When the Democrats talk about the bill, they say we have to do something, it's needed, we have to act quickly... but they never really praise what's in the porkulus package do they? They're quick to defend parts of the bill when criticized, but that doesn't count as praise.
No one is able to say that this behemoth will help anything. It's welfare and will have more of the country locked into that defeatist path.
Here's another take on the bill, and it ain't good:
Ben Stein: Almost Half of Stimulus Goes to Unions That Backed Obama
Columnist Ben Stein has taken a close look at President Barack Obama's proposed $820 billion stimulus package, and made some eye-opening discoveries.
Writing for Spectator.com and NYPost.com, Stein calculates that:
The House of Representatives debated the bill for eight hours, or roughly $102 billion per hour.
Only 10 percent of the stimulus funds would be spent in 2009.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/ben_stein_stimulus/2009/02/01/177324.html?s=al&promo_code=7937-1
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Monday, February 2, 2009
Another group working to stop the stimulus
I'm working with TCOT (http://moveovermoveon.posterous.com) and WAM (www.wam08.org) and keeping up with www.nostimulus.com, to try and stop the stimulus, but that doesn't mean I can't promote other groups who are working hard to fight this thing! We need millions of people contacting their Senators. The more groups like the three I mentioned and the one below, the better our chances of reaching people who are sleeping through what could turn out to be the greatest threat our country has ever faced.
ACTION ALERT: Tell Sen. McConnell to Rally Against the Obama Debt Plan!
Great American Patriots!
You have a chance to make a difference this week. In just three days our group "I Say No to the Stimulus Package" has over 1,250 members and growing!
Now here's what we can do- This week the bill will enter the Senate.
We need the Republicans in the Senate to unite against the bill. Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell must rally the troops to say no to the stimulus package. We've put together an Action Alert on TCU describing what YOU can do.
We've posted Bill info here-http://www.tcunation.com/notes/2009_Stimulus_Bill
Here is some of the pork first introduced in the bill:
$1 billion to Amtrack
$400 million to research Global Warming
$2.4 billion to show how green house gases can be removed from atmosphere
$650 million for coupons for people to convert to digital TV
$600 million to buy new fleet of govt cars
$75 million for program to help quit smoking
$21 million to re-sod DC mall
$2.25 billion to Natl Parks
$335 million for prevention and STD
$50 million for Natl endowment of arts.AND MORE!
see more here:http://www.tcunation.com/notes/2009_Stimulus_Bill
This group brought to you by:The Conservative Underground"the social network for conservatives"Join the Fight at: http://www.TCUnation.com
ACTION ALERT: Tell Sen. McConnell to Rally Against the Obama Debt Plan!
Great American Patriots!
You have a chance to make a difference this week. In just three days our group "I Say No to the Stimulus Package" has over 1,250 members and growing!
Now here's what we can do- This week the bill will enter the Senate.
We need the Republicans in the Senate to unite against the bill. Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell must rally the troops to say no to the stimulus package. We've put together an Action Alert on TCU describing what YOU can do.
We've posted Bill info here-http://www.tcunation.com/notes/2009_Stimulus_Bill
Here is some of the pork first introduced in the bill:
$1 billion to Amtrack
$400 million to research Global Warming
$2.4 billion to show how green house gases can be removed from atmosphere
$650 million for coupons for people to convert to digital TV
$600 million to buy new fleet of govt cars
$75 million for program to help quit smoking
$21 million to re-sod DC mall
$2.25 billion to Natl Parks
$335 million for prevention and STD
$50 million for Natl endowment of arts.AND MORE!
see more here:http://www.tcunation.com/notes/2009_Stimulus_Bill
This group brought to you by:The Conservative Underground"the social network for conservatives"Join the Fight at: http://www.TCUnation.com
Price, Campbell & Issa on Porkulus
Economic Recovery Act is Wiser Alternative to Massive Spending
Chairman Tom Price (GA-06)
Congressional Democrats have engaged in a full offensive to convince the American people that another massive dose of borrowing and spending is the solution to our economic tribulations. They talk of an economic near-Armageddon without as much as a trillion dollars in new spending. The rhetoric, in point of fact, sounds remarkably similar to the appeals for their last economic solution, the disastrous Troubled Asset Relief Program. (Read more)
An Awful Excuse for a Stimulus Bill
Rep. John Campbell (CA-48)
Last September, we cautiously backed away from the precipice of financial collapse, but we are still a long way from getting our economy growing, flourishing, and functioning properly. Now, more than ever, we need innovative economic policies, not the political gamesmanship already playing out across all areas of government. (Read more)
The $825 Billion Earmark
Rep. Darrell Issa (CA-49)
The more we learn about the proposed Pelosi-Obey $825 billion economic stimulus proposal, the more it looks like an $825 billion earmark. Excluded from the package are good government provisions that would prohibit use of economic stimulus funds for lobbying or political activities. Democratic leaders are repeatedly touting the importance of passing their bill, yet are taking the path of least resistance and failing to ensure that the funds actually go towards the stated goal of creating jobs and jumpstarting our economy. (Read more)
Chairman Tom Price (GA-06)
Congressional Democrats have engaged in a full offensive to convince the American people that another massive dose of borrowing and spending is the solution to our economic tribulations. They talk of an economic near-Armageddon without as much as a trillion dollars in new spending. The rhetoric, in point of fact, sounds remarkably similar to the appeals for their last economic solution, the disastrous Troubled Asset Relief Program. (Read more)
An Awful Excuse for a Stimulus Bill
Rep. John Campbell (CA-48)
Last September, we cautiously backed away from the precipice of financial collapse, but we are still a long way from getting our economy growing, flourishing, and functioning properly. Now, more than ever, we need innovative economic policies, not the political gamesmanship already playing out across all areas of government. (Read more)
The $825 Billion Earmark
Rep. Darrell Issa (CA-49)
The more we learn about the proposed Pelosi-Obey $825 billion economic stimulus proposal, the more it looks like an $825 billion earmark. Excluded from the package are good government provisions that would prohibit use of economic stimulus funds for lobbying or political activities. Democratic leaders are repeatedly touting the importance of passing their bill, yet are taking the path of least resistance and failing to ensure that the funds actually go towards the stated goal of creating jobs and jumpstarting our economy. (Read more)
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Key Democrat rips stimulus, predicts more bailouts
Maybe there's some hope... We're going to need some Democratic and Independent help if we're going to squash the stick-it-to-us-stimulus package.
Key Democrat rips stimulus, predicts more bailouts
By Bob Cusack
Posted: 01/27/09 01:22 PM [ET]
A key Democrat on Tuesday lambasted the economic stimulus bill that is headed to the House floor, claiming it was put together too quickly and won’t help the economy in the short term. Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.), who chairs the Financial Services subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises, said on C-SPAN that Democrats have "lost our way" and "shouldn't be pressed by silly deadlines" of getting the bill into law by the Presidents Day recess...
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/key-democrat-rips-stimulus-predicts-more-bailouts-2009-01-27.html
Key Democrat rips stimulus, predicts more bailouts
By Bob Cusack
Posted: 01/27/09 01:22 PM [ET]
A key Democrat on Tuesday lambasted the economic stimulus bill that is headed to the House floor, claiming it was put together too quickly and won’t help the economy in the short term. Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.), who chairs the Financial Services subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises, said on C-SPAN that Democrats have "lost our way" and "shouldn't be pressed by silly deadlines" of getting the bill into law by the Presidents Day recess...
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/key-democrat-rips-stimulus-predicts-more-bailouts-2009-01-27.html
Monday, January 26, 2009
Nationalization of banks around the corner?
Yesterday Nancy Pelosi publicly indicated nationalization was on the table (Nancy Pelosi - Nationalization of Banks a Good Idea? Yep.).
Today I received the following article link in my daily round up of news that I torture myself with each morning:
At first read, surprisingly for a New York Times article, it seemed fairly balanced. However, as I re-read it I came away with the feeling that the author was laying the groundwork, i.e., Obama really doesn't want to nationalize the banks, but the situation is worse than he thought so he'll be forced to take this drastic step.
There is a suggestion that IF Obama does go down the nationalization path it may only be for a few banks and that it may only be for a short time.
It's that old slippery slope. Look at history. Once government gets involved their tentacles tighten, they don't release their prey. Using another, hopefully less plausible, comparison dictators and the like often start out as saviors. They make this little change here, that change there and the next thing the citizens of their country realize, the dictator's new government has a stranglehold on everything.
The article did present a lot of good arguments as to why the Obama administration might be trying to steer clear of going the nationalization route. It seemed to me though, that the arguments were just included so we'd understand that it must be really, really bad if Obama is forced to make the horrible decision to nationalize banks given all the negatives. It set the stage for the masses to applaud Obama and friends for being forced to do this for the good of the country -- if it occurs.
In another article from Bloomberg (see link below) the author again seemed to be trying to state both sides of the issue while setting the stage for the inevitability of nationalization:
So am I just over-sensitive to the potential subtleties in these articles? Is the media partnering with Obama in the softening of the American mind? Is nationalization of banks around the corner? Is the current economic downturn going to lead to the country embracing a change in our fundamental beliefs with open arms?
I guess we'll find out in one of our tomorrows.
Treasury's demands on banks seen as nationalization
(Bloomberg News Feed)
WASHINGTON — The U.S. government's decision to pledge billions of additional dollars with strings attached to Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. may be nationalization by another name, according to former bankers and regulators.
Faced with pressure from lawmakers, banks have shaken up management, eliminated executive bonuses and staff and canceled conventions. They'll be forced to do monthly reports on how they've boosted lending while slashing quarterly dividends to 1 cent a share for three years.
“Well, whatever you want to call it,” said Pelosi. “If we are strengthening them [banks], then the American people should get some of the upside of that strengthening. Some people call that nationalization."
Today I received the following article link in my daily round up of news that I torture myself with each morning:
Nationalization Gets a New, Serious Look
Only five days into the Obama presidency, members of the new administration and Democratic leaders in Congress are already dancing around one of the most politically delicate questions about the financial bailout: Is the president prepared to nationalize a huge swath of the nation’s banking system?
Privately, most members of the Obama economic team concede that the rapid deterioration of the country’s biggest banks, notably Bank of America and Citigroup, is bound to require far larger investments of taxpayer money, atop the more than $300 billion of taxpayer money already poured into those two financial institutions and hundreds of others, The New York Times’s David E. Sanger reports.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/nationalization-gets-a-new-serious-look/
At first read, surprisingly for a New York Times article, it seemed fairly balanced. However, as I re-read it I came away with the feeling that the author was laying the groundwork, i.e., Obama really doesn't want to nationalize the banks, but the situation is worse than he thought so he'll be forced to take this drastic step.
“I would guess that sometime in the next few weeks, President Obama and Tim Geithner,” he said, referring to the nominee for Treasury secretary, “will have to come out and say, ‘It’s much worse than we thought,’ and just bite the bullet.”
There is a suggestion that IF Obama does go down the nationalization path it may only be for a few banks and that it may only be for a short time.
The argument in favor of nationalization, even a brief nationalization of a
few months or years, is straightforward: It might be the only way to pull
America’s largest financial institutions out of the downward spiral that makes
it enormously difficult to raise the capital they need to keep operating.
It's that old slippery slope. Look at history. Once government gets involved their tentacles tighten, they don't release their prey. Using another, hopefully less plausible, comparison dictators and the like often start out as saviors. They make this little change here, that change there and the next thing the citizens of their country realize, the dictator's new government has a stranglehold on everything.
The article did present a lot of good arguments as to why the Obama administration might be trying to steer clear of going the nationalization route. It seemed to me though, that the arguments were just included so we'd understand that it must be really, really bad if Obama is forced to make the horrible decision to nationalize banks given all the negatives. It set the stage for the masses to applaud Obama and friends for being forced to do this for the good of the country -- if it occurs.
In another article from Bloomberg (see link below) the author again seemed to be trying to state both sides of the issue while setting the stage for the inevitability of nationalization:
William K. Black, former lawyer at the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco and Office of Thrift Supervision, said the Treasury could do better by assuming control of the companies and removing existing management altogether. By trying to avoid nationalizing the institutions, the government is wasting money, he said.
"It's insane to leave it in the control of the people who have every incentive to cover up the scale of the losses," said Black, a professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. "You're deliberately negotiating a bad deal for the American people by not getting an appropriate return for the risk you're taking."and...
"If you took a nationalization policy, you would at least create some degree of certainty because now you know the government is going to stand behind these institutions," said Jacques, 49, who was an economist with the Treasury
Department for 14 years before becoming a finance professor at Baldwin-Wallace
College in Berea, Ohio.
And now? "It's almost like some kind of weird partial nationalization," he said.
So am I just over-sensitive to the potential subtleties in these articles? Is the media partnering with Obama in the softening of the American mind? Is nationalization of banks around the corner? Is the current economic downturn going to lead to the country embracing a change in our fundamental beliefs with open arms?
