BluntPolitics.com

I remember when conservatives were deemed by the left… neo-cons. I had to research what this meant.

What do neoconservatives believe?

“Neo-cons” believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action. Source Christian Science Monitor downloaded today at 10:03pm http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html

I have come up with the left wing Democrats version of neo con. Neo Comms aka Neo Communists.

What do Neo Comms believe:

“We want our country to be liked by Europe, and thus we want to model our society after the government-run societies of Europe which are built on fairness. Since Americans don’t really understand socialism we can create government programs that will “take care of people”, and make them beholden to us thus Americans will elect our philosophies, and thus move American toward communism instead of consumerism”.  Our tag line is: “You deserve more taxes because we say so.”

Scary…

I went to the Obama web site and used the tax refund calculator. This showed with my income that I would receive about $1340 tax cut. First, this is not a tax cut. Second, this is a refund check. I will promptly return this to the government from whence it came because I didn’t earn it, and it came out of someone else’s pocket who did earn it.

By Ric Joyner

Yes. How? By giving a tax break to people who don’t pay taxes now. This is buying votes. This is putting people on welfare. This is socialism.

McCain has it right. Give businesses a tax break and they will put people to work. Smart.

Barack gives money away which isn’t his to give.

I found this comment on the web which is funny and sad:

The Democratic Party: We do everything for the children, including aborting them

The Democratic Party - We’re so compassionate, we give YOUR money to the poor (er, whatever’s left)!

The Democrat Party - Give us your tired, your weak, and your poor, we’ll make ‘em worse off.

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read “Vote Obama, I need the money.” I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on an “Obama 08″ tie, again I laughed
as he had given away his political preference–just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that
I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there
in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to
someone who I deemed more in need–the homeless guy outside. The server
angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server
inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was
grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized
the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter
was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the
actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept
than in practical application.

(author unknown)

Starting To Pay Price For Our Protectionism (investors business daily)

Trade: As Obama makes political hay off protectionism and promises a new Smoot-Hawley era, it’s no surprise our trading partners are beginning to look to other markets — such as Europe. It’s a warning.

   Our No. 1 trading partner, Canada, isn’t stupid. When Obama threatened last February to rewrite the North American Free Trade Agreement on his own terms, our northern ally started looking abroad to other markets.
   They found a big one in Europe, which seems to have few hangups about increasing exports and signing free-trade treaties. Last Friday, Canada and the European Union held the first talks toward an eventual free trade agreement between the two.
   When this goes through, $27 billion in new trade is expected by 2014, according to a joint EU-Canada study. Canada will add an extra 0.8% to its GDP and see income gains of $11.1 billion from the new jobs and higher salaries coming in from Europe.
   After all, if free trade with the U.S. bolstered Canada’s economy and standard of living by a factor of four since 1994, it makes sense to do more of what brought in that wealth.
Europe’s $14 trillion market is an attractive alternative to the U.S. for the Canadians, if it comes to that, and the Europeans are happy to add Canadian investment to the $500 billion investment its three largest economies drew in 2007.
Canada isn’t the only one responding to these chill trade winds blowing in from the Washington elites in election season.
Colombia is also preparing to sign a free-trade deal with Europe, as its own free-trade accord with the U.S. languishes after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked it in Congress last April.
U.S. allies are wise to seek other partners no matter what the U.S. climate — the U.S. downturn no doubt plays a role too. But it started with noises out of the U.S. about pulling up the drawbridge.
With a global downturn, free trade makes more sense than ever. That ought to be an election issue for the U.S., which needs to stay globally competitive. Sadly, it’s not.
Canada and Colombia are effectively defending themselves from the anti-trade vortex in the U.S. by turning to other markets. The Europeans have no intention of imitating the mistake made by the U.S. “It’s never a good sign when the U.S. becomes protectionist,” Philippe Favre, special ambassador for international investment and chairman of Invest in France Agency, the country’s foreign investment arm, said in recent comments to IBD.
   Like many European officials, Favre thinks the sentiment has been brewing for a while. “If you look at the last two or three years, there was the U.S. preventing foreigners from buying ports,” he said. “The Chinese wanted to buy an oil company and they were stopped. Then you have the contract for (air refueling) tankers refused to a European company (EADS).”
   Another failure was the World Trade Organization talks. “We have seen since 9/11 a U.S. trend to be more wary of the rest of the world,” Favre said. “We probably underestimated the impact (of the attack) on the people and the country in the EU.”
   Agree or disagree, there’s no doubt that protectionism will make America poorer and less influential, protecting nothing. Outsourcing is particularly full of misperceptions.
   “Look at the auto industry — Japan started by exporting to Canada and the U.S., and now produces cars in the U.S. They did it because the market itself is in the U.S. We see exactly the same thing in Europe. More car plants are going up in Germany and France than Bulgaria and Romania, even though the labor costs are lower there.”
   Michael Pfeiffer, managing director of Invest in Germany, told IBD that exports are no threat: “We (Germans) are the largest exporters in the world — it’s something we do. We have to do it.”
   Why? Germany doesn’t have the diversified economy America does. “One-quarter of German people are employed for export industries,” said Pfeiffer.
   With the possibility of a protectionist Democratic president (Barack Obama) working with a protectionist Democratic Congress, the U.S. may be the odd man out when it comes to free trade.
   Pity. Because free trade, as any economist will tell you, inevitably boosts the economies of those who engage in it. So others, like Canada, Colombia and Europe, will continue down the free-trade path — toward greater wealth for their citizens — while the U.S. sits on the sidelines.
   The world will decide it isn’t going to wait for Nancy Pelosi to come around on free trade — it’s going to leave the U.S. in the dust.

