Don’t Sleep on Barry O!

Ever wonder what happened during Obama’s college years? Well, a tape has surfaced. It appears that he was still a person of inclusiveness, but he happened to mess up the rotation. Take a look and you’ll see what I mean about his inclusiveness and his messing up the rotation. So “Don’t Sleep on Barry O!”.

The 47% and 2012 Election

Well, the 2012 Presidential Election is “done”. We have some results in. Here is something that I found funny. Mitt Romney made some comments about the 47% of American citizens that do not pay income tax and receive benefits from the federal government. Here is something interesting from the election results for President in 2012.

51% of the popular vote went to Barack Obama, which is about 62,262,675 votes. 48% of the popular vote went to Mitt Romney, which is about  58,894,887 votes. Now here is what is funny, Mitt Romney made some comments about 47% of Americans, and Romney happen to get 48% of the popular vote. So 121,157,562 cast a vote for either Obama or Romney, and of those, 48% went to Romney. So did the 47% vote for Romeny and Romney received 1% of the vote from the 53% of Americans that do pay an income tax? Maybe some of Romney’s friends who only have a capital gains tax instead of having to pay the income tax, all voted for him and some of the 53% voted for him as well, at least 1% of the 53% who pay income tax.
Funny how Romney got the 47% he talked about and got 1% more. Looks like that video did nothing wrong and spoke the truth, and the people voted for him for it. Too bad he did not say what was needed to get the majority of Americans, those 53% that pay income tax. So out of 100 American citizens, 53 of them pay income tax and 47 don’t pay income tax. Romney received 48 of the votes and Obama received 51 of the votes, and other people received 2 of the votes, out of an assumed 100 votes total.
Here are the simple ideas in basic logical form of a syllogism: All those who do not pay income tax (i.e. 47%) are voted for Mitt Romney in the Popular vote. All those who voted for Barack Obama in the Popular vote are those who do pay income tax (i.e. 53%). Some of those who voted for Mitt Romney in the Popular vote are those who do pay income tax (i.e. 53%) and Some of those who did not vote for Mitt Romney in the Popular vote are those who do pay income tax (i.e. 53%).

Fiscal Cliff and Tax Increase

You might not have heard, but there is this “Fiscal Cliff” that the federal government is coming to. One of the big points about it is that if we do not come to a deal by the end of December, on January 1st everyone’s taxes will increase. President Obama happened to make the point that everyone’s taxes will increase, especially the 98% of Americans that make under 250,000 dollars.

Here’s my question: So what?

What does it matter that 98% of Americans, or every American, is going to have their taxes go up? Close to half of Americans don’t even pay income tax, while of course paying other taxes like those who do pay income tax have to pay these other taxes as well. What does it matter now that the poor class, the middle class, and the rich class, all have to pay more money now?

Last I checked this was the United States of America, and in this country people are expected to pay into the system instead of getting something from the system without paying in. Well, the system is having tough times and *everyone* has to pay more. This means that the poor class, middle class, and rich class have to pay more. There is no class of American to be exempt for this. We are a nation united and not a nation divided where one class has to put in and another does not. Let everyone pay more since things are very tough right now.

Think about the type of America that Obama wants to have for a second. He wants one group of Americans to pay more, while of course you can thank this one class of Americans for most of the things that the government does for people, since it comes from their wallets. He does not two other groups of Americans to pay more money, even though a sizable portion of those groups do not even have any “skin in the game”, and yet get all the benefits of the game.

Does it sound like fairness and equality when you force the one group that already puts the most into the system, while also being vilified, pay more while the other groups are not putting in or not putting in more, while also vilifying the group that does put into the game?

Let us get some equality and fairness, lets all go over the fiscal cliff together. This way we are all paying into the system and paying our fair share.

2012 Presidential Election Results

Here is some information on the Presidential Election results of the 2012 election.

Here are some numbers that they give:

Popular Vote- 120,887,981

Obama- 50.5%/ 61,128,734
Romney-  48.0%/ 58,138,521
Johnson- 0.9%/ 1,139,562
Stein- 0.3%/396,684
Barr- <0.1%/ 49,959
Anderson- <0.1%/ 34,521

Electoral Vote- 509*

Obama 303
Romeny 206

(* The Electoral vote is 538, but the result of Florida has not been added in, so the 29 votes missing belong to Florida.)