I guess we'll find out in one of our tomorrows.
Treasury's demands on banks seen as nationalization
(Bloomberg News Feed)
WASHINGTON — The U.S. government's decision to pledge billions of additional dollars with strings attached to Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. may be nationalization by another name, according to former bankers and regulators.
Faced with pressure from lawmakers, banks have shaken up management, eliminated executive bonuses and staff and canceled conventions. They'll be forced to do monthly reports on how they've boosted lending while slashing quarterly dividends to 1 cent a share for three years.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Nancy Pelosi - Nationalization of Banks a Good Idea? Yep.
Nancy Pelosi was on ABC this morning with George Stephanopoulos. The entire interview was a dance and dodge performance, but even with all the flowery non-answers there were some whoppers that should have fiscally conservative, anti-socialistic, freedom loving Americans up in arms.
In this small snippet George asks Pelosi about nationalizing banks:
In this segment Pelosi explains why funding family planning services (i.e. abortion advocates, social engineering) stimulates the economy:
Did you shake your head like I shook mine? Say what? I suppose that by giving away contraceptives the government is helping to decrease the birth rate and thereby is helping the would-be mother from buying diapers, etc., etc. Ya know, that's kind of a stretch.
We are headed in a direction that we do not want to go. Unfortunately, there are a whole lot of people with their hands out. We're not willing to suffer a bit of hardship to maintain the freedoms that make us the best country ever. Ever.
We're giving our future away all so we can have multiple televisions, two or more cars in the garage and a house that's way above our means.
History is going to show that this was the time where we lost our way in America. Although, if we're heading down the path of socialism, chances are the history books of the future will reflect what the regime in power wants them to promote.
Here's the link to the full transcript: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=6725512&page=1 I watched it this morning, had to go find the transcript to see if I heard her correctly. Unfortunately, I did.
Want to know more about what's in the stimulus package? Check out "Read the Stimulus" (www.readthestimulus.org).
In this small snippet George asks Pelosi about nationalizing banks:
STEPHANOPOULOS: And many analysts have looked at it and said the only way to really deal with it, these banks are so close to insolvency, dealing with so many toxic assets, that the only way to deal with it fairly without giving a big boon to shareholders, is to have nationalization or partial nationalization of the banks.
Good idea?
PELOSI: Well, whatever you want to call it. There has to be - if we are going to put money into the banks we certainly want equity for the American people.
In other words, if we are strengthening them then the American people should get some of the upside of that strengthening. Some people call that nationalization. I'm not talking about total ownership but we're just saying.
Now how big that investment becomes is - would we have ever thought we would see the day when we'd be using that terminology? Nationalization of the banks.
You see the impact it has on the stock market. Just terrible in terms of the bank stocks going down. Because if you're a shareholder and you see what would be a dilution of your investment because now the federal government - if we're putting - if the taxpayer is putting money up, the taxpayer should have equity.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So it might be necessary?
PELOSI: Well, not by the terminology that you use but some increased investment. Change has to happen in terms of what is done, what the transparency of it is, what the accountability of it is. Only then would be able to pass any additional funding.
In this segment Pelosi explains why funding family planning services (i.e. abortion advocates, social engineering) stimulates the economy:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?
PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.
Did you shake your head like I shook mine? Say what? I suppose that by giving away contraceptives the government is helping to decrease the birth rate and thereby is helping the would-be mother from buying diapers, etc., etc. Ya know, that's kind of a stretch.
We are headed in a direction that we do not want to go. Unfortunately, there are a whole lot of people with their hands out. We're not willing to suffer a bit of hardship to maintain the freedoms that make us the best country ever. Ever.
We're giving our future away all so we can have multiple televisions, two or more cars in the garage and a house that's way above our means.
History is going to show that this was the time where we lost our way in America. Although, if we're heading down the path of socialism, chances are the history books of the future will reflect what the regime in power wants them to promote.
Here's the link to the full transcript: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=6725512&page=1 I watched it this morning, had to go find the transcript to see if I heard her correctly. Unfortunately, I did.
Want to know more about what's in the stimulus package? Check out "Read the Stimulus" (www.readthestimulus.org).
Friday, January 23, 2009
Bloomberg Article Draws Questionable Conclusions re: Republicans
In a Bloomberg article posted today by Heidi Przybyla titled Republican Battle for Party Chief Pits Leaders, Przybyla writes, "They [Republicans] also want party leaders to cooperate with President Barack Obama, according to surveys."
I found that hard to swallow, especially given the amount of energy coming from all factions of the Republican Party these days. It seems to me that the majority feel that the reason we're where we are today is because our elected "leaders" compromised on Republican values and principles.
The only survey cited in the Bloomberg article (that I could find) was from a joint NBC/Wall Street Journal survey. I followed the link Przybyla provided to the article the WSJ wrote regarding the survey.
Hmmm, it seems that according to their author, the question only referred to one, 1, ONE, specific area, the stimulus proposals.
Still curious, still wanting to make sure that Ms. Pzybyla hadn't found another broader based question, I took a look at the actual survey.
The only other question I found that vaguely related to relations between Democrats and Republicans in Congress:
Ms. Przybyla seems to have over-stated her case, at a minimum. It appears we have a case of typical media twisting and shaping of facts to fit a preconceived premise. Or maybe it's just a case of simply seeing what you want and ignoring the rest. Or possibly there's an agenda behind the writing of the article and it was deliberately misleading.
I sent a very nice email to Ms. Przybyla asking her to cite her survey sources since she uses the plural rather than singular.
I'll let you know if she responds.
In the meantime, I'd toss the Bloomberg article into the trashcan where it belongs.
Republican Battle for Party Chief Pits Leaders, Base (Update1)
Jan. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Republican leaders’ efforts to select a new national party chairman are stirring concerns among a vital constituency: Republican voters. Rank-and-file Republicans are telling their leaders they want more ethnic, gender and age diversity in a party that is dominated by white males. They also want party leaders to cooperate with President Barack Obama, according to surveys.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aN5z7TvAtZoQ&refer=us
I found that hard to swallow, especially given the amount of energy coming from all factions of the Republican Party these days. It seems to me that the majority feel that the reason we're where we are today is because our elected "leaders" compromised on Republican values and principles.
The only survey cited in the Bloomberg article (that I could find) was from a joint NBC/Wall Street Journal survey. I followed the link Przybyla provided to the article the WSJ wrote regarding the survey.
Hmmm, it seems that according to their author, the question only referred to one, 1, ONE, specific area, the stimulus proposals.
Obama, Stimulus Proposals Enjoy Broad Backing in Poll
Asked about the economic-stimulus package, now estimated to cost $850 billion over two years, ...Even Republicans and independents think GOP lawmakers should work to move the legislation forward. Asked whether Republicans in Congress should do everything to stand firm for their party's principles and oppose the legislation, or look to compromise with the Obama administration, 68% of Republicans and independents chose compromise, with 20% picking standing firm.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123196999580982953.html
Still curious, still wanting to make sure that Ms. Pzybyla hadn't found another broader based question, I took a look at the actual survey.
The actual Wall Street Survey question:
(ASK ONLY OF RESPONDENTS WHO SAY INDEPENDENT, REPUBLICAN, OTHER, OR NOT SURE IN Q.F4a.)
F4b. In thinking about the economic stimulus legislation, which of these statements comes closer to your point of view about what the Republicans in Congress should do over the course of the next several months:
Statement A: Republicans in Congress should do everything to stand firm for their party's economic positions and oppose legislation proposed by the Obama administration even if it means there may be stalemate on some elements of the legislation.
Statement B: Republicans in Congress should look to compromise with the Obama administration to ensure that legislation is passed and to avoid stalemate even if it means compromising on some of their party's economic positions.
[334]
Statement A: Should stand firm....... 20
Statement B: Should compromise... 68
Depends (VOL) ................................ 5
Not sure............................................ 7
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/WSJ_Poll_011409.pdf
The only other question I found that vaguely related to relations between Democrats and Republicans in Congress:
15. Looking ahead, do you feel that in 2009 the country will find the Democrats and Republicans in Congress in a period of unity by working together and reaching consensus, or will it be a period of division where the parties hold fast to their positions and show little willingness to compromise? [208]
1/09** 12/08 12/04
Period of unity/working together ................................ 48 52 27
Period of division/little willingness to compromise.... 45 42 65
Depends (VOL)......................................................... 4 3 4
Not sure..................................................................... 3 3 4
** Asked of one-half the respondents (FORM B).
Ms. Przybyla seems to have over-stated her case, at a minimum. It appears we have a case of typical media twisting and shaping of facts to fit a preconceived premise. Or maybe it's just a case of simply seeing what you want and ignoring the rest. Or possibly there's an agenda behind the writing of the article and it was deliberately misleading.
I sent a very nice email to Ms. Przybyla asking her to cite her survey sources since she uses the plural rather than singular.
I'll let you know if she responds.
In the meantime, I'd toss the Bloomberg article into the trashcan where it belongs.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Calling on Obama
Literally. Yep, you can call on Obama, personally. Well, it's actually not the real Obama, it's just a Mi-Obama.
The catch? You have to live in Kenya. Not sure if this little treasure will work in the USA, but if you're an Obama-freak, maybe a Hollywood type, you can probably figure out a way to get one and make it work here.
I wonder if they licensed the logo? Where's the money going if they did? Just curious.
This is marketed in Asia and Africa only. For now. You know that given the way the Obama hysteria is sweeping certain segments of our society (non-Republican ;-), it's not going to be long before we see 'em here whether it's by the Mi group or some other U.S. company. Maybe without the logo.
Don't you think that any company making things for-profit with Obama's name, logo, etc. on them should be donating the money to fight global warming, saving the owls or something? Better yet, maybe they should donate all profits to defray the cost of the bailout and / or the economic recovery plan Obama's wanting to implement.
Let all the rest of us work, make money, spend and do it the good ol' capitalistic American way.
Barack Obama phone launched - not in the US, but in Kenya
Barack Obama phone launched - not in the US, but in Kenya
The first ever Obama-branded mobile phone is called Mi-Obama and it was recently launched, not in the US, how people would’ve expected, but in Kenya – the country where Obama’s father was born.... http://www.unwiredview.com/2009/01/15/barack-obama-phone-launched-not-in-the-us-but-in-kenya/
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Georgia's Isakson Questions BHO's Sec Labor on Union's Secret Ballot
If the Unions have their way with taking away worker's rights to vote via secret ballot, we may as well throw in the towel. We will ultimately be a unionized nation of workers, unable to compete on any reasonable level with other countries. The Unions will be another arm of government without any of the meager restrictions that currently hamper our politicians.
I see the new regime chipping away at the foundation of our country from so many angles it's virtually impossible decide where to focus. It's death by inches. We focus on trying to fight the un-"Fairness Doctrine" and they inch forward on the "Employee Free Choice Act" (how much time went into choosing the names of that misleading moniker?). We focus on the monumental problems with the economy while they inch forward with unqualified or far-far-left cabinet appointments. While we focus on national issues our local governments stick out their hands for money, happily agreeing to comply with all the Federal strings attached.
I'm not one to get discouraged, but I can already tell that the next few years are going to test every positive bone in my body.
Our Georgia elected representatives seem to be, for the most part, conservative. I don't agree with everything they've signed onto or supported. In fact, if we had good viable, conservative choices in a few cases, I'd cast my vote in that direction. However, overall the Republican's seem to have the right views.
U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) sent this release out Friday. Although many of you aren't in Georgia, I think you'll find it interesting reading.
Isakson Pushes Labor Nominee to Oppose Eliminating Workers’ Rights to Secret Ballot in Choosing Whether to Unionize
Isakson Notes Nominee’s Previous Support of Secret Ballot for Workers in Negotiating Flex Time
1/9/09 WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., today questioned why President-elect Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Labor supports legislation to strip workers of their right to a secret ballot when deciding whether to unionize, but previously insisted on a secret ballot for workers during negotiations with management on flex time.
The nominee, U.S. Rep. Hilda Solis of California, voted for legislation to strip workers of the secret ballot when deciding whether to unionize in 2007, but pushed legislation in the California Legislature in the late 1990s in which she insisted that workers have the secret ballot when negotiating with management on flex time and overtime pay.
“You insisted that there be a vote by all employees and that it be by secret ballot. Why would we want to change the law of the United States now with regard to how unions are organized and eliminate the secret ballot?” Isakson said to Solis during her hearing this morning in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.
Solis responded to Isakson this morning that she was not prepared to make a statement about her position on the secret ballot at this time.
Isakson strongly opposes the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, also known as Card Check, which would eliminate the rights of workers to participate in a secret-ballot election in order to certify the creation of a union. The legislation would force employees to make a public declaration of their preference by allowing union organizers to bypass elections if a majority of employees sign cards authorizing a union.
