Syte Reitz

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world…….

Browsing Posts tagged Clint Eastwood

To My Friends Who Are Democrats…

(See former Hillary Clinton aide postscript at end.)
Pitching politics has been counter-intuitive for me for most of my lifetime.

I have never belonged to one political party, and still refuse to join one.
I refuse to be a groupie following one charismatic individual, and I do not relinquish my free will to control by any organization or group.
Admittedly, I have been quite conservative most of my life; although there have been exceptions to that, too, particularly during my college days.

A Realistic View

My view of politics is a realistic one; nothing’s black, nothing’s white. Nobody is 100% right, nobody is 100% wrong. I like to enquire, to think, and to adopt the best of what everyone has to offer. That includes ideas from more than one political party.

The United States seems limited to two major parties.  Not a bad system, from the viewpoint of avoiding governance by a minority, smaller than 51%.  Since one party is not likely to encompass all the ideas of a particular individual, we have to weigh the pros and cons offered by the two major parties at each election, and choose the party that satisfies our most important considerations at that historical time.

But Aren’t You a Republican?

Anybody reading this blog must have noticed that my writing seems to be very pro-Republican in 2012.  But those who read carefully will notice that I rarely use the word Republican. I rarely use the name Romney.  Instead, I use the word conservative.

What About Most Americans?

Few Americans are extremists.
Few people are radically conservative or radically liberal.
Most of us are in the middle.
Even those who are quite conservative, like me, believe in the right of others to reject my beliefs. Religious Christians respect the gift of Free Will given to us by God, and we respect the freedom guaranteed to us by the Constitution of the United States.
Few liberals are callous, insensitive to the bankrupting of America, or to the extermination of 54 million unborn American citizens by abortion, a problem particularly affecting black communities.
Few conservatives are callous, insensitive to the plight of the poor, or to the horrors of war.

Most Americans appreciate that good people can view things from different perspectives, and those who disagree with us probably have noble motivations.  Even if we believe that our opponents have their facts mistaken, we can admire them for their dedication to justice and to fairness, which we share.

Most Americans are independent in spirit, and have voted for candidates from both political parties over the years.
For many years, the differences between Democrats and Republicans were not overwhelmingly large; both supported Judeo-Christian principles, and both supported the rule of law as outlined in the Constitution of the United States.  Did you know that as recently as 1999, Harry Reid opposed abortion?  So did Joe Biden, Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy.

But 2012 is different.

What’s Different in 2012?

Barack Obama is the difference in 2012.
Barack Obama, unlike previous Presidents, and unlike most Americans and most liberals, has shown himself to be a rigid, inflexible idealist.

The unification, transparency, and justice that he promised, and on the basis of which he was elected, have been replaced by a dictatorial, extreme and unaccountable set of policies, executed by czars, which have pushed America into gridlock.
His policies and mandates do not follow the rule of law.

President Obama’s ideals don’t represent those of most liberals or most Americans, yet he tries to mandate compliance with his ideals.  He issues mandates without approval of the House, Senate, or Supreme Court.  When the legislature refuses to pass what President Obama wants, he bypasses them with a mandate. Then he promises Vladimir Putin that he will have “more flexibility” after this election.

How Has Barack Obama Reneged On His Promises and Violated the Rights of Americans?

President Obama has reneged on a number of the duties to which he was sworn at his inauguration, and on a number of campaign promises he made in 2008.

Barack Obama has imposed his will on our country in many areas:

  • Morality and Freedom of Conscience
  • Economy
  • Prospects for Students
  • Foreign Policy
  • Immigration

Morality and Freedom of Conscience

Barack Obama has ignored the opposition of 2/3 of America on federal funding of abortion, and has even gone beyond federal funding of abortion, forcing Catholics to pay for the contraceptives and abortifacients of others.  He has dismissed the concerns of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), and has ignored lawsuits filed by 43 Catholic organizations.  The courts are now starting to strike down this unconstitutional mandate.

Barack Obama’s radical and unfettered promotion of unrestricted abortion free of charge has elicited the protest of numerous moral leaders, including Catholic Bishops, the 94 year old Billy Graham, Jews, Baptists, and numerous other Christian churches.

