If Benghazi, IRS targeting of Conservatives, NSA Data Mining, and the Spying on AP reporters/Fox's J. Rosen are "Phony Scandals", then:

* Why did Obama/minions initially pitch a "Phony Video" as the cause of the Benghazi attack? Why Didn't The Obama Admin Even Try to Send Help - After All No One Knew How Long They Could Hold Out? Why Did the Obama Admin Turn Down Repeated Requests for Additional Security?

* Why were we first told that the IRS targeting of Conservatives was done SOLELY by rogue low level IRS Cincinnati employees? Why did Obama First Say in May that the targeting of political groups was an "outrage" - While Now It's a "Phony Scandal"? Why Does Former IRS Head Lois Lerner Keep Taking the Fifth?

* Why did the Obama Administration keep the depth of the NSA Data Mining from Congress and the American people?

* Why were Associated Press Reporters/Rosen - who were just doing their jobs in accordance with the 1st Amend to the Constitution, being spied on by DOJ?  Why did DOJ have to "judge shop" (3 different judges) to obtain a warrant to spy on Rosen?

Flat Tax/Fair Tax: While Progressive tax systems are definitely gentler to the poor/middle class, any tax system that taxes people at different  rates isn't "fair". True, the rich would make out with a Flat Tax/Fair Tax, and in the past I was more against than for such, for 2 reasons I now favor the Flat Tax/Fair Tax: More and more folks are voting for their pocket rather than what's best for the country. To stop these irresponsible voting patterns, we need ALL people to have "skin in the game" - sorry if that hurts some folks but the strategy of trying to get the rich to pay for everything, while our deficit balloons, needs to end! Also, based on Obama Admin using the IRS as a tool to suppress/punish Cons, believe Dems/the IRS cannot be trusted - IRS needs to be abolished. Flat Tax/Fair Tax would allow for that! NOTE: There might still be a minimal requirement for an IRS like entity with the Flat Tax - but it'd be insignificant in the scheme of things, and have not real discretionary power.

Benghazi Survivors:

Where are the Benghazi Survivors? It's like they've disappeared from the face of the earth. It's been over five months since the 9/11 tragedy, and we haven't heard one word about that night from any of the 20+ Benghazi survivors. The main question is, where are they?  A recently published article - http://shar.es/YNaK0 states that the survivors are forbidden from discussing that night due to non disclosure statements they signed when they were first hired.  NOTE:  When you consider the fact that the person that benefits from supressing the testimony of these people is Obama, the information/facts they are cognizant of must be damaging indeed for Obama to keep them from testifying by threatening them with their non disclosure statements.

Sen. Graham: is "fighting the good fight" in Senate Hearings right now trying to determine what really happened that night. Consider the chances of his getting Obama/his subordinates to "fess up" to be slim and none.  Why?  Consider it likely that if the truth ever came out about that night, it would lead to impeachment proceedings and end up bringing down the Obama administration.  Deceptions, half-truths, and outright lies are what Sen. Graham has in store for him from his current list of "witnesses".

Whistleblowers: What we need to crack this case is whistleblowers, and the best whistleblowers that come to mind are the Benghazi survivors - people who were actually there that night. Sen Graham should refocus his efforts on getting the survivors to testify, and issue them subpoenas, rather than trying to "break" Obama's high level administrative employees.

 

 

Foreign Affairs:  Obama/Hillary's softball 60 minutes interview, where they patted each other on the back about their "accomplishments" of the last four years, makes one wonder - what world are they living in?

* Iran about to get nuclear weapon

* Civil war in Syria

* Egypt lead by Muslim dictator

* Israel in peril

* Putin on the prowl and looking to reestablish Russia as Superpower

* Afghanistan about to be retaken by the Taliban

* North Korea threatening us with a "first strike" nuclear attack, and breaking the 1953 armistice.

* Iraq gradually becoming a client state of Iran

* Inability to prevent Chinese hackers from stealing our valuable military secrets


Worse yet, there is every reason to believe that all of the above will deteriorate further in Obama's second term.

Most Divisive/Disingenous President Ever:  Senate's "Gang of 8" just came up with a bipartisan immigration plan. Rather than letting plan work it's way through Congress/become law, Obama comes up with own plan that incorporates deal stopping legislation on gay rights within. REASON:  Obama incorporates gay rights legislation within immigration bill hoping/anticipating Republicans will vote against his proposal. If they do, he/Dems can then run on that Republican vote, demonizing Republicans in eyes of Hispanics, and hoping to garner votes in 2014.

NOTE to Hispanics:  Obama is more interested in winning the next election than he is in implementing immigration reform. With the "great divider" as President, it's no wonder that nothing ever gets accomplished in our federal government.

Obama Deceptions:

*  Obama swore an oath to protect/defend the Constitution. Based on his plethora of executive orders, and more of same on the way, the constitution needs protected from Obama.

*  Obama says the reason he wants gun control is to protect innocents.  Maybe, but true purpose may be far darker - confiscation prior to dictatorial power grab.

*  Obama likes to pretend that unemploment is 7.8% and improving. Hardly, real unemployment, -when you consider people who gave up looking for jobs, is 11%, and likely to get worse with ever increasing deficit.

*  Obama says he's going to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but he pressures Israel from striking and hires soft on Iran Hagel for SECDEF.

*  Obama would like us to believe that he bears no blame for Benghazi. Consider the odds on that to be practically nil.

*  Obama 's 2008 scam was to pretend to be "great uniter"/"hope and change" candidate. Results: The most divisive President ever.  The Post Partisan President is actually the Most Partisan President.

*  Obama pretends that he's willing to compromise but Republicans aren't. Hardly, BHO's managed to avoid any real deficit reductions, the deficit is still at $1.3T/year.

*  Obama likes to pretend he's proposing real deficit cuts. Hardly, his "Obama cuts" are cuts to programs we were never going to do in the first place.  Eg., say you're cancelling a trip to Mars, and calling such a $1T deficit savings.
 

*  Obama likes to pretend that he's interested in reducing deficit. Proof is in the pudding - $1.3T per year increase, and no Obama deficit reduction plan.

*  Obama likes to pretend he's the smartest guy in the room. If so, why has he hidden his SATs, LSATs and college/law school grades?

*  Obama feigns indignation/outrage when pressed. Notice I said "feigns" - when challenged, BHO's strategy is that the best defense is a good offense.

Bankrupt States, Counties and Municipalities

Bankruptcy:  States, Counties and Municipalities across the country are unable to cover their debts, and some may actually end up declaring bankruptcy.  The current facility, administrative, entitlement, and employee costs, and also the long term pension/health benefit costs of retired government employees, are all cost drivers.

Possible Ways Forward out of the Financial Morass:

A.  Consolidation: Recently moved to the Pittsburgh area. Was shocked at the real estate tax rates for the area (at least as compared to where I lived before).  Was looking at a Pittsburgh county map, and noticed that there were in excess of 50 townships (some call them bureaus).

Started thinking about the above. It's no wonder that taxes are so high - rather than consolidating, you have 50+ of everything - political officials, township bldgs, police bldgs, administrative support personnel, utility bills, school districts, etc, etc, etc. Have to believe that if states (I'm assuming that the Pittsburgh area is not unique in this situation) would consolidate to the maximum extent possible, huge savings would be garnered for the taxpayers of the Pittsburgh area (and other cities, townships and counties across the U. S.). Probably the most logical consolidation level would be at the city level, or in absence of a big city, at the county level. Township governments should be avoided to the maximum extent possible. Most people don't even know who their local township officials are.