The legislation passed the U.S. House in 2007 and is expected to be brought forth by Democratic leaders for a vote in the Senate this year.
Isakson believes the current system, which allows employees to use a secret ballot in choosing whether they want a union to become their exclusive representative in the workplace, has worked well because it neither advocates nor discourages unionization.
Isakson blamed declining union membership as the motive behind the legislation, which did not receive committee consideration. Union membership among private sector employees is at its lowest level in decades.
Isakson also used the nomination hearing for Solis to stress the importance of writing regulations that both protect workers and allow businesses to operate efficiently.
“In my four years on this committee as the Republican leader on the Employment and Workplace Safety Subcommittee, I have worked with Senators Murray, Kennedy, Enzi and others to try and strike this delicate balance,” Isakson said. “We have a strong record of working together on critical issues to American workers such as mine safety reform, banning asbestos, and pension protection.”
I see the new regime chipping away at the foundation of our country from so many angles it's virtually impossible decide where to focus. It's death by inches. We focus on trying to fight the un-"Fairness Doctrine" and they inch forward on the "Employee Free Choice Act" (how much time went into choosing the names of that misleading moniker?). We focus on the monumental problems with the economy while they inch forward with unqualified or far-far-left cabinet appointments. While we focus on national issues our local governments stick out their hands for money, happily agreeing to comply with all the Federal strings attached.
I'm not one to get discouraged, but I can already tell that the next few years are going to test every positive bone in my body.
Our Georgia elected representatives seem to be, for the most part, conservative. I don't agree with everything they've signed onto or supported. In fact, if we had good viable, conservative choices in a few cases, I'd cast my vote in that direction. However, overall the Republican's seem to have the right views.
U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) sent this release out Friday. Although many of you aren't in Georgia, I think you'll find it interesting reading.
Isakson Pushes Labor Nominee to Oppose Eliminating Workers’ Rights to Secret Ballot in Choosing Whether to Unionize
Isakson Notes Nominee’s Previous Support of Secret Ballot for Workers in Negotiating Flex Time
1/9/09 WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., today questioned why President-elect Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Labor supports legislation to strip workers of their right to a secret ballot when deciding whether to unionize, but previously insisted on a secret ballot for workers during negotiations with management on flex time.
The nominee, U.S. Rep. Hilda Solis of California, voted for legislation to strip workers of the secret ballot when deciding whether to unionize in 2007, but pushed legislation in the California Legislature in the late 1990s in which she insisted that workers have the secret ballot when negotiating with management on flex time and overtime pay.
“You insisted that there be a vote by all employees and that it be by secret ballot. Why would we want to change the law of the United States now with regard to how unions are organized and eliminate the secret ballot?” Isakson said to Solis during her hearing this morning in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.
Solis responded to Isakson this morning that she was not prepared to make a statement about her position on the secret ballot at this time.
Isakson strongly opposes the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, also known as Card Check, which would eliminate the rights of workers to participate in a secret-ballot election in order to certify the creation of a union. The legislation would force employees to make a public declaration of their preference by allowing union organizers to bypass elections if a majority of employees sign cards authorizing a union.
The legislation passed the U.S. House in 2007 and is expected to be brought forth by Democratic leaders for a vote in the Senate this year.
Isakson believes the current system, which allows employees to use a secret ballot in choosing whether they want a union to become their exclusive representative in the workplace, has worked well because it neither advocates nor discourages unionization.
Isakson blamed declining union membership as the motive behind the legislation, which did not receive committee consideration. Union membership among private sector employees is at its lowest level in decades.
Isakson also used the nomination hearing for Solis to stress the importance of writing regulations that both protect workers and allow businesses to operate efficiently.
“In my four years on this committee as the Republican leader on the Employment and Workplace Safety Subcommittee, I have worked with Senators Murray, Kennedy, Enzi and others to try and strike this delicate balance,” Isakson said. “We have a strong record of working together on critical issues to American workers such as mine safety reform, banning asbestos, and pension protection.”
Saturday, December 20, 2008
How long can we keep paying?
I saw the numbers flash across the screen the other day re: those filing for unemployment. We're cranking out benefits for first-time claims in excess of 550,000 per week right now! First-time claims for unemployment benefits in the week to December 13 was 554,000, the previous week's revised figure was 575,000 per the Labor Department.
Here's another stark statistic: The jobless rate has risen to 6.7 percent. This is the highest rate since October 1993.
I have no idea how much money is being shelled out to cover those benefits. I know the government keeps extending unemployment benefits. Businesses "fund" unemployment benefits through payroll taxes in part. It's administered through the state with the federal government funding the program when unemployment is high and the states can't cover the costs.
It was intended to be a short-term program to help cover basics while the unemployed individual looked for a new job.
Then we have the bailout. Our politicians are tinkering around with billions and billions of our current and future dollars to bail out select businesses.
According to the New York Times the Treasury has now spent the first $350 billion of the bailout (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20tarp.html).
The states are in trouble and have their hands out. Insurance companies are trying to restructure to meet the bailout requirements. The government just changed the rules of the bailout and opted to throw money at the auto industry. Every time I tune into the news I hear of another business that is laying off people or another business group with their hands out.
I heard on the news that 7% of companies who were matching 401K employee contributions have stopped doing so. Businesses are cutting back. States are considering increasing taxes. Some governments and businesses are going to four-day work-weeks. Companies aren't giving out Christmas bonuses.
I could go on with the doom and gloom, but we're all aware of the state of the economy.
It's almost a vicious cycle, or maybe it's not "almost". I hear the bad news and I decide not to go buy the new car I wanted or to buy some Christmas gifts. I decide not to fly to see my family opting to save the money. You get the idea --- we're all hanging onto our money, just like the banks! The irony is that if we'd go shopping we'd help the economy and maybe stop that vicious cycle.
Sooner or later the government is going to have to shut off the money spigot. There's only so much of our money we can be expected to hand over to take care of companies that made bad decisions. My biggest fear is not that the economy will collapse and that we'll go through another depression, which would be horrible. No, my biggest fear is that Obama, Pelosi and friends will use it as an excuse to move us into a more socialistic society. I fear that more companies will let the government intrude inside their board rooms just to stay afloat. Given my druthers I'd choose bankruptcy and depression over socialism. One is temporary, the other is the ruination of the very foundation that has made America the greatest country in the history of this world.
Here's another stark statistic: The jobless rate has risen to 6.7 percent. This is the highest rate since October 1993.
I have no idea how much money is being shelled out to cover those benefits. I know the government keeps extending unemployment benefits. Businesses "fund" unemployment benefits through payroll taxes in part. It's administered through the state with the federal government funding the program when unemployment is high and the states can't cover the costs.
It was intended to be a short-term program to help cover basics while the unemployed individual looked for a new job.
Then we have the bailout. Our politicians are tinkering around with billions and billions of our current and future dollars to bail out select businesses.
According to the New York Times the Treasury has now spent the first $350 billion of the bailout (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20tarp.html).
The states are in trouble and have their hands out. Insurance companies are trying to restructure to meet the bailout requirements. The government just changed the rules of the bailout and opted to throw money at the auto industry. Every time I tune into the news I hear of another business that is laying off people or another business group with their hands out.
I heard on the news that 7% of companies who were matching 401K employee contributions have stopped doing so. Businesses are cutting back. States are considering increasing taxes. Some governments and businesses are going to four-day work-weeks. Companies aren't giving out Christmas bonuses.
I could go on with the doom and gloom, but we're all aware of the state of the economy.
It's almost a vicious cycle, or maybe it's not "almost". I hear the bad news and I decide not to go buy the new car I wanted or to buy some Christmas gifts. I decide not to fly to see my family opting to save the money. You get the idea --- we're all hanging onto our money, just like the banks! The irony is that if we'd go shopping we'd help the economy and maybe stop that vicious cycle.
Sooner or later the government is going to have to shut off the money spigot. There's only so much of our money we can be expected to hand over to take care of companies that made bad decisions. My biggest fear is not that the economy will collapse and that we'll go through another depression, which would be horrible. No, my biggest fear is that Obama, Pelosi and friends will use it as an excuse to move us into a more socialistic society. I fear that more companies will let the government intrude inside their board rooms just to stay afloat. Given my druthers I'd choose bankruptcy and depression over socialism. One is temporary, the other is the ruination of the very foundation that has made America the greatest country in the history of this world.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
John McCain Speech, Blue Bell, PA -- Fantastic!
I just finished listening to John McCain give the following speech. It was phenomenal! Wow! It loses some of the impact when reading it rather than hearing it, but he really did a great job and I loved the ending!!! Let's FIGHT for our country! (I'll see if I can get a YouTube video for you)
Here's the speech:
Thank you all very much. I appreciate the warm welcome to Pennsylvania, and the hospitality of Montgomery County Community College.
Tomorrow will be the third and final presidential debate, and just 21 days remain until Americans choose their next president. Over the last 21 days, we have seen once-sturdy Wall Street institutions vanish, we have seen huge swings in the market both down and up, and we have seen new federal commitments in the hundreds of billions of dollars. We have seen how suddenly a crisis can unfold these last several weeks, and how great the costs can be in jobs, savings, lost opportunities and taxpayer dollars. What we need to see now is swift and bold action to lead this country in a new direction.
If I am elected president, I will help to create jobs for Americans in the most effective way a president can do this -- with tax cuts that are directed specifically to create jobs, and protect your life savings. I will stand up to the corrupt ways of Washington, the wasteful spending and the abuses of power and I will end these abuses, whatever it takes. I will lead reforms to help families keep their homes, and retirees to keep their savings, and college students to pay their tuition, and every citizen to afford health care, and America to reclaim its energy independence.
These will be my priorities. We cannot spend the next four years as we have spent much of the last eight: waiting for our luck to change. The hour is late and our troubles are getting worse. We have to act immediately. We have to change direction now. We have to fight.
That is what I will do in my term as president, and when I leave office I can promise you that this nation will not be on the same path it is today. I will not play along with the same Washington games and gimmicks that got us into this terrible mess in the first place. I am going to Washington to fight for you.
I will begin by making certain that the 700 billion dollars already committed to economic recovery is not used to further enrich the very people and institutions that invited these troubles with their own reckless conduct. Instead of just propping up institutions deemed "too big to fail" in this crisis, we will use more of this public money to help businesses and homeowners that may be too small to survive.
This financial crisis started with our housing crisis, and we cannot fix our markets and the economy until we fix the housing crisis. My plan will protect the value of your home and get it rising again by buying up bad mortgages and refinancing them so if your neighbor defaults he doesn't bring down the value of your house with him. I will direct the government to refinance troubled mortgages for homeowners and replace them with mortgages they can afford. This is what we did during the Great Depression and we can do it again. Helping families who face default, foreclosure, and possible bankruptcy helps all homeowners, and will begin the process of recovery from this crisis. With so much on the line, the moment requires that government act -- and as president I intend to act, quickly and decisively.
When the government does provide funds to shore up companies, the terms will be demanding, there will be complete transparency and the safety net for our financial system will not become a golden parachute for failed executives. Moreover, we will not merely inject billions of dollars into companies and walk away hoping for the best. We will require that those companies be reformed and restructured until they are sound assets again, and can be sold at no loss -- or perhaps even a profit -- to the taxpayers of America.
And when that is accomplished, in each instance, government will relinquish its interest in these private companies. We're going to get government out of the business of bailouts and equity stakes, and back in the business of responsible regulation. We will learn from this crisis to prevent the next one, with much stricter oversight. No more wild overleveraging, no more liabilities concealed from the public and from shareholders, no more bundling of assets to maximize profit by assuming insane risks. Those days are over on Wall Street. With new rules of public disclosure and accounting, my reforms will make certain these betrayals of shareholders and the public trust are never repeated.
We must restore trust to our financial system. On my orders, the Department of the Treasury will guarantee one hundred percent of all savings accounts for a period of six months. This will calm the understandable fears of widespread bank failure, while also restoring rational judgment to the choices of the market.
As president, I will also act to protect investors -- especially those relying on their investments for retirement. Current rules mandate that investors must begin to sell off their IRAs and 401Ks when they reach age 70 and one half years old. Those rules should be suspended to spare senior citizens from being forced to sell their stock just as the market is hurting the most. Under the emergency measure I propose, we will also cut the tax rate for withdrawals from tax-preferred retirement accounts to ten percent. Retirees have suffered enough and need relief, and the surest relief is to let them keep more of their own savings.
It is essential that we avoid an exodus of capital from the market. Senator Obama yesterday offered up a proposal that would have the effect of encouraging early withdrawal of funds from 401(k) accounts, by suspending penalties through 2009. This is an invitation to capital flight, and therefore to continued instability in the market, at a moment when exactly the opposite is needed. Any family that takes part in this will not see the benefits of the market recovery that smart policy can help bring about. In my administration, we will instead revive the market by attracting new investment. I will cut in half the capital gains tax on stocks purchased and held for more than a year -- from a rate of 15 to 7.5 percent. This vital measure will promote buying, raise asset values, help companies and shore up the pension plans for workers and retirees.
