I have not seen one argument or suggestion that Russia or those directed by Russia were not trying to help Trump win the election. But I would suggest that in fact they had no idea that Trump might win, regardless of any Russian-backed activities.
Consider that there were no countries, residents, governments or leaders throughout the world that expected Mr. Trump to be elected. You can safely bet that that was the view throughout Russia too...including Mr. Putin and the leadership of Russia.
So...what was really going on? I suggest that it not only possible but probable that, with the success they had in hacking into various American sources a year or more earlier, that they decided to test the American Public's reaction to some of the politically indefensible and embarrassing information they had acquired. It is likely that they discovered far more than was leaked during the campaign season. To reveal what they did release was arguably a signal of proof that they had "stuff" that the DNC AND Ms. Hillary would find not only embarrassing, but possibly grounds for impeachment; that not-so-subtle message would have made influencing a President Hillary Clinton easier and perhaps even more effective.Governments usually go to great lengths to hide their hacking operations...and do so quite effectively. The DNC hacks were not particularly well hidden, as known cut-outs were employed. Arguably, they wanted the government, expected to be headed by a President Clinton, to know.
Whether all of this is true or only true in part is not something I can prove. But when you consider that the entire world, in addition to the Democrat party and its adherents, expected the election of Ms. Hillary Clinton to the American Presidency, what other use did the leaks serve? Most of America knew about the leaked data and that didn't move the polls...and neither did Trump's other promises and claims.
Think about it.
Showing posts with label Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clinton. Show all posts
Sunday, January 15, 2017
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
The "People" are both angry and private
Progressive Liberal Democrats are depressed. I can understand that; they have been spoiled by having things pretty much their own way for almost a decade now. Their President has used Executive Orders to create a country that he devoutly wishes he could have brought into being with laws, but made do with his pen. The good news for the PLD folks was that they got the country they wanted. The bad news is that is wasn't and isn't permanent.
But that is just the ideological view. What is much more important is that this election revealed the depth of the voters' anger at the entire political establishment...all sides...is tremendous. It showed in the Republican primaries. It showed in the Democrat primaries.
The fact is that the political establishment deluded itself, talking itself into a presumption of control and power based in part on a disrespect for the independence of the American voter. That presumption was ill conceived, presumptuous and just wrong. And our politicians have earned the anger. You can be sure it will not be easily assuaged.
The other factor that makes this election a surprise to so many is that the American public can be really private about what they think, especially if revealing their true feelings might cause their friends and business associates to disrespect them. Clearly, this flumixed the pollsters. I personally know two individuals who were polled and told the pollster they were voting for the Democrat candidate, yet told me that they were voting for Mr. Trump because of Mrs. Clinton's lying, inabilities, and what they see as her treating Classified information as unimportant when it collided with her desire for secrecy and control of her private affairs. The view her as inherently corrupt.
Politicians, Washington (D.C) and the power structure in this country had better adjust quickly and treat the citizenry with the respect that they have not granted for several decades.
But that is just the ideological view. What is much more important is that this election revealed the depth of the voters' anger at the entire political establishment...all sides...is tremendous. It showed in the Republican primaries. It showed in the Democrat primaries.
The fact is that the political establishment deluded itself, talking itself into a presumption of control and power based in part on a disrespect for the independence of the American voter. That presumption was ill conceived, presumptuous and just wrong. And our politicians have earned the anger. You can be sure it will not be easily assuaged.
The other factor that makes this election a surprise to so many is that the American public can be really private about what they think, especially if revealing their true feelings might cause their friends and business associates to disrespect them. Clearly, this flumixed the pollsters. I personally know two individuals who were polled and told the pollster they were voting for the Democrat candidate, yet told me that they were voting for Mr. Trump because of Mrs. Clinton's lying, inabilities, and what they see as her treating Classified information as unimportant when it collided with her desire for secrecy and control of her private affairs. The view her as inherently corrupt.
Politicians, Washington (D.C) and the power structure in this country had better adjust quickly and treat the citizenry with the respect that they have not granted for several decades.
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
This Fall's election doesn't really matter...
It can be argued that this Fall's election is either the last chance to save America or that it is already too late. These two possibilities have absolutely nothing to do with ideology. They are based on simple financial considerations.
Consider that neither candidate likely to be elected in the Fall has spoken much, if at all, about the need to get our budget under control and to reduce the national deficit. Consider that no party, no campaign group and no significant organized group of citizens have spoken of spending as a problem. Note that no media outlet of any sort has mentioned anything about a need to get our finances under control.
