook's IPO appears to have been riddled with insider-trading. 


Well it looks like the companies who thought they were getting in on the ground floor of something big will have to wait instead of the quick turn around and profit taking they envisioned.  I see nothing wrong with the fact the Facebook has been hovering around it initial cost.  It may go way down and then those that bought it at $38 will whine like babies who thought they were guaranteed quick money.  Or, it could go up in time but not quickly.  Anyway I look at it I laugh at all the greedy idiots who have to wait for their money if they get it at all.

Monday, May 21, 2012

Budgetary Considerations.

 The Political Cartoon that appeared in almost every newspaper nation wide , it's too funny , yet so true to our dysfunctional government.
It has been 1,113 days, One THOUSAND, Thirteen Days, since the Democrats in the Senate have passed a budget.  The House, except for the first year under Democat rule, has passed budgets.And it is simply pathetic that Obama submits a budget that does not get ONE VOTE FROM HIS OWN PARTY THE DEMOCRATS.   99-0 and the Democrats have the majority in the Senate.  Pathetic. This is a problem . A BIG problem . We have a Congress so gridlocked that the nation can't get further in adopting a workable bi-partisan budget. Sure The REPUBLICANS want Obama out , so they play possum. The Democrats don't seem to want to help Obama either.There is just a picture on a canvas hanging on the wall . Republicans forced the vote by offering the president's plan on the Senate floor.Democrats disputed that it was actually the president's plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn't actually match Mr. Obama's budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president's numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan. NOW there is a big fight for Obama to pass his tax plan as part of his election campaign,It fleshed out a major theme of his re-election campaign: "economic fairness." Obama wants wealthier Americans to bear more of the burden of slashing a federal deficit that was a trillion plus dollars for a fourth year in a row.The $3.8 trillion budget proposal is a "reflection of shared responsibilities," the Democratic president said at a campaign-style event in Annandale, Virginia, referring to his call for a minimum 30 percent tax on millionaires. 
Of the over $7 Trillion that the Democrats have added to the national debt since they took control of Congress on 1/4/2007, less than $1 Trillion of that debt is in the form of “Intragovernmental Holdings”.
Over $6 Trillion in new debt has been added to “Debt Held by the Public”, MUCH MORE THAN DOUBLING IT from under $4.9 Trillion to over $10.9 Trillion.
Stop for a second and really think about that. The “Debt Held by the Public” (and much of it held by China) has grown by more than 123% since the Democrats took control of the budgeting and spending process less than 5 and a half years ago!

LAST BUT NOT LEAST . It  was reported today that  The owner of China’s largest movie **theater circuit took a big leap forward into the U.S. market, acquiring AMC Entertainment Inc., the nation’s second-largest theater chain, the latest in a flurry of high-profile deal-making between the countries’ entertainment industries. Dalian Wanda Group, a Chinese conglomerate, said in a statement that it had reached an agreement to acquire AMC’s 5,034 screens in 346 theaters in the U.S. and Canada. The Kansas City, Mo., theater chain is owned by several investment firms, including JPMorgan Partners, Apollo Investment Fund and Bain Capital Investors.The transaction is valued at $2.6 billion and would create the world's largest cinema owner, the companies said in a statement.The deal marks the largest investment to date by a Chinese company in the U.S. entertainment industry and gives Wanda a foothold into the U.S. movie theater business in what some analysts viewed as a “trophy” acquisition. American dollars on  communist Chinese-owned theaters, where the American entertainment would be transformed into yet another casualty of the Chinese invasion.
China taking over everything  
And the Americans' shortsightedness and short-term-profit-seeking corporations are making it easier for them.

**  Infrastructure is important, however unlike China, we have an infrastructure, If all he is trying to do is create jobs there are MUCH cheaper ways of going about it and to be honest UNLESS we stop the off shore bleeding of our industrial output, any ‘stimulus, will only get us into deeper problems. He needs to reform regulation that has pushed industry away, not simply throw money at the problem and hope that it will go away. Oh throwing money at it will ‘help’ but not much.

Saturday, May 19, 2012

Bush Tax cuts what they ment for You!

