It isn’t smart for President Obama, his campaign and surrogates to attack Mitt Romney’s tenure as CEO at Bain Capital (and thereby attacking free enterprise itself) and here’s why. The latest attacks focus on a business that, after getting funding from Bain Capital, went bankrupt. From the business owner perspective, these attacks are troubling and indicative of how the President views private business.
First, let’s discuss the role of a business. When a business is started, the goal is not to hire employees, as the employee is on the liability side of a ledger. Before you jump down my throat about that, let me clarify that a bit for those of you who think you are irreplaceable to your employer. In this economy, there is stiff competition for jobs and if your employer can get the work done cheaper, they will be willing to do that. When wages, matching social security, unemployment insurance, and other benefits as well as the human resource department hours that are spent on maintaining one or more employee, it gets very expensive. So why does a business hire employees? In order to take a product or service from the company to consumers and make a profit.
Oh, there’s that word that is so vilified in today’s society, especially by those on the left. I like that word, though. PROFIT. Shouldn’t everyone though? When a person has a job, they don’t go for free. If that employee doesn’t make enough money on their job, what do they do? There are a lot of things that can be done, so let’s look at what an employee can do and draw an analogy to what businesses do in order to be profitable.
1. They add another income stream. This could be an employee getting an additional part-time job, working overtime or starting a small side-business. This would be like a company adding a new product line. Proctor & Gamble, for instance, isn’t known for just one product. They are known for diverse personal care products.
2. They cut their personal budget. Many people I know, myself included, have cut excess expenditures from their lives since the economic downturn. They eat out less, they lower or cut out cable, they even hold off buying a new car or buy a cheaper model. Businesses try to increase productivity, find less costly materials, or even lay off employees whose jobs can be merged with other employee’s job responsibilities.
3. They can leave their job for another. This is much like investors pulling out of stocks or bonds in a company
So what is an employer’s responsibility to its employees?
• To provide at least minimum wage. This can open a can of worms, so I’m not going to delve into the pros and cons of it. Federal law of course, requires this.
• To provide a safe work environment. Once again, this is covered by OSHA and is important to not only employees safety, but to keep the company’s insurance rates down.
• Training the employee to the specific work environment and the nuances of the company.
• Ensure that all state and federal laws are followed.
Nowhere is there a responsibility to provide a job for everyone. Just like individuals, employers have specific needs and its first responsibility is to make a profit so it can remain in business and continue to have any employees whatsoever.
Some employees are more expendable than others when it comes down to the business surviving. Sometimes the business doesn’t survive, though. Are stockholders held responsible for the failure of a company? No, so why should a private equity firm that risked its investor’s money be held responsible for a company’s failure?
It seems obvious that President Obama and his supporters think that a company should be more concerned with the number of employees, regardless of the fiscal health of the company. Why else would so many new government employees be hired while the national debt grows thousands of dollars per second?
Isn’t the federal government analogous to a business? It has a source of revenue. It has employees and even provides services, even though those services aren’t provided for compensation. The president could be considered the CEO and different cabinet members can also be viewed as other company executives. President Obama and his surrogates have no ground to stand on when attacking Mitt Romney’s tenure as CEO of Bain Capital. If the federal government were a private company, the board or shareholders would have already sought to oust the CEO and other executives. Thankfully, this November will be the board’s chance to oust the executive who has run the country into the ground.
Merry Christmas! I hope all is well with you and yours.
Looking at certain federal expenditures, one can see how overbearing the government can be. I can’t imagine the impact of anything more than the “War on Drugs”. I’m not one to say that some drugs shouldn’t be legalized, like cocaine(and its highly addictive form, crack), heroin, LSD(which is subjective), PCP and other highly addictive drugs, but I think that when looking for revenue, Congress and the government is shooting wildly and missing one of the most obvious forms of tax revenue. I’m going to lay out some of the pros and cons in this argument and try to work into a position that I can stand by, and hope you will comment and share your opinions as well.
Let’s start by noting the lost revenue of potentially taxing the sale of marijuana. Tobacco is largely demonized by the press and government, however it is taxed on both the local and federal level at an exorbitant amount which brings revenue in to both levels. There are warnings on every pack and can not be legally purchased by anyone under the age of 18. Restaurants and bars have to have special notices and signs if smoking is allowed in their establishment. All of this is to garner more tax revenue and “protect” the citizens. What have we lost in potential tax revenue in the past year?