Actually, I'd be shocked it Pittsburgh couldn't reduce taxes by at least 50% if they were to consolidate. Realize that such a proposition would be fought tooth and nail by all the political officials/the govt employees in the Pittsburgh area as consolidation would obviously be a real negative for them. But - it's what's best for the taxpayers............ Monies could be spent on what people wanted rather than on unnecessary duplication of effort.

We don't need over 50 sets of peoples doing exactly the same kinds of things. Consolidation could lead to massive tax cuts. Also, the long term burden for states and localities would be reduced - less employees = less retirement costs (pensions and health care costs) NOTE: You can attrition the personnel down, rather than have massive personnel cuts.

B.  Government's Role:   Before retiring I was a Comptroller of an organization with approximately 800 employees, and $400M/year in revenue. I sort of liken overhead costs at our organization with the function of the federal and state governments - with the federal/state governments being the overhead to the private sector. The federal/state governments have numerous vital functions - national defense, national guard, the courts, providing for the safety net, social security, etc. However, in general, believe that overhead at an activity and the role of the federal/state governments are basically the same - provide for vital functions for the organization/country/state at the lowest possible cost.

When I say provide vital functions - this does not in any way include make work projects just to get people off the unemployment roles. This also does not mean farming out monies for the Solyndra's of this world - or for PBS for that matter. Vital means vital. If it isn't absolutely necessary, you don't do it. We need government to be as small as it can be. Keeping costs down will help with the deficits, and free up taxpayer monies for taxpayer usage. We need to grow the private sector (which will help even more with the deficits), not the government sector. Growing the government sectors just increases our debt.

C.  Unions

Right to Work States vs Forced Unionization: In the United States, we have Right to Work States and Forced Unionization States. Approximately 50% of the states are in each category. With Right to
Work States, people have a right to work anywhere in that state without being forced to join a union/pay union dues. For Forced Unionization States - if a company in one of these states is unionized, you must join the union, or you won't be able to work for that company. Each state has laws specifically relating to this "right to work" union issue.

 Advantages of Right to Work States: Aside from not compelling people to join unions/pay union dues, businesses in Right to Work States can typically put themselves in a more competitive position domestically and internationally due to the decreased power of unions in regards to the negotiation of pay, leave, benefit packages, and hirings/firings. This increased viability of businesses in Right to Work States benefits not just the owners of the business, but also the employees of that business, and increases the tax base of the state through higher employment. Comment: While the concept of unionization in general is fine, union members, and specifically union management, need to keep in mind that excessive demands, that make the companies/industries that their union members work for uncompetitive, is totally counterproductive - i.e., not in the best interests of, the union members that they are representing. NOTE: If you'd like to read more on union competitiveness, go to "Unions - Competitiveness and Intimidation Tactics" at "onemanandhisview".

Unions and Marginal Employees:  The practice of unions protecting and preserving the jobs of marginal employees is a disservice to not just the entire business (through decreased production) but puts added pressure on coworkers who try and cover for the underperforming employees.  Likewise, public unions protecting marginal government employees decreases production and requires the utilization of additional taxpayer dollars to cover the underperforming employees.

Public Unions and the Democratic Party: The practice of public unions donating a substantial portion of their union dues to the Democratic Party, who then - if elected, grant pay, leave, and benefit packages that are favorable to the unions, is unseemly at best. It certainly gives the appearance of impropriety - a conflict of interest for the elected Democratic politicians who, once elected, are supposed to be exercising the judicious use of taxpayer dollars, and not "paying back" those that helped them get elected. NOTE: Take a look at the current budget situation in California if you want to see where this "pay back" gone way awry can lead you.

Unions and the Federal Government: In the federal government, public unions are not allowed to bargain for pay and benefits. They are only allowed to bargain/negotiate over conditions of employment - employee safety and working conditions.  This practice/policy should also apply to state/local government employees as well.

Summary:  Consolidation, performance of only vital governmental functions, and union regulatory/behavioral changes, would dramatically improve the financial position of state/local governments.  Likewise, improvements to the national economy - improvement in the mortgage crisis, employment gains, and increased investment/job growth - which is currently stymied by Obamacare, Dodd-Frank and EPA over regulations and tax/dividend increases on the rich, all need to be rectified for optimal growth.  NOTE:  See my article on "Capitalist Manifesto" - at "onemanandhisview".

Obama and his Hidden Agenda for our Nation

Debt Ceiling:  Now that the Fiscal Cliff has been averted, the next fiscal crises looming involves the increase to our Debt Ceiling.  For this go-round, strongly suspect that there is an additional fiduciary matter that will be dependent upon the outcome of the negotiations - a possible downgrade to our credit rating.  Simply put, if our Government fails to show that we are serious about making inroads toward reducing our debt, believe we're going to be downgraded, and that the interest rate we have to pay on our debt will increase dramatically.

 2012 Election:  You can understand why the Democrats/their ever loyal allies (the mainstream press) wanted to talk about such peripheral matters as "taxing the rich", and the "war on women" in the 2012 campaign.  Both played well politically, and were excellent at diverting attention away from the crucial issue of our era - our out of control federal deficit.  NOTE:  If you'd like to read an article on the mainstream press, go to "Mainstream Press's Betrayal of America" at "onemanandhisview".

Fiscal Cliff Negotiations:  The thing is, the election is over, Obama won, but still nothing was done about our out-of-control deficit during the recent fiscal cliff negotiations.  The Democrats, once again, managed to control the agenda of the debate (with an able assist from the mainstream press), and the negotiations ended with Democratic wins - increasing taxes for families making over $450K, and extending unemployment benefits - but no real decrease to our expenditures.

Debt Ceiling Negotiations:  The President has already said that he does not intend to negotiate over raising the debt ceiling, that there should be no negotiations over costs we've already incurred (or are on the verge of incurring).  

While some Keynesian thinkers might argue that our economy is currently not strong enough to bear the impact of dramatically reduced government expenditures, the answer to this is - "if not now, when"?  Simply put, Obama tried Keynesian economics with his $830B stimulus package in 2009 - it failed to meet the targets that Obama's own fiduciary personnel set.  While this Keynesian argument was debatable during the first year of Obama's administration, with a $16T deficit that has been growing by leaps and bounds for four straight years, this argument is no longer even remotely tenable.  NOTE:  If you'd like to read a discussion on Keynesian Economics, go to my article "Failed Keynesian Economic Policies" at "onemanandhisview".

Democratic Rationale:  You have to wonder - what is going on?  The Democrats have to realize the dire shape we are in.  That our snowballing deficit will eventually sink our economy and turn us into the next Greece - riots and all.  Here are some thoughts on what their thinking on this matter may actually be:

     a. Math Issue:     Have often noticed that many Democrats (Liberals) aren't particularly good at math.  Perhaps they just don't get it.

     b.  Democratic Socialism:  The Democrat's real goal is to have a  social welfare state (like Europe), with high taxes on the rich and the middle class - so as to redistribute wealth "fairly".  Creating a big deficit via out-of-control spending would be a way of forcing the issue on taxes - i.e., the snowballing deficit mandates drastic tax increases on all but the poor to keep the country out of bankruptcy.    

     c.  Diabolical Plot:  Take actions, as necessary to cause dire economic and political conditions within the country so that Obama can seize total  power (become a dictator).  If this is Obama's actual goal, anticipate that the following step by step list of actions would closely approximate Obama's plan of action and milestones:
          1. Crash Economy: Take no action to slow deficit growth to ensure country goes bankrupt. Only "Obama cuts" are acceptable.  NOTE: "Obama cuts" are imaginery cuts to programs we were never going to do in the first place. An example of an "Obama cut" would be to cancel the Mars space program, and save $1T, and call this a "savings".
          2. Civil Unrest: After country goes bankrupt, facilitate/initiate the starting of riots, and take all  actions necessary to ensure continued civil unrest. NOTE: Stirring up racial unrest would enhance this goal by further increasing tensions.
          3.  Declare Martial Law/Seize Power: When anarchy reins supreme, "save" country by declaring martial law to allay fear of populace, and then seize total power.
          4. Paint patriots (freedom fighters) as criminals: Initiate executive orders declaring criminal any Americans that resist institution of martial law/Obama dictatorship.  NOTE: Easier to persuade army/police/national guard to act against US citizens if you can claim that freedom fighters are actually law breakers.
          5. Subdue populace:  Civilians resisting Obama dictatorship need to be subdued using all force necessary by the army, national guard and police.