Such a radical promotion of abortion and contraception no only renders our society inhuman from the point of view of morality, but also has economic consequences, since shrinking and aging populations will face rapidly mounting debts.

Abortion is already a much, much bigger deal than most think. Under Barack Obama, abortion will be taken to unprecedented levels.
Against the wishes of 2/3 of America.

Economy

Barack Obama has not passed a single budget in four years, and submits budgets to the legislature so unrealistic, that they get ZERO Democrat votes in the Senate, which is held by Democrats.
Sometimes it appears that the President doesn’t understand the math.
Recently, he admitted on national television that he struggles with 7th grade math.  This cannot be good.

Barack Obama has raised the national debt by 50% in just 4 years with his spending, creating a per capita national debt of over $50,00 for each of us, when it was just $33,000 four years ago. Since only half of us pay any federal income tax, that means a per capita debt of about $100,000 for each person who pays federal tax, and a per household debt of over $250,000 in the United States today.  Since the average household income in the United States is $50,000, that’s already quite a debt, a debt of five years income for each of us.  If Barack Obama is reelected, the national debt is projected to go up an additional 47% over 10 years, bringing the household share of the national debt to over $375,00.  That will be a debt of seven and a half years income for each of us ten years from now.  If you think you have paid off your mortgage by then, you can start a new mortgage on a $375,000 house.  That’s for the average family earning $50,000 per year.  If your income is higher, your extra debt will be higher.

Scrooge McDuck

Quite some plan Barack Obama has for us, considering that our per capita national debt is  already worse than Greece’s today, at the outset, right now.

Barack Obama’s plan to tax the rich is so naive that it betrays the fact that he struggles with 7th grade math.  There are not enough rich people in America to get appreciable income from increasing their taxation, and his recent proposal would require DOUBLING the taxes of all people earning $250,000 per year; a move that would wipe out the ability of small businesses to hire workers or to expand.  The President seems to be reading too many comic books.

(Dismal) Prospects for Students

Already, 53% of recent college grads are jobless or underemployed. Considering the fact that the average graduate faces $27,000 in loan repayment, and the fact that the average college grad starting salary is $44,000, this does not spell good news for college grads or their families.  College students are demoralized, they do not want to live in their parents’ basements, and the parents do not need to face supporting unemployed adults instead of saving for retirement.

The jobs these students would have been getting in the absence of Obama’s naive policies are destroyed by ObamaCare costs for employers and Obama’s intention to double taxation on small business owners, who will not hire and expand.

Barack Obama insults the intelligence of these young people by offfering them free abortions and free birth control pills (value $500 and $9/monthly) in exchange for their votes, in return for a future of unemployment, debt and low pay.  With poor people, he tries to buy their votes with free “Obama-phones.” 

Foreign Policy

In the light of recent events in Benghazi, the most positive possible interpretation of Barack Obama’s negligent actions in failing to protect our Embassy staff would be that he did not provide security for the Benghazi because he did not expect anyone in Libya to touch Americans, perhaps because we are such nice people.  Can anyone be that naive?

Barack Obama acted as though we are in Libya handing out candies to trick-or-treaters, and he did not expect them to come out wielding knives, or heavy weapons such as the ones which were used against the Benghazi embassy – automatic weapons, mortars and rocket propelled grenades.  When caught criminally unprepared, coverup followed.

An even less flattering explanation of Barack Obama’s actions would include Obama sacrificing our global standing intentionally.  Obama has been accused of an anti-colonialist mentality, which considers that the US needs to be downsized globally in it’s lifestyle, it’s power and it’s wealth.  The movie 2016:Obama’s America documents these claims by Dinesh D’Souza, a University President who bases most of his claims on Obama’s autobiography, Dreams of My Father, as well as research into Obama’s life. 2016: Obama’s America is showing in theaters now, has grossed more than $33.45 million in the United States.  The movie is now the second biggest political documentary in film history.  Yet this record-setting film is virtually being ignored by the mainstream media, which protects Obama from criticism routinely and shamelessly.

Another less flattering explanation of Barack Obama’s actions would include accusing him of intentionally reducing US Power because of the secret Marxist ideology taught to him by Marshall Davis, a Communist Party USA propagandist who is mentioned in Obama’s autobiography .  This theory is based on the documented fact that Obama’s mother posed for pornographic photos taken by Marshall Davis, who, it is suggested, could also be Barack Obama’s father.  These suggestions are explored by the movie Dreams from my REAL Father, which can be watched instantly on Netflix.  If you have not seen this film, I suggest you watch it this weekend, before you vote.