Let’s look at how much the costs are. For one, if a person grows marijuana and sells it at the street price of $80 per 1/8 ounce for the good quality stuff, at a 10% tax rate the government is losing $8 per sale. That money, instead, goes to the black market and gets difficult to follow at best. This is just ignorant on the part of the feds.
Now, let’s consider the implications and costs of prosecuting and incarcerating those who have been convicted of possessing, growing or distributing marijuana. According to alternet.org U.S. taxpayers foot the bill for prosecutions and incarcerations each year to the tune of $1B. This may seem like chump change compared to the yearly federal budget deficit, but it would be a start to reconciling the federal expenditures. Let’s not forget to consider the lost jobs and broken families of those who have been convicted of merely possessing, or even distributing marijuana. The lost state and federal income tax coupled with attorney fees, court costs, and the ultimate incarceration costs heavily favor legalization in both the immediate and long term.
With all of these pros being stated, what are the cons? Implementation? Eliminating the convictions of thousands, if not millions? The main argument would be the proliferation of drug abuse, but if we can check the level of alcohol in the blood, there would surely be a way to set up a field blood test to check the levels of THC and determine a baseline amount similar to how alcohol levels are determined. This may cost money to set up in the short term, but is the long term cost benefit worth the potential risks?
Sure, if we only look at the cost issues, it doesn’t seem to be worth it, but when you add in the social consequences, it can be beneficial. However, another argument is the “Slippery Slope” theory which would state that if pot was legalized, why not legalize other drugs? From my understanding, I’m unaware of anyone every dying of a THC overdose, while with most other drugs, deaths have been reported.
I don’t see the harm in it, it allows the government to collect and regulate something else so I don’t see the harm. What do you think though?
As we are moving into a new election cycle, I have been listening to the rhetoric from both sides of the aisle and the pundits and am having a sort of epiphany. There are so many people who like to play the blame game by lumping anyone who doesn’t agree with their narrow opinion into a group, labeling them and trying to lessen their point of view. I am going to approach this article by showing how both “liberals” and “conservatives” like to focus on the differences instead of common ground and attempt to negate people who disagree with them.
Since I lean “conservative” I’ll start with them. I have found one of the most egregious purveyors of this kind of labeling is Sean Hannity. For instance, on his radio show, he will often take a call from a person who may have conservative views on almost everything else except one slightly liberal position and call them a liberal. This has to be one of the most frustrating things about listening to his radio show. I simply can’t do it. His television show takes a different approach though. He is obviously far right in his political views and doesn’t hide it, but he does attempt to have an opposing perspective to actually debate issues.
Now what makes a person a conservative? Do they have to
If a person disagrees with one or more of these things, does it make them a liberal? Does it mean that their opinion isn’t valid?
Let’s take the “liberal” side of things now. Who should I start with on this now? Rachel Maddow? Keith Olbermann? Ed Schultz? Chris Matthews? It doesn’t matter what I have seen from tim, they are either bashing another’s point of view or conservatism in general. Why though? Because a person has a different opinion? Because they don’t see the same utopia in the liberal point of view? Does a liberal have to take the opposing view of every conservative idea? You can also look into the liberal blogs, which seems to be a study in groupthink, and see the same attitude of near hatred onto anyone who disagrees with them.
What is wrong with someone who considers themselves to be conservative, but thinks that the private lives of people should stay that way? What is wrong with less government regulation forcing people to tolerate something they do not believe in? The simple fact of the matter is that no one will ever agree with everyone else on every issue. But what s becoming clear is the difference in how the government should step in.
I am a constitutionalist who firmly believes in the Tenth Amendment. The Federal Government shouldn’t be sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong. The states should have the right to govern themselves and act accordingly within the framework of the U.S. Constitution. Instead of arguing the semantics, we should remember that we are all Americans first and foremost and are shaped by our experiences in life.
Now that I have gone over the pundits, what about the politicians? We see President Obama pandering to his base as well as the GOP candidates. Do I agree with all of the rhetoric? Absolutely not. Do I see myself supporting the President’s platform? No. It is too divisive, casting the blame of the country’s current problems on every place except for his policies. Do I agree with any candidate 100%? No, but it is simply a matter of finding the person whose views closest reflect my own.
There may even be a fear of disagreeing on one issue, even within each political party. We saw in the 2010 midterms how those within each party establishment were close to forcing candidates within their party to toe the line. How many Democrat moderates were reelected? Disagreeing with party leadership is somehow looked at as a sin.