AS the saying goes :
" I am favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for
any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible. " ---Quotable and notable Milton Friedman .
At any rate Bush's long legacy is about to end with a twist that will hurt all of the Americans soon. You don't have to be one of the 1% to bet hit on a different tax rate . The 99 % will be hit just as hard as the 1 % . Blame Congress , and Mr. Obama  ( the next President ) .Specifically, the existing 10% bracket will go away, and the lowest "new" bracket will be 15%. The existing 25% bracket will be replaced by the new 28% bracket; the existing 28% bracket will be replaced by the new 31% bracket; the existing 33% bracket will be replaced by the 36% bracket; and the existing 35% bracket will be replaced by the 39.6% bracket. Right now, the maximum federal rate on long-term capital gains and dividends is 15%. Starting next year, the maximum rate on long-term gains is scheduled to increase to 20% (or 18% on gains from assets acquired after Dec. 31, 2000, and held for over five years). The maximum rate on dividends will skyrocket to 39.6%.
People in the lowest two rate brackets of 10% and 15% currently pay 0% on long-term gains and dividends. Starting next year, they will pay 10% on long-term gains (or 8% on gains from assets acquired after Dec. 31, 2000, and held for over five years) and 15% and 28%, respectively, on dividends. If your Married you will get penalized next year .
Before the Bush tax cuts, a phaseout rule could eliminate up to 80% of a higher-income individual's itemized deductions for mortgage interest, state and local taxes and charitable donations. The rule was gradually eased and finally eliminated in 2010.
Next year, the phaseout will be back in full force unless Congress takes action and the president approves. So, if you itemize and have 2013 adjusted gross income above about $175,000 (or about $87,500 if you use married-filing-separate status), get ready for this phaseout rule to take a bite out of your wallet.
The Mentality fostered on is that the Higher earners should pay for more , and that has been the philosophical turning point for the Obama agenda to raise taxes to pay for "things" . Altogether we should note that our nation is in debt ( 15 trillion ) as we know , and  what better way is to let the Bush tax cuts slip and  burden all Americans. Congress is hog tied , and shackled on how to address  the debt . The spending mentality contributed to a burden of heavier taxation .


The original cuts were approved in large part because the U.S. Treasury was running a surplus back then. However, today's budget deficit, combined with the politicized atmosphere of a midterm election year, mean that any changes before the existing tax laws sunset are not sure things.With that said, realistically, taxes have to go up on everybody, both rich and poor, both workers and investors. We have to pay for what we already spent. Only after we have paid for what we already spent can we start to debate whether we want to be a country of social safety nets or not. If we choose not to be a country of social safety nets, then we can lower taxes on everybody. However, if we want to be a country of social safety nets, then everybody has to pay into it, not just the upper middle class and the rich.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Don't Blame Prop 13 !

 California is not BROKE as we are told , with yearly shortfalls of revenue . It's flushed with Cash and has a high Tax rate.
There has been a lot of debate here in California. Whether to rescind or change Prop 13 . Prop 13 is getting the blame for California's never ending budget shortfalls . But are the facts accurate?Californians pay the highest taxes in the nation. If our money isn't providing the education system you want, maybe it's time to vote for legislators who will, but I won't be holding my breath Here a bit of my own detective work.[T]he state still brings in a lot in property taxes. By 2007, the year of the most recent Census Bureau data comparing state finances, California's state and local governments levied $1,141 in property taxes per capita, less—but only 11 percent less—than the corresponding average, $1,288, for the other 49 states and the District of Columbia. Property-tax revenues in the state have increased from $4.9 billion to $47 billion in the 30 years since Proposition 13 Adjust those figures for inflation and population growth, and property-tax revenues in California were 87 percent higher in 2009 than they were in 1979, chiefly because of rising property values.And even if one tax is limited, others can rise. A recent article in the California Journal of Politics and Policy by Colin McCubbins and Mathew McCubbins shows that, adjusted again for population growth and inflation, total state and local tax revenues in California were higher ten years after Proposition 13's enactment than they were just before—and that they were half again as high in 2000 as in 1978. Census Bureau data show that California ranked tenth in the nation in 2007 in terms of per-capita receipts from all state and local taxes (property, income, sales, and excise taxes) paid by individuals and corporations. Per-capita receipts from individual and corporate income taxes were 64 percent higher in California than they were in the rest of the country: $1,764 in California, $1,077 elsewhere. All told, California's governments received $4,731 per resident from all taxes, 14 percent more than the $4,160 average outside California. [...[E]ven if we confine our discussion to the ten most populous states in the nation, home to 54 percent of all Americans in 2009, California remains a high-tax jurisdiction. Its per-capita taxes exceed not only the national average but those of every other high-population state except New York. [...][N]ot only is California a high-tax state; it is even more conspicuously a high-revenue state. Things that aren't taxes, such as fees for government services, often have a high degree of "taxiness," as Stephen Colbert might say. "Charges and fees have become an integral part of the California budgetary landscape" because they "give the government a revenue stream that is not subject to limitation and hard for voters to track," the McCubbinses argue. [...]
Thus it is that the Golden State, routinely described as desperately short of funds because of Proposition 13, brought in $12,776 per capita in governmental income from all sources—taxes, fees, federal aid, charges for government-administered insurance, and revenue from government-owned utilities—in 2007. This amount was the fifth-highest in the nation and second (again) only to profligate New York among the ten most populous states[.]