Finally, a third movie, The Hope and the Change, is available to watch for free on Hulu at http://www.hulu.com/watch/409925.   The Hope and the Change is a documentary about independent and Reagan Democrat voters who cast their ballots for Obama in 2008 and will not do so in 2012.  These voters feel betrayed by Obama’s false promises of hope and lofty rhetoric.

.

Immigration

Barack Obama has refused to enforce immigration laws at the US border with Mexico, and has sued Arizona when Arizona tried to enforce laws themselves. In this, and other areas, Obama has failed to defend the Constitution of the United States and to enforce its laws.
He has demonstrated a naivete in economics and in foreign policy that has placed our nation  in tremendous danger.

The Point

So the point is: Barack Obama is not your normal Democrat.
Barack Obama does not respect the voice of the American People, 2/3 of whom oppose ObamaCare, 2/3 of whom oppose federal funding of abortion, and 2/3 of whom oppose Obama’s recent violations of the religious liberty of Catholics.
Barack Obama does not respect the division of governmental power between Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches.
Barack Obama does not respect his own promises of 2008.
Barack Obama is not who he told us he was.
Barack Obama does not plan to work with all Americans, he just plans to continue pushing his extreme agenda, with which even Democrats disagree.

What To Do

Take Clint Eastwood’s advice; let Barack Obama go.
Mitt Romney’s campaign has been based on love of America, and on pragmatism and cooperation which can end the gridlock. He’s demonstrated his ability to work across the aisle as Governor of Massachusetts.
The election of Mitt Romney would give the Democratic party, which used to represent more moderate views, an opportunity to regroup and respond to the will of the American people.

 

PostScript: A former Hillary Clinton aide Gigi George is backing Romney because:

“For most of my life, I’ve been an active Democrat. I am proud to have worked for President Bill Clinton and then-Senator Hillary Clinton, and, during that time, I saw firsthand what can be accomplished by strong, bipartisan leadership. I know what it means to work across the aisle on issues that are important to the American people. And that’s why I am supporting Mitt Romney. Governor Romney has a plan to restore the prosperity this country deserves and expects. He will work with people of good will no matter what their party, and he will pursue the policies that are in the best interest of our country, no matter who proposes them. That’s what President Obama promised to do four years ago. But like so many of his promises, bipartisan cooperation is just another one he has broken. We can’t have four more years of failed policies and two parties that can’t work together. We need the change Mitt Romney is offering.”

More Postscipts:

  • My Catholic pastor in today’s Cathedral Parish Church bulletin:
    I certainly intend to exercise my right to vote on Tuesday – in fact, I would crawl the four blocks to my polling place over broken glass in order to vote this year. And I trust that you will too – vote, that is.
    Personally, I am hopeful about the current elections. I am optimistic that we will have a good number of newly elected leaders who will be more sensitive to our moral concerns and our freedom of religion. And, God willing, sufficiently prudent decisions will be made so that we can avert the national collapse that appears (at least to me) to loom on the horizon…  (see above link to finish reading)

    500 Admirals and Generals Endorse Mitt Romney

The Debates:
Getting Past the Theatrics;
Going Right to the Substance

or

It’s Not Fixed

(Addendum below)

First, a Short Word On the Theatrics

The performances so far have been most entertaining.


.

Romney mopped the floor with Obama in the first presidential debate; even the liberal press agreed.  Chris Matthews, not too pleased with Obama’s performance, had an epic meltdown, live, on MSNBC.

..
During the vice presidential debate last week, Biden put on a performance that elicited speculations on dementia  and drunkenness, as well as a three-minute roast by the usually very liberal Saturday Night Live.

.

No comedy act, however, topped the actual video of the Vice President’s performance:

.
Poised for more mayhem in the second presidential debate last night, I was somewhat relieved to find that a certain degree of sanity was restored.

President Obama no longer looked like a deer in the headlights, and with the exception of one Drudge Report photo, he did not nervously leer, make faces at his opponent or the cameras (much), as Biden had done last week.