All that one reads, hears or watches has to do with control and contributing more in the way of funds or benefits to those in our country...legally or otherwise.
One hears nothing about the constant flow of lies coming out of Washington, the clear failure of Justice to apply to those in power, and the lack of accountability of those in the Federal Government. You can even hear a reporter suggesting, in the form of a question to an elected official, if honesty is overrated in government.
One argument suggests that the last clear chance to save our nation in the form that it holds today was in the 2012 election. It was clear by then that our finances were out of control, that our government's elected officials were lying to its citizens, that the economy was not recovering at a pace that would provide needed jobs and that the upper echelons of government were failing to fulfill their administrative and oath of office duties.
In 2012 the citizens of the United States chose more "free" stuff over taking for themselves and demanding of their elected officials the taking of responsibility to balance the budget and start down a path of fiscal responsibility. At that time they saw an out-of-control spending that was most of the way to the present almost 20 Trillion Dollars. All but several trillion was created in those first 4 years from 2008 to 2012...and much of that first one and a half trillion had been voted for by the person holding the office of President. Nonetheless, the voters approved another 4 years of more of the same fiscal insanity and lying and inept administration.
Certainly should Ms. Clinton be elected in November, it is unlikely that the nation will survive past 2020. Why? Well, interest rates cannot stay close to zero forever. As the National Debt rises toward 25 Trillion Dollars and interest rates also rise, the cost of the debt will meet or exceed the amount of tax revenue. leaving no money to actually run the government. Seniors will find their checks either not being honored or just not arriving. As payments to police, firemen and soldiers are first delayed and then not issued at all, public safety will cease to exist. If SCOTUS has approved laws allowing the confiscation of firearms in private ownership, there will be few, if any, to attempt to enforce those laws...and with the proof of the government's failure becoming so obvious, there will be actual revolt throughout the country...and those who will be positioned to be in power will be those who possess firearms, have planned for such a disaster and who have little respect for those who for decades have been belittling and insulting them. It will not be pretty.
But one thing will be for certain: who is President and who controls Congress or SCOTUS will no longer matter.
Consider that neither candidate likely to be elected in the Fall has spoken much, if at all, about the need to get our budget under control and to reduce the national deficit. Consider that no party, no campaign group and no significant organized group of citizens have spoken of spending as a problem. Note that no media outlet of any sort has mentioned anything about a need to get our finances under control.
All that one reads, hears or watches has to do with control and contributing more in the way of funds or benefits to those in our country...legally or otherwise.
One hears nothing about the constant flow of lies coming out of Washington, the clear failure of Justice to apply to those in power, and the lack of accountability of those in the Federal Government. You can even hear a reporter suggesting, in the form of a question to an elected official, if honesty is overrated in government.
One argument suggests that the last clear chance to save our nation in the form that it holds today was in the 2012 election. It was clear by then that our finances were out of control, that our government's elected officials were lying to its citizens, that the economy was not recovering at a pace that would provide needed jobs and that the upper echelons of government were failing to fulfill their administrative and oath of office duties.
In 2012 the citizens of the United States chose more "free" stuff over taking for themselves and demanding of their elected officials the taking of responsibility to balance the budget and start down a path of fiscal responsibility. At that time they saw an out-of-control spending that was most of the way to the present almost 20 Trillion Dollars. All but several trillion was created in those first 4 years from 2008 to 2012...and much of that first one and a half trillion had been voted for by the person holding the office of President. Nonetheless, the voters approved another 4 years of more of the same fiscal insanity and lying and inept administration.
Certainly should Ms. Clinton be elected in November, it is unlikely that the nation will survive past 2020. Why? Well, interest rates cannot stay close to zero forever. As the National Debt rises toward 25 Trillion Dollars and interest rates also rise, the cost of the debt will meet or exceed the amount of tax revenue. leaving no money to actually run the government. Seniors will find their checks either not being honored or just not arriving. As payments to police, firemen and soldiers are first delayed and then not issued at all, public safety will cease to exist. If SCOTUS has approved laws allowing the confiscation of firearms in private ownership, there will be few, if any, to attempt to enforce those laws...and with the proof of the government's failure becoming so obvious, there will be actual revolt throughout the country...and those who will be positioned to be in power will be those who possess firearms, have planned for such a disaster and who have little respect for those who for decades have been belittling and insulting them. It will not be pretty.
But one thing will be for certain: who is President and who controls Congress or SCOTUS will no longer matter.
Monday, March 7, 2016
America chooses Barabbas!