I believe that we should take care of our obligations and ensure we should be able to pay for them. Raising tax revenue doesn’t mean raising the tax rate on those who actually pay taxes, nor does it mean attempting to ensure equal outcome for everyone. We should all have the opportunity to make the best of our lives and live without the government telling us what we can or can not do. Individual freedom should be just that and end only when it infringes on another person’s freedom. The states should decide what is best for themselves, just like each of us should be able to do.
Simply disregarding someone’s point of view because of a degree or two of separation isn’t acceptable. If it is freedom we love and cherish so much, let’s remember that freedom is a two way street.
Although I am a supporter of Herman Cain, I have no problem with looking from a neutral perspective at the troubles he is having with allegations of sexual harassment and the new allegation of a 13 year affair which is just now breaking. While I am not going to say that it is a hit job by the left or right, I’m going to wade into this issue, work through my questions, see where I stand at the end of this article and maybe see if I was a firm supporter or just enjoying the flavor of the week/month/etc.
Let’s start with the sexual harassment allegations. With no proof of any kind, several anonymous and named women have alleged that Mr. Cain sexually harassed them. The first problem I have with this is the lack of evidence. An allegation more than a decade old shouldn’t come as a person reaches a certain popularity level. This should have come to light years ago, and not from an anonymous source. From what I understand, at least one allegation was settled as a separation, not as a sexual harassment claim. This came with a confidentiality agreement that bound both parties, although I’m not aware of the specifics.
The second issue I have with the allegations is the appearance of high powered attorney, Gloria Allred. Why is she needed? Is this to protect the accusers? Is it a ploy to make the media pay attention? What is the end-game? All the women seemed content to not accuse him at any other time, including his previous Presidential and Senate bids, not to mention his radio show. It isn’t as if he’s been hiding out.
Cain has said he is willing to take a polygraph test to prove he isn’t lying, can these accusers say the same? Also, has anyone noticed that since Mr. Cain has fallen in the polls, interest in these cases has fallen into near oblivion?
Now, on to the newest charge. A woman has come out today and said she and Mr. Cain had a 13 year affair. Now here is where things get strange. Herman Cain denies these allegations, but his attorney, Lin Wood, in a statement to the TV Station which aired an interview with the woman(who, incidentally, has Herman Cain’s personal cell phone number) said this upon learning that the station would air this story:
“Cain has been informed today that your television station plans to broadcast a story this evening in which a female will make an accusation that she engaged in a 13-year-long physical relationship with Mr. Cain. This is not an accusation of harassment in the workplace — this is not an accusation of an assault — which are subject matters of legitimate inquiry to a political candidate.
“Rather, this appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults — a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life. The public’s right to know and the media’s right to report has boundaries and most certainly those boundaries end outside of one’s bedroom door.
“Mr. Cain has alerted his wife to this new accusation and discussed it with her. He has no obligation to discuss these types of accusations publicly with the media and he will not do so even if his principled position is viewed unfavorably by members of the media.”
This doesn’t sound as if the attorney is denying the charges, but how many attorneys will tiptoe around the issue and use legalese to be purposefully vague?
Time will tell, but everyone on the left didn’t care that President Clinton had an affair. I didn’t really either, my issue was not telling the truth. It will be the same here. If Mr. Cain has been lying he will show his reputation is not what he professes. While I believe his ideas would benefit the country the most, I couldn’t support him based upon his attempt to hide the truth by lying.
For now, I am withholding judgement until I see more evidence that indicates that he is lying. I don’t think that all of the evidence has been presented yet and until he is proven to have lied or misled voters, I will treat him as innocent until proven guilty.
Trust, it’s getting harder for politicians to gain and even harder for them to hold on to.
ABC news has an interesting article. Apparently, the U.S. is approaching the $15T debt limit. Wasn’t this just raised a few months ago? Wasn’t it some sort of crisis to avert disaster that would happen if the debt limit wasn’t raised?
America doesn’t have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. Spending is out of control and the President and Democrats want to pass more spending that is akin to money laundering. They want to spend more of taxpayer money to subsidize jobs for construction in states that require union membership. Union dues go to the people running the unions who put that money into Democrat campaigns. Since the unions aren’t corporations or individuals, they don’t have limits to their contributions, much like a PAC.
Not only is there an issue with funneling money into their pet projects, hypocritical to say the least since they rail against the GOP for having done the same thing, there is the problem of making the debt so far out of control that there seems to be no way of ever getting out of it. More debt means that the government prints more money, thereby devaluing the dollar and causing inflation which is much like a hidden tax.