Important Note: If you can manage to confiscate guns from civilian populace before the chain of events indicated above unfolds, so that we are "sheep waiting for slaughter", the entire endeavor will be far easier to accomplish.

     d. Punitive: Obama is intentionally trying to wreck our economy (see below):

Unamerican Thinking: Some would argue that our current sad economic state of affairs, and our snowballing deficit, is intentional, that Obama has been sabotaging our economic recovery due to his deep seated hatred for this country - that the words "Great Satan" proclaimed by such luminaries as Ahmadinejad does not echo hollow on his ears. Consider the following:

Birds of a Feather: You're typically known by the company you keep:

Reverend Wright: Otherwise known as, Mr. "Not God Bless America, God Damn America". Obama sat in his church for 20 years, and he called him his mentor. Listen to Obama's June 2007 speech at Hampton University (available on YouTube), where the "Great Uniter" praises Wright, and spouts class warfare, sounding like either a divisive panderer or a racist. Relevant comment: I certainly would not have sat in a church headed by a "man of God" espousing white supremacy views for 20 minutes much less 20 years.

Michelle Obama: On Feb 18, 2008 Michelle Obama said that for “the first time” in her adult life,” she was proud of America, as she spoke during a rally to support her husband’s first presidential bid. Sounds an awful lot like a black American with a really big chip on their shoulder.

Bill Ayers: The person from whose living room Obama's first political campaign was launched. Ayers is the former fugitive of the law, and leader of the Weather Underground, which was an American radical left organization whose goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party for the violent overthrow of the US government.

Marshall Davis: Through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his “poetry” and getting advice on his career path.

Federal Security Clearance: Was a DOD manager for most of my thirty year career. Based on my knowledge of background checks that are required to get security clearances, Obama - based on who he has associated with (see above), could not have gotten a secret security clearance much less a top secret security clearance.................. This is the guy we have running our country?

Redistribution of Wealth: Obama's favorite tactic (other than demonizing Romney) was demagouging the Republicans over the issue of taxing the rich. As the self professed "champion of the middle class" he campaigned on making sure that the rich pay their "fair share". Of course, what is the "fair share"? Is the fact that the top 1% of wage earners already pay 40% of the income tax bill not enough - particularly when you consider the fact that the bottom 47% of wage earners of this country pay nothing? In fact, worse yet, these days the bottom 47% are using the ballot box to vote themselves "free stuff" from funds that they country doesn't even have. NOTE: Democrats like to say that low income earners are paying taxes - the social security tax. Wrong - the social security tax is people's contribution to their own retirement program. It is not like the income tax - the tax that pays for the running of this country.

Obama's children's book: - Within this book he states that one of his 13 inspirational characters is Sitting Bull - the Indian Chief largely responsible for the defeat of Custer at the Little Big Horn. My suspicion is that anyone who think's that Custer's Last Stand was orchestrated by a "inspirational" person has a real problem with this country, fitting right in with the left's view of our country through a dark spectrum - as an evil country that has inflicted unfair/inhumane treatment on both internal/external peoples. Specifically, that our misdoings are largely related to our evil capitalistic society's quest for resources, land and power.

Class Warfare: Obama's 2008 pitch about not red and blue states, but the United States has rung hollow. Instead of being the "great uniter", he has turned out to be the "great divider". His entire campaign was based on playing different portions of the voting populace against each other. People are more alienated and ostracised from each other than ever.

Sometimes I wonder is this guy actually the "Manchurian Candidate"?

Final Thought:  Am leaning toward (c) above.  NOTE:  If you'd like to read an article on what the Republicans should do in the upcoming debt ceiling negotiations, go to "Debt Ceiling Increase" at "onemanandhisview".

Debt Ceiling Increase - Best Strategy for Republicans

Recommendation for Republicans: Republicans should tell Democrats - adopt Bowles-Simpson - "take it or leave it". Since Bowles-Simpson was a bi-partisan committee, designed to solve the debt crisis, do not think that Democrats would be able to say no to this deal, and since I believe that this is the best deal that Republicans can possible get anyway - this is how they should proceed.

Republicans have recently been proposing that pieces of Bowles-Simpson should be used as part of the now finalized Fiscal Cliff and the Debt Ceiling deal - but this is not their best approach. To force a deal - they need to demand that Bowles-Simpson be utilized - word for word.

Status of the Negotiations: If you look at things from the perspective of the Fall 2011 through today. the only cuts to expenditures that have occurred to date are by way of sequestration ($500B cut to defense, and $500B cut to discretionary spending). NOTE: The major components of the fiscal cliff deal in Jan were further extension of unemployment benefits, and a tax increase on families making over $450K. There were no expenditure cuts.

Sequester: Republicans should let the sequester cuts stand unless biparrtisan expenditure offsets can be agreed to. Taxes should not be raised to offset/recover the sequester cuts. NOTE: If bi-patisan agreements can be reached to allow prioritization and then reprogramming of expenditure cuts within the governmental Departments - to soften the effects of the sequestration, that would be a positive development.

Recommendation: Republicans need to do something to slow the growth of the deficit. Let the government default/shutdown if that's what it takes to get meaningful reductions to our federal debt. Republicans need to accept that they will take a hit (political blame) if the government defaults/shuts down. Instead of worrying over being blamed for this, they need to own the blame if necessary, and instead use the authority to raise the debt ceiling as leverage to get real expenditure cuts. They need to stand firm for as long as necessary to obtain real and substantive reduction to the growth of the deficit.

In the long run - if through the Republicans standing firm - if through their strength of will, the deficit issue is resolved, the immediate blame of the government default/shut down will be more than offset by the credit for putting the nation on a supportable path forward, as we back away from the financial abyss.

Western Europe - the Seeds of their Own Destruction

Greece/Italy/Spain/Portugal:  All four of these European Union countries have massive unemployment, declining GDP, and out of control deficits.  If you'd like a pictorial description of their deficits - it's like a snowball, rolling down a hill, getting bigger and bigger, rolling faster and faster, as the countries race toward an economic catastrophe.

Social Welfare States, in general, over regulate, over tax, and spend more resources than the country can handle on entitlement programs, eventually bankrupting the country, and putting themselves in jeopardy of becoming a dictatorship - or a Communist dictatorship, when economic conditions become particularly dire.

The Seeds of their own Destruction and "Free Stuff":   "Free Stuff" - large, and growing expenditures for entitlements (social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment, food stamps, housing subsidies, education) , exacerbate their deficit shortfall in two ways - it encourages people not to work - which reduces their tax base, and it also increases the federal outlays for entitlements .