Occasionally I wonder at how the United States of America has survived almost Two Hundred and Forty Years. For the most part we now seem to be a stupid, self-centered people lacking the ability to think objectively about anything long-term...and from time to time even having trouble concentrating on anything for more that twenty-four seconds unless it is ourselves.
While this seems quite clear in general, it is in the political arena where the proof seems written in neon, bold face, italics and underlined within quotes. Reason has apparently left the building and we are left with mob rule governed by the lowest common denominator.
Need proof?
First, the American Public is angry. It is angry at our politicians, particularly at the national level, for not getting things done, being "unable to play well with others" and just generally being dismissive of the wishes of the electorate. The "public" is turning on those that are of the establishment, both on the political Left and Right.
On the political Left, we have two candidates vying for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. One is an avowed Socialist (recently self-amending his description to Democratic Socialist), promising "free stuff" to all, to be paid for by taking money from the rich and redistributing it to virtually everyone not categorized as "rich." Recently he has had to admit that he will have to take "some" money from the Middle Class to cover the cost of his promised benefits. He manages to ignore that even then, the funds that would theoretically be available would be inadequate...even if he took 100% of everyone's earnings. Yet this candidate is actually winning primaries around the country. His opponent is a previous First Lady who has served as Secretary of State for the United States of America. She and her husband have been very successful in creating and obtaining funding for a Charitable Foundation they have formed. Remarkable sums of money have been donated by all sorts of people around the world to both the foundation and as "speaking fees" to this ex-Secretary of State and her husband...including during her period of service as Sec/State. Even her most stalwart supporters admit that the coincidence of such payment with requests granted do not look good, but they don't care. Add to that the fact that during her term as Sec/State, our Ambassador to Lybia was killed and under oath she admitted that she told her daughter and others that the attack was a result of terrorism, but sent out State Department representatives to claim that the attack was the result of a movie trailer critical of Islam. The families of those killed indicate she made the same false claim to them when greeting them when the bodies of the fallen arrived in the U.S.
Even now, there is a continuing investigation of her choice to set up a non-governmental, non-government sanctioned, email server for herself and her inner circle during her sojourn as Sec/State. The investigation holds the possibility that she will be indicted for violation of the Espionage Act. At the very least, she has shown a total lack of concern for protecting the secrets of the United States of America.
These are the best and brightest that the political Left can put forth as potential Presidents of the United States of America.
Ah...but let us not neglect the political Right! The American Public that defines themselves as the political Right have declared that the "professional" politicians and the establishment that serves and represents them have consistently lied to the public for the purposes of gaining office and, once having won an election gone, on to act in only their own personal interests and ignoring the wishes of the people. So the people of the Right want an outsider; one they perceive as being more likely to actually act on behalf of the people.
The Establishment and the professionals did not, at first, take this sentiment seriously. After all, in the past such anger dissipated sufficiently by election time to allow the continuation of business as usual. Apparently they were wrong.
Out of more than a dozen initial candidates, the political Right is, as of now, down to four. There had been three candidates who had not held public office previously; now there is just one...and he is winning delegates. The professionals and the establishment is panicking! They could end up losing their "insider" status along with their inside influence...and in government power and influence is far more important than money.
There is no doubt that politicians on both sides of the political aisle deserve the anger of the populace. They have worked long and hard for it and now they are suffering the consequences.
But...mobs are not good judges of character, ability, right or wrong. They actually are not good judges of anything...and that is being proven in this election season. Think about who remains in the running? We have an experienced administrator currently serving as a Governor of an important state. He has a track record of getting his state government to function effectively. Yet he has the fewest delegates. There are two first term Senators, one with a strong Conservative record garnered at the expense of "not getting along" with other Republican Senators and the other seen as young and too easy on illegal immigration. But these two are second and third in the struggle for delegates. So...who is the current leader? A successful businessman who has grown his fathers substantial stake into a truly impressive fortune of business interests and who has a track record of making deals and getting things done in the business world. Largely ignored, however, is that his background of political donations and political thought has been largely to the left. Additionally, he has switched positions on many fronts often, to the point that, if elected, any action taken or attempted would be in line with one of his promises or positions during the campaign. A proven vulgarian, he also exhibits certain megalomaniac tendencies and a temper...not entirely unlike the current Office holder. But...many are supporting him just to punish the establishment types.
Not a pleasant situation to ponder, regardless of who "wins." It is very likely that regardless of the outcome, the American Public will lose.
But for me, the icing on the cake is that the American Public had said they wanted someone who: 1) was truthful; 2)was intelligent; 3)had proven character; 4)was not "full of himself;" 5)was not "tainted" by public service; 6) humble enough to listen to and learn from others; 7) "played well with others" while holding onto authority; and 8) would hold the will of the people foremost in his or her mind.