If we did not have Prop 13 in-place  today , and you add the high cost of housing and foreclosures, the tax on property would drive home owners out .Attacks on Proposition 13 can be divided into two categories, the semi-serious and the ludicrous.The first category come from those who believe government is entitled to more taxpayer money and there should be no restrictions on government’s ability to get it, such as Proposition 13’s limit on annual increases in property taxes and the two-thirds vote required of both houses of the Legislature to raise state taxes.Also in this group are those who say Proposition 13’s acquisition value system is unfair, in that it means that someone who bought their home many years ago, when home values and wages were much lower, may end up paying less than a new neighbor who is willing to pay more, now that both prices and salaries are higher. These folks usually advocate higher taxes for longtime owners, not tax reductions for new buyers.California's state legislature continues to promote and fund needless and ineffective entitlement programs. No state program, no matter how ridiculous, has ever been eliminated. Don't forget the multitude of state commissions that provide a way for politically connected or termedout legislators to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars a year while doing nothing.

Sunday, May 13, 2012

While We Sit Idly.....................




While We Sit Idly.............

Shortfall in California's Budget Swells to $16 Billion.Gov. Jerry Brown, disclosing the development in a video posted on YouTube, said that California's shortfall was now projected to be $16 billion, up from $9.2 billion in January. Mr. Brown said that he would propose a revised budget on Monday to deal with it.The state budget shortfall in California has increased dramatically in the last six months, forcing state officials to assemble a series of new spending cuts that are likely to mean further reductions to schools, health care and other social programs already battered by nearly five years of budget retrenchment, state officials announced on Saturday. I am a bit astonished that there is a lack of action with the California Government . Sure enough the May Revise may have to be "Revised" to make serious adjustments , but while Gov . Brown sits idly and hopes that his tax hikes on the November Ballot will go through . Meanwhile the deficit continues to grow .

California has another problem with it's gas prices swelling to another 20 cents . The blame here is that the Oil refineries that have to make this special brew of clean fuel . Some of them have been out of whack ( for decades ) so the "gas" that we pump into our cars has to imported from another state with the capabilities of producing this clean fuel . You just tell me , would you think that the State Government would be interested in repairing the oil refineries to make this stuff , and hopefully hire a few Californians to do it? NOPE .The refining companies are similiar to a public utility, because there is no business competition to keep the gasoline price down. Therefore, the refiners have to be tightly regulated by the government, in the public interest, to ensure that there is no price fixing, no price gouging, no fraud, no excessive profiteering, no lax safety standards, no environmental destruction, no public health risks, no collusion, no corruption and no accounting tricks.

The government has to form the California Oil Price Regulation Commission (COPRC), to receive and investigate compliants in the consumers' interest, and to regulate the oil industry. The gasoline price has to be decided by COPRC, after an investigation in the production and transportation costs, and not decided by the refiners and the oil corporations. There are 3.5 billion barrels of oil in the ground in California, so the price of a gallon, should be the same as in Saudi Arabia, about 60 cents. Four oil refineries shutting-down at the same time, wreaks of collusion, excessive profiteering and price fixing. Jerry Brown should look into this. Oil and gasoline is too critical a resource to be manipulated and controlled by greedy refiners and greedy oil corporations.

Friday, May 11, 2012

The BIG bullies.