Welfare/Unemployment Benefits Recipients: Many people on welfare (foodstamps/housing subsidies) and on unemployment choose to sit at home rather than go to work at the "Walmart"'s of this world. Comment: This is one of the major factors relating to their current economic woes. In order to get people off the dole, and save at least some of the billions being poured into these entitlement areas, they need to do one of the following:

a.) Directly reduce entitlement dollars: Make the pay/benefit differential between "Walmart", and welfare/unemployment greater by reducing the entitlement payments, and/or reducing the timeframes that the entitlement payments are allowable, or

b) Enforce Entitlement Rules:  They need to ensure that people on welfare or unemployment  actually look for/accept semi-suitable employment

Working Poor: Heretofore, I've been a supporter of not charging federal income taxes to individuals/families below a certain income level. Since their income was low, and it's typically a struggle to make ends meet, thought that this was most humane way to approach things. The fact that these individuals/families weren't contributing anything to cover the necessary expenses to run their countries, was, well, just the way it had to be.

However, after seeing what Liberals have managed to do - bribe people with money that they don't even have, now believe that a change needs to be made.  They really need to adjust the income tax brackets so that everyone pays federal income taxes. There's simply no other way to ensure that everyone has "skin in the game", and is concerned about federal spending/the deficit - i.e., that it's just not "someone else's problem".

Final Comment: By making every working person pay federal income taxes, am confident that they can get a more mature/rational voting pattern, and therefore make real strides toward solving their economic problems.

Grim Financial Situation:   The situation of Western Europe is grim. To have a chance at financial viability and survival, they need to make drastic and immediate changes to entitlement programs (see above).   NOTE:   Excessive taxing of the rich will most likely have the opposite effect desired. Instead of garnering additional revenue to cover debt, it will most likely drive the rich out of the country and therefore actually reduce revenue. 

     a.  Possible Dissolution of the European Union:  Would not be at all surprised to see the European Union dissolve.  Can easily picture the more affluent countries - to save themselves, abandoning the poorer countries to their own inadequate means.
    
     b.  Total chaos leading to a Coup:  The spectre of total economic failure and the seizing of power by a dictator (or Communist dictator) looms - particularly for the poorer Western European countries.  NOTE: Social Democracies tiptoe on the edge of becoming Dictatorships, and in an economic downturn can easily slide into same............. Consider the current state of affairs in Greece. Just a little more turmoil, a few more riots, and a communistic strongman could easily declare martial law and seize total power.  NOTE:  If you'd like to read an article on the flaws inherent in Communism go to "onemanandhisview", title "Communism".

Side note:  While all of the above also applies to the United States, we have mitigating factors that could help us stave off financial disaster:    

     a.  Natural Resources:  Recent studies have shown that the United States has the largest energy reserves on Earth.  Our untapped energy reserves - oil, natural gas and coal rival none, and represent a great opportunity for this country - both for energy independence, and for job growth.    We have huge supplies of energy (coal, gas, oil) within this country. Now, with our new recovery techniques (such as fracking), we have the capability to garner and utilize this energy.

     b.  Farmland:  The United States is not dependent on foreign countries for the vast majority of our food.  Being dependent on other countries for food to feed a burgeoning population is like playing a life or death struggle with one hand tied behind your back. 

Final Comment:  They/we stand at the precipice of the abyss.  Immediate corrective actions - before the "seeds of their own destruction" - out of control entitlement spending, dooms us all.

Failed Keynesian Economic Policies

Keynesian Economics:  One of the major tenets of Keynesian Economics is that you can stimulate an underperforming economy via government infrastructure spending (often called "shovel ready projects").

Obama Stimulus Plan:  When Obama signed his $830B stimulus plan in January 2009, he said that unemployment would never go above 8%, and that by the end of his term, it would be back to 5.6%.  Both predictions were incorrect, unemployment went as high as 10%, and his first term is ending with unemployment at nearly 8%.  He also promised GDP would grow by approximately 4% a year.  Instead it's been hovering at around 2% a year. 

Discussion:

     Shovel Ready Projects:  Government investment in infrastructure - while these projects almost certainly do have at least some temporary stimulatory effect on the economy - the jobs aren't permanent, and of course, these projects expend taxpayer dollars.
     Supplementing State Budgets:  While supplementing state budgets does have some stimulatory effect (since people don't lose their jobs), it's only a temporary fix that delays the inevitable downsizing actions required by the states, and these efforts expend taxpayer dollars.
     Green Energy Projects:   Make work projects - companies like Solyndra (which almost always failed) - they add few jobs/have little value, their benefits are only temporary, and they mostly just end up wasting taxpayer dollars. 
     Cash for Clunkers/Other Expenditures:  This form of stimulus is,  at best, very short-lived.  It mostly just adjusts procurement timeframes from one quarter to the next quarter - and wasting taxpayer dollars.
    
All of the above compound our already out of control deficit situation.

Politics:   Having politicians involved involved in making decisions to stimulate the economy opens the door to "pet projects" - bright ideas by politicians who have their own agenda (which sometimes includes favors owed to campaign contributors) ................ see Green Energy Projects above.

Bottom Line:  Further stimulus packages need to be nixed.  With a $16T deficit, we simply cannot afford such.  Things are bad enough as they are without exacerbating the problem.  Even true "shovel ready" jobs can no longer be seriously considered.   NOTE:  With our deficit being as high as it is, additional green energy investment is practically fiscal treason.

We need to grow our economy the old-fashioned way - via private enterprise:

Capitalism "is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production of goods or services for profit".

Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand": A philosophy of economic behavior whereby each individual, out to do the best they can for themselves - by filling needs for goods and services that they see in society - they inadvertently benefit the entire society, and thereby optimize the economic growth and capacity of their country. Put another way, "greed works".

For Capitalism to be it's most effective, we need to maximize investment, decrease entitlement spending, limit taxation and regulation, and decrease the size of the government in general.

Investment: We need to maximize investment. For the rich, they need to feel that there is a probability of making a profit, without which, they will not invest. For the middle/lower class, they need to be able to obtain loans to start their new businesses, and, again, to feel that there is probability of success. The likelihood of the rich, or the middle/lower class, investing is diminished if there is uncertainty. Currently, the following are factors causing uncertainty:

Obamacare: A cost driver requiring businesses to either provide health care, pay a penalty, or make employees work part time.

Tax hikes: Another uncertainty would be the administration's proposed increase in the current income tax rate for the upper class.

Capital gains tax increases: Which would lower the profit potential (while the risk of losing money on the new investment remains constant) also decreases the likelihood of investment.

Uncertainty is not an inducement for investment - it needs to be removed from the equation.

Loans: For the middle/lower classes, they need to be able to get a loan to start their new business. Excessive banking regulations (Dodd/Frank) that inhibits, or prevents, the ability of people to get loans hurt job growth. We need to make sure that reasonable business ventures "get a shot" at being created and becoming a success.

Attitude and expectations play an extremely important role in job growth. Investors need to feel optimistic about the future - that their possible fiscal venture has a reasonable chance of success. Our goal needs to be to do everything we can to make the climate favorable for investment, business creation, and job growth. Without this investment, these businesses will simply not get built, and therefore the new jobs won't be forthcoming. For, in new startups, they "did build that".

Free Stuff versus the Deficit: "Free Stuff" - large, and growing expenditures for entitlements (social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment, food stamps, housing subsidies) , exacerbate our deficit shortfall in two ways - it encourages people not to work - which reduces our tax base, and it also increases the federal outlays for entitlements . If you'd like a pictorial description of our deficit - it's like a snowball, rolling down a hill, getting bigger and bigger, rolling faster and faster - as we race toward becoming the next Greece - riots and all.