They had such a candidate and rejected him: Dr. Benjamin Carson. Dr. Carson is a man of proven intelligence, raised in a single parent household and rising to the top educationally and in a profession that mandates first that one "do no harm" and with a track record of honesty, accomplishment, administration and truthfulness. As a neurosurgeon he has dealt with advancing the horizon of the known by studying and learning new things under pressure and under control, earning the respect and cooperation of those around him. In other words, Dr. Carson was exactly what the mob said they wanted. He did not insult others, he did not denigrate others, he offered his character and background to the American people...and the American People declined the offer.
Well...it is not the first time. After all, the mob in Jerusalem chose Barabbas over Jesus!
While this seems quite clear in general, it is in the political arena where the proof seems written in neon, bold face, italics and underlined within quotes. Reason has apparently left the building and we are left with mob rule governed by the lowest common denominator.
Need proof?
First, the American Public is angry. It is angry at our politicians, particularly at the national level, for not getting things done, being "unable to play well with others" and just generally being dismissive of the wishes of the electorate. The "public" is turning on those that are of the establishment, both on the political Left and Right.
On the political Left, we have two candidates vying for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. One is an avowed Socialist (recently self-amending his description to Democratic Socialist), promising "free stuff" to all, to be paid for by taking money from the rich and redistributing it to virtually everyone not categorized as "rich." Recently he has had to admit that he will have to take "some" money from the Middle Class to cover the cost of his promised benefits. He manages to ignore that even then, the funds that would theoretically be available would be inadequate...even if he took 100% of everyone's earnings. Yet this candidate is actually winning primaries around the country. His opponent is a previous First Lady who has served as Secretary of State for the United States of America. She and her husband have been very successful in creating and obtaining funding for a Charitable Foundation they have formed. Remarkable sums of money have been donated by all sorts of people around the world to both the foundation and as "speaking fees" to this ex-Secretary of State and her husband...including during her period of service as Sec/State. Even her most stalwart supporters admit that the coincidence of such payment with requests granted do not look good, but they don't care. Add to that the fact that during her term as Sec/State, our Ambassador to Lybia was killed and under oath she admitted that she told her daughter and others that the attack was a result of terrorism, but sent out State Department representatives to claim that the attack was the result of a movie trailer critical of Islam. The families of those killed indicate she made the same false claim to them when greeting them when the bodies of the fallen arrived in the U.S.
Even now, there is a continuing investigation of her choice to set up a non-governmental, non-government sanctioned, email server for herself and her inner circle during her sojourn as Sec/State. The investigation holds the possibility that she will be indicted for violation of the Espionage Act. At the very least, she has shown a total lack of concern for protecting the secrets of the United States of America.
These are the best and brightest that the political Left can put forth as potential Presidents of the United States of America.
Ah...but let us not neglect the political Right! The American Public that defines themselves as the political Right have declared that the "professional" politicians and the establishment that serves and represents them have consistently lied to the public for the purposes of gaining office and, once having won an election gone, on to act in only their own personal interests and ignoring the wishes of the people. So the people of the Right want an outsider; one they perceive as being more likely to actually act on behalf of the people.
The Establishment and the professionals did not, at first, take this sentiment seriously. After all, in the past such anger dissipated sufficiently by election time to allow the continuation of business as usual. Apparently they were wrong.
Out of more than a dozen initial candidates, the political Right is, as of now, down to four. There had been three candidates who had not held public office previously; now there is just one...and he is winning delegates. The professionals and the establishment is panicking! They could end up losing their "insider" status along with their inside influence...and in government power and influence is far more important than money.
There is no doubt that politicians on both sides of the political aisle deserve the anger of the populace. They have worked long and hard for it and now they are suffering the consequences.
But...mobs are not good judges of character, ability, right or wrong. They actually are not good judges of anything...and that is being proven in this election season. Think about who remains in the running? We have an experienced administrator currently serving as a Governor of an important state. He has a track record of getting his state government to function effectively. Yet he has the fewest delegates. There are two first term Senators, one with a strong Conservative record garnered at the expense of "not getting along" with other Republican Senators and the other seen as young and too easy on illegal immigration. But these two are second and third in the struggle for delegates. So...who is the current leader? A successful businessman who has grown his fathers substantial stake into a truly impressive fortune of business interests and who has a track record of making deals and getting things done in the business world. Largely ignored, however, is that his background of political donations and political thought has been largely to the left. Additionally, he has switched positions on many fronts often, to the point that, if elected, any action taken or attempted would be in line with one of his promises or positions during the campaign. A proven vulgarian, he also exhibits certain megalomaniac tendencies and a temper...not entirely unlike the current Office holder. But...many are supporting him just to punish the establishment types.