Political Bullying at it's best. Obama and Romney fair share.
Political mud slinging has taken the turn for the silly.  In  my last Blog posting Obama comes  in full gear to support same sex marriage, oddly the accusation against Mitt comes out right at the moment of Obama's announcement  . The Press will do what it can to demonize Romney . Mitt is the bad guy , as they would want you to believe . I think now Obama's tactic if he is responsible in some way  is a bit unprofessional . How far back can you dig up dirt on a person , just to ruin his or her political carrier ? The press dutifully dug up a story (a mostly false story) that Mitt Romney used to bully gay kids when he was a teenager – but they failed once again to read Barack Obama’s own memoir, Dreams from My Father. In it, he explicitly describes bullying a young girl and shoving her to the ground.The Washington Post is doubling down on its Romney-the-bully story, with multiple columns today dragging the story out, but let's focus on faux-earnest angsting from Ruth Marcus over the "troubling" story:So how to think about The Post’s story of Romney and the purportedly gay prep school classmate he bullied? Recklessness is a common side-effect of adolescence — drinking too much, driving too fast. Meanness is another matter. Yes, teenager are more prone to displaying the primal cruelty of “Mean Girls” and “Lord of the Flies” than their grown-up selves. But the Queen Bees of middle school have an unpleasant tendency to grow into the Real Housewives of Wherever.
Obama describes his bulling from his autobiography  :

“There was one child in my class, though, who reminded me of a different sort of pain. Her name was Coretta. And before my arrival, she had been the only black person in our grade. She was plump and dark and didn’t seem to have many friends. From the first day we avoided each other but watched from a distance, as if direct contact would only remind us more keenly of our isolation. Finally during recess one hot cloudless day, we found ourselves occupying the same corner of the playground. I don’t remember what we said to each other but I remember that suddenly she was chasing me around the jungle gyms and swings. She was laughing brightly, and I teased her and dodged this way and that until she finally caught me and we fell to the ground breathless. When I looked up, I saw a group of children, faceless before the glare of the sun pointing down at us. “Coretta has a boyfriend, Coretta has a boyfriend.” The chants grew louder as more kids circled around us. “She’s not my girlfriend,” I Stammered. I looked at Coretta for some assistance but she just stood there looking down at the ground.”

It is absolutely incredible that the Washington Post and the liberal media thinks they can make an issue of this. They will try just about anything and pretend they are upset about it or it is a big issue. Here, they say with a straight face that a little prep school rough housing (which was a mean thing to do) 50 years ago was significant, while Obama as the same stage of his life was doing cocaine and a truant from school, yet not a word. I love it when the conservatives go to Obama's book (that everyone loved and no one read) to find counter points on the dog and now the bully issue.

Well, Obama just got bullied into supporting gay marriage by his young daughters, so he apparently is still vulnerable to middle school students. Thank God the Putins of the world are NOT middle school students, or we'd be screwed.... 
 The pretend world is so interesting sometimes. Like a movie where you agree tacitly to suspend reality for the moments that allow fiction. No reason at all to doubt the incident being described, but you know how you get a distinct voice from the things that you read and this is not even close.

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Flip- Flop .

Moreover, the President was receiving pressure not only from his gay and lesbian supporters but also from a broader progressive community of Democrats for whom marriage equality has become an important test. The President is going to run for reelection and ask for people’s votes because of his leadership qualities as compared to those of Mitt Romney. That narrative was not sustainable while he maintained a muddled position on civil rights.

Sure Enough Politicians play the game of Flip Floping . Joe Biden opens his mouth in support for Gay Marriage . Obama goes and does the same  flip. Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage is an election-year boost to his liberal base that comes with some risks. Obama, after all, had good reasons to resist this shift up to now. Those had everything to do with his reelection, rather than his personal feelings on a matter that many Americans (and presumably the president) have regarded for some time as a civil right. .The move is likely to hurt him in the South. One in three Southern swing voters are strongly opposed to gay marriage, a recent Pew Research Center poll found.  Just this week, North Carolina, which Obama carried narrowly in 2008, approved one of the toughest bans on same-sex unions in the country. If the switch on same-sex marriage ends up costing him states in the fall, North Carolina will be the first place to look. It leaves  Mitt Romney who fought the legalization of same-sex marriage when he was governor of Massachusetts, said Wednesday that his stand on that “tender and sensitive topic” had not changed.“I have the same view that I’ve had since running for office,” the presumptive Republican nominee for president told reporters at a campaign stop in Oklahoma City .But if the election is close, small things will add up.  Obama was forced into accelerating a step he preferred to avoid after Joe Biden blurted out his support for same-sex marriage on a weekend talk show.  The vice president’s departure from the company line only served to make Obama’s reluctance look more calculated — at further cost to his already badly tarnished reputation as a different kind of politician..