Obama received 50% of the popular vote and Romney obtained 48% of the popular vote. That is a 2% difference in popular vote between Obama and Romney. Obama received around 59% of the Electoral vote and Romney received 41%. There is a 18% difference in the electoral vote between Obama and Romney.  Obama did 9% better with the electoral vote than the popular vote, and Romney did 7% worse with the electoral vote than the popular vote. IOW, Obama did better with the electoral college than he did with the popular vote; Romney did better with the popular vote than he did with the electoral vote.

Think about this the next time you hear someone saying that there was a mandate for the Obama Administration and the Democratic Parties plans or ideas. The American public is split on this issue. It is not a nation united, like promised and hoped for and tried to change to back in 2008, but it is a divided country from what it especially once was. If you have someone tell you that there was an American mandate that supports Democratic policy, point out that the popular vote was only 2% difference between “American mandate” for Obama and “No American mandate” for Obama. Obama won handedly in the electoral college, but he definitely did not in the popular vote.

Where Half of Obama’s National Debt Came From

There was a  Presidential debate between Mitt Romeny and Barack Obama on October 3rd, 2012. This was the first Presidential debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Now what is interesting about this was not so much the debate itself, but some commentary on the debate. For example, PBS discussed and commented on some of the statements that the candidates made, and did some “fact checking”. Mark Shields happened to bring up one of the most interesting points of them all. The point they made was that half of the national debt incurred under Obama’s 1st term was based on pulling out of Iraq.

Now I want you to realize this, around 3 trillion dollars of around 6 trillions of national debt incurred under Obama’s first term. Under 2 terms of George W. Bush, around 4 trillion dollars were incurred on to the national debt. Now Bush lead the US into an undeclared war with both Afghanistan and Iraq, and Congress approved to continue to fund this undeclared war. And when this undeclared war was said to be officially over, US troops occupied those nations. These nations continued to be occupied up to the 2008 Presidential Election. Barack Obama said that he would bring the occupation troops in Iraq back home within 16 months of his election as President. By 2011 the last troops were pulled out, but don’t mind the huge embassy. But he did flip-flop on promises of when pull out would be done of occupation troops in Iraq. (They are literally military troops occupying land in a foreign nation.)

One of the big points made against Bush was that he used the national “credit card” to pay for the “Wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan. He used the credit cards to get us into these occupations of foreign nations, and the debt rose by 4 trillion in 8 years of Bush doing this, or 7 years at least. But Obama would use the national credit cards to pull out of Iraq alone, which costs nearly half of the debt incurred by using the credit card under Obama’s watch. Just think about that when you realize that the troops are back from occupying foreign lands, instead of being stationed at home with their families and community and defending the continental boarders and US owned land.

Point blank: Promised to get out by a certain date and does not pull out by that certain date, but also being ambiguous on when it will happen until it happens after it contradicts some earlier states. Raised the national debt more than his predecessor, while at the same time obtaining half of it pulling out of Iraq.

But let us be fare to Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama. They can only order where the troops go and when they come back. But Congress controls the revenue and distribution of the revenue. So the people using the national credit card where Congress. Just ignore that last important part and enjoy the hypocrisy of 21st politics.

I Haven’t Raised Taxes

Here is an interesting article based on President Obama’s interview on 60 Minutes.

“On CBS News’s “60 Minutes” Sunday night, President Obama said, “Taxes are lower on families than they’ve been probably in the last 50 years. So I haven’t raised taxes.”

As of Monday morning, neither the Washington Post’s Pinocchio-awarding Fact-Checker, nor the Annenberg Public Policy Center’, nor the Tampa Bay Times’ Pulitzer-Prize-winning had risen to this opportunity, so let us take a stab.

There are a variety of possible ways to measure the tax burden on American “families” over the past 50 years. Fortunately, Mr. Obama’s own White House Office of Management and Budget provides a spreadsheet that summarizes federal tax receipts from 1940 through the present. Fifty years ago, in 1962, federal tax receipts were $99.7 billion. In 2011, they were $2.3 trillion. Far from being at a 50 year low, the taxes extracted from American families last year were about 23 times what they were fifty years ago.

Okay, but aren’t there more families in America now than there were 50 years ago? Sure. The 1960 Census counted about 179 million Americans, while the 2010 Census counted about 309 million. The population hasn’t even doubled, but the federal government’s tax receipts have increased 23 times.