Not a pleasant situation to ponder, regardless of who "wins." It is very likely that regardless of the outcome, the American Public will lose.
But for me, the icing on the cake is that the American Public had said they wanted someone who: 1) was truthful; 2)was intelligent; 3)had proven character; 4)was not "full of himself;" 5)was not "tainted" by public service; 6) humble enough to listen to and learn from others; 7) "played well with others" while holding onto authority; and 8) would hold the will of the people foremost in his or her mind.
They had such a candidate and rejected him: Dr. Benjamin Carson. Dr. Carson is a man of proven intelligence, raised in a single parent household and rising to the top educationally and in a profession that mandates first that one "do no harm" and with a track record of honesty, accomplishment, administration and truthfulness. As a neurosurgeon he has dealt with advancing the horizon of the known by studying and learning new things under pressure and under control, earning the respect and cooperation of those around him. In other words, Dr. Carson was exactly what the mob said they wanted. He did not insult others, he did not denigrate others, he offered his character and background to the American people...and the American People declined the offer.
Well...it is not the first time. After all, the mob in Jerusalem chose Barabbas over Jesus!
Saturday, February 6, 2016
Madoff for President!
Bernard Madoff is in jail. He is in jail for running a Ponzi scheme that resulted in taking money from investors to pay off earlier investors to satisfy their expectations of his achieving tremendous benefits for those investors. That is illegal in America...in the private sector. Those investors who had received the returns that had been promised by implication were very, very satisfied...lauding Mr. Madoff's abilities and worthiness to others and recommending him to their friends...until the law came after them and making them return the money because it had been originally obtained fraudulently and therefore could not be passed on to them or anyone else. Oh, the anguish and gnashing of teeth...they had believed that, even with the discovery of the con, they had been "lucky" and won the equivalent of a financial game of musical chairs.
So, you ask, what is this nonsense of Bernie Madoff being President?
Both History and current events hold the answer!
For over 3 Presidential terms, the individual in the Oval Office in the White House has "bought" things for the American people. Benefits of money, influence, real and imagined power, and insulation from the rule that regular people thought needed to be followed. All to provide the profit to the person in the Oval Office of election, re-election, power and status. Those, it can be argued, are the equivalent and even superior in the minds of some, of ill-gotten money. Our leaders have lied to us...and that is a moral lack. But...we have received benefits that we have not invested it, that cost money that we will never pay. As with Bernie Madoff, that money is expected to be paid for future investors in...the future taxpayers of...the United States of America: the children and grandchildren of the current citizens.
We have people running for election to the American Presidency who are promising "free" stuff to many, vowing to take the money from current citizens who have legally acquired their riches. But those riches, even if taken completely away by the government and applied to the cost of the promises, both past and future, would not even make a small impact on reducing the debt. Consider that the National Debt at present exceeds Nineteen TRILLION Dollars; There are about 400 Billionairs in the United States at present...if you took all of their wealth you would not net more than just over ONE Trillion Dollars. Where is the rest of the money coming from? FUTURE taxpaying INVESTORS.
Bernie Sanders is making these promises. Hillary Clinton is promising to continue the benefits that President Obama has granted over more than seven years in office that added more than Fifteen Trillion Dollars a sum that current citizens expect will be paid by LATER taxpaying INVESTORS.
And yet...like the earliest Madoff investors...today's citizens accept the "investment returns" promised by Mr. Obama, and currently promised to be continued and extended by Sen. Sanders and Sec. Clinton. And no one seems to even consider that our national financial game of musical chairs is subject to the stopping of the music at any time...or even that we imagine and talk ourselves into even believing that there is any music at all, much akin to the Emperor's New Suit of Clothes.
When Congress passed the RICO statutes that made it possible to really attack and more successfully prosecute those involved in "Organized" crime, they exempted themselves from its application. Why?
President Bush waged a war that wasn't paid for...its cost was just added to the national debt. The amount was huge...Trillions of Dollars. But the actions of our Presidents and of Congress since then make that amount look like chump change.
Honest and well-meaning people can discuss and argue over governmental policy and ideology endlessly. That is valid, and experimentation with different approaches based on the will of the people is to be expected...even encouraged.