We should also not penalize Americans who are forced to sell investments in today's tough markets. I will increase the amount of capital losses from $3,000 to $15,000, which can be deducted from your ordinary income in tax years 2008 and 2009. So much of this decline in our markets and value destruction was due to the failure of Congress and the Administration to come out with a timely rescue package. Investors are always responsible for their investment decisions, but the hard earned savings of Americans should not be penalized by the erratic behavior of politicians.
It will not be enough for the federal government to correct the excesses of Wall Street without reforming its own reckless practices.
Spending in Washington is out of control and I am going to rein it in. As president, I will veto the pork barrel special interest projects that are wasting your tax dollars, driving up our debt, and weakening our dollar. I have proposed a one year spending freeze with certain exceptions for such things as defense and veteran care. We are going to use that year to turn Washington inside out and get rid of wasteful, inefficient programs that do no one any good.
While we put government back on your side, we must reform our tax system to deliver needed tax relief to working Americans, and to create jobs. I will double the child deduction, from 3,500 dollars to 7,000 dollars. Every person in America who chooses it will receive a 5,000 dollars towards the purchase of health insurance -- health plans that will be theirs to keep, even if they change jobs or move to another state. And we will reduce the federal business tax rate from 35 percent -- the second-highest in the world -- to 25 percent. I am also proposing today that for those who are between jobs, we eliminate all taxes on unemployment benefits. It is unclear to me why the government taxes money it has just sent you, and we should relieve this burden from Americans who've been hit the hardest.
Reducing business tax rates has the potential to stop and reverse the rise of unemployment, and could create millions of new jobs. Despite the frequent changes to my opponent's tax plans in recent months -- he seems to revise them with each new poll -- his plan to raise taxes on 50% of small business income has survived. And even as he rails against companies that shut down their plants and move overseas, he refuses to cut the tax rate that drives many of these companies away.
A typical middle-class family of four making 42,000 dollars a year with health insurance will get 4,350 more dollars under my plan than they would under Senator Obama's plan. That example of 42,000 a year in wages is especially relevant, because just last year Senator Obama voted to raise taxes on individuals making that amount.
Senator Obama is also the same fellow who requested a million dollars a day in pork barrel earmarks ... who thinks that wasting 18 billion dollars a year in earmarks is not worth worrying about, who proposed a near doubling of the taxes on dividends and capital gains during the primary, who has voted 94 times for tax increases or against tax cuts, who is promising almost a trillion dollars in new spending, who came to the Senate a few years ago and already earned the title of its most liberal member -- this is the man who now presents himself as a tax cutter and champion of middle-class America.
He is an eloquent speaker, but even he can't turn a record of supporting higher taxes into a credible promise to cut taxes. What he promises today is the opposite of what he has done his entire career. Perhaps never before in history have the American people been asked to risk so much based on so little.
You can look at the record of what he's done or you can just go with your gut, but either way you're left with the same conclusion: Senator Obama is going to raise your taxes. And in this economy, raising taxes is the surest way to turn a recession into a depression.
Senator Obama also promises to restrict international trade and risk access to foreign markets for American goods and services. The last President to raise taxes and restrict trade in a bad economy was Herbert Hoover. That didn't turn out to well. They say those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Well, I know my history lessons, and I sure won't make the mistakes Senator Obama will. And were my opponent elected with a Democratic Congress in power, not only would there be no check on my opponent's reckless economic policies, there would be considerable pressure on him to tax and spend even more.
This weekend, a plumber concerned that Senator Obama was going to raise his taxes asked him directly about his plan. The response was telling. Senator Obama explained to him that he was going to raise his taxes to quote "spread the wealth around." This explains how Senator Obama can promise an income tax cut for millions who aren't even paying income taxes right now. My friends, my plan isn't intended to force small businesses to cut jobs to pay higher taxes so we can "spread the wealth around." My plan is intended to create jobs and increase the wealth of all Americans.
My plan for economic recovery does not require guesswork or blind faith from the American people. You know my record. You don't have to hope I will do what I promise. When I say I will cut spending, you need only look at my record to know it's true. When I say I will defend taxpayers, you know it's true because it's what I've always done. When I say I will work across the aisle, you can see it in the results I've delivered.
And when I say I will change Washington, you know I'll do it, because for me change isn't a political slogan, it's what I've been doing my whole career.
I know you're worried. America is a great country, but we are at a moment of national crisis that will determine our future. Will we continue to lead the world's economies or will we be overtaken? Will the world become safer or more dangerous? Will our military remain the strongest in the world? Will our children and grandchildren's future be brighter than ours?
My answer to you is yes. Yes, we will lead. Yes, we will prosper. Yes, we will be safer. Yes, we will pass on to our children a stronger, better country. But we must be prepared to act swiftly, boldly, with courage and wisdom.
I know what fear feels like. It's a thief in the night who robs your strength.
I know what hopelessness feels like. It's an enemy who defeats your will.
I felt those things once before. I will never let them in again. I'm an American. And I choose to fight.
Don't give up hope. Be strong. Have courage. And fight.
Fight for a new direction for our country.
Fight for what's right for America.
Fight to clean up the mess of corruption, infighting and selfishness in Washington.
Fight to get our economy out of the ditch and back in the lead.
Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.
Fight for our children's future.
Fight for justice and opportunity for all.
Stand up to defend our country from its enemies.
Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. America is worth fighting for. Nothing is inevitable here.
We never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history.
Now, let's go win this election and get this country moving again.
Here's the speech:
Thank you all very much. I appreciate the warm welcome to Pennsylvania, and the hospitality of Montgomery County Community College.
Tomorrow will be the third and final presidential debate, and just 21 days remain until Americans choose their next president. Over the last 21 days, we have seen once-sturdy Wall Street institutions vanish, we have seen huge swings in the market both down and up, and we have seen new federal commitments in the hundreds of billions of dollars. We have seen how suddenly a crisis can unfold these last several weeks, and how great the costs can be in jobs, savings, lost opportunities and taxpayer dollars. What we need to see now is swift and bold action to lead this country in a new direction.
If I am elected president, I will help to create jobs for Americans in the most effective way a president can do this -- with tax cuts that are directed specifically to create jobs, and protect your life savings. I will stand up to the corrupt ways of Washington, the wasteful spending and the abuses of power and I will end these abuses, whatever it takes. I will lead reforms to help families keep their homes, and retirees to keep their savings, and college students to pay their tuition, and every citizen to afford health care, and America to reclaim its energy independence.
These will be my priorities. We cannot spend the next four years as we have spent much of the last eight: waiting for our luck to change. The hour is late and our troubles are getting worse. We have to act immediately. We have to change direction now. We have to fight.
That is what I will do in my term as president, and when I leave office I can promise you that this nation will not be on the same path it is today. I will not play along with the same Washington games and gimmicks that got us into this terrible mess in the first place. I am going to Washington to fight for you.
I will begin by making certain that the 700 billion dollars already committed to economic recovery is not used to further enrich the very people and institutions that invited these troubles with their own reckless conduct. Instead of just propping up institutions deemed "too big to fail" in this crisis, we will use more of this public money to help businesses and homeowners that may be too small to survive.
This financial crisis started with our housing crisis, and we cannot fix our markets and the economy until we fix the housing crisis. My plan will protect the value of your home and get it rising again by buying up bad mortgages and refinancing them so if your neighbor defaults he doesn't bring down the value of your house with him. I will direct the government to refinance troubled mortgages for homeowners and replace them with mortgages they can afford. This is what we did during the Great Depression and we can do it again. Helping families who face default, foreclosure, and possible bankruptcy helps all homeowners, and will begin the process of recovery from this crisis. With so much on the line, the moment requires that government act -- and as president I intend to act, quickly and decisively.
When the government does provide funds to shore up companies, the terms will be demanding, there will be complete transparency and the safety net for our financial system will not become a golden parachute for failed executives. Moreover, we will not merely inject billions of dollars into companies and walk away hoping for the best. We will require that those companies be reformed and restructured until they are sound assets again, and can be sold at no loss -- or perhaps even a profit -- to the taxpayers of America.
And when that is accomplished, in each instance, government will relinquish its interest in these private companies. We're going to get government out of the business of bailouts and equity stakes, and back in the business of responsible regulation. We will learn from this crisis to prevent the next one, with much stricter oversight. No more wild overleveraging, no more liabilities concealed from the public and from shareholders, no more bundling of assets to maximize profit by assuming insane risks. Those days are over on Wall Street. With new rules of public disclosure and accounting, my reforms will make certain these betrayals of shareholders and the public trust are never repeated.
We must restore trust to our financial system. On my orders, the Department of the Treasury will guarantee one hundred percent of all savings accounts for a period of six months. This will calm the understandable fears of widespread bank failure, while also restoring rational judgment to the choices of the market.
As president, I will also act to protect investors -- especially those relying on their investments for retirement. Current rules mandate that investors must begin to sell off their IRAs and 401Ks when they reach age 70 and one half years old. Those rules should be suspended to spare senior citizens from being forced to sell their stock just as the market is hurting the most. Under the emergency measure I propose, we will also cut the tax rate for withdrawals from tax-preferred retirement accounts to ten percent. Retirees have suffered enough and need relief, and the surest relief is to let them keep more of their own savings.
It is essential that we avoid an exodus of capital from the market. Senator Obama yesterday offered up a proposal that would have the effect of encouraging early withdrawal of funds from 401(k) accounts, by suspending penalties through 2009. This is an invitation to capital flight, and therefore to continued instability in the market, at a moment when exactly the opposite is needed. Any family that takes part in this will not see the benefits of the market recovery that smart policy can help bring about. In my administration, we will instead revive the market by attracting new investment. I will cut in half the capital gains tax on stocks purchased and held for more than a year -- from a rate of 15 to 7.5 percent. This vital measure will promote buying, raise asset values, help companies and shore up the pension plans for workers and retirees.
We should also not penalize Americans who are forced to sell investments in today's tough markets. I will increase the amount of capital losses from $3,000 to $15,000, which can be deducted from your ordinary income in tax years 2008 and 2009. So much of this decline in our markets and value destruction was due to the failure of Congress and the Administration to come out with a timely rescue package. Investors are always responsible for their investment decisions, but the hard earned savings of Americans should not be penalized by the erratic behavior of politicians.
It will not be enough for the federal government to correct the excesses of Wall Street without reforming its own reckless practices.
Spending in Washington is out of control and I am going to rein it in. As president, I will veto the pork barrel special interest projects that are wasting your tax dollars, driving up our debt, and weakening our dollar. I have proposed a one year spending freeze with certain exceptions for such things as defense and veteran care. We are going to use that year to turn Washington inside out and get rid of wasteful, inefficient programs that do no one any good.
While we put government back on your side, we must reform our tax system to deliver needed tax relief to working Americans, and to create jobs. I will double the child deduction, from 3,500 dollars to 7,000 dollars. Every person in America who chooses it will receive a 5,000 dollars towards the purchase of health insurance -- health plans that will be theirs to keep, even if they change jobs or move to another state. And we will reduce the federal business tax rate from 35 percent -- the second-highest in the world -- to 25 percent. I am also proposing today that for those who are between jobs, we eliminate all taxes on unemployment benefits. It is unclear to me why the government taxes money it has just sent you, and we should relieve this burden from Americans who've been hit the hardest.
Reducing business tax rates has the potential to stop and reverse the rise of unemployment, and could create millions of new jobs. Despite the frequent changes to my opponent's tax plans in recent months -- he seems to revise them with each new poll -- his plan to raise taxes on 50% of small business income has survived. And even as he rails against companies that shut down their plants and move overseas, he refuses to cut the tax rate that drives many of these companies away.
A typical middle-class family of four making 42,000 dollars a year with health insurance will get 4,350 more dollars under my plan than they would under Senator Obama's plan. That example of 42,000 a year in wages is especially relevant, because just last year Senator Obama voted to raise taxes on individuals making that amount.
Senator Obama is also the same fellow who requested a million dollars a day in pork barrel earmarks ... who thinks that wasting 18 billion dollars a year in earmarks is not worth worrying about, who proposed a near doubling of the taxes on dividends and capital gains during the primary, who has voted 94 times for tax increases or against tax cuts, who is promising almost a trillion dollars in new spending, who came to the Senate a few years ago and already earned the title of its most liberal member -- this is the man who now presents himself as a tax cutter and champion of middle-class America.
He is an eloquent speaker, but even he can't turn a record of supporting higher taxes into a credible promise to cut taxes. What he promises today is the opposite of what he has done his entire career. Perhaps never before in history have the American people been asked to risk so much based on so little.