Welfare/Unemployment Benefits Recipients: Many people on welfare (foodstamps/housing subsidies) and on unemployment choose to sit at home rather than go to work at the "Walmart"'s of this world. Comment: This is one of the major factors relating to our current economic woes. In order to get people off the dole, and save at least some of the billions being poured into these entitlement areas, we need to do one of the following:

a.) Directly reduce entitlement dollars: Make the pay/benefit differential between "Walmart", and welfare/unemployment greater by reducing the entitlement payments, and/or reducing the timeframes that the entitlement payments are allowable, or

b) Enforce Entitlement Rules: We need to ensure enforcement of the Clinton era requirement for people on welfare or unemployment to actually look for/accept semi-suitable employment, or

Entitlement Programs: Changes need to be made to social security, medicare and medicaid. In the first four years of Obama's Presidency, he hasn't taken any actions to fix the long term problems inherent in our entitlement programs - and to ensure their viability into the future. Solving the entitlement problem is the most significant issue in resolving the deficit problem.

Trend toward greater and greater dependency: Support for a lifestyle/culture of dependency - making it easier to get and stay on food stamps, extending employment benefits way beyond the amount of time originally intended, contribute/lead to a culture of dependency and sadly restore the state of affairs that existed prior to Bill Clinton's signing of the Welfare Reform Act which helped alleviate this situation back in the 1990's. While having people become/remain dependent garners the Democratic Party votes, it breeds a culture of hopelessness and despair, and helps keep people in a downtrodden (unemployed) state.

Working Poor: Heretofore, I've been a supporter of not charging federal income taxes to individuals/families below a certain income level. Since their income was low, and it's typically a struggle to make ends meet, thought that this was most humane way to approach things. The fact that these individuals/families weren't contributing anything to cover the necessary expenses to run our country, was, well, just the way it had to be.

However, after seeing what the Democrats have managed to do - bribe people with money that we don't even have, now believe that a change needs to be made. We really need to adjust the income tax brackets so that everyone pays federal income taxes. There's simply no other way to ensure that everyone has "skin in the game", and is concerned about federal spending/the deficit - i.e., that it's just not "someone else's problem".

Final Comment on "free stuff"/voting patterns: By making every working person pay federal income taxes, am confident that we can get a more mature/rational voting pattern, and therefore make real strides toward solving our economic problems.

Government's Role: Before retiring I was a Comptroller of a organization with approximately 800 employees, and $400M/year in revenue. I sort of liken overhead costs at our organization with the function of the federal government. With the federal government being the overhead to the private sector. The federal govt has numerous vital functions - national defense, the courts, providing for the safety net, social security, etc. However, in general, believe that overhead at an activity and the role of the federal govt are basically the same - provide for vital functions for the organization/country at the lowest possible cost.

When I say provide vital functions - this does not in any way include make work projects just to get people off the unemployment roles. This also does not mean farming out monies for the Solyndra's of this world - or for PBS for that matter. Vital means vital. If it isn't absolutely necessary, you don't do it. We need government to be as small as it can be. Keeping costs down will help with the deficit, and free up taxpayer monies for taxpayer usage. We need to grow the private sector (which will help even more with the deficit), not the government sector. Growing the government sector just increases our debt.

Resource Utilization: "The United States has largest energy reserves on Earth. 

We need to fully utilize our natural resources - coal, oil, natural gas. We need to build additional nuclear power plants. We need to try to figure out a way to get nuclear fusion to work. We need to approve the Keystone pipeline. NOTE: The above actions will have the very important side benefit of creating at least 1 million new jobs.

We simply need to make ourselves energy independent. We need to be rid ourselves of our dependency on countries that we are not friends with (middle east countries/Venezuela). We have huge supplies of energy (coal, gas, oil) within this country. Now, with our new recovery techniques (such as fracking), it's time to garner and utilize this energy.

The energy is out there, and countries will garner and use it. Energy is what makes the world run, and there is simply and ever growing need for it. If Obama is truly concerned about greenhouse emissions and their adverse effect on our planet, he should want the country that is in the best position to garner these resources in as climate friendly of a manner as possible to be the one doing so - and that would be us - certainly not a Russia, a China, a Saudi Arabia, a Venezuela, or a Brazil.

Consolidation: Recently moved to the Pittsburgh area. Anyway, was looking at a Pittsburgh county map, and noticed that there were in excess of 50 townships (or they might call them bureaus).

Started thinking about the above. You have 50+ of everything - political officials, township bldgs, police bldgs, administrative support personnel, utility bills, school districts, etc, etc, etc. Have to believe that if states (I'm assuming that the Pittsburgh area is not unique in this situation) would consolidate to the maximum extent possible, huge savings would be garnered for the taxpayers.

Consolidation should also be practiced within the federal government to the maximum extent possible. The BRAC closings done by the Department of Defense in the 1980s and 1990s are perfect examples.

Too big to fail: We need to fix this situation. Nothing should be too big to fail. If a bank is so big that we (the United States) can't afford to let it fail because of its probable adverse affects on the economy, it needs to be broken up. NOTE: An example of breaking up companies is Teddy Roosevelt back in the early 1900s. Believe they called it trustbusting.

Once the "too big to fail" banks are broken up, banks will know that a bail-out is no longer an option, and they will exercise due discretion in their business transactions.

Indeed, the housing bubble that caused "The Great Recession" was related to overvalued housing prices and bad mortgages - and not George Bush/Corporate greed - as Democrats are prone to say. The over valued housing prices set us up for a fall, but it was the bad mortgages - a plan pushed by our federal government since the Clinton administration that forced banks to make loans to people who would not normally qualify for home loans that caused the recession. While getting people in their own homes is a laudable goal, getting people who can't afford their mortgage payments in a home was a recipe for disaster, and is what caused the recession. Some Democrats like to blame the practice of bundling of mortgages as one of the main causes of the recession. Untrue, bundling good mortgages is not a problem, and would never cause a problem, it's the bundling of bad mortgages that created a mess.

Unions: Unionization in general is fine, but union members, and specifically union management, need to keep in mind that excessive demands, that make the companies/industries that their union members work for uncompetitive, is totally counterproductive - i.e., not in the best interests of, the union members that they are representing. On a totally related aside, kneejerk support by Democrats of unreasonable union demands is NOT in the best long term interests of anyone.

Summary on Capitalism: To optimize GDP growth/job creation under Capitalism, we need to incentivize people to invest in new business ventures, and we need to disincentivize people from sitting on the sidelines and receiving entitlement benefits (see paragraphs above).

Once we increase investment, the people working the new jobs will spend additional money in society, and their new spending will lead to the creation of more jobs - and so on, and so on, in a never-ending snowballing effect - as we gradually turn our nation into a more affluent society. Likewise, people going back to work (coming off welfare/unemployment) also create new jobs - in the same snowballing effect - AND reduce the deficit through a larger tax base (more workers)/fewer entitlement costs accruing against our federal budget.

MainStream Press's Betrayal of America

Biased main stream media: The main stream media - whose primary responsibility should be in keeping the public educated on the issues of the day, has done just the opposite, they have kept many people misinformed/uninformed - avoiding, even suppressing, news that is unfavorable to the administration. It's actually like the main stream press - in their desperation to support/protect the first black President, has decided to adopt what seems to be a major tenet of the left - "the ends justifies the means".