Okay, but what about inflation? President Obama’s own Office of Management and Budget tries to deal with that question by using something called “constant (FY 2005) dollars.” It’s not as trustworthy a measure as, say, the price of gold, but since the White House uses it, it’s worth at least a look. By this measure, federal taxes climbed to nearly $2 trillion in 2011 from about $660 billion in 1962. In other words, the taxes trebled, even as the population didn’t even double.

Remember, too, that 1962 wasn’t some kind of blissful Jeffersonian small-government era to which we can never possibly return. It was the height of the Cold War. President Eisenhower had only shortly before warned of the military-industrial complex. President Kennedy was going around giving speeches about how the tax burden was too high.

Okay, what about tax rates? By that measure, taxes aren’t at a 50-year-low, either. Don’t take my word for it: look at the chart from the Tax Policy Center operated by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, two center-left think tanks whose work President Obama likes to cite when he claims that a President Romney would raise taxes on the middle class. Sure enough, in 1988 and 1989 the top marginal income tax rate was 28%. In 1990, 1991, and 1992 it was 31%. Today it is 35%.

Okay, that’s the federal income tax rate. But what about the payroll tax rate? Here, too the Brookings-Urban Tax Policy Center has a useful chart. In 1962 the Social Security payroll tax was 6.25%, applied to the first $4,800 in wages. There was no Medicare tax, because Medicare did not yet exist. In 2011 — even after the two percentage point temporary payroll tax “holiday” — the tax was 10.4% applied to the first $106,800 in income, plus a 2.9% Medicare tax that applies to all wage income, with no cap. The tax, in other words, has more than doubled since 1962.

How about the federal gas tax? Fifty years ago, in 1962, it was four cents a gallon, according to the Tax Foundation. It’s now 18.4 cents a gallon. Far from being at a 50-year low, it has more than quadrupled.

There is one measure — federal tax revenues as a percentage of GDP — by which taxes under President Obama have been at a 50-year low, at least according to the Office of Management and Budget. But if that’s Mr. Obama’s yardstick, then it also shows government spending and budget deficits have been at 50-year highs under Mr. Obama.

The second sentence of Mr. Obama’s “60 Minutes” claim — “I haven’t raised taxes” — is similarly slippery. Before Mr. Obama had been in office for a month he signed a law increasing the tobacco tax by $71 billion over 10 years. A 10% tax on tanning salons went into effect on July 1, 2010, a tax increase of $2.7 billion over 10 years. If Mr. Obama hasn’t raised more taxes, it hasn’t been for lack of trying; the only thing stopping him has been the Republican House of Representatives.

It would be a shame if voters fall for Mr. Obama’s misleading claim that their taxes are at a 50-year low. But who can blame the voters, or, for that matter, the fact-checkers, if even Mr. Obama’s opponent, Mitt Romney, buys into the idea. In the same “60 Minutes” program, Mr. Romney said taxes would remain essentially unchanged if he won. “I don’t want a reduction in revenue coming into the government,” Mr. Romney said.

It’s enough to make one nostalgic for George W. Bush, or at least to prompt one to wish for a politician who can articulate the tax issue not in terms of what it means for the government’s revenues but in the language of what it means for the individual.”


Mitt Romney’s “Tax Returns” and “Tricky Mitt”

It appears that the Obama campaign for re-election has brought up some interesting talking points, which appear to have garnered wide attention. One of them involves Mitt Romney’s “tax returns” to be released, and for how there might be a felony or criminal action being hidden in his tax returns that have not been released. Now, unless you have been living under the sea with Ariel, there has been this narrative of “class warfare”, which has been brought up of rich American citizens v. non-rich American citizens.

Mitt Romney is placed within the category of rich American citizen, because you have to be an American citizen to run for President of the United States of America. There is even a check done to make sure that you meet the necessary requirements to run for President of the United States of America, and being a US Citizen is one of them. Anyone that tries to run for the office and does not meet these necessary requirements, well be denied that office. Romney  is considered to be a rich, which came about from his work as a private citizen and using his property that where within legal requirements.

Here is an example of an add bringing up Mitt Romney’s tax returns and linking it to be criminal and Mitt Romney is a felon.