Well, Romney isn’t looking; let me just give him a quick evil eye…

 

 

.

.

But now back to the substance!

 .

.

 

 

Cuttting Through the Folly

More important than laughing or wondering at the performances, is to cut through the folly, and to analyze the substance.

And the substance consists of two major components in this election: policy and reliability.

Policy –  how do the candidates and their party propose to solve our biggest problems today?

Reliability– will the candidates and their parties actually do what they say they will do, or are the candidates liars?

Policy – What Do Voters Say America Needs?

Yesterday’s MSNBC leading headline read:  What readers want answered at the presidential debate: Gas prices, Social Security, jobs.

Translation: Economy is the primary problem facing our nation and concerning our voters today.

Aside: Some Americans, myself included, believe that abortion is the primary problem/issue facing our nation.  That economy is actually dependent upon abortion. That a nation that kills its own children cannot prosper.  That no amount of economic prosperity can justify the killing of 54 million human beings.  That economic prosperity will not be bestowed on a nation that defies God’s fundamental commandments.  But, although correct, that is not the dominating mainstream thought, and is a subject for a future blog article. 


Back to Economy, the primary problem readers wanted answered at last night’s presidential debate.

Obama-Biden Economic Policy 

The Obama-Biden team proposes to solve economic problems by raising taxes on the rich, in contrast to Ryan and Romney’s plans to solve economic problems by cutting spending, and cutting taxes, in order to create jobs, which would generate an expanding economy, resulting in increased government revenue.

Biden’s statement one week before the October 11th debate outlined and clarified the Obama-Biden position on the economy:
.

.

Biden clearly stated their intention to let the trillion dollar “Bush” tax cuts expire, effectively raising $1 Trillion worth of taxes.   The tax cuts would only be extended for all households earning less than $250,000 per year, so those households would have no effective tax hike.  The $1 Trillion tax would be paid only by people earning $250,000 or more per year.

The Slogan is catchy:
$1 Trillion Tax Hike for Top Earners

Sounds like a great idea, doesn’t it?
We get Scrooge McDuck to fork over all the extra money we want to spend.
But is that possible?
Will it produce enough money to cover Obama’s spending?
How much will we be taking from the “rich guys”?

How will the “rich guys” respond to this maneuver?
Let’s look at some details.

Also, look at Thou Shalt Not Kill They Neighbor’s Cow 

Reality Check- Simple Arithmetic

We want to take $1 Trillion from the rich, the top 1.5 %, those who earn over $250,000 per year.
Let’s see how much we have to take from each one, and what that will do to them.

First of all, Biden misled us with his $1 Trillion claim, since his proposal is to raise $1 Trillion of taxes over 4 years, not over 1 year.

So we are trying to take an extra $0.25 Trillion per year from the “rich guys.”

That won’t dent Obama’s annual $1.3 Trillion deficit much, but let’s continue with the analysis, because it leads to a surprising place.

For data on how many rich guys there are, and how much money they have, we looked at the Tax Foundation’s Data Tables.  They don’t list Obama-Biden’s top 1.5%ers who earn $250,000 per year or more, but they do list the 1%ers, who earn $340,000 per year or more.  Close enough for our purposes.  The two sets of numbers are not likely to differ too much.

The top 1% group has a combined Adjusted Gross Income of $1.3 Trillion, of which they already pay 24%, or $0.3 Trillion in tax per year.  In order to raise another 0.25 Trillion from this group as Biden proposes, they would have to be taxed an additional 19%, almost a doubling of their Federal tax bill.  Their federal tax would go up from 24% to 43%.

Jaguar XF ($82,000)

So, the small businessman or doctor who now earns $340,000 per year already pays $82,000 in Federal income tax per year.  Yes, that’s right, each small businessman or doctor first gives the federal government the equivalent of a Jaguar XF every year.  Add Social Security, Medicare, and State and Local tax deductions, and rich guy’s annual take-home pay becomes about $227,000.  Now he has given Uncle Sam about $113,000 per year; a Mercedes SL55AMG every year. (This car can do 155 mph.)  On top of this now, the Obama-Biden proposal would raise these people’s federal taxes an additional 19% and would mean an additional $65,000 in taxes for that household.  This would bring down their take-home income to $162,000.  The total given over to the government would be $178,000 per year; like buying the government an Aston Martin DB9 Volante every year.  This household is left with 48% take-home pay of $162,000 per year, after they started with $340,000.