By Ric Joyner

As I watched the debate it became clear to me that the election  is over. As Charles Krauthammer said tonight on Fox News, Obama was presidential, cool, calm and collected.

McCain went on the attack, but Obama deflected well. Obama tends to say a lot of words without much content which was boring.

Regardless, the game is over. Obama-3 wins, McCain 0. The headwinds are blowing against McCain. The wind is called “fed up” and fearful Americans.

Republicans/Bush lost their leadership in several areas.

They had control of the House and Senate and went to the trough to feed and accomplished little.

Started the war in Iraq that is prolonged and barely manageable.

Couldn’t handle a disaster correctly aka Katrina

Looked in the eyes of an X KGB and saw his soul. (Not good foreign policy)

Oversaw a growing economy and then allowed it to go bust through the housing crisis.

Proposed to bailout Wall Street (which is a misnomer)

Didn’t complete energy independence and allowed the average American to pay higher gas prices.

Created massive deficits fighting a war and other spending

Virtually nothing was done to help the 15% who are uninsured.

Did I mention a war?

As Charles Krauthammer said, “not even the great Ron Reagan could stand up against the economy collapsing…” And I will add the incredibly poor job the Republicans did when they had control.

Charles also said this was the year of the Democrats even though they played a major role in the housing crisis, prefer not to drill for energy independence and want higher taxes on the very people that create jobs.

Our country is headed for a form of socialism under Obama especially in light of a Democratically controlled Congress. Perhaps this is the leadership America is looking for…the Left sure thinks so.

But, the Republicans deserve the thrashing they have gotten and Americans are rightly seeking a change. Obama wants to deliver the change and I can’t fault him for that. His world view is not mine and vice versa.

I can’t vote for Obama because of my conservative roots.  And will still vote McCain.

I don’t respect President Bush any longer. The turmoil that has accompanied his administration is incredible.

I hope my fellow Republicans and Conservatives don’t blame the press, or that Obama cheated, but take a hard look in the mirror, and sees the problem for what it is. Lack of vision, lack of leadership and lack of integrity. The other helpful focus would be to stop the critique of the other party and keep our “side of the street clean”.

Only then can the party rebuild. But the vision has to be the American People, lower taxes, access to health care, lower spending and smaller government.

By Ric Joyner

Folks I was just surfing the hateful blog, Daily Kos and this is a scary comment by the Founder Kos;

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/9/11055/1670/758/624699

Break their back, crush their spirits

by kos

Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 11:14:58 AM PDT

See, here’s the deal — we’re going to win the White House, we’re going to win big in the Senate, and we’re going to rack up big gains in the House. Republicans know this and are preparing for the worst. Now think of 2004 — we really thought Kerry was going to pull it off. Remember that? And remember how utterly devastated we were when Bush pulled it off? The pain was so much worse because we expected to win.

So with conservatives bracing for the worse, they won’t experience the kind of pain we did. Not unless we deliver a defeat even worse than their worst nightmares. And I’ll be honest with you — I want them to hurt as much as we did. I want their spirits crushed, their backs broken.

Read on for more of what they are thinking. WHEW.

By Ric Joyner

I find this disturbing from several angles. First, if the HQs are limited in number by region compared to Obama’s. For example, in WI there are HQs in many areas including Madison. None for McCain! The fact there are accessible offices show a certain level of enthusiasm?  Second, my confidence level in the McCain Campaign actually winning is a bit shaken. If McCain doesn’t have the infrastructure to carry this fight forward to the Whitehouse with “on the ground” troops and accessible offices, then how can he expect to win the Presidency?

If you want to see the offices of McCain go to www.johnmccain.com and compare that with the offices at www.barackobama.com. It will rock your world for bad or good.

Third, I called each McCain office and the Regional Office in the Midwest mailbox was full! The IOWA office was voicemail. The NATIONAL Office mailbox was also FULL at 10:45am CST. WOW

My confidence in a well run campaign just went down the tube.