But to steal from innocent taxpayers not yet born to fund benefits wanted as a "right" and not earned, is the very essence of corruption, crime and immorality at any level, sectarian or religious.
IF THE ACTIONS OF OUR GOVERNMENT, CONGRESS, PRESIDENT AND THE PROMISED ACTIONS OF SEN. SANDERS AND SEC. CLINTON OCCURRED IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, THEY WOULD ALREADY HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AND BE RESIDING IN CELLS ADJACENT TO BERNARD MADOFF. AND CURRENT CITIZENS ARE COMPLICIT, AND WOULD BE REQUIRED TO RETURN TO THE "INVESTING TAXPAYERS" THE VALUE EQUIVALENT TO THEIR UNEARNED "PROFITS!"
But I fear that our citizenry has become so narcissistically oriented that they knowingly refuse to acknowledge the truth, their greed, and their disregard for their children and grandchildren. so....
MADOFF for PRESIDENT.
Might as well go all the way and acknowledge our corruption and greed as a nation!
So, you ask, what is this nonsense of Bernie Madoff being President?
Both History and current events hold the answer!
For over 3 Presidential terms, the individual in the Oval Office in the White House has "bought" things for the American people. Benefits of money, influence, real and imagined power, and insulation from the rule that regular people thought needed to be followed. All to provide the profit to the person in the Oval Office of election, re-election, power and status. Those, it can be argued, are the equivalent and even superior in the minds of some, of ill-gotten money. Our leaders have lied to us...and that is a moral lack. But...we have received benefits that we have not invested it, that cost money that we will never pay. As with Bernie Madoff, that money is expected to be paid for future investors in...the future taxpayers of...the United States of America: the children and grandchildren of the current citizens.
We have people running for election to the American Presidency who are promising "free" stuff to many, vowing to take the money from current citizens who have legally acquired their riches. But those riches, even if taken completely away by the government and applied to the cost of the promises, both past and future, would not even make a small impact on reducing the debt. Consider that the National Debt at present exceeds Nineteen TRILLION Dollars; There are about 400 Billionairs in the United States at present...if you took all of their wealth you would not net more than just over ONE Trillion Dollars. Where is the rest of the money coming from? FUTURE taxpaying INVESTORS.
Bernie Sanders is making these promises. Hillary Clinton is promising to continue the benefits that President Obama has granted over more than seven years in office that added more than Fifteen Trillion Dollars a sum that current citizens expect will be paid by LATER taxpaying INVESTORS.
And yet...like the earliest Madoff investors...today's citizens accept the "investment returns" promised by Mr. Obama, and currently promised to be continued and extended by Sen. Sanders and Sec. Clinton. And no one seems to even consider that our national financial game of musical chairs is subject to the stopping of the music at any time...or even that we imagine and talk ourselves into even believing that there is any music at all, much akin to the Emperor's New Suit of Clothes.
When Congress passed the RICO statutes that made it possible to really attack and more successfully prosecute those involved in "Organized" crime, they exempted themselves from its application. Why?
President Bush waged a war that wasn't paid for...its cost was just added to the national debt. The amount was huge...Trillions of Dollars. But the actions of our Presidents and of Congress since then make that amount look like chump change.
Honest and well-meaning people can discuss and argue over governmental policy and ideology endlessly. That is valid, and experimentation with different approaches based on the will of the people is to be expected...even encouraged.
But to steal from innocent taxpayers not yet born to fund benefits wanted as a "right" and not earned, is the very essence of corruption, crime and immorality at any level, sectarian or religious.
IF THE ACTIONS OF OUR GOVERNMENT, CONGRESS, PRESIDENT AND THE PROMISED ACTIONS OF SEN. SANDERS AND SEC. CLINTON OCCURRED IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, THEY WOULD ALREADY HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AND BE RESIDING IN CELLS ADJACENT TO BERNARD MADOFF. AND CURRENT CITIZENS ARE COMPLICIT, AND WOULD BE REQUIRED TO RETURN TO THE "INVESTING TAXPAYERS" THE VALUE EQUIVALENT TO THEIR UNEARNED "PROFITS!"
But I fear that our citizenry has become so narcissistically oriented that they knowingly refuse to acknowledge the truth, their greed, and their disregard for their children and grandchildren. so....
MADOFF for PRESIDENT.
Might as well go all the way and acknowledge our corruption and greed as a nation!
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
Only the government wins...
Our President, and the current leading contender for the Progressive Liberal Democrat Party nomination for President in a year or so, Mrs. Clinton, have come out in favor of increasing the minimum wage for all workers in the United States. They claim that this would at least partially solve the pressure of the cost of living for people who are apparently "stuck" in entry level positions historically known for their minimum wage levels.