You can look at the record of what he's done or you can just go with your gut, but either way you're left with the same conclusion: Senator Obama is going to raise your taxes. And in this economy, raising taxes is the surest way to turn a recession into a depression.
Senator Obama also promises to restrict international trade and risk access to foreign markets for American goods and services. The last President to raise taxes and restrict trade in a bad economy was Herbert Hoover. That didn't turn out to well. They say those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Well, I know my history lessons, and I sure won't make the mistakes Senator Obama will. And were my opponent elected with a Democratic Congress in power, not only would there be no check on my opponent's reckless economic policies, there would be considerable pressure on him to tax and spend even more.
This weekend, a plumber concerned that Senator Obama was going to raise his taxes asked him directly about his plan. The response was telling. Senator Obama explained to him that he was going to raise his taxes to quote "spread the wealth around." This explains how Senator Obama can promise an income tax cut for millions who aren't even paying income taxes right now. My friends, my plan isn't intended to force small businesses to cut jobs to pay higher taxes so we can "spread the wealth around." My plan is intended to create jobs and increase the wealth of all Americans.
My plan for economic recovery does not require guesswork or blind faith from the American people. You know my record. You don't have to hope I will do what I promise. When I say I will cut spending, you need only look at my record to know it's true. When I say I will defend taxpayers, you know it's true because it's what I've always done. When I say I will work across the aisle, you can see it in the results I've delivered.
And when I say I will change Washington, you know I'll do it, because for me change isn't a political slogan, it's what I've been doing my whole career.
I know you're worried. America is a great country, but we are at a moment of national crisis that will determine our future. Will we continue to lead the world's economies or will we be overtaken? Will the world become safer or more dangerous? Will our military remain the strongest in the world? Will our children and grandchildren's future be brighter than ours?
My answer to you is yes. Yes, we will lead. Yes, we will prosper. Yes, we will be safer. Yes, we will pass on to our children a stronger, better country. But we must be prepared to act swiftly, boldly, with courage and wisdom.
I know what fear feels like. It's a thief in the night who robs your strength.
I know what hopelessness feels like. It's an enemy who defeats your will.
I felt those things once before. I will never let them in again. I'm an American. And I choose to fight.
Don't give up hope. Be strong. Have courage. And fight.
Fight for a new direction for our country.
Fight for what's right for America.
Fight to clean up the mess of corruption, infighting and selfishness in Washington.
Fight to get our economy out of the ditch and back in the lead.
Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.
Fight for our children's future.
Fight for justice and opportunity for all.
Stand up to defend our country from its enemies.
Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. America is worth fighting for. Nothing is inevitable here.
We never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history.
Now, let's go win this election and get this country moving again.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Great column by Newt Gingrich (Economy, John McCain, Obama)
Where We Find Ourselves This October: The Bush-Paulson Economy is a Failure; Obama and the Left Would Be Worse; Can McCain Offer a Path to Economic Growth and Prosperity?
America this October is like a patient who has barely avoided a massive heart attack. We have no strategy for recovery, no strategy for economic growth, and no strategy for holding accountable those who have created this mess.
We're also far from out of danger. If we do not create an economic recovery program, we will be facing another bailout next year.
To put it another way: We can mop up water all we want but if we don't fix the leak we will simply have to keep mopping.
Similarly, we can pass a bailout, but if we don't fix the economy we will have more and more bailouts.
America Must Get Back to the Fundamentals to Be Healthy Again
If we don't develop an energy abundance plan, we will continue to send $500 billion or more a year overseas and our economy will continue to weaken.
If we don't focus on making it easier for small business and for entrepreneurial startups, we won't have the new jobs to replace the old ones that are fading away under the pressures of science, technology and the world market.
If we don't get government spending, government regulations, government bureaucracy and government-mandated litigation under control, our economy will continue to weaken and we will be hit with rising inflation.America has to get back to the fundamentals to become healthy again.
The Bush-Paulson Economic Strategy Has Been a Disaster
The Bush-Paulson strategy has been a disaster and has made things more difficult.This spring, the $152 billion stimulus bill was wasted money. It should have been invested in science, technology, energy, infrastructure and pro-jobs, pro-savings tax cuts.
Imagine repealing the business killing Sarbanes-Oxley bill, eliminating the capital gains tax, going to 100 percent annual expensing for small businesses, and other practical steps to create jobs and generate wealth to mop up the bad debts.
Imagine half of the $152 billion invested in clean coal, biofuels, solar power, wind power, nuclear power, natural gas vehicles, hydrogen vehicles and drilling for oil and natural gas. Imagine the other half being invested in the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and in a space-based air traffic control system that would increase capacity in the Northeast by 40 percent. That would have been a long-term investment strategy instead of a wasted stimulus package.
Amazingly, the Housing Bailout Contained $500 Million for Radical, Anti-Free Market Groups
To give you a sense of how failed the current strategy has been, consider this: This summer a $300 billion housing bailout was passed with a $500 million a year payment to a radical, anti-free market group called ACORN and other left-wing organizing groups.
ACORN is a left-wing, political extortion racket. It's currently busy bussing people to vote early in Ohio and elsewhere - these are your tax dollars at work. You get taxed to send a left-wing group money to use to elect left-wing predatory politicians to raise your taxes to give more money to groups who help them get elected, etc.
It was suicidal for a Republican president to sign that housing bailout bill and any bill that contains funding for groups so radically opposed to the values and interests of the vast majority of Americans.
The Paulson Bailout a "Paradigm Shift" Toward Big Government and Big Cronyism
The Paulson bailout was initially bad and made worse by the Congressional Democrats. Then, John McCain and the House Republicans moved the bill from terrible to merely bad.
Still, lobbyists are already lining up to get their piece of the Paulson pie. They see a goldmine of new government regulation and involvement in private industry for them to exploit for their clients. One lobbyist told the Hill newspaper: "This will ripple through every piece of major legislation we are looking at next Congress. This is a paradigm shift."
Too Little Too Late: The SEC Moves Away From Mark-to-Market Accounting
Finally, the Bush Administration resisted for months modifying the mark-to-market accounting system which has been the source of many unnecessary bankruptcies. The need to abandon the mark-to-market rule was the focus of my speech last Tuesday morning at the National Press Club. By Tuesday afternoon, to its credit, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) admitted the mark-to-market rule needed to be revised and announced a substantial change in its application. If the SEC had done this three months ago, it might have avoided $500 billion of the $700 billion in bad debt that Paulson wants to bail out with your money.
But If Bush-Paulson is Bad, Obama-Frank-Dodd-Pelosi-Reid Will Be Worse
Clearly, by any reasonable standard, the Bush-Paulson stewardship of the economy has failed.
But the Barack Obama-Barney Frank-Chris Dodd-Nancy Pelosi-Harry Reid-left-wing policies of big government, high taxes, more litigation, and insider deals for their left-wing special interests will be even worse.
We've heard a lot about predatory lenders in this current economic crisis. They deserve their share of the blame. But it's time to introduce a new term that gets us closer to the real roots of this crisis: Predatory politicians.
Predatory politicians are much more dangerous than predatory lenders. Predatory politicians have the power of the government to coerce you.Government under Obama, Frank, Dodd, Pelosi and Reid will be government by and for predatory politicians. It will make dealing with predatory lenders seems like a walk in the park.
McCain and Palin Should Sound the Call Against Predatory Politicians
The elite media has desperately sought to avoid the guilt of the left for the current crisis. But this is a topic Senator McCain and Governor Palin should spend at least one-third of their time on for the next four weeks. For more information on predatory politicians and their role in the making of the economic crisis, see my paper "Predatory Politicans, Destructive Leftwing Politics and the Roots of the Housing Crisis."
And if McCain and Palin find themselves in need of arguments against the left's all-purpose excuse that a lack of government regulation is all that is behind the economic crisis, they should read this conversation with Warren Buffet. The government had a 200-employee agency whose sole job was to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and yet Fannie and Freddie still managed to bring the economy to its knees.
The Questions Senator Obama Needs to Answer
Senator Obama is intimately tied to corruption, left-wing radicalism, and predatory politicians. But the elite media has done everything it could to avoid asking the key questions. For a list of the questions Senator Obama needs to answer before we can judge his fitness for office, see my paper "Why is Barack Obama Afraid to Answer These Questions?"
Senator McCain and Governor Palin should spend another third of their time asking Obama and the elite media to answer these questions. They could use the same technique that Senator Richard Russell used in 1936 to defeat populist Georgia Governor Gene Talmadge. Russell literally posted a list of questions on the podium in Macon and told the crowd "Don't let him leave until he answers them." It was the psychological turning point of that campaign because Talmadge refused to answer and the people knew it.If everywhere Obama and Biden went for the next 28 days they were faced with these questions they would rapidly lose popular legitimacy.
The McCain Crisis: Danger and Opportunity
Senator McCain now faces the crisis of his career.He is behind.He will not catch up on a state-by-state basis.He will either win the argument in the national media, suddenly growing stronger in many states or he will lose the national debate and gradually decline further in a number of states.
The Danger For McCain
If Senator McCain is not prepared to separate himself from the Bush-Paulson economic program, he has no opportunity to win.The country is deeply fed up with the Bush presidency and angry about the Paulson bailout. If McCain is confused or uncertain about how bad this economic performance is, he will never get the country to listen to him.
The Opportunity for McCain
Just as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan (as well as the House Republicans in 1994 with the Contract with America) created a large argument which led to a decisive result, so McCain has an opportunity to reach beyond the daily attacks and clever tactics and spend the last 28 days of this campaign making a large argument over America's future.
If McCain is prepared to declare that it is time for a fundamental change away from the failure of Bush-Paulson and away from the leftism of Obama (a "clean rupture" as French President Nicolas Sarkozy described it in breaking with President Jacques Chirac (watch my video on Sarkozy here) or "bold colors with no pale pastels" as Reagan described it in breaking with President Ford in 1976), then he has a huge opportunity on three levels:
First, small business and free markets are better than bureaucrats and socialism. We know this as a matter of American values and polling confirms it. The margin isn't even close; it's about 70 -20 or better. Clinton pollster Doug Schoen and Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway recently did a survey for American Solutions which proves the American people hold the government responsible for much of our current economic pain. On other key issues like energy and taxes, the Platform of the American People proves that McCain could build a big majority.
Second, the vast majority of the American people are deeply fed up with the corruption, dishonesty, and arrogance of Washington and of many of their state capitals. A candidate with the courage to tell the truth about Franklin Raines, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, the Carter and Clinton-era pressures for bad loans, the ACORN pressure for bad loans (trained in Chicago by Barack Obama in his community organizer days) would have an enormous response from a country which is sick of predatory politicians, arrogant bureaucrats, and elitist reporters.In short, the elites would be enraged but the American people would be enthusiastic.
Third, there are huge groups of Americans eager to have someone address their concerns and offer them hope. Millions of small business owners would like a program that cut spending in Washington and taxes on their businesses and reduced regulations and red tape.
Millions of drivers would like an energy program that offered them hope. They believe in drilling here and drilling now.
Every person who uses electricity is eager for a determined effort to develop clean coal.Millions of retirees or soon to be retirees would like a program that would strengthen the economy and increase the value of their investments.
Entrepreneurs and venture capitalists would fight for a program that abolished Sarbanes-Oxley, eliminated the capital gains tax, and expanded H-1B visas for talented workers.A bold program of the right changes would rally a massive number of activists and donors to fight for a better future.
"Action This Day"
That was the slogan Winston Churchill used to focus and energize the British Government when he became prime minister in the darkest days of World War II. If Senator McCain is prepared to be as bold as Winston Churchill and as aggressive as Theodore Roosevelt, this is an election that can be won and might be won by a shocking margin (like Harry Truman in 1948).
The choice is his. As for myself, I know of no other path that will work.
Your friend,
Newt Gingrich
P.S. -- Thanks to the determined effort of Americans like you, October marks the first month in a quarter-century when it is legal to explore for energy offshore. This is a huge victory, but many among the anti-energy left have already said they will do everything they can to stop it. You can arm yourselves with the facts about America's energy potential with my new book, Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less (also available in audio) as well as Callista and my new DVD, co-produced by Citizen's United, called We Have the Power. You can also watch this video about the "Drill Here, Drill Now" efforts at American Solutions over the summer to have the Congress act to lower gas and diesel prices.
Platform of the American People Update
American Solutions Chief Advocate, Princella Smith will address a crowd of 200 at the Golden Triangle Republican Women's luncheon in Beaumont, TX this week. Energy, tri-partisanship, and the economy will be the focal points while attendees will be receive free Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less bumper stickers and engage in Q & A about American Solutions.
American Solutions had a great presence on the air this week including this appearance on Neil Cavuto by Princella Smith.
Stay tuned to AmericanSolutions.com and visit our blog for updates from the American Solutions team.