By Ric Joyner

I can’t shake the feeling or sense that Obama is a creation. Let’s use the metaphor of robot manufacturing. A robot is created to perform a certain job. Obama was manufactured from the radical left (moveon.org, DailyKos.com and their ilk) to perform a job…get elected, and change the country toward socialism. It is unnerving to see a “creation” running for President of the United States! And the media is fawning over Obama which has been documented.

But, why do the democrats feel the need to field a creation versus a genuine, but tough candidate like Hillary?  Is it because she isn’t radical enough? Did she tell the truth about Obama during the campaign? Gotta wonder….

McCain, as a comparison, is genuine, authentic and deep (deep meaning he has a history of keeping his word). On the flip side Obama has generic words such as; Cross the isle, Change, Yes we can, free healthcare, free college, free gas, and a host of other empty words that lack specifics. Not only are there lack of details, but there is no record he practiced what he preached! The democrats are very worried about the dropping poll numbers of Obama. In fact, some polls show McCain ahead.

The question is do you vote for vaporware created by the liberal left? Or do you vote for the genuine, authentic, and “can do” candidate?

I won’t vote for vaporware!

Higher marginal rates across income levels hurts growth, some say

BY DAVID HOGBERG INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

With the U.S. suffering from low GDP growth, job losses, a credit crunch and weak housing activity, Barack Obama’s tax plan would help or hurt, depending on which economist you ask.
   Obama would boost the tax burden over current policy, shift the tax burden to higher earners, and result in higher marginal rates for the top earners and for some in the middle class.
   His plan would raise taxes by $627 billion over 10 years, based on likely assumptions, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the liberal Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. Alan Viard, resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, claims the Obama plan would jar growth.
   “The higher marginal rates at the top would, all else equal, tend to reduce economic growth by impeding work and capital accumulation,” he said.
   Michael Ettlinger, vice president of economic policy at the liberal Center for American Progress, disagrees.
   “I think it’s a good plan. It balances needed investments in energy and education with the need to be fiscally responsible,” he said.
   The Obama plan would raise the top two marginal rates of 33% and 35% to 36% and 39% and hike the capital gains rate from 15% to 20%.
   The effective top marginal rate of 38% for top earners could rise to 48% to 50%, including a new Social Security payroll tax on wage income above $250,000.
   While Viard notes that Obama’s tax increases wouldn’t be as large as previously thought, they would still do “harm to long-run growth from reduced incentives,” he said.
   Bob Williams, an economist with the Urban Institute, sees a milder effect.
   “Increasing the top rates may change how the people at the top realize income,” he said. “But it is unlikely to affect how much income they earn.”
   On the lower end of the income scale, Obama’s plan would expand the earned income tax credit and the payroll tax, plus help out with child care and retirement savings.
   It also would scrap income taxes on the elderly making less than $50,000 annually.
   “That puts money in the hands of those most likely to spend it,” said Williams.
   “The tax cuts are well targeted to boost demand,” Ettlinger concurred. “The credit reducing the payroll tax for lower income workers is exactly what our economy needs.”
   The Obama plan would cut taxes for many middle class earners. The ones left out would find tax credits phase out as income increases. “Many middle-income households will face somewhat higher effective marginal tax rates due to the phase-outs,” said Viard.
   Under the Obama plan, a family of four with an income of $31,000 to $45,000 could end up with a marginal tax rate 34% to 39%, 13 percentage points higher than under the current tax code.
   Even with lower overall tax takes, higher marginal rates could reduce the incentive to work or improve skills to seek higher-paying jobs.
   Much of the impact of the Obama plan may hinge on how it treats the federal budget deficit, which this year is projected to swell to more than $400 billion.
   “It depends on how Obama pays for his tax cut,” said Robert McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice. “If there is no long-term borrowing, it will not have a long-term drag on the economy.”
   The Tax Policy Center analysis shows that the Obama plan would reduce the deficit by $800 billion over 10 years — assuming Obama would not cut or increase spending. But Obama has promised to boost spending by at least $126 billion annually, with increases in education, medical insurance, the environment and foreign aid.
   He has also promised to cut spending by an undetermined amount by ending the Iraq War, reducing subsidies to Medicare HMOs and farmers, and improving health insurance efficiency.
   Ettlinger worries that reducing the deficit could hamper government spending in energy infrastructure and education.
   “If the Obama plan were to solely focus on deficit reduction, it would harm the economy,” he said
   Economists also are divided over the short-term pros and cons of Obama’s plan, given the economy’s current weakness.
   “It is just what the economy needs since our current troubles are likely to move into next year,” Ettlinger said.
   Regarding the increases in the top rates, Williams said: “Raising rates in times of an economic downturn is a bad idea. Timing is important with this plan.”