2008 Presidential Campaign:  In 2008 Obama ran as the "hope and change" candidate - the "great uniter" - the "not red states and blue states", but the United States" candidate.  For the average American who was working a nine to five job, it's understandable that they didn't know the full story about Barack Obama.  However, the mainstream press, totally ignored - actually suppressed, highly relevant information that would have been invaluable in judging the character of the man who wanted to be President - Barack Hussein Obama:

Birds of a Feather: You're typically known by the company you keep.  The mainstream press never fully revealed the following:

      Reverend Wright: Otherwise known as, Mr. "Not God Bless America, God Damn America". Obama sat in his church for 20 years, and he called him his mentor. Listen to Obama's June 2007 speech at Hampton University (available on Youtube), where the "Great Uniter" praises Wright, and spouts class warfare, sounding like either a divisive panderer or a racist.
     Right-wing comparison:  Imagine a conservative Presidential candidate who sat for 20 years in the church of a white supremest minister - and who also considered that minister to be his mentor.
His Presidential candidacy would be a non-starter.

     Michelle Obama: On Feb 18, 2008 Michelle Obama said that for “the first time” in her adult life,” she was proud of America, as she spoke during a rally to support her husband’s first presidential bid. Sounds an awful lot like a black American with a really big chip on their shoulder.
     Right-wing comparison:  Imagine a conservative Presidential candidate whose wife said that practically her entire life that she was not proud of this country.  His Presidential candidacy would be a non-starter.

      Bill Ayers: The person from whose living room Obama's first political campaign was launched. Ayers is the former fugitive of the law, and leader of the Weather Underground, which was an American radical left organization whose goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party for the violent overthrow of the US government.
     Right-wing comparison:  Imagine a conservative Presidential candidate whose first campaign meeting was at the house of a right wing terrorist who had been involved in criminal activities.  His Presidential candidacy would be a non-starter.

     Marshall Davis: Through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his “poetry” and getting advice on his career path.
     Right-wing comparison:   Imagine a conservative Presidential candidate who was mentored by a Hitler style Fascist in their teenage years.  His Presidential candidacy would be a non-starter.

Obama's children's book: - Within this book he states that one of his 13 inspirational characters is Sitting Bull - the Indian Chief largely responsible for the defeat of Custer at the Little Big Horn. My suspicion is that anyone who thinks that Custer's Last Stand was orchestrated by a "inspirational" person has a real problem with this country, fitting right in with the left's view of our country through a dark spectrum - as an evil country that has inflicted unfair/inhumane treatment on both internal/external peoples. Specifically, that our misdoings are largely related to our evil capitalistic society's quest for resources, land and power.  

Federal Security Clearance: Was a DOD manager for most of my thirty year career. Based on my knowledge of background checks that are required to get security clearances, Obama - based on who he has associated with (see above), could not have gotten a secret security clearance much less a top secret security clearance.................. This is the guy we voted to run our country?

2008 Presidential Candidacy:  Based on Barack Obama's associations (above), his 2008 Presidential campaign should have been a non-starter.  Only the mainstream press's deliberate suppression of highly pertinent information allowed Barack Obama to capture the Democratic nomination and win the Presidency.

2012 Presidential Campaign:   When you consider the state of our economy at the time of the election, Obama winning reelection would normally have been considered impossible:

The deficit: Soaring way out of hand. We stand on the precipice of becoming the next Greece - riots and all.
Unemployment:  7.9% at the time of the election
GDP: -  Growing at a feeble 2.0% at the time of the election
Obamacare:   forced down the throats of the American people
Average family salary:   Down $4K per household during the Obama administration
Benghazi: How can anyone feel good about an administration that sacrifices American lives for political (the Presidential election) purposes
Obama's Energy Policy:  Cancelling the Keystone Pipeline, and using his EPA henchman to slow/stop energy utilization within the United States
Class Warfare:   Obama's 2008 pitch about not red and blue states, but the United States has rung hollow. Instead of being the "great uniter", he has turned out to be the "great divider". His entire campaign was based on playing different portions of the voting populace against each other.  People are more alienated and ostracised from each other than ever. 

Mainstream press in the 2012 campaign:  Instead of focusing on the above, the mainstream press glossed over - or suppressed, the very significant flaws of Obama's first term and focused instead on issues more helpful toward getting Obama reelected:   redistribution of wealth, the demonizing of Romney, "free stuff , abortion, and other peripheral issues.
    
Unamerican Thinking:   If you consider Obama's background/past associations, many would argue that our current sad economic state of affairs is intentional, that Obama has been sabotaging our economic recovery due to his deep seated hatred for this country - that the words "Great Satan" proclaimed by such luminaries as Ahmadinejad does not echo hollow on his ears.  

Whether the mismanagement of this country is intentional, or not, thank you mainstream press for the betrayal of America and helping get a guy reelected who - with his socialist (perhaps Marxist) policies/agenda may actually be the "Manchurian Candidate".

The Hypocritical Left and their Adherence to the Constitution

Obama/the Left and the Constitution:  The Left chooses to adhere to the Constitution only when such suits their purposes.  This policy follows the Left's primary modus operandi - "the end justifies the means".

"End Justifies the Means":  This is a behavior where an individual rationalizes any action necessary to accomplish the goal (s) they deem appropriate.  Under this rationale, since the individual feels that they know what is best for everyone, they feel justified in taking any action necessary to accomplish their goal (s).  Doing "any action necessary" could include misleading, lying, cheating, or even outright criminal behavior (such as dictatorial behavior).

Constitutional adherence:  The following are issues in which the Left pushes for strict adherence to the Constitution because in these instances it suits their purposes - even though these issue are diametrically opposed to what the majority of Americans desire:

     Muslim Community Center:  The Left was "all in" regarding the idea of building a Muslim Community Center right beside the spot where the Twin Towers was destroyed by Muslim terrorists.  Most Americans thought that such an action was insensitive to the n'th degree, but the Left argued that under the Constitution, Muslims should be able to build a Community Center anywhere they wanted.
     Religion:  The Left has been pushing to prevent any displays (to include prayers) of religion in any areas that might also be frequented by non religious individuals - citing the constitution and separation of church and state.
     Obamacare:  The Left rammed this program through - calling it a constitutional tax, even though the majority of Americans don't approve of this program.

Constitutional Indifference/Aversion:  The following are issues in which the Left enthusiastically ignores the Constitution and the Laws of this country because they aren't in accord with their goals/agenda:

     Gay Marriage:  There are federal laws (Defense of Marriage Act) on the books banning gay marriage.  The left doesn't like this law so they choose not to enforce it.
     Marijuana Law:  There is a federal law banning marijuana use (except for medical purposes).  The Left has choosen not to enforce this law in any state where the state has created a state law that is contrary to the federal law.  NOTE:  Federal laws supersede state laws.
     Illegal Immigration:  There are federal laws on illegal immigration that the Left chooses not to enforce.  In fact, the Left sues states (such as Arizona) that try to enforce the laws of the land themselves in order to fill the void left by the federal government's failing to do so.
     Voter intimidation:  In the 2008 election, Black Panthers carrying nightsticks intimidated whites at a polling location in Philadelphia.  The Obama administration chose not to press charges............  Can you imagine what the Left's response would have been if white skinheads had been intimidating blacks at a polling location?!
     No child Left Behind Law:  The Obama administration chooses not to enforce this law because enforcement would lead to charter schools, and hurt one of the Left's biggest supporters - teacher's unions.
     Overseas Voter Empowerment Act:  The Obama administration choose not to enforce this law presumably because the majority of the military typically vote Republican, and suppressing Republican votes was in the best interests of getting Obama reelected.