I am predicting that the president and Dems will blame this on the GOP and say that if the debt limit isn’t raised again that economic catastrophe will occur. We have already seen one credit downgrade, will there be another? With each credit downgrade, interest rates will go up on our borrowing and causing more debt. I highly doubt that the debt reduction “super committee” will be able to agree on anything either. Spending will continue to go on with baseline budgeting instead of staying at levels of previous years which, while were high, were a hell of a lot more manageable than now.
Without sweeping reform in our spending, this is going to be a huge problem over and over again. Look for an article soon on baseline budgeting. Should be a good one.
I saw a link from a friend’s facebook page recently that was a guy who wanted to tell the world why he isn’t disappointed in President Obama. While I have never been a supporter of the man, I respect the office. I am pragmatic in my approach to politics and can literally see all sides. The real problem is that those who disagree tend to label and denigrate opposition. I do hope that is not the case here. If you disagree, be civil. Let’s have your open dialogue. Freedom of speech, right?
1. The first thing I am disappointed in is the economy. Sure, he inherited a recession, so did other presidents. Congratulations, we have that out of the way. The difference was in the approach to the solution. We tried bailouts and stimulus, they didn’t work. Now President Obama wants another “jobs plan” that is just another stimulus and only half of the size. If it didn’t work the first time, why would it work the second time?
Instead of making less regulations on small businesses, we get smothered by them. My business, which relies on driving to customers, is strangled by higher fuel prices. My product has seen a 15% rise in prices on my end in the past year. Even though this is a problem, I make it work while remaining competitive. However, I have to pass on those costs to my customers in order to remain in business.
I’m told by almost every Democrat that it will take four to five years for the oil we drill to reach us. That’s fine, but I’ve been told that for 8 years. In the time that has passed, the oil would have reached us and we would not be so beholden to foreign oil and countries who don’t like us. Add to that the number of jobs that would be created and you get a start towards a recovery.
2. Class warfare has become the new norm. We all thought, regardless of where on the political spectrum we fell, that President Obama would be a uniter. Somehow, this has been turned around and if you make too much money and don’t raise enough money for him, you are not doing your fair share to help the country. Funny how you can pay more income taxes or not cash the refund check if you want. However, small business owners like myself have a tough enough time making payroll, keeping inventory and generally keeping the business running. Somehow, instead of being left alone to hire and help the economy, business owners are looked at like we have taken advantage of people. Small business owners have taken great risks with time and capital, yet we sometimes have to pay ourselves less than minimum wage in order to stay in business. But I suppose being demonized for trying to make money is just par for the course.
3. Openness and transparency isn’t remotely close to what was promised. The health care reform law was not openly written. There are many “czars” who answer to no one but the President, bureaucrats who are not elected, nor do they have to have Senate confirmation. What about the open debate and a bill being available online for three days before being signed?
What about the crony capitalism that is going on with the so-called “green energy” companies? Hmmm, seems like they all have five things in common.
- They are all green energy companies.
- They all received government loans.
- There were doubts and questions by loan officials, some even saying it was a bad idea or the company was not ready.
- They are bankrupt.
- Most have ties to major Obama “bundlers”.
4. For someone who ran against Former President Bush’s policies, he sure has done a lot to utilize the practices and doctrines that Bush espoused. Things like using information from enhanced interrogations, fighting terrorism on the terrorists home turf and using drone strikes to kill targets. He’s even sticking to the Bush timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. It’s puzzling to say the least.
5. As the leader of the free world, President Obama’s doctrine of killing American citizens without a trial is dangerous at best. We only know about Al Awlaki right now. For all of us who speak out against the policies that we disagree with, we have no idea what will land a person on that list. What if the regime deems us as a threat? It is an unconstitutional policy that violates the sixth amendment at the very least and there can be a case made that it violates the eighth amendment as well. So, the right of a fair trial was not given to this American citizen and I believe that to be hit by a missile from a drone airplane can constitute cruel and unusual punishment as well.
Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
6. Unity as Americans is going down the tube as the President accuses Republicans of standing in the way of a “jobs bill” even though the Senate has not picked up any of the bills the House has sent to them to help create jobs. Do nothing Congress is going to be the mantra of President Obama’s reelection campaign, specifically going after Republicans even though the Democrats are doing the same thing. Even funnier is how the President wants to “compromise” even though his first two years in office he said that the Republicans couldn’t drive because they “drove us into this ditch”. What’s going to be his excuse next time?