Regarding Same Sex Marriage, it was never endorsed by the Roman's in Ancient times , it was an all too taboo subject to the Ancient Romans  and a public disgrace  . On this subject line I feel that Obama is after every vote he can so he would get a second term . He's got all the Women for sure , the Young adults and the Gays . He lost most of his Senior Citizen support . I don't care for Same Sex unions . If the State Can't Recognize Polygamous Unions   . Why should it bother recognizing a Wedding between two Men? . A further statement the Government needs to stay out of the Bedroom .The historical argument made stating that the purpose of marriage is procreation also needs further examination. The Aristotelian argument isn't the first and original thought on the purpose of marriage. If we want to look earlier to Plato and Socrates, they posited that the purpose of marriage was procreation for the purpose of the state (i.e. raising an army). The element of the "mutual support of spouses" didn't appear until the works of John Locke. So with the fact that these (what we can understand to be) "core values of marriage" did indeed not used to be as such. Locke was also one of the first to support that a woman has as much right to void a marriage, as both members of the contract must be on equal footing.

Overall, the one TRUE "foundational" element of marriage is that its facets have changed over time, so to make the argument that another change destroys the entire thing is completely unfounded because it is not exactly the stoic social institution that it appears to be.
Every single time a vote has been placed in front of the citizens in any State that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman, it is approved. It happened again yesterday in North Caroline. It happened twice in California. Obama has just guaranteed himself a terrible loss in the elections in November. Most African-Americans despise homosexual marriage. This will go down in history books years from now as a terrible error of judgment by a sitting USA president who lost by a landslide.  

Monday, May 7, 2012

Presidents on Recessions

Obama wins the nomination from the Democratic Party , while his first term in office has not produced any lasting results to the American economy  .
History has marvelous pointers to what's ahead .Despite facing such vaunted opponents as boot-as-hat wearer Vermin Supreme — an early favorite among the Democratic Party's small but active boot-as-hat-wearing contingent — incumbent President Barack Obama managed to clinch his second presidential nomination last night after securing a majority of his party's delegates with wins in the Washington D.C. and Maryland primaries. Though Obama's road to the nomination this time around was noticeably smoother than it was in 2008, it was not completely free of potholes. Obama's viability was severely tested in Oklahoma, for example, where he lost nearly a third of the vote to crooner Randall Terry and possible California Gold Rush participant Jim Rogers. Nevertheless, Obama is now assuredly moving on to the general election, which is expected to be slightly more competitive. President Obama did inherit an economy from Bush that was chronic  and war situation that may not had been his own making . Yet did Mr. Obama make it worse than it was under Bush ? I am going to say it  this way to the readers Obama tried to fix it , and in the long run fumbled it . From 2007 to 2010 Obama had the prime opportunity to to muster the Democratic troops into action , since the House and nearly the floor of Capital Hill was under Democratic control . President Obama pushed his over belated and confusing Health Care Affordable Act  first , and many months were squandered  debating the Bill and ignoring the Federal Budget which should have been passed three years ago . It's hard to make my case for the man for a second term . I would jumped if he done a Job's bill first to address the nations Unemployment rate . Health Care reform should have been addressed with a national debate first , and a Congressional debate second. I believe this would have made it possible for a bipartisan working conditions that are now impossible since the takeover of Congress by the Republicans .If you were a true Obama believer during the 2008 campaign, the address Tuesday had to have a hollow ring when listened to against the backdrop of three years of actual experience under an Obama administration The $787 billion stimulus didn’t stimulate. There weren’t any shovel-ready jobs. Obamacare, unpopular on the day it was enacted, is even more unpopular today. Rather than thousands of new “green energy” jobs as promised in previous State of the Union addresses, in 2011 we got instead a half billion dollars worth of Solyndra going down the drain. Instead of topping out at eight percent as promised by Obama, unemployment went considerably above that ceiling where it stubbornly remains. And as if these disappointments are themselves not bad enough, they are made worse for having played out against an unprecedented and truly frightening explosion in the national debt. . Perhaps Obama tried to save the Home Owners from foreclosure .An expansion of a previous refinancing program, the Home Affordable Refinance Program, which only applied to homeowners with government-backed mortgages, Obama's new plan would also cover loans issued by private mortgage lenders, the Associated Press reported.Roughly 1 million Americans have already refinanced under HARP, but because about half of all mortgages in the U.S. are owned by private lenders, the number of homeowners eligible to take advantage of the program was limited. Currently more than 11 million homeowners owe more on their mortgage than what their home is worth, according to some estimates.
 For his part, the President’s personal popularity is unparalleled. Fully seven-in-ten voters approve of him personally, including a solid 56% majority who approves of him strongly. Obama’s strong personal approval outpaces Romney’s overall approval (55%); only 29% of voters strongly approve of Romney. Obama’s approval transcends traditional gender, age, racial, educational, and ideological divides—even earning the approval of 43% of Republicans. Romney has far less crossover appeal, still nursing the wounds of a particularly nasty primary battle—including among such swing constituencies as moderates Today, the vote is driven by Obama’s job performance ratings (48% approve, 48% disapprove) much more than his personal approval. Ninety-two percent of those who approve of the President’s job performance vote for him; 92% of those who disapprove of his performance vote for Romney. Among those who are unsure of the job he is doing, 40% vote for Romney, 30% vote for Obama, and 30% are undecided. The way for Democrats to win is to make this election a clear choice.