Impeachable Offense?  The typical response of the Obama Administration as to why they don't enforce federal laws that they don't like/approve of is because it's "not a priority" considering the limited resources available.  While this excuse could be accepted upon occasion - everyone understands workload problems and priorities, the fact that it happens with such frequency in relation to Laws that deviate from Left wing agenda, should convince any reasonable person that Obama is failing to fullfill the oath he took to "uphold the Constitution".  If you think about it, and take all of Obama's failures to "uphold the Constitution" together - in their entirety, doesn't this rise to the level of being an impeachable offense?
     

Iran and Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East

Extreme Peril: People don't seem to be taking this situation seriously enough. Like the Tom Clancy book that was later made into a movie - this is a situation that is a "clear and present danger" to Israel, the United States, and indeed, to the entire world.

We need to be absolutely firm with Iran on their nuclear program. Either they have to stop and dismantle, or we need to attack. We simply can't allow them to continue playing their delaying game - it'll only lead to Islamic extremists in control of nuclear weapons.   Further negotiations will NOT work. They say they want Israel wiped off the face of the earth - see no reason not to take them at their word.  NOTE: Sometimes it seems like Obama's goal is to HELP Iran  run out the clock/get nuclear weapons by providng them with the cover of "negotiations".

Think it's very likely that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc will want/acquire them too. A Middle East armed with nuclear weapons is one of the worst scenarios I can imagine - not just for Israel and the Untied States, but for the ENTIRE world! Nuclear proliferation in the Middle East could lead to Armageddon.

Think it's very likely that they will use the weapons if they get them. Am doubtful that mutually assured destruction works with a religious fanatic. Think Israel is in tremendous jeopardy. Actually, think that we are too. Have heard the words "great satan" used in regard to the U.S. - do you think it would be beyond the realm of the possible that they would turn a nuclear weapon over to terrorists, and they'd then take them to NYC or Wash, D. C.?

Recipe for Disaster

Democratic Strategy:  The current Democratic strategy of of offering voters "free stuff" as a bribe to get their votes has proven very successful.  This strategy got Obama reelected under conditions - when you consider the state of our economy at the time, would normally have been considered impossible:

The deficit: Soaring way out of hand. We stand on the precipice of becoming the next Greece - riots and all.
Unemployment - 7.9% at the time of the election
GDP - growing at a feeble 2.0% at the time of the election
Obamacare - forced down the throats of the American people
Average family salary - down $4K per household during the Obama administration
Benghazi: How can anyone feel good about an administration that sacrifices American lives for political (the Presidential election) purposes
Class Warfare: Obama's 2008 pitch about not red and blue states, but the United States has rung hollow. Instead of being the "great uniter", he has turned out to be the "great divider". His entire campaign was based on playing different portions of the voting populace against each other

Free Stuff versus the Deficit:  "Free Stuff" - large, and growing expenditures for entitlements (social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment, food stamps, housing subsidies) , exacerbate our deficit shortfall in two ways - it encourages people not to work - which reduces our tax base, and it also increases the federal outlays for entitlements . If you'd like a pictorial description of our deficit - it's like a snowball, rolling down a hill, getting bigger and bigger, rolling faster and faster - as we race toward becoming the next Greece - riots and all.

Welfare/Unemployment Benefits Recipients: Many people on welfare (foodstamps/housing subsidies) and on unemployment choose to sit at home rather than go to work at the "Walmart"'s of this world.   Comment: This is one of the major factors relating to our current economic woes. In order to get people off the dole, and save at least some of the billions being poured into these entitlement areas, we need to do one of the following:

     a.) Directly reduce entitlement dollars: Make the pay/benefit differential between "Walmart", and welfare/unemployment greater by reducing the entitlement payments, and/or reducing the timeframes that the entitlement payments are allowable, or

     b) Enforce Entitlement Rules: We need to ensure enforcement of the Clinton era requirement for people on welfare or unemployment to actually look for/accept semi-suitable employment

Working Poor:  Heretofore, I've been a  supporter of not charging federal income taxes to individuals/families below a certain income level.  Since their income was low, and it's typically a struggle to make ends meet, thought that this was most humane way to approach things.  The fact that these individuals/families weren't contributing anything to cover the necessary expenses to run our country, was, well,  just the way it had to be.

However, after seeing what the Democrats have managed to do - bribe people with money that we don't even have, now believe that a change needs to be made.  We really need to adjust the income tax brackets so that everyone pays federal income taxes.  There's simply no other way to ensure that everyone has "skin in the game", and is concerned about federal spending/the deficit - i.e., that it's just not "someone else's problem".  NOTE:  Also, getting Americans back into the workforce, breaks the cycle of dependency, and this benefits everyone in the long run.

Final Comment:  By making every working person pay federal income taxes, am confident that we can get a more mature/rational voting pattern, and therefore make real strides toward solving our economic problems.

Obama's "Mandate"

Democratic Assertion:  Obama/the Left would like you to believe that since Obama just won a second term that he has a mandate to do all of the things he campaigned on.

Invalid Assumption:  The above is totally inaccurate.  Obama's "mandate", was a mere 51% of the population, and his victory was based primarily on bribing people to vote for him based on promises of "free stuff" - out of money we don't even have.

     In regard to the vast Array of  Actual Policy Issues that Obama claims he has a "mandate" on, that assertion is misguided at best.  Consider the following issues:

     Guantanamo Bay:  The majority of Americans are not in favor of closing Guantanamo Bay.
     Trying terrorists in Civilian Courts:  The majority of Americans are not in favor of trying terrorists in American courts - or in America for that matter.
     Energy Reserves:  The majority of Americans want to utilize our Energy Reserves to create new jobs, grow the economy, and they want less expensive energy for their own use.  Likewise, the majority of Americans are in favor of the Keystone pipeline.
     Obamacare:  The majority of Americans don't want Obamacare, and didn't appreciate having it rammed down their throats.
     The Deficit:  The majority of Americans do want action to be take in regard to our deficit before it is too late.
     Socialist Outlook:   The majority of American's don't share Obama's sentiment of "you didn't build that" in regard to entrepreneurs starting their own businesses.
     Occupy Wall Street:  The majority of Americans do not think that the Occupy Wall Street movement is good for this country.
     Gay Marriage:  The majority of Americans are not in favor of Gay marriage.
     Photo Ids:  The majority of Americans are in favor of requiring voters to show photo IDs.
     Muslim Community Center:  The majority of Americans do not want a Muslim Community Center built beside the World Trade Center.
     Felons Voting:  The majority of Americans do not think that felons should have the right to vote.

Discussion:

Tyranny of the Majority: "Tyranny of the Majority" is a situation where - through a Democratic process, the majority create laws and/or a Constitution violating the rights of the minorities - often a disliked ethnic, religious, or racial group. The laws/constitution are often so egregious that they are oppressive, and in extreme cases, may even place the very lives of minorities in jeopardy.

Tyranny of the Minority: "Tyranny of the Minority" is a situation where - through a Democratic process, the minority are able to substantially effect the laws and/or the Constitution of the country - often overriding the goals/agenda of the majority. Typically this is accomplished by the minority by utilizing legislative rules that require a supermajority rather than just a majority (51%).

Dominant Minority Rule:  The Undemocratic "Dominant Minority Rule" is a situation in which a minority subsection of a country rules/sets the laws/Constitution for a country.

Evaluation:  Obama would like to choose the optimal mix of the above - Tyranny of the Majority - for issues in which he has the support of the American people, Dominant Minority rule - for issues in which he does not have the support of the American people, and Tyranny of the Minority - well, when you consider that Democrats recently proposed to do away with the Senate filibuster - Obama has no interest in governing via that method at all.  