Aston Martin DB9 Volante ($178,000)

This also changes the proportion of taxes that the 1%ers pay.  Right now, as a group, they pay 37% of all federal income taxes.  Yes, the 1% pays 37% of our bills.  The new Obama-Biden proposal would change this to the 1%ers paying 66% of all of America’s federal taxes.  WOW!

Doubling a Household’s Federal Income Tax

How many Americans in any income bracket can afford to have their federal taxes doubled and to have their take-home pay reduced to 48%?

Most people earning upwards of $250,000 don’t work 9-to-5 for a boss.  Not too many bosses are that generous with salaries. Many of these “rich guys” own a small business and are working long hours.  Evenings and weekends.  Others are medical doctors, who are running an office and are paying off medical school loans.  Whether they are businesses or doctors, they will have to come up with the extra $65,000 Obama and Biden want somewhere.  Guess where that will be?  They will hire less help at the business or office, and they will cancel any plans of expansion.  Their actions will eliminate jobs, and will stifle the economy.  The people working under them will lose their jobs.

Biden and Obama’s proposal to hike up taxes by failing to extend expiring tax cuts is often termed Taxmageddon.  This plan could push the U.S. back into a recession, and the Taxmageddon expiration date is fast approaching – January 1, 2013, in two months.  

Summarizing the Obama-Biden Economic Policy:

Here’s a summary of Obama-Biden’s economic plans :

  • Obama/Biden will double taxes on the “rich guys” with Taxmageddon.  The 1%ers who now already pay 37% of the nation’s federal tax bill will get to pay 66% of the nation’s tax bill.
    Another recession? Who cares?
  • This maneuver will only reduce the deficit by 0.25 Trillion per year (19%)? Who cares?
  • The national debt, now $16 Trillion, will continue to grow at the rate of $1 Trillion per year? Who cares?  Not Obama/Biden.
  • Small businesses, which provide 65% of the jobs in America will be punished, and will be forced to lay off people? Who cares?
  • Despite the ballooning deficit, Obama-Biden will continue spending.
  • Whenever Romney proposes spending cuts, Obama-Biden will ridicule the solution most households (or nations) in serious debt ought to use – they will ridicule spending cuts.

  • Obama-Biden will particularly ridicule cutting government funds to Big Bird.  No matter that Big Bird is a one-percenter with an annual income of over $50 million per year, about four times higher that what Mitt Romney makes.   Yet Big Bird still gets federal subsidies through PBS, and Obama-Biden don’t want to see those cut.  Who cares?

 

  • Biden-Obama will also ridicule Romney’s plans to cut Planned Parenthood funding.  Planned Parenthood continues to make money, despite its status as a nonprofit organization.  Planned Parenthood is now a $1 Billion Group which makes a profit from it’s primary income generator, abortion, and which still receives 46% of it’s budget from tax money.
    51% of Planned Parenthood’s revenue comes from abortions.
    Two thirds of America opposes federal funding of abortion.  But who cares?  Obama likes abortion, and he loves Planned Parenthood.  Why not subsidize more 1%ers, as long as they are Obama’s friends?

Big Bird and Planned Parenthood were 1%ers.
Solyndra and  a series of over 20 green energy companies which received $4 Billion in federal grants? All 1%ers.
But they are Obama’s friends, so that’s O.K.
Anyone who supports Obama with donations or in the media is Obama’s friend. He will help them all become 1%ers.  And they don’t need to worry about taxation, Obama will make sure his friends obtain or retain tax-exempt status no matter how rich they are, like Big Bird and Planned Parenthood.

Reliability and Honesty

That leads us to reliability and honesty, the second major component of importance in this election.
What good are promised policies, if they are never implemented?
What good are debates, if lies are used in the arguments?

The last two debates, Biden’s and last night Obama’s, were fraught with lies.
Not  only Biden and Obama lied, but moderator Crowley lied and manipulated last night.

Biden’s Debate Lies

Biden was called out on his VP debate lies by lots of people during the past week. 
These include:
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Breitbart.com:

The National Review Online accused Biden of intellectual dishonesty, and the White House Dossier called Biden a new Batman’s Joker nemesis: The Liar.  Apparently Joe Biden has a history of law-school and campaign-trail dishonesty.