  It's no surprise that the Historical data shows us that Republicans have run the country during a recession .The public will be flooded by a GOP tsunami of rich-funded propaganda intended to make them forget what the last eight-year failed Conservative Republican regime did to the American working class, our military, and the world. Notice that Bush-Cheney are NEVER mentioned in Campaign 2010 or so far in 2012, which speaks loudly. They want you to forget the Wall St. subprime loan fraud meltdown and the Bush Great Recession we are living with today--the $15 trillion taken from Americans' household wealth--the four million jobs lost during the last half of 2008, the 2.5 million jobs lost before the ARRA stimulus was even passed, the 740,000 jobs lost in 1/09, the Bush DOW at 7,949 left behind, the two, unpaid-for wars, combined at 20 years that have killed and wounded our soldiers and saddled America with lifetimes of war bills, suffering for veterans and their families, and costly VA healthcare projected to cost $5 trillion.The so-called "liberal media" never mentions that one reason there are so few jobs is that, besides the economic collapse of Wall St. with the lost jobs and closed businesses, that under Bush-Cheney, five million manufacturing jobs were shipped overseas. You don't see the newtworks listing or pointing out companies who ship offshore, no mention of the corporate tax dodges like Apple who made record profits and paid just 9% with tax dodges and overseas shelters. Notice that Republicans always complain about high corporate tax rates of 35% yet only an few small business actually pay the top rates not General Electric or Exxon-Mobile who pay no federal income taxes.The media also NEVER mentions that it was the housing market that has brought America out of previous recessions though but are not available now. Under Reagan, which the GOP love to tout, he took a National Debt through Carter of less than $800 billion and tripled it with government-created jobs and defense contracts and massive tax breaks, while cutting welfare and social programs--all of which benefitted the few at the expense of many. GHW Bush added to the National Debt and GW Bush more than doubled it, again, with their massive military spending and war profiteering which the Republicans and Romney want to keep going for the few while cutting programs for the poor and needy, women and children, and elderly. They and their spiritually blind, rich wannabe disciples are morally bankrupt and a huge opposition to Pres. Obama is not policies, which have benefitted the working class, but racism and bigotry. Fortunately, thre is a God that knows all about it.

start end months President Party Number Months into term when started
1899--1900 recession 6/1/1899 12/1/1900 18 McKinley Republican 32
1902--04 recession 9/1/1902 8/1/1904 23 Roosevelt Republican 24
Panic of 1907 5/1/1907 6/1/1908 13 Roosevelt Republican 80
Panic of 1910--1911 1/1/1910 1/1/1912 24 Taft Republican 9
Recession of 1913--1914 1/1/1913 12/1/1914 23 Taft Republican 33
Post-World War I recession 8/1/1918 3/1/1919 7 Wilson Democrat 64
Depression of 1920--21 1/1/1920 7/1/1921 18 Wilson Democrat 80
1923--24 recession 5/1/1923 6/1/1924 14 Harding Republican 26
1926--27 recession 10/1/1926 11/1/1927 11 Cooledge Republican 49
Great Depression 8/1/1929 3/1/1933 55 Hoover Republican 5
Recession of 1937 5/1/1937 6/1/1938 11 Roosevelt Democrat 49
Recession of 1945 2/1/1945 10/1/1945 8 Roosevelt Democrat 142