Mitt Romney’s individual income tax returns are private information and protected by law from unauthorized disclosure. The IRS is the branch of the federal government that receives your individual income tax returns, and they can only give out your income tax returns to authorized federal branches or authorized individuals. So, for the most part, Mitt Romney’s information is private, unless Romney wants to make it public. You could own this a really great couch in your private home, and keep it private. You could also take your couch out of your private home and put it on public display or you could invite people into your private property and take a look at your really great couch. Not even the federal government is authorized to release that private information. Scary when the IRS even has boundaries that it will not transgress.

The main point would be that it is private information and one may use that private information as they want. Romney does not fell like releasing his tax returns, and Obama has not felt like releasing his college transcripts. Romney has also not released what his first memory was, or Obama has not released what his first memory was. Are both Romney an Obama holding back these things back because they broke some law? Are they criminals that are trying to run for office and be President? Are some criminals in public office now? Maybe federally elected officials are criminals. Could even be like prison in so far as you come out changed from when you went in. You go in as a law abiding person and come out a criminal, just maybe not a convicted criminal.

I really need to know this private information, I love to be all in people’s personal information and living their life for them. I really need to know what was Mitt Romney’s first job after graduate school an what was Barack Obama’s first job after graduate school, it allows me to know their unexplicated  step by step plan to reach their explicated objectives. “I’m going to fly you to the moon, but never mind how I am going to get you there.”

Does anyone know of the IRS having a good reputation of obtaining what is federally allowable by law? Assuming that they are good at obtaining what is legally attainable for them, it would mean that someone who holds back what is legally obtainable would be sought after by the IRS to obtain what is legally theirs. Has there been any information on Mitt Romney actually having been prosecuted by the IRS or Department of Justice for withholding the legally attainable private income of Mitt Romney? All signs point no. But we the public should think that he is hiding that really great couch from us; he is not sharing that really great couch, that is his private property, with us. He chooses not share his private stuff with us, so he must be choosing to do illegal things with his private property.

Romney did, on the other hand, at least release some of his private information. It is strange that he would release some of his private information since it is not necessary in order to hold the office that Romney seeks. He, or any Presidential candidate, must be natural born Citizen,  35 years of age or older, been fourteen year resident within the United States, and receive the majority of electoral votes. So the private information does not affect being a natural born citizen, over 35 years of age, and been a 14 year resident of the United States. He passed those three tests to hold federal office. The only one he is missing is the majority of votes from the electoral college voters. All the electoral college voters have to do is look at a ballot and pick which of the people listed is who they will vote for.

Is it expected that releasing this private information to obtains votes like buying a vote? Is it expected that releasing this private property to obtain votes be similar to buying votes? Without this private property being giving to the electoral college voters, Romney will fail the necessary test of being President. He can only obtain the office if he passes the necessary requirements, and failing one, like getting the majority of electoral college votes, means he is prevented from being Executive of the United States of America. Does Romney have to meet with a majority of the individual electoral college voters, and show them his private information or give up his private property, in order for them to vote for him?

But he did give up this private property to the electoral college voters. Of that, it was found that he placed some of his private property in banks. We also like to place some of our private property into banks. Nothing really strange about this. What is different is that Romney is able to put some of his private property into banks that do not have their headquarters in the United States of America. But there is nothing illegal of where you choose to place it. If this were the case, then that would mean it would even be illegal for you to choose to place it in banks that are headquartered in the United States. Instead, we are free to choose where put our private property. And those banks that Romney chose to put his private property were within federal law of where you can place your private property. This is like other people who place their banks that are headquartered in the United States and also allowable under federal law. The difference is that only those people who can afford to put their private property in this banks are allowed to do so. Romney is one of them, but some other people cannot afford to put their private property where they choose and allowable by federal law. Has anyone heard from the IRS on this issue?

What is the real problem, since he is not breaking any federal law and there is no requirement in holding office of Executive of the United States? It is that he is a rich American trying to become Executive of the United States. He is being discriminated against because of his economic class, or being given a reason to not vote for him. His economic class is trying to be used to get people to not vote for Romney, to not hire Romney. Economic class, in this situation, would be the strict factor in not hiring someone. They are in the class of rich instead of the class of not rich. They are being discriminated against based on class, like some in previous American history were discriminated from being hired in jobs because of their race, or because of their sex, or sexual orientation, or because of physical/mental deficiencies. If those groups of people, who were not hired for the job, could have changed what they were discriminated against for, then they would have been hired.