During the Vice Presidential debate, Joe Biden lied about religious freedom, about Libya, about Medicare, lied about his own voting record for the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war, lied about the Iranian nuclear program, lied about Ryan cutting embassy security budget, lied about his previous debate with Sarah Palin, and lied about the details of the Bush tax cuts.  See the above links for details.

Obama’s Debate Lies (and Shocking Gaffe)

Top Ten Lies of the Second Presidential Debate

Obama lied about tax cuts made by himself, about Romney’s statements in interviews, about Romney’s immigration views, about mammograms provided by Planned Parenthood, about tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas, about oil and gas production on federal lands, about women’s salary discrepancies, about Romney’s intentions toward auto manufacturers, and about his own misrepresentation of the Benghazi attacks as demonstrations against an anti-Islamic video.

Gaffe: Obama claimed that low gas prices cratered our economy and will crater it again if Romney is elected and gets gas prices down.
Yes, you read that right: President Obama seems to believe that low gas prices kill the economy. It’s not Obama’s economic policies that have damaged our economy, it’s the low gas prices that he inherited from Bush that have damaged our economy.  And if you elect Romney, he will lower the gas prices again, and he will thus damage the economy again.
How did that come out of the mouth of the President of the United States?

Candy Crowley’s Debate Lies and Biased Manipulations  

Debate moderator Candy Crowley interrupted Romney when he accused President Obama of not acknowledging that the Benghazi attacks were acts of terror the day after the Benghazi attacks.  She was wrong, admitted she was wrong after the debate, and it turns out that she had been in perfect command of these facts almost 3 weeks ago, but conveniently forgot the facts when jumping to silence Romney during the debate.  She saved Obama with a false fact-check:

While moderating Tuesday’s debate, Crowley forgot the timeline and facts she commanded two weeks earlier, and she inexplicably took President Obama’s side when Obama and Romney were arguing about whether Obama referred to the Libya attacks as acts of terror on the day after. – Breitbart.com 

There has even been a sugggestion that Candy Crowley may have acted in collusion with Obama in this interchange;  the probability that Candy Crowley would have the text of the President’s Rose Garden speech handy and opened to the correct line on such short notice has been questioned.

Candy Crowley also interrupted Romney 28 times during the debate, contrasted with interrupting Obama 9 times, chose 2/3 of the questions to be favorable to Obama, and let Obama have the last word 8 out of 11 times.  She also allowed, for the third debate in a row, the Obama/Biden ticket more debate time than the Romney/Ticket received.
Not too surprising for a biased reporter who had just called Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan the “death wish ticket.”

Summarizing the Debates:

Policy

On Policy, Obama-Biden propose to continue the bulk of their present spending.  The taxation of the “rich” which they propose will generate inadequate revenue to staunch the fiscal bleed, and will risk a second, larger recession.

Romney-Ryan propose the repeal of ObamaCare and tax cuts to spur the growth of business; when business grows, government tax income grows without increasing taxation.

History has shown repeatedly that reduction of tax rates generates more prosperity, so that a larger chunk of the tax burden is taken on by rich people when you lower rich people’s taxes, because their businesses start to flourish.  They not only transact more business, and give the government more taxes, but they also create more jobs.  This phenomenon was observed three times in the 20th century, in the 1920’s, and under Presidents JFK in the 1960’s and Reagan in the 1980’s;  more tax revenue went back to the federal government each time the taxes were lowered.

The explanation for this seemingly contradictory phenomenon is that rich people reinvest more in their businesses, expand, generate more jobs, keep their businesses in the US, and thus generate a more thriving, larger economy when you lower taxes on the rich.  Taking a smaller percentage from a larger number of rich guys give you more money in the end.

This is why nations do not overtax the rich.  Overtax the rich, and they either go away or they close their companies and the nation loses jobs.