7. Blamer in Chief. Everything is someone or something else’s fault. He takes no responsibility for any of his actions or policies that may be bad politically for him. Sure he’ll take credit for things like killing Bin Laden or Al Awlaki, even though much of the way the information was obtained was from the Bush policies. Forget about why the economy has tanked even more. Forget about all of that. Until he takes responsibility for his failures, he will never be a good leader.
By the way, didn’t he get everything he wanted when he had his party in both houses of Congress? Why didn’t he push his “jobs” agenda through then? Was it just not important enough in the first two years or did he need someone to blame for more the country’s issues once people got fed up with his vision for the country?
Divisive politics and rhetoric across the board. Where have his speeches about hope and lifting all Americans up gone? What happened to hope? What happened to change? What do we have to look forward to if he is reelected? More of the same? He can not run on his record. It always has been and always will be the blame game with President Obama. If a so-called “leader” blames everything and everyone else, what will those he is leading do? I suppose it is the liberal way.
Fairness is equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Stop trying to make every person’s outcome the same. Everyone has a different measure of what they consider success, let them have the opportunity to achieve it. We don’t need more government involvement, we need less.
Ok, just going to go with some easy news and commentary since I’m not in the mood to write out a lot of thoughts. Enjoy!
1. State Department spends $70,000 on President Obama’s first book. Seriously, during a debt crisis, this is nothing more than money laundering. We take taxpayer money and buy the President’s first book. A portion then goes to the President. Is it right? Ethical? Hell no. I don’t care who is holding the Presidency, it is WRONG!
2. If at first you win but then lose reelection, sue somebody. Democrat Steve Driehaus got voted out of Ohio’s 1st District and is suing for loss of livelihood. Wahhhhhhhh. Of course, an Obama appointee has let the suit go forward. Please, oh someone please explain this one to me. The case centers around the Susan B. Anthony List and their calling out those in Congress who are pro-life but still supported the health-care-reform-bill without any pro-life stipulations, including the Stupak Amendment. Funny that the U.S. District Judge, Timothy S. Black, hasn’t recused himself since he is the former president and director of the Planned Parenthood Association of Cincinnati.
3. I’ve made no apologies for saying I support Herman Cain at this point, now it seems like it is becoming either fashionable or people are really looking at his plans and like the fact that someone who isn’t a politician and isn’t afraid to say what’s on his mind is actually a viable candidate. He’s leading in the polls now but at this point in 2007 I think it was Giuliani and Thompson leading in the polls. I don’t count Perry out yet, but I have to say that when “who?” has a higher poll number, it’s time to hang it up. (Sorry Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and John Huntsman).
4. Another reason not to negotiate with terrorists. Since Israel decided to free a bunch of terrorist prisoners in exchange for one soldier, allegedly famous Muslim cleric, Dr. Awad al-Qarni has offered $100,000 to anyone who kidnaps an Israeli soldier. Blech, what a doof. Whatever. Go to hell.
5. Michelle Obama says that if a Republican wins the White House that freedom of religion and speech will be curbed. Once again, fear mongering rules the day. The last time I checked, the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of laws and precedence is strongly taken. Yet this is Mrs. Obama, a lawyer, who says to the uneducated masses that Republicans are the ones who want to restrict speech and religion. This is while her husband, who instead of appointing strict constitutionalists, would rather appoint activists to the highest court in the land and would rather have the “fairness doctrine” reinstated along with the oddly named “net neutrality”. Ya, nice story.
6. Hot Air is reporting that a flier is being passed around Occupy Phoenix titled “When should you shoot a cop?” Obviously, these people didn’t get the memo about being civil after Rep. Gifford’s shooting. So much for “peaceful” protests.
On another note, Occupy San Fran seems to be full of crap, or at least producing massive amounts of it. Health inspectors are making moves to shut it down.
Weather might be a factor in the north east. Let’s see how dedicated the protesters/occupiers are.
7. Here’s some pics of Libya. How’s that arab spring working out?
8. Apparently, Herman Cain is definitely the one to fear. The smear machine is out in full force to destroy him with some crap about sexual harassment. Of course, the report from politico has absolutely no sourcing. Let’s face it, if this was a story about PresBO, this would be shot down by every person in the media. The accusers would be hunted down and labeled as racist, money hungry tramps who are being used by the right and Republicans to just bring down the President because they are racist.
Of course, let’s not forget what some people are saying. He’s just being used by the white Republican establishment to make white voters feel less racist. Wait a sec, isn’t that what Al Sharpton said about PreBO during the 2008 campaign?