They suggest two things: 1. That the plight of these workers is the fault of the opposition; and 2, that this increase will benefit the poor and the middle class. Both assertions are demonstrably wrong.
As to the first assertion, for the last 22 years, Progressive Liberal Democrats have held the Office of the Presidency for almost 64% of the time (14 years). During most of that time, they controlled the Congress and had the opportunity during that period to both discuss and create an action plan to solve the now declared plight of the Middle Class. As our current President stated with such smug, quiet impudence when he first took office and was rejecting the suggestions of the opposition regarding the health care plan, "We won." Yet, the Middle Class has not progressed during his time in office either. Looking, as an example, at the plight of the Black community we see that the unemployment rate for them is higher than when Mr. Obama took office. Previously, Mrs. Clinton's husband held the office of the Presidency yet the middle class did not increase or gain economically. The same is true for Mr. Carter's sojourn in the Oval Office. Yet, with all that opportunity, Mrs. Clinton wants the nation to believe that the fault lies with the opposition! That is patently absurd.
The second assertion is similarly flawed. And the reason is so obvious that one is tempted to call the assertion a purposeful deceit. Consider the following:
When the minimum wage is forced higher by government action, all other pay levels must be adjusted to keep the step system defensible to all employees. When the cost of labor goes up, prices rise. This increase in the price of goods and services, eliminates any apparent gain in wages. It is a wash.
Well, that is not actually true...both the business sector and the Middle (and all other working) Classes lose. Why? Because the Federal Government Income Tax is a graduated tax...as you earn more money, you pay a higher percent of your income to the Federal Government. So everyone but the Government loses when wages go up. But the Federal Government wins big time! And they have the nerve to tell you, "Hi, I'm from the Federal Government. I'm here to help you!"
Hypocrites all...and in this case, especially Mrs. Clinton.
They suggest two things: 1. That the plight of these workers is the fault of the opposition; and 2, that this increase will benefit the poor and the middle class. Both assertions are demonstrably wrong.
As to the first assertion, for the last 22 years, Progressive Liberal Democrats have held the Office of the Presidency for almost 64% of the time (14 years). During most of that time, they controlled the Congress and had the opportunity during that period to both discuss and create an action plan to solve the now declared plight of the Middle Class. As our current President stated with such smug, quiet impudence when he first took office and was rejecting the suggestions of the opposition regarding the health care plan, "We won." Yet, the Middle Class has not progressed during his time in office either. Looking, as an example, at the plight of the Black community we see that the unemployment rate for them is higher than when Mr. Obama took office. Previously, Mrs. Clinton's husband held the office of the Presidency yet the middle class did not increase or gain economically. The same is true for Mr. Carter's sojourn in the Oval Office. Yet, with all that opportunity, Mrs. Clinton wants the nation to believe that the fault lies with the opposition! That is patently absurd.
The second assertion is similarly flawed. And the reason is so obvious that one is tempted to call the assertion a purposeful deceit. Consider the following:
When the minimum wage is forced higher by government action, all other pay levels must be adjusted to keep the step system defensible to all employees. When the cost of labor goes up, prices rise. This increase in the price of goods and services, eliminates any apparent gain in wages. It is a wash.
Well, that is not actually true...both the business sector and the Middle (and all other working) Classes lose. Why? Because the Federal Government Income Tax is a graduated tax...as you earn more money, you pay a higher percent of your income to the Federal Government. So everyone but the Government loses when wages go up. But the Federal Government wins big time! And they have the nerve to tell you, "Hi, I'm from the Federal Government. I'm here to help you!"
Hypocrites all...and in this case, especially Mrs. Clinton.
Friday, February 11, 2011
It really was the Government's fault...
Our current recession could not have begun without the bad policies, blindly and foolishly implemented, of the Federal Government. President Clinton and Democrat Leaders pushed, beginning in 1993, for more low income and minority home ownership. They passed the Community Reinvestment Act and gave Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the mission to facilitate low income and minority home ownership by requiring them to purchase what we refer to now as sub-prime loans.
Under Clinton Administration pressure, regulators had to come up with new lending rules, under which banks had to show that they had made a required number of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers, and that they had come up with innovative or flexible ways to accomplish this. HUD pressed for new mortgage lending policies under the 1994 National Homeownership Strategy developed at Clinton's request. Among other things, it called for financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, to help homeowners that lack cash to buy a home and to make the payments.