HAVE YOU SIGNED? Join the Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less Campaign, and get involved with the entire movement for the Platform of the American People! Contact: Princella Smith at info@americansolutions.com
America this October is like a patient who has barely avoided a massive heart attack. We have no strategy for recovery, no strategy for economic growth, and no strategy for holding accountable those who have created this mess.
We're also far from out of danger. If we do not create an economic recovery program, we will be facing another bailout next year.
To put it another way: We can mop up water all we want but if we don't fix the leak we will simply have to keep mopping.
Similarly, we can pass a bailout, but if we don't fix the economy we will have more and more bailouts.
America Must Get Back to the Fundamentals to Be Healthy Again
If we don't develop an energy abundance plan, we will continue to send $500 billion or more a year overseas and our economy will continue to weaken.
If we don't focus on making it easier for small business and for entrepreneurial startups, we won't have the new jobs to replace the old ones that are fading away under the pressures of science, technology and the world market.
If we don't get government spending, government regulations, government bureaucracy and government-mandated litigation under control, our economy will continue to weaken and we will be hit with rising inflation.America has to get back to the fundamentals to become healthy again.
The Bush-Paulson Economic Strategy Has Been a Disaster
The Bush-Paulson strategy has been a disaster and has made things more difficult.This spring, the $152 billion stimulus bill was wasted money. It should have been invested in science, technology, energy, infrastructure and pro-jobs, pro-savings tax cuts.
Imagine repealing the business killing Sarbanes-Oxley bill, eliminating the capital gains tax, going to 100 percent annual expensing for small businesses, and other practical steps to create jobs and generate wealth to mop up the bad debts.
Imagine half of the $152 billion invested in clean coal, biofuels, solar power, wind power, nuclear power, natural gas vehicles, hydrogen vehicles and drilling for oil and natural gas. Imagine the other half being invested in the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and in a space-based air traffic control system that would increase capacity in the Northeast by 40 percent. That would have been a long-term investment strategy instead of a wasted stimulus package.
Amazingly, the Housing Bailout Contained $500 Million for Radical, Anti-Free Market Groups
To give you a sense of how failed the current strategy has been, consider this: This summer a $300 billion housing bailout was passed with a $500 million a year payment to a radical, anti-free market group called ACORN and other left-wing organizing groups.
ACORN is a left-wing, political extortion racket. It's currently busy bussing people to vote early in Ohio and elsewhere - these are your tax dollars at work. You get taxed to send a left-wing group money to use to elect left-wing predatory politicians to raise your taxes to give more money to groups who help them get elected, etc.
It was suicidal for a Republican president to sign that housing bailout bill and any bill that contains funding for groups so radically opposed to the values and interests of the vast majority of Americans.
The Paulson Bailout a "Paradigm Shift" Toward Big Government and Big Cronyism
The Paulson bailout was initially bad and made worse by the Congressional Democrats. Then, John McCain and the House Republicans moved the bill from terrible to merely bad.
Still, lobbyists are already lining up to get their piece of the Paulson pie. They see a goldmine of new government regulation and involvement in private industry for them to exploit for their clients. One lobbyist told the Hill newspaper: "This will ripple through every piece of major legislation we are looking at next Congress. This is a paradigm shift."
Too Little Too Late: The SEC Moves Away From Mark-to-Market Accounting
Finally, the Bush Administration resisted for months modifying the mark-to-market accounting system which has been the source of many unnecessary bankruptcies. The need to abandon the mark-to-market rule was the focus of my speech last Tuesday morning at the National Press Club. By Tuesday afternoon, to its credit, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) admitted the mark-to-market rule needed to be revised and announced a substantial change in its application. If the SEC had done this three months ago, it might have avoided $500 billion of the $700 billion in bad debt that Paulson wants to bail out with your money.
But If Bush-Paulson is Bad, Obama-Frank-Dodd-Pelosi-Reid Will Be Worse
Clearly, by any reasonable standard, the Bush-Paulson stewardship of the economy has failed.
But the Barack Obama-Barney Frank-Chris Dodd-Nancy Pelosi-Harry Reid-left-wing policies of big government, high taxes, more litigation, and insider deals for their left-wing special interests will be even worse.
We've heard a lot about predatory lenders in this current economic crisis. They deserve their share of the blame. But it's time to introduce a new term that gets us closer to the real roots of this crisis: Predatory politicians.
Predatory politicians are much more dangerous than predatory lenders. Predatory politicians have the power of the government to coerce you.Government under Obama, Frank, Dodd, Pelosi and Reid will be government by and for predatory politicians. It will make dealing with predatory lenders seems like a walk in the park.
McCain and Palin Should Sound the Call Against Predatory Politicians
The elite media has desperately sought to avoid the guilt of the left for the current crisis. But this is a topic Senator McCain and Governor Palin should spend at least one-third of their time on for the next four weeks. For more information on predatory politicians and their role in the making of the economic crisis, see my paper "Predatory Politicans, Destructive Leftwing Politics and the Roots of the Housing Crisis."
And if McCain and Palin find themselves in need of arguments against the left's all-purpose excuse that a lack of government regulation is all that is behind the economic crisis, they should read this conversation with Warren Buffet. The government had a 200-employee agency whose sole job was to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and yet Fannie and Freddie still managed to bring the economy to its knees.
The Questions Senator Obama Needs to Answer
Senator Obama is intimately tied to corruption, left-wing radicalism, and predatory politicians. But the elite media has done everything it could to avoid asking the key questions. For a list of the questions Senator Obama needs to answer before we can judge his fitness for office, see my paper "Why is Barack Obama Afraid to Answer These Questions?"
Senator McCain and Governor Palin should spend another third of their time asking Obama and the elite media to answer these questions. They could use the same technique that Senator Richard Russell used in 1936 to defeat populist Georgia Governor Gene Talmadge. Russell literally posted a list of questions on the podium in Macon and told the crowd "Don't let him leave until he answers them." It was the psychological turning point of that campaign because Talmadge refused to answer and the people knew it.If everywhere Obama and Biden went for the next 28 days they were faced with these questions they would rapidly lose popular legitimacy.
The McCain Crisis: Danger and Opportunity
Senator McCain now faces the crisis of his career.He is behind.He will not catch up on a state-by-state basis.He will either win the argument in the national media, suddenly growing stronger in many states or he will lose the national debate and gradually decline further in a number of states.
The Danger For McCain
If Senator McCain is not prepared to separate himself from the Bush-Paulson economic program, he has no opportunity to win.The country is deeply fed up with the Bush presidency and angry about the Paulson bailout. If McCain is confused or uncertain about how bad this economic performance is, he will never get the country to listen to him.
The Opportunity for McCain
Just as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan (as well as the House Republicans in 1994 with the Contract with America) created a large argument which led to a decisive result, so McCain has an opportunity to reach beyond the daily attacks and clever tactics and spend the last 28 days of this campaign making a large argument over America's future.
If McCain is prepared to declare that it is time for a fundamental change away from the failure of Bush-Paulson and away from the leftism of Obama (a "clean rupture" as French President Nicolas Sarkozy described it in breaking with President Jacques Chirac (watch my video on Sarkozy here) or "bold colors with no pale pastels" as Reagan described it in breaking with President Ford in 1976), then he has a huge opportunity on three levels:
First, small business and free markets are better than bureaucrats and socialism. We know this as a matter of American values and polling confirms it. The margin isn't even close; it's about 70 -20 or better. Clinton pollster Doug Schoen and Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway recently did a survey for American Solutions which proves the American people hold the government responsible for much of our current economic pain. On other key issues like energy and taxes, the Platform of the American People proves that McCain could build a big majority.
Second, the vast majority of the American people are deeply fed up with the corruption, dishonesty, and arrogance of Washington and of many of their state capitals. A candidate with the courage to tell the truth about Franklin Raines, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, the Carter and Clinton-era pressures for bad loans, the ACORN pressure for bad loans (trained in Chicago by Barack Obama in his community organizer days) would have an enormous response from a country which is sick of predatory politicians, arrogant bureaucrats, and elitist reporters.In short, the elites would be enraged but the American people would be enthusiastic.
Third, there are huge groups of Americans eager to have someone address their concerns and offer them hope. Millions of small business owners would like a program that cut spending in Washington and taxes on their businesses and reduced regulations and red tape.
Millions of drivers would like an energy program that offered them hope. They believe in drilling here and drilling now.
Every person who uses electricity is eager for a determined effort to develop clean coal.Millions of retirees or soon to be retirees would like a program that would strengthen the economy and increase the value of their investments.
Entrepreneurs and venture capitalists would fight for a program that abolished Sarbanes-Oxley, eliminated the capital gains tax, and expanded H-1B visas for talented workers.A bold program of the right changes would rally a massive number of activists and donors to fight for a better future.
"Action This Day"
That was the slogan Winston Churchill used to focus and energize the British Government when he became prime minister in the darkest days of World War II. If Senator McCain is prepared to be as bold as Winston Churchill and as aggressive as Theodore Roosevelt, this is an election that can be won and might be won by a shocking margin (like Harry Truman in 1948).
The choice is his. As for myself, I know of no other path that will work.
Your friend,
Newt Gingrich
P.S. -- Thanks to the determined effort of Americans like you, October marks the first month in a quarter-century when it is legal to explore for energy offshore. This is a huge victory, but many among the anti-energy left have already said they will do everything they can to stop it. You can arm yourselves with the facts about America's energy potential with my new book, Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less (also available in audio) as well as Callista and my new DVD, co-produced by Citizen's United, called We Have the Power. You can also watch this video about the "Drill Here, Drill Now" efforts at American Solutions over the summer to have the Congress act to lower gas and diesel prices.
Platform of the American People Update
American Solutions Chief Advocate, Princella Smith will address a crowd of 200 at the Golden Triangle Republican Women's luncheon in Beaumont, TX this week. Energy, tri-partisanship, and the economy will be the focal points while attendees will be receive free Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less bumper stickers and engage in Q & A about American Solutions.
American Solutions had a great presence on the air this week including this appearance on Neil Cavuto by Princella Smith.
Stay tuned to AmericanSolutions.com and visit our blog for updates from the American Solutions team.
HAVE YOU SIGNED? Join the Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less Campaign, and get involved with the entire movement for the Platform of the American People! Contact: Princella Smith at info@americansolutions.com
Saturday, October 4, 2008
John McCain's Weekly Radio Address
DOWNLOAD THE AUDIO FILE HERE: http://www.johnmccain.com/Downloads/100308_wra.mp3
Good morning, this is John McCain. And this week our government finally took a decisive step to regain confidence in our financial markets. It took Congress a while, but a majority finally awakened to the danger. And by the week's end, with the unity that this crisis demands, Congress acted to restore stability to the American economy.
On Thursday night, millions of Americans got to see a little more of why I chose Sarah Palin to be my running mate. In her debate with Senator Joe Biden, she showed the intelligence, heart and grace under pressure that our nation's capital desperately needs. I couldn't be prouder of my choice, or more certain that she's the right person to help me shake things up in Washington. And there were moments when I almost felt a little sorry for my old friend, Joe.
Pressure and crisis often have a way of revealing the best within us -- of showing what we are made of, and how much we can achieve when we are put to the test. This is true of the grave challenges we face in Washington today. Yet it should not require extreme emergencies to bring out the best in us, or to bring us together in service to the common good. We are supposed to do that even in the calmest of times. And if we worked together more often in that spirit, perhaps there would be fewer crises, close-calls, and near-disasters confronting our nation.
Our government is on the wrong track, our economy is struggling, and we got even more bad news with yesterday's unemployment report. It is a time for leadership and a plan to create jobs and get our country on the right track.
I believe in low taxes; spending discipline, and open markets. I believe in rewarding hard work and letting people keep the fruits of their labor. We will keep tax rates low. We will simplify the current tax code. We will double the child exemption from 3500 dollars to 7000 dollars. We will give every family a 5000 dollar tax credit to buy their own health insurance or keep their current plan, and we will open up the national health-care market to expand choices and improve quality. And my administration will reduce the price of food by eliminating the subsidies for ethanol and agricultural goods. These subsidies inflate the price of food, not only for Americans but for people in poverty across the world, and I intend to abolish them.
I believe in a government that unleashes the creativity and initiative of Americans, so they can create more jobs and keep our economy growing. So we will cut business taxes from 35 percent to 25 percent, to give American businesses a new edge in competition. We will spur new investment through R&D tax credits and expensing of equipment. And we will protect the right of workers to decide for themselves, by secret ballot, whether to unionize.
As president, I will also set this country on the straightest, swiftest path to energy independence. We will attack the problem on every front. We will produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells offshore, and we'll drill them now. We will build more nuclear power plants. We will develop clean coal technology. We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas. In all of this, and more, we will create millions of new jobs, many in industries that will be the engine of our future prosperity -- jobs that will be there when your children enter the workforce.