Here’s a listing of nations, and how much they tax their wealthiest 10% (for us, that would be those households earning above $80,000 per year): from No Country Leans on Upper-Income Households as Much as the U.S., 2011

 

Who Taxes the Rich the Most? Share of Taxes Paid by the Richest 10%
Switzerland 21%
Sweden 27%
France 28%
Japan 29%
Germany 31%
Canada 36%
Australia 37%
United Kingdom 39%
Italy 42%
United States 45%

Apparently, United States top earners already pay a larger share of taxes than any other industrialized nation. America’s top 10% earners pay 45% of the nation’s tax bill.  President Obama apparently wants to hike up the amount that our top earners will pay to something on the order of 66%.

Any logical person must either challenge President Obama’s grasp of fundamental economics and arithmetic, or must challenge his dedication to his sworn duty to protect this nation as President of the United States.  This has been suggested by some; 2016: The Movie points out the compatibility of President Obama’s actions during the past four years with an anti-colonialist philosophy that seeks to level the global playing field and to take away America’s economic advantage.  But either way, one cannot rationally, based on economy, vote for Obama on Novemer 6th.

So take your pick: would you prefer that your job depends on “rich” people like  small businesses or doctors hiring you and paying a competitive rate for your work, or would you rather have the government take the “rich” people’s money, squander much of it on creating 1%er jobs for previous campaign donors, and dole the rest out to you through meager welfare checks, which expire and no longer regard you as unemployed after 26 weeks, as Obama is doing now?

Reliance on our rich people for jobs = democracy.

Reliance on the government for jobs = communism.

Reliability and Trust

Neither Obama, nor Biden have given America any reason to believe anything they promise.  Few of their 2008 campaign promises have been fulfilled, and their debates are laced with lies and fallacious attacks on Romney/Ryan, rather than a focus on a serious plan for repairing the economy.

.

Sorry fellas, the Taxing the Rich slogan won’t work.  We just disproved it with arithmetic, and Obama has disproved it in practice during the last four years.   The Taxing the Rich slogan will only get you votes from those who don’t know their arithmetic, and who are bitter, envious, and who want to bite the hand that feeds them.

.

.

Results Not Too Surprising

In the light of all that has been discussed, it is not surprising that as the debates progress, Romney is beginning to beat Obama in the polls.

.
And speaking of polls, and speaking as a person who has hung up the telephone on at least 40 pollsters during the last few months, and who as a conservative, in  Clint Eastwood’s words, “plays it closer to the vest,” and as someone who has previously blogged about the disparity between poll results and election results, particularly in the Walker Recall Re-Election, I would not be surprised if President Obama is ousted by a landslide less than 3 weeks from now, by a much larger margin than any poll ever shows.  Conservatives often refrain from participating in polls.

How sadly right Clint Eastwood was about the empty chair!
“When someone does not do their job, we have to let them go.”

Addendum:

Confirming my suspicions, later today, two pieces of news came out:

Bottom Line: It’s Not Fixed

President Clinton, during a campaign event in Ohio today,  acknowledged that the economy is not fixed:

Governor Romney’s argument is “We’re not fixed, so fire him, and put me in.”  It is true, we’re not fixed.  When President Obama looked into the eyes of that man, who said, in the debate, “I had so much hope four years ago, and I don’t now,” I though he was going to cry.  Because he knows that it’s not fixed. – Bill Clinton

 .

The Economy: It’s Not Fixed

Let’s fix it:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Empty Chair Day

Clint Eastwood’s comedy skit during the Republican National Convention has inspired the celebration of National Empty Chair Day today, September 3rd, 2012. The idea was originated by William A. Jacobson, of legalinsurrection.com.

Today, Americans celebrate their intention to unseat Barack Obama by displaying or posting an empty chair, or a photo of one, to symbolize Clint Eastwood’s suggestion that we fire President Obama:

We own this country . . . Politicians are employees of ours . . . And when somebody does not do the job, we’ve got to let them go.” –Clint Eastwood

In his empty-chair routine, Clint Eastwood expressed the thoughts of many Americans, and that includes mine.

.
Here is a photo I posted on my blog back in April, 2012, in which I am sitting in Barack’s empty chair:

Enough is Enough, I'm Takling Over!

The blog article entitled “Enough is Enough, I’m Taking Over (from Barack).”

Reasons for firing Barack Obama were apparent even even back in April, 2012.

Clint Eastwood’s comedy skit:

Vote on November 6th to fill the empty chair!
Barack should not be in it.
And Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have way more experience than me 🙂

God bless and help America!

All Posts