First result: Homeownership during the Clinton Administration went up 5%( as a comparison, home ownership during the Bush Presidency went up 1%);
Second result: Sub-prime loans made to borrowers with bad credit records rose from 7.2% to nearly 19%.
Standards for other loans fell as well. Freddie and Fannie eagerly, as instructed by the Federal Government, bought all these loans.
Yes, of course the investment banks and wall street come up with a way of making these obviously bad investments look good by creating the device know as derivatives. Yes, they were both foolish and greedy. Yes, they acted like gamblers instead of bankers...but that is merely a matter of degree of risk, not really much more than admitting what has been true all along.
But here is the key...absent Barney Frank's committee and resulting House action coupled by action in the Senate honcho'd by Dodd, the opportunity for bad credit risks, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Investment Banks and Wall Street to act badly would NOT have occurred. End of story.
Dodd is gone...Frank remains.
Under Clinton Administration pressure, regulators had to come up with new lending rules, under which banks had to show that they had made a required number of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers, and that they had come up with innovative or flexible ways to accomplish this. HUD pressed for new mortgage lending policies under the 1994 National Homeownership Strategy developed at Clinton's request. Among other things, it called for financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, to help homeowners that lack cash to buy a home and to make the payments.
First result: Homeownership during the Clinton Administration went up 5%( as a comparison, home ownership during the Bush Presidency went up 1%);
Second result: Sub-prime loans made to borrowers with bad credit records rose from 7.2% to nearly 19%.
Standards for other loans fell as well. Freddie and Fannie eagerly, as instructed by the Federal Government, bought all these loans.
Yes, of course the investment banks and wall street come up with a way of making these obviously bad investments look good by creating the device know as derivatives. Yes, they were both foolish and greedy. Yes, they acted like gamblers instead of bankers...but that is merely a matter of degree of risk, not really much more than admitting what has been true all along.
But here is the key...absent Barney Frank's committee and resulting House action coupled by action in the Senate honcho'd by Dodd, the opportunity for bad credit risks, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Investment Banks and Wall Street to act badly would NOT have occurred. End of story.
Dodd is gone...Frank remains.
Friday, October 29, 2010
No Morals
This administration continues to show that they have no moral compass. Well, that may be slightly inaccurate...they have no compass at all. But todays bit of evidence really is both moral and legal.
The 2008 Child Soldiers Protection Act specifically mandates that our government penalizes countries that use child soldiers. And this is the first year that it has gone into effect. Sound like a plan, doesn't it? A good thing? Shows our moral repugnance for any entity that would put children in the field to act as military personnel, right? Yep. The United States will show the world our true values and stand up for them, right?
Well, not so much, apparently.
In a Presidential memo, released today by the White House, to Secretary of State Clinton, Mr. Obama indicated he had determined that "it is in the national interests of the United States" to waive application of the law to the countries of Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan and Yemen.
There are provisions in the law that would have allowed the US to target military funds while still allowing funding for professionalization of army capability, but Mr. Obama chose to grant a blanket exemption.
It is interesting how consistently Mr. Obama ignores, makes excuses for, or supports egregious behavior on the part of other countries in the world, while attempts by member states of the union are attacked in court, penalized monetarily and roundly chastised publicly by this President for something as seemingly appropriate as enforcing our borders.
There is no logical, ideological or moral consistency to his actions...ever. Perhaps he should go to church more often...even Reverend Wright's church. Even a misguided consistency is better than swinging in the wind with no compass at all.
The 2008 Child Soldiers Protection Act specifically mandates that our government penalizes countries that use child soldiers. And this is the first year that it has gone into effect. Sound like a plan, doesn't it? A good thing? Shows our moral repugnance for any entity that would put children in the field to act as military personnel, right? Yep. The United States will show the world our true values and stand up for them, right?
Well, not so much, apparently.
In a Presidential memo, released today by the White House, to Secretary of State Clinton, Mr. Obama indicated he had determined that "it is in the national interests of the United States" to waive application of the law to the countries of Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan and Yemen.
There are provisions in the law that would have allowed the US to target military funds while still allowing funding for professionalization of army capability, but Mr. Obama chose to grant a blanket exemption.
It is interesting how consistently Mr. Obama ignores, makes excuses for, or supports egregious behavior on the part of other countries in the world, while attempts by member states of the union are attacked in court, penalized monetarily and roundly chastised publicly by this President for something as seemingly appropriate as enforcing our borders.
There is no logical, ideological or moral consistency to his actions...ever. Perhaps he should go to church more often...even Reverend Wright's church. Even a misguided consistency is better than swinging in the wind with no compass at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)