This is part of the subtle narrative of “Class Warfare”. Trying to turn one class against another, have non-rich American citizens to discriminate against rich American citizens like male American citizens discriminated against female American citizens. One class against another, division instead of equality and unity. Moving back instead of moving forward. Moving back to inequality amongst different classes instead of moving forward to equal treatment of different classes. Precedent has been set with previous elections had majority of electoral college voters not voting another candidate because of the class they belonged to, like being black or a woman. Just continuing it with another class of people after those other groups were eliminated form discrimination for holding a federal job. Precedent had been set by previous generations allowing for the discrimination and so others still follow it with another new class.

Obama’s Finanical Worth

Interesting in that President Obama is worth around 10 million dollars. But what is more interesting is who he has invested in as well. Some people might recall that he railed against these “Too Big to Fail” type of banks on Wall Street around2007-2008. But he has invested in one of these too big to fail banks, which was JP Morgan. Can anyone say hypocrisy?

“He has a hefty stake in JPMorgan Chase, the megabank that just made a bad $2 billion bet. Obama has an account worth between $500,000 and $1 million.”

Obama, Nobel Peace Prize, and Hypocrite

Now, I am not sure if some of you know, but President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize before he was really even President of the United States of America. It is interesting how someone can win the Nobel peace prize without doing one thing that actually deserves it besides words. But all this is fine and good, but the most interesting thing is what was said when giving that speech. In that speech he happened to bring up something interesting, which shows some hypocrisy on his part.

Barack Obama says, “I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior – for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure – and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.”
Now you might not be aware of this, but the US signed a treaty that was called the Geneva Convention. This prevents those nations who signed it from torturing others, besides basic human rights. But here is the kicker, President Obama, and Eric Holder, have said that water-boarding was torture. And yet the American government took part in it, and there are international laws against it. And yet President Obama did not send these people who broke the law to face an international trial like was done with the Nuremberg trials against the Nazi’s. Yet President Obama protected and forgave all those who performed the torture. They were protected from international law.
A foreign nation tried to have those who committed torture to face trial. But President Obama prevented these people from facing trial. So President Obama prevented the “regimes that break the rules” from being held accountable, and protecting them. What does that mean when a person says this at the Nobel Peace Prize is not being held to by his own administration. What makes it even worse is that President Obama is killing people in other nations without the permission of that nation. This is again a violation of international law, and Federal law. So where are the sanctions that was talked about in this peace prize speech? Nowhere. Where is the peace? Nowhere.
Can you honestly trust this person when he does not follow through in what he said during campaigns, let alone to the international community, and worse of all when said to defend the US Constitution and execute federal law?

Are You Better Off Than You Were 4 Years Ago?

In the 2012 Presidential election, there are certain narratives been set up, and certain stories trying to be told. Discussions are being framed in a certain way and responded to in a certain way. For example, the Republican party, and especially Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s campaign is trying to frame the narrative a certain way with the voters. He asks them a simple question, “Are you better off than you were 4 years ago.” Around 4 years ago, President Obama took office. Mitt Romney is basically asking, since President Obama assumed office, has your life been better.

There is a response presented by the Democratic party, and especially Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama, to this question. This usually goes along the lines that when President Obama took office that 800,000 jobs were being lost a month, the automobile industry was the brink of market failure, thousands of people were losing their homes, and there were two wars going on. And than they state that after a few months, there have been consistent months of job growth, the auto industry was saved from market failure, and some of the wars have ended. This is basically trying to link that the conditions from which President Obama took on have gotten better since he was elected.

The basic point of the question is this, “Are you better off than you were x years ago”. There might be a better way to frame the question by asking, “Are you better off than you were 6 years ago.” I think most of us would agree that we are not better off than we were 6 years ago. 6 years ago we were gaining jobs each month, the automobile industry was fine, many people were not losing their homes, the banking industry was fine, but we still had two wars going on. The point becomes, the Obama administration has not gotten us back to the conditions before the Housing market collapse. The economy is not better off than it was in those times, and we are not even close to getting the economy or employment back to the same level. In fact, the median wage of the middle class is less than it was 6 years ago.

The whole point of electing President Obama was based on getting back to previous economic conditions, and in that time we have not come close to getting back to the pre-recession times. So when it comes to the question of “Are you better off than you were 6 years ago?”, the obvious answer is “not even close”.