1. Continuing on with the Wall Street occupation/protests I’ve been told that it is peaceful and everyone is singing kumbayah and playing bongo drums, but I tend to think that there is more going on that isn’t being shown on TV. Thankfully we have youtube.
And, of course, protesters don’t want to leave their “campsite” so the park can be cleaned even though they would be allowed back.
Why isn’t this being reported more? Some protester goes on a rant saying that Jews control Wall Street. If this was said at a Tea Party event, it would be widely reported and covered. Maybe it is because the more of this that goes on, the more Democrats who support the protests, the more it will reflect on them.
Or how about the guy who is saying that Ghandi is responsible for 600 million people living in poverty and the French revolution was more successful.
How about the protesters defecating on the U.S. flag? Just google it if you have to see it. Somehow it is freedom of speech though.
What about the guy who says Who hates hate speech, but only if it’s against his movement?
Screw it, 99%, meet the 53%.
2. The ever eloquent Joe Biden decides to open his mouth and and tell Americans that if the President’s jobs bill isn’t passed that there will be more rapes and murders. Isn’t this the guy who said Republicans are those who do all the fear-mongering? Hypocrite.
3. Applications for unemployment barely changed. Economy keeps going down the crapper and people are protesting the job creators. Two thumbs up people.
4. Funny how even though Herman Cain is now the Republican presidential front-runner, President Obama has decided to play the race card(or so it seems) while speaking to a forum on American Latino Heritage he made this statement:
I ran for President for the same reason many people came to this country in the first place: Because I believe America should be a place where you can always make it if you try; a place where every child, no matter what they look like, where they come from, should have a chance to succeed.
I still believe in that America. I believe we can be that America again. The truth is, the problems we face today were a long time coming and solving them will take time. In a global economy, it will require us to have the best-educated workforce, the strongest commitment to research and innovation, the most reliable communications and transportation networks.
But with so many people hurting today, there are things we can do right now to make a difference. There are things we should do right now to put more people back to work and to restore a sense of security and fairness that’s been missing for too long.
So that’s why I put forward the American Jobs Act. That’s why I sent Congress a jobs bill made up of the kinds of proposals that, traditionally, Democrats and Republicans have supported. Independent economists who do this for a living have said the American Jobs Act would lead to more growth and nearly 2 million jobs next year. No other jobs plan has that kind of support from actual economists — no plan from Congress, no plan from anybody.
But apparently, none of this matters to Republicans in the Senate.
5. Senate Republicans offered up their own jobs bill. Of course this has about as much chance of succeeding as PresBO’s, but it seems like the “party of no ideas” label can’t be used.
6. Interesting that a terror plot was uncovered by the Justice Department that involves Iran and the Mexican drug cartels at the time when Attorney General Eric Holder is subpoenaed by Congress for his false or inaccurate statements about what he knew and when about the “Fast and Furious” operation. Watch, he’ll say he had to deny knowing anything at the time because of the operational secrets of uncovering the plot. This story is so full of holes that it is pathetic. It sounds more like “Wag the Dog” than anything else. This is pure speculation, I don’t have the evidence that the feds have, but dog gone it, it sure is fishy.
7. Hotair.com reports that the Obama regime is doing away with jobs saved or created and is now using the term “supported”. In other words it is subsidizing jobs. Of course this is par for the course. Subsidize these jobs, the funding only lasts one year and then the states are on the hook for the funding. These are temporary measures that offer would only temporary job growth. Sure, it would make him look good for a while and boost his re-election chances, but then we’re in the same cycle of crap we’re in now. Maybe the goons in Washington and liberals will fall for this, but maybe someone will see the game that is being played like I have and call them out on it. Some other conservatives think that Presbo’s bill was meant to fail from the start, and I can understand their rationale for that as well, but that would be to paint conservatives as just opposed to anything the regime puts forward. I say to that, “put something forward worth passing then”.
After discussing some of the issues with one of the readers, I have to make this post. I’m not sure why it is that people think that all change is good, but apparently the current mood of many of the Wall Street protesters is that there needs to be change. The problem is that the last person who promised change ended up spending more money in 2.5 years than his predecessor did in 8.
So here is the chance for any and all of you protesters or occupants or whatever you want to be called to post here what you want to see change. I don’t want general answers though. I would like specific things you want to see change. I would also like to see why you want them change, what to and how you would do it.
Without a plan to transition from one thing to another, it will never happen. Let’s get it all out here.