Recession of 1949 11/1/1948 10/1/1949 11 Truman Democrat 42
Recession of 1953 6/1/1953 5/1/1954 10 Eisenhower Republican 5
Recession of 1958 8/1/1957 4/1/1958 8 Eisenhower Republican 56
Recession of 1960--61 4/1/1960 2/1/1961 10 Eisenhower Republican 87
Recession of 1969--70 12/1/1969 11/1/1970 11 Nixon Republican 11
1973--75 recession 11/1/1973 3/1/1975 16 Nixon/Ford Republican 58
1980 recession 1/1/1980 7/1/1980 6 Carter Democrat 37
Early 1980s recession 7/1/1981 11/1/1982 16 Reagan Republican 7
Early 1990s recession 7/1/1990 3/1/1991 8 Bush Republican 19
Early 2000s recession 3/1/2001 11/1/2001 8 Bush Jr Republican 3
Late-2000s recession 12/1/2007 6/1/2009 18 Bush Jr Republican 83


263 Total Months


61 Total Months

Republicans Led 17 of last 23 US Recessions

Friday, May 4, 2012

Brown Rice.

 We've all seen this before. Children protest state budget cuts to education at the California State Office Building Thursday, March 1, 2012, in San Francisco. A coalition of student and labor groups called ReFund California organized protest actions on about 30 University of California, California State University and community college campuses. The campus rallies are a prelude to a major “Occupy the Capitol” march and rally in Sacramento on Monday.
The anticipation is just about to rumble from Sacramento Ca , Later this month, Gov. Jerry Brown will release what Capitol types call the "May revise," which will update and alter, perhaps sharply, the initial 2012-13 budget he proposed in January. That will touch off several weeks of intense, and mostly secret, negotiations among Brown, Steinberg, other legislative leaders and lobbyists for myriad budget stakeholders, culminating, assuredly, in passage of a budget on or before June 15. ( Ha Ha . Late for sure ) It certainly won't happen before June 5, primary election day. With many legislators running in much-changed districts, sometimes against one another, and with a new top-two primary system in place, nobody – particularly no Democrat – wants to cast budget votes until after primary ballots are counted. However, the bigger complication is the mathematical fact that the state's current and projected revenues are running many billions of dollars behind the state's supposed spending commitments.Brown's January budget assumed that the current budget would close on June 30 with about a $4 billion deficit, plus another $5 billion gap in 2012-13. But since then, revenues have fallen behind, so the two-year deficit will be at least $12 billion and perhaps much higher because revenues are weak and spending is over budget .Brown wants schools to take the big hit if the measure fails – hoping, of course, that looming classroom cuts will motivate voters to pass his plan since education is the most popular government expense  . Here's the way the "system" works:  The legislature or public (via Proposition) create a new program and fund it will a tax or increased tax (say cigarettes or alcolhol as an example).  This works great in the beginning.  Then when people cut back on buying cigs or alcoholic beverages due to cost or they just quit, the revenues begin to decline. Because we (the legislature) don't want to cut these "wonderful programs" funding need to be propped up by 1) again increasing the tax on cigs or alcoholic beverages (again an example), or 2) by paying for it out of the general fund, which means that some other programs or budget items get cut.If the first option doesn't happen, then it's option 2.  The Dem's will tell the public that they will have to reduce education or highway funding to pay for it knowing that these are hot button items for the voting public who will generally agree to a tax increase over cuts in these items, whether true or not. The solution is quite simple.  Each an every program created must have a "sunset provision" at which time it must be approved by the legislature or voting public (based on how the program was created), and must have the funding mechanism identified as part of the approval process.  

Thousands of California teachers were given layoff notices a few weeks ago because state law requires the slips to be sent out each spring if administrators and trustees believe cuts are needed to balance their budgets.
Later this month, the districts must decide whether to continue or rescind those layoffs on the assumption that by then they'll know the state of their 2012-13 finances.This year is even worse than usual. The 2011-12 budget assumed revenues that everyone knew at the time were most likely falsely optimistic and that has proved to be the case. The 2012-13 budget now being formulated will assume that voters pass Gov. Jerry Brown's tax package in November, and he's hinging passage on the false assertion that it will give a big boost to schools.
As the Legislature's budget analyst and others have pointed out, passage of taxes would give K-12 education only $2.2 billion to catch up on some deferrals, not any new operational funding.
But if taxes are rejected, Brown wants school districts to lose that and another $2.4 billion, and also be forced to eat $2.6 billion in school bond payments now paid out of the state general fund. The total hit would be $7-plus billion, or more than $1,000 per pupil.