If I am elected president, I will also act immediately with reforms to restore fairness, integrity, and financial sanity to the institutions that have failed us on Wall Street. We will apply new rules to Wall Street, to end the frenzies of speculation by people gaming the system, and to make sure that this present crisis is never repeated.
We must also realize that this rescue plan has serious implications for future spending. We cannot dedicate more than a trillion dollars to rescue failing institutions, and then go right back to business as usual in Washington -- as if there were no end to the resources of government or to the patience of taxpayers. Therefore, as president, I will impose a one-year spending freeze on every agency of the federal government, excepting only national defense, the care of our veterans, and a few critical priorities. Leadership requires candor. And I will tell you bluntly that America is already ten trillion dollars in debt, and to make our economy strong again we must reduce the burden of federal spending. We cannot tax our way to prosperity. I am committed to billions in spending reductions that will balance the budget, and get us on the path away from ruinous debt.
The constant partisan rancor that stops us from solving these problems in Washington isn't a cause, it's a symptom. It's what happens when people go to Washington to work for themselves and not you.
Again and again, I've worked with members of both parties to fix problems that need to be fixed. That's how I will govern as president. I will reach out my hand to anyone to help me get this country moving again. I have that record and the scars to prove it.
Instead of rejecting good ideas because we didn't think of them first, let's use the best ideas from both sides. This great country can do anything we put our minds to. I will ask Democrats and Independents to serve with me. And my administration will set a new standard for transparency and accountability. We're going to finally start getting things done for the people who are counting on us, and I won't care who gets the credit.
Thanks for listening.
Good morning, this is John McCain. And this week our government finally took a decisive step to regain confidence in our financial markets. It took Congress a while, but a majority finally awakened to the danger. And by the week's end, with the unity that this crisis demands, Congress acted to restore stability to the American economy.
On Thursday night, millions of Americans got to see a little more of why I chose Sarah Palin to be my running mate. In her debate with Senator Joe Biden, she showed the intelligence, heart and grace under pressure that our nation's capital desperately needs. I couldn't be prouder of my choice, or more certain that she's the right person to help me shake things up in Washington. And there were moments when I almost felt a little sorry for my old friend, Joe.
Pressure and crisis often have a way of revealing the best within us -- of showing what we are made of, and how much we can achieve when we are put to the test. This is true of the grave challenges we face in Washington today. Yet it should not require extreme emergencies to bring out the best in us, or to bring us together in service to the common good. We are supposed to do that even in the calmest of times. And if we worked together more often in that spirit, perhaps there would be fewer crises, close-calls, and near-disasters confronting our nation.
Our government is on the wrong track, our economy is struggling, and we got even more bad news with yesterday's unemployment report. It is a time for leadership and a plan to create jobs and get our country on the right track.
I believe in low taxes; spending discipline, and open markets. I believe in rewarding hard work and letting people keep the fruits of their labor. We will keep tax rates low. We will simplify the current tax code. We will double the child exemption from 3500 dollars to 7000 dollars. We will give every family a 5000 dollar tax credit to buy their own health insurance or keep their current plan, and we will open up the national health-care market to expand choices and improve quality. And my administration will reduce the price of food by eliminating the subsidies for ethanol and agricultural goods. These subsidies inflate the price of food, not only for Americans but for people in poverty across the world, and I intend to abolish them.
I believe in a government that unleashes the creativity and initiative of Americans, so they can create more jobs and keep our economy growing. So we will cut business taxes from 35 percent to 25 percent, to give American businesses a new edge in competition. We will spur new investment through R&D tax credits and expensing of equipment. And we will protect the right of workers to decide for themselves, by secret ballot, whether to unionize.
As president, I will also set this country on the straightest, swiftest path to energy independence. We will attack the problem on every front. We will produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells offshore, and we'll drill them now. We will build more nuclear power plants. We will develop clean coal technology. We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas. In all of this, and more, we will create millions of new jobs, many in industries that will be the engine of our future prosperity -- jobs that will be there when your children enter the workforce.
If I am elected president, I will also act immediately with reforms to restore fairness, integrity, and financial sanity to the institutions that have failed us on Wall Street. We will apply new rules to Wall Street, to end the frenzies of speculation by people gaming the system, and to make sure that this present crisis is never repeated.
We must also realize that this rescue plan has serious implications for future spending. We cannot dedicate more than a trillion dollars to rescue failing institutions, and then go right back to business as usual in Washington -- as if there were no end to the resources of government or to the patience of taxpayers. Therefore, as president, I will impose a one-year spending freeze on every agency of the federal government, excepting only national defense, the care of our veterans, and a few critical priorities. Leadership requires candor. And I will tell you bluntly that America is already ten trillion dollars in debt, and to make our economy strong again we must reduce the burden of federal spending. We cannot tax our way to prosperity. I am committed to billions in spending reductions that will balance the budget, and get us on the path away from ruinous debt.
The constant partisan rancor that stops us from solving these problems in Washington isn't a cause, it's a symptom. It's what happens when people go to Washington to work for themselves and not you.
Again and again, I've worked with members of both parties to fix problems that need to be fixed. That's how I will govern as president. I will reach out my hand to anyone to help me get this country moving again. I have that record and the scars to prove it.
Instead of rejecting good ideas because we didn't think of them first, let's use the best ideas from both sides. This great country can do anything we put our minds to. I will ask Democrats and Independents to serve with me. And my administration will set a new standard for transparency and accountability. We're going to finally start getting things done for the people who are counting on us, and I won't care who gets the credit.
Thanks for listening.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Really critical that we have that bailout, huh?
Yep, the world is coming to an end if we don't get that bailout yesterday. No wait, we had to have it the day before to keep everything from collapsing. Aw, man, wrong again, we had to have it last week if we were going to save the world.
OK, missed the deadline for the end of the world, so lets just take a couple of days off.
Ho hum, everything still working?
Sho nuff? OK, why not wait another week or so and just see how it goes.
No way, we have to do it the day we get back from our time off or the world will collapse.
Anyone out there on "main street" believing the hype?
Anyone out there on "main street" believe there isn't a better way to handle this mess without putting the same folks who messed it up in charge of cleaning it up?
If this was really so critical how come the twelve guys on Barnie's committee voted no? They only needed twelve votes to pass the thing. 94 or 95 Democrats didn't vote for it. Why couldn't they just go along with Nancy to set the world back on its financial axis? It came down to twelve votes if I totaled the numbers correctly. Twelve.
Am I the only person who finds it peculiar that Pelosi is so all fired up about getting a plan from the Bush administration through? There has to be some powerful incentives in there for the Democrats, such as more power for the government and less for the people.
When I think about the IRS, Welfare, Social Security, and every other agency or program the government handles I cringe to think what could become of this one.
The media keep trying to paint the angst of "main street" as hating having fat cats leave failing companies with golden parachutes. I don't like it but that's not my main beef with the bailout at all. I don't want the grasping fingers of the government taking over anything they can mess up, and mess it up they will.
OK, missed the deadline for the end of the world, so lets just take a couple of days off.
Ho hum, everything still working?
Sho nuff? OK, why not wait another week or so and just see how it goes.
No way, we have to do it the day we get back from our time off or the world will collapse.
Anyone out there on "main street" believing the hype?
Anyone out there on "main street" believe there isn't a better way to handle this mess without putting the same folks who messed it up in charge of cleaning it up?
If this was really so critical how come the twelve guys on Barnie's committee voted no? They only needed twelve votes to pass the thing. 94 or 95 Democrats didn't vote for it. Why couldn't they just go along with Nancy to set the world back on its financial axis? It came down to twelve votes if I totaled the numbers correctly. Twelve.
Am I the only person who finds it peculiar that Pelosi is so all fired up about getting a plan from the Bush administration through? There has to be some powerful incentives in there for the Democrats, such as more power for the government and less for the people.
When I think about the IRS, Welfare, Social Security, and every other agency or program the government handles I cringe to think what could become of this one.
The media keep trying to paint the angst of "main street" as hating having fat cats leave failing companies with golden parachutes. I don't like it but that's not my main beef with the bailout at all. I don't want the grasping fingers of the government taking over anything they can mess up, and mess it up they will.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
From Newt Gingrich
TODAY is Solutions Day!
JOIN the discussion
Dear Friends,Today is Solutions Day, Saturday, September 27. This free nationwide forum will discuss solutions for energy, the economy, education, and health.
Solutions Day will be broadcast live on DISH Network #219, DirecTV #577, and on www.SolutionsDay2008.com.
The theme of Solutions Day is "We Have the Power" and will focus on providing citizens with the tools, knowledge, and training needed to transform government at all levels. I hope you'll register today and join me for this important discussion about America's future.
Your friend,
Newt
Solutions Day 2008
JOIN the discussion
Dear Friends,Today is Solutions Day, Saturday, September 27. This free nationwide forum will discuss solutions for energy, the economy, education, and health.
Solutions Day will be broadcast live on DISH Network #219, DirecTV #577, and on www.SolutionsDay2008.com.
The theme of Solutions Day is "We Have the Power" and will focus on providing citizens with the tools, knowledge, and training needed to transform government at all levels. I hope you'll register today and join me for this important discussion about America's future.
Your friend,
Newt
Solutions Day 2008
Even MORE from the press on the debate!
ABC News' George Stephanopoulos: "These guys came to play on each other's turf. It was really surprising to me is that John McCain came in here with a disadvantage on the economy. Barack Obama had a big advantage, yet I think he spent the 30 minutes very effectively pounding home the points that have to control spending and earmarks." (ABC News' "Vote 08: The Candidates Debate," 9/26/08)
· Stephanopoulos: "I thought other interesting stylistic differences, John McCain, good on emotion, good on establishing emotional connections with his stories." (ABC News' "Vote 08: The Candidates Debate," 9/26/08)
MSNBC's Pat Buchanan: "John McCain clearly won this battle on points. He was aggressive all evening long. He was very tough. He constantly portrayed Barack directly and indirectly as sort of weak and indecisive and inconstant making these statements. He also had a most powerful, emotional moments. I think that Wolfsborough story and that 640 guys re-upping in Iraq, and that woman giving him that bracelet--I think those things reached the heart and the gut. I will say this about Barack Obama. He did what he had to do in the sense that he came off as a tough fellow, a counterpuncher who would stand up to John McCain, and I think he helped himself in that regard, but overall I really think John McCain came off as the winner of this debate, but I go directly to Chris' point." (MSNBC's "Presidential Debate," 9/26/08)
"Obama To McCain: You're 'Absolutely Right'" (Susan Davis, "Obama To McCain: You're 'Absolutely Right,'" The Wall Street Journal's "Washington Wire" Blog, blogs.wsj.com, 9/26/08)
CBS' Jeff Greenfield: "I also think that McCain in the section on foreign policy also gave a strong performance when he said we can't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory." (CBS News' "Campaign '08 Presidential Debate," 9/26/08)
NBC's Tom Brokaw: "That was the most distinctive difference obviously once we got into the area of national security. John McCain bored in on Barack Obama. He's been reading the same polls we all have. There are grave reservations in most of the polls about whether Barack Obama has enough experience and whether he's qualified to be commander in chief. And tonight Senator McCain went right after that vulnerability in Barack Obama." (NBC's "Presidential Debate Coverage," 9/26/08)
The New York Times' David Brooks: "I think McCain was sharp and experienced." (PBS' "Post-Debate Analysis," 9/26/08)
The Politico's Jeanne Cummings: "When we moved into foreign affairs, clearly john McCain hit his stride. It is his strength, and he showed, demonstrated that he is quite knowledgeable." (PBS' "Post-Debate Analysis," 9/26/08)
ABC News' Rick Klein: "9:12 pm CT: ... This is another area where McCain is in his comfort zone. He's having a long discussion on the preconditions line." (Rick Klein, "Live Debate Blog," ABC News, blogs.abcnews.com, 9/26/08)
· Klein: "9:20 pm CT: Meaty discussion on Russia -- with lots and lots of Russian names for McCain to pronounce. If people care about this, McCain looks strong." (Rick Klein, "Live Debate Blog," ABC News, blogs.abcnews.com, 9/26/08)
MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell: "He [McCain] had a good night on the very issue of taxes and spending. He did seem to dominate the first 30 minutes." (MSNBC's "Presidential Debate," 9/26/08)
The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder: "10:19: McCain's strong on non-Iraq foreign policy issues." (Marc Ambinder, "The Debate: Liveblogging IV," The Atlantic's "Marc Ambinder" Blog, marcambinder.theatlantic.com, 9/26/08)
National Review Online's Jim Geraghty: "From where I sit, McCain had a surprisingly strong night." (Jim Geraghty, "A Surprisingly Strong Night For McCain, While Obama Energizes His Base," National Review Online's "The Campaign Spot" Blog, campaignspot.nationalreview.com, 9/26/08)
· Geraghty: "But the overall message of the night was clear - McCain is smart, familiar with the issues on a striking level of detail, knows what he wants to do: 'I don't think I need any on the job training. I'm ready to go right now... I know how to deal with our adversaries, and I know how to deal with our friends.'" (Jim Geraghty, "A Surprisingly Strong Night For McCain, While Obama Energizes His Base," National Review Online's "The Campaign Spot" Blog, campaignspot.nationalreview.com, 9/26/08)
· Stephanopoulos: "I thought other interesting stylistic differences, John McCain, good on emotion, good on establishing emotional connections with his stories." (ABC News' "Vote 08: The Candidates Debate," 9/26/08)
MSNBC's Pat Buchanan: "John McCain clearly won this battle on points. He was aggressive all evening long. He was very tough. He constantly portrayed Barack directly and indirectly as sort of weak and indecisive and inconstant making these statements. He also had a most powerful, emotional moments. I think that Wolfsborough story and that 640 guys re-upping in Iraq, and that woman giving him that bracelet--I think those things reached the heart and the gut. I will say this about Barack Obama. He did what he had to do in the sense that he came off as a tough fellow, a counterpuncher who would stand up to John McCain, and I think he helped himself in that regard, but overall I really think John McCain came off as the winner of this debate, but I go directly to Chris' point." (MSNBC's "Presidential Debate," 9/26/08)
"Obama To McCain: You're 'Absolutely Right'" (Susan Davis, "Obama To McCain: You're 'Absolutely Right,'" The Wall Street Journal's "Washington Wire" Blog, blogs.wsj.com, 9/26/08)
CBS' Jeff Greenfield: "I also think that McCain in the section on foreign policy also gave a strong performance when he said we can't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory." (CBS News' "Campaign '08 Presidential Debate," 9/26/08)
NBC's Tom Brokaw: "That was the most distinctive difference obviously once we got into the area of national security. John McCain bored in on Barack Obama. He's been reading the same polls we all have. There are grave reservations in most of the polls about whether Barack Obama has enough experience and whether he's qualified to be commander in chief. And tonight Senator McCain went right after that vulnerability in Barack Obama." (NBC's "Presidential Debate Coverage," 9/26/08)
The New York Times' David Brooks: "I think McCain was sharp and experienced." (PBS' "Post-Debate Analysis," 9/26/08)
The Politico's Jeanne Cummings: "When we moved into foreign affairs, clearly john McCain hit his stride. It is his strength, and he showed, demonstrated that he is quite knowledgeable." (PBS' "Post-Debate Analysis," 9/26/08)
ABC News' Rick Klein: "9:12 pm CT: ... This is another area where McCain is in his comfort zone. He's having a long discussion on the preconditions line." (Rick Klein, "Live Debate Blog," ABC News, blogs.abcnews.com, 9/26/08)
· Klein: "9:20 pm CT: Meaty discussion on Russia -- with lots and lots of Russian names for McCain to pronounce. If people care about this, McCain looks strong." (Rick Klein, "Live Debate Blog," ABC News, blogs.abcnews.com, 9/26/08)
MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell: "He [McCain] had a good night on the very issue of taxes and spending. He did seem to dominate the first 30 minutes." (MSNBC's "Presidential Debate," 9/26/08)
The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder: "10:19: McCain's strong on non-Iraq foreign policy issues." (Marc Ambinder, "The Debate: Liveblogging IV," The Atlantic's "Marc Ambinder" Blog, marcambinder.theatlantic.com, 9/26/08)
National Review Online's Jim Geraghty: "From where I sit, McCain had a surprisingly strong night." (Jim Geraghty, "A Surprisingly Strong Night For McCain, While Obama Energizes His Base," National Review Online's "The Campaign Spot" Blog, campaignspot.nationalreview.com, 9/26/08)
· Geraghty: "But the overall message of the night was clear - McCain is smart, familiar with the issues on a striking level of detail, knows what he wants to do: 'I don't think I need any on the job training. I'm ready to go right now... I know how to deal with our adversaries, and I know how to deal with our friends.'" (Jim Geraghty, "A Surprisingly Strong Night For McCain, While Obama Energizes His Base," National Review Online's "The Campaign Spot" Blog, campaignspot.nationalreview.com, 9/26/08)
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Good timing! McCain on Financial Markets
Just wrote a bit about the financial markets and the Obama stance, checked my inbox and there's an email from John McCain on the same subject. Haven't read it yet, just going to share:
John McCain On The Financial Markets
"This is a result of excess and greed and corruption. And that's exactly what is plaguing Americans today. And we got to fix it and we've got to update our regulatory system." -- John McCain
John McCain On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" (9/16/08):
John McCain: "I was talking about the fundamentals of America, which is the workers, their productivity, their innovation, their incredible performance for many, many years. And what I was saying is and it's clear if you look at my remarks and that is that Wall Street has betrayed us. They've broken the social contract between capitalism and the average citizen and the worker. And workers are paying a very heavy price while a lot of them are not only emerging unscathed but some of them are left with packages of a hundred million dollars or so. This is a result of excess and greed and corruption. And that's exactly what is plaguing Americans today. And we got to fix it and we've got to update our regulatory system. We have to have a 9/11 commission to find out what went wrong and to fix what's going to happen in the future so this never ever happens again. And as president, I guarantee you, it will never happen again."
...
"The first thing you do is you address this issue of the alphabet soup of regulatory agencies. It was designed for the 1930s. Now we have an instantaneous financial system that's global in nature and it's not compartmentalized. Look at the Stock Exchange today as to what it was even 20 or 30 years ago. So you've got to fix that and also, very frankly, people were asleep at the switch. I don't think there's any doubt about that. And then, of course, we have to make sure that everyone's deposit in a bank, that they know it's insured by the FDIC and that they're not in danger of losing that deposit. We've got a confidence crisis here as well as a financial crisis. And finally, again, we've got to make sure that people like Fannie and Freddie, organizations such as Fannie and Freddie, never have the influence again that they had in Washington. You saw it, Joe. The old boy network -- Republicans, Democrats, they had influence with everybody. So therefore, we didn't act to have the sufficient oversight while these organizations grew and grew and became the corrupt institutions that they are today."
Watch John McCain On MSNBC's "Morning Joe"
John McCain On CNN's "American Morning" (9/16/08):
John McCain: "I said two years ago that the Fannie and Freddie thing was a very serious problem and that we had to work on it. And I have always opposed the greed of Wall Street and I know how we can fix this. We have to assure every American that their deposit in a bank is safe. We have to have a 9/11 commission. And we have to fix this alphabet soup of regulatory agencies that's left over from the 1930s. We can come back from this. It's a very tough crisis, and we're the victim of the violation of the social contract between capitalism and the American citizen."
Watch John McCain On CNN's "American Morning"
John McCain On The Financial Markets
"This is a result of excess and greed and corruption. And that's exactly what is plaguing Americans today. And we got to fix it and we've got to update our regulatory system." -- John McCain
John McCain On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" (9/16/08):
John McCain: "I was talking about the fundamentals of America, which is the workers, their productivity, their innovation, their incredible performance for many, many years. And what I was saying is and it's clear if you look at my remarks and that is that Wall Street has betrayed us. They've broken the social contract between capitalism and the average citizen and the worker. And workers are paying a very heavy price while a lot of them are not only emerging unscathed but some of them are left with packages of a hundred million dollars or so. This is a result of excess and greed and corruption. And that's exactly what is plaguing Americans today. And we got to fix it and we've got to update our regulatory system. We have to have a 9/11 commission to find out what went wrong and to fix what's going to happen in the future so this never ever happens again. And as president, I guarantee you, it will never happen again."
...
"The first thing you do is you address this issue of the alphabet soup of regulatory agencies. It was designed for the 1930s. Now we have an instantaneous financial system that's global in nature and it's not compartmentalized. Look at the Stock Exchange today as to what it was even 20 or 30 years ago. So you've got to fix that and also, very frankly, people were asleep at the switch. I don't think there's any doubt about that. And then, of course, we have to make sure that everyone's deposit in a bank, that they know it's insured by the FDIC and that they're not in danger of losing that deposit. We've got a confidence crisis here as well as a financial crisis. And finally, again, we've got to make sure that people like Fannie and Freddie, organizations such as Fannie and Freddie, never have the influence again that they had in Washington. You saw it, Joe. The old boy network -- Republicans, Democrats, they had influence with everybody. So therefore, we didn't act to have the sufficient oversight while these organizations grew and grew and became the corrupt institutions that they are today."
Watch John McCain On MSNBC's "Morning Joe"
John McCain On CNN's "American Morning" (9/16/08):
John McCain: "I said two years ago that the Fannie and Freddie thing was a very serious problem and that we had to work on it. And I have always opposed the greed of Wall Street and I know how we can fix this. We have to assure every American that their deposit in a bank is safe. We have to have a 9/11 commission. And we have to fix this alphabet soup of regulatory agencies that's left over from the 1930s. We can come back from this. It's a very tough crisis, and we're the victim of the violation of the social contract between capitalism and the American citizen."
Watch John McCain On CNN's "American Morning"
The economy problems were caused by George Bush... and John McCain
Sure.
I can't believe anyone is dumb enough to believe that.
But they are.
I was just listening to a reporter who's embedded with Barack Obama's campaign share that PRIVATELY the Obama people admit that George Bush and the Republicans didn't cause the problem, that it is a non-political issue, non-party issue. But still they play the blame game so they can dupe the dummies who haven't got a clue how things work and who're looking for a Messiah to save their bacon.
I get so tired of politics sometimes. I'd say it would be really refreshing to have someone just tell it like it is, but they'd never get past first base so we'd never know they were doing so. I know in local politics around my county a politician who speaks straight doesn't last long! People want to have someone to blame and they want someone to tell them it's going to be OK.
Sarah Palin and John McCain are about the two best I've seen yet when it comes to 'straight talk' as McCain tags his way of shooting from the hip. Sarah Palin has gotten where she is partially because she is a straight shooter (in more ways than one!). However, I'm noticing that the handlers are starting to have an affect on her. I hope she'll continue to stick to her guns and not let those guys ruin her. What is SO refreshing about Palin is her lack of Washington, her freshness and honesty. Well, there's a lot of things that are refreshing about Sarah!
Heard today Obama is going to stop trashing so much and start offering solutions. Bet they'll involved MORE government, MORE big brother. I think one of the reasons we have this problem is the government stuck their hands into business and the free market a bit more than they should. From what I understand, those crappy mortgages happened in large part due to the government breathing down their necks about not giving enough low-income loans. I said 'partially' because that's not the only reason. Human nature abhors the potential to ignore easy money, thus greed factored into the equation, too.
Who knows what the right balance between government regulations and free market should be? To me it's clear Obama goes way over the top and if he had his way he'd turn this country into a Socialist one if possible. The Libertarians may have the right idea, but they go a bit too far in a different direction. Not saying the Republicans are always right, but I can live with self-responsibility and less government a whole lot easier than the Democratic version of government and censorship.
I can't believe anyone is dumb enough to believe that.
But they are.
I was just listening to a reporter who's embedded with Barack Obama's campaign share that PRIVATELY the Obama people admit that George Bush and the Republicans didn't cause the problem, that it is a non-political issue, non-party issue. But still they play the blame game so they can dupe the dummies who haven't got a clue how things work and who're looking for a Messiah to save their bacon.
I get so tired of politics sometimes. I'd say it would be really refreshing to have someone just tell it like it is, but they'd never get past first base so we'd never know they were doing so. I know in local politics around my county a politician who speaks straight doesn't last long! People want to have someone to blame and they want someone to tell them it's going to be OK.
Sarah Palin and John McCain are about the two best I've seen yet when it comes to 'straight talk' as McCain tags his way of shooting from the hip. Sarah Palin has gotten where she is partially because she is a straight shooter (in more ways than one!). However, I'm noticing that the handlers are starting to have an affect on her. I hope she'll continue to stick to her guns and not let those guys ruin her. What is SO refreshing about Palin is her lack of Washington, her freshness and honesty. Well, there's a lot of things that are refreshing about Sarah!
Heard today Obama is going to stop trashing so much and start offering solutions. Bet they'll involved MORE government, MORE big brother. I think one of the reasons we have this problem is the government stuck their hands into business and the free market a bit more than they should. From what I understand, those crappy mortgages happened in large part due to the government breathing down their necks about not giving enough low-income loans. I said 'partially' because that's not the only reason. Human nature abhors the potential to ignore easy money, thus greed factored into the equation, too.
Who knows what the right balance between government regulations and free market should be? To me it's clear Obama goes way over the top and if he had his way he'd turn this country into a Socialist one if possible. The Libertarians may have the right idea, but they go a bit too far in a different direction. Not saying the Republicans are always right, but I can live with self-responsibility and less government a whole lot easier than the Democratic version of government and censorship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