Read more here:

Read more here:
"But since then, revenues have fallen behind, so the two-year deficit will be at least $12 billion and perhaps much higher because revenues are weak and spending is over budget."
The last controllers update stated:
"The State ended last fiscal year with a cash deficit of $8.2 billion. The combined current-year cash deficit stands at $21.5 billion.  Those deficits are being covered with $15.1 billion of internal
borrowing (temporary loans from special funds) and $6.4 billion of external borrowing."
So yes it is a lot worse than the democrats are stating and they keep doing numbers games and internal borrowing to try to hide it from the public. The democrats have refused to even acknowledge the problem so I don't see any hope for our state until we have a complete collapse.

Read more here:

Read more here:

Read more here:

Read more here:

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Sneaked Diplomacy .

Obama's sneaked into Afghanistan to Praise the Troops and Sign deal with a 'weak and corrupt Afghan Government '. Was it all just a publicity stunt?
English Word : Diplomacy (from Latin diploma, meaning an official document, which in turn derives from the Greek δίπλωμα, meaning a folded paper/document) is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states. 

Obama probably pulled the greatest stunt ever seen   . Yes , Obama thanked and re-thanked the troops , yes our Armed forces deserve more , but Do you remember when Bush flew on board an aircraft carrier and announced  "Mission Accomplished".  Let's be clear: Flying abruptly to Kabul to announce that the end "is now within our reach" against a backdrop of military vehicles on the anniversary of Osama bin Laden's death is nothing like landing on a carrier bearing a "Mission Accomplished" banner to say you've whupped the Iraqis.. As President Obama's top aides were at pains to stress, there were compelling strategic reasons for him to go to Afghanistan that had nothing to do with 2012 politics.Or is it? But facts are facts and they can't be papered over. Like the fact that his withdrawal from Iraq was not his choice. He tried to avoid it.  The US military got booted out. In Afghanistan the war is far from over  despite Obama's unilateral declaration. ISAF has been unable to shift any of its declining forces to the east where they are needed to halt Taliban encroachments because the south is still unspecified,  the Afghan security forces are worthless and the Afghan government is totally corrupt.The 0bama regime is not even subtle about this being a campaign commercial. How much of the US is going to swallow this bilge as 0bama signs away tens of billions of dollars of US aid to an Afghan regime that is going to end up being a future Dictatorship?  The Meeting with Karzi and the signing of an agreement is the sure sign that more US dollars will go to the Karzi government . Obama stated that there will be no US bases , but America has had bases in Kabul and various parts of Afghanistan for 10 years . Reducing the troop numbers won't actual mean that America will leave .The Strategic Partnership Agreement sets the stage for a US military presence in Afghanistan well into the future, with an as-yet unspecified number of US troops remaining in Afghanistan to support the Afghan security forces and carry out counter terrorist operations  .That will still leave about 65,000 US troops in Afghanistan – a number that could remain stable until after the November election..What strikes me about Obama's speech was how many times he called himself "Commander in Chief". Not out of disrespect for The Man , I feel that he was trying still to get credibility with the American public that he is in charge  .Mr Obama should take credit for getting bin Ladin; if he hadn’t ordered the operation it never would have happened. His level of courage is at least as high as the SEALs who went on the mission, for he was ultimately responsible and would have been impeached if it had failed. Not one active duty SEAL has criticized the President’s comments-don’t you think that they would have spoken out if they disagreed with him? 


Obama called it the “good war” and Iraq, the “bad war”… then, he gets into office and takes credit for Bush’s withdrawal agreement from Iraq, and bungles the withdrawal so badly, Maliki doesn’t even take his calls or attend the final handover ceremony. Next, he sits down with his generals and refuses ALL of their advice on Afghanistan, literally writing his battle plan on six sheets of legal paper and ordering his generals to execute it. Of course, it fails. So now, Obama is going to Afghanistan to negotiate our terms of surrender and withdrawal – and will take credit for leaving, but not for the failure that preceded it… and, of course, ignoring all the women in Afghanistan that will now be oppressed again by the Taliban. They will have to wear veils again, give up their jobs, and not be allowed in public. The fact that he and his minions will try and spin this as some sort of success, is as sickening as it is expected.