Comment:  Since Obama's dominant political style seems to be - "my way or the highway", perhaps we should consider an amendent to the constiution making him dictator for life...................  Or maybe he thinks he doesn't even need an amendment.

Dark Days Ahead

Debt Ceiling Negotiations:  Even if they eventually come to an agreement, we will still be in deep financial peril:

The deficit:  The proposals being bandied about represent only insignificant reductions to our burgeoning 16 trillion dollar deficit and have no real effect in solving our nightmarish fiscal problem - slowing (if not reducing) the deficit.   The significant cuts to our discretionary/entitlement programs that are necessary to keep us from becoming the next Greece - riots and all, aren't even being put on the table. 

Energy Reserves:  Our unutilized energy reserves, which could go a long ways toward generating enough jobs - and therefore tax revenue, to help slow the growth rate of our deficit, may go unrealized, as harvesting our energy resources is constantly under attack by Obama and his EPA henchmen.  NOTE:  The fact that it has been recently revealed that the United States has the largest energy reserves on the planet - and the technology necessary to garner these resources, may end up being largely irrelevant due to Obama's Far Left Green agenda.

Market Forces:   It's hard to imagine that our burgeoning deficit won't eventually slow our economy, and then drive us into another recession.  This will even further excacerbate our deficit problem due to increased entitlement outlays/a reduced tax base.  The preceeding is bad enough, but additional factors threaten to make our situation worse yet:

     The impact of Western Europe's anemic economy will have a significant negative effect on us as one of our biggest customers will reduce demand for our products. 

     The effects (oil price spike? ........ war?) almost bound to occur when Israel makes their inevitable attack on Iran in an attempt to irradicate Iran's nuclear program.

     An economic downturn will almost certainly cause a huge stock market dip, which will lower consumer confidence, reduce investment, and even further reduce our GDP growth rate.

Look for the rate of growth of our deficit to accelerate - as our one trillion dollar deficits actually start looking like the "good old days".....................  For those that have a problem understanding the mathematial implications of our deficit situation, picture this - a snowball, rolling down a hill, getting bigger and bigger, rolling faster and faster - that is our deficit.

 Thank you, Barack Hussein Obama.

Tyranny of the Minority versus Tyranny of the Majority

Tyranny of the Minority:  "Tyranny of the Minority" is a situation where - through a Democratic process, the minority are able to substantially effect the laws and/or the Constitution of the country - often overriding the goals/agenda of the majority.  Typically this is accomplished by the minority by utilizing legislative rules that require a supermajority rather than just a majority (51%).

Tyranny of the Majority:  "Tyranny of the Majority" is a situation where - through a Democratic process, the majority create laws and/or a Constitution violating the rights of the minorities - often a disliked ethnic, religious, or racial group. The laws/constitution are often so egregious that they are oppressive, and in extreme cases, may even place the very lives of minorities in jeopardy.

Discussion of "Tyranny of the Minority:   The majority of a country cannot get laws enacted/constitution amended because the minority has enough votes under the rules of the government to block legislation.    A good example of "Tyranny of the Minority" is in the United States senate where the minority party can filibuster (stop) a law from being enacted if they have 41 out of the 100 senators.  NOTE:  "Tyranny of the Minority is to be distinguished from the undemocratic "Dominant Minority Rule" in which a minority subsection of a country rules/sets the laws/Constitution for a country.

Discussion of "Tyranny of the Majority:     The majority institute laws/a constitution favorable only to the majority. Potential abuse of the rights of the minority by the majority.  The rights, and sometimes even the very lives, of minorities become largely irrelevant.  A good example of "tyranny of the majority" would be Middle East countries ruled by Muslim majorities that often oppress non-Muslim minorities.

Recommendations:

     a.)  In countries with "Tyranny of the Majority", where the majority may enact legislation potentially pernicious to the minority, the country absolutely needs to institute an iron clad constitution to protect the minorities.  As mentioned above, the Middle East applies.

     b.)  In countries with "Tyranny of the Minority", believe that supermajority and separation of powers makes the most sense.  REASON:  A good example is the United States, where a majority could vote in legislation that might actually be unconstitutional, but the legislation would be implemented anyway.  The legislation would often take as long as two years to reach, and be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.  Think that supermajority rules/separation of powers best protects the rights of the minorities.  Besides, there is something to be said for compromise.

Capitalist Manifesto


 Capitalism versus Marxism:

Marxism (often called Communism) is a Flawed Economic/Political System that always begins with oppression, and ends with  anemic GDP performance.  Marxism, and it's close cousin Socialism, have the following shortfalls:

     Lack of Incentive:  With government owning the means of production, and redistributing the wealth, there is no incentivize for people to work hard - to be as productive as possible - causing people to do just the minimum necessary to get by.  From a societal point of view, millions of people being just productive enough to "get by", results in a dramatically reduced gross national product., and therefore a lowered standard of living for all.

     Centralized Planning:  The Soviet Union was famous for it's failed Five Year Plans.  Government has never been particularly successful at running either businesses or economies.

     Dictatorships:   Communist states inevitably end up as Dictatorships - typically from day one.  Since humans don't have "altruism" as a built in part of our genetic code, people need to be controlled if you're going to start seizing property/wealth, and telling people what they need to do in the new society.  Social Democracies tiptoe on the edge of becoming Dictatorships, and in an economic downturn can easily slide into same.............  Consider the current state of affairs in Greece.  Just a little more turmoil, a few more riots, and a communistic strongman could easily declare martial law and seize total power.

Summary on Marxism/Socialism:

     Communist Countries:   Imposing communism on a society not only means that the people of that society are oppressed by an egregious dictatorship, but centralized planning/control does not allow for the individual incentive necessary to optimize the economic growth of the society.   Remember the constant failures of the Russian five year plans, and the fact that Chinese leaders eventually felt compelled (due to constant economic failures) to allow individuals to be involved in quasi-capitalistic endeavors to garner reasonable GDP growth levels.   You just can't get optimum growth and production without allowing for individuals to benefit from the fruits of their labor.

     Socialist Countries  :  Socialist countries - which the United States is now becoming, over regulate, over tax, and spend more resources than the country can handle on entitlement programs, eventually bankrupting the country, and putting themselves in jeopardy of becoming a Communist dictatorship when economic conditions become particularly dire.

Capitalism  "is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of  production of goods or services for profit".

Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand":   A philosophy of economic behavior whereby each individual, out to do the best they can for themselves - by filling needs for goods and services that they see in society - they inadvertently benefit the entire society, and thereby optimize the economic growth and capacity of their country. Put another way, "greed works".

For Capitalism to be it's most effective, we need to maximize investment, decrease entitlement spending, limit taxation and regulation, and decrease the size of the government in general.

Investment:  We need to maximize investment.  For the rich, they need to feel that there is a probability of making a profit, without which, they will not invest. For the middle/lower class, they need to be able to obtain loans to start their new businesses, and, again, to feel that there is probability of success. The likelihood of the rich, or the middle/lower class, investing is diminished if there is uncertainty.  Currently, the following are factors causing uncertainty:

     Obamacare:       A cost driver requiring businesses to either provide health care, pay a penalty, or make employees work part time.

     Tax hikes:  Another uncertainty would be the administration's proposed increase in the current income tax rate for the upper class.

     Capital gains tax increases: Which would lower the profit potential (while the risk of losing money on the new investment remains constant) also decreases the likelihood of investment.

Uncertainty is not an inducement for investment.

Loans:  For the middle/lower classes, they need to be able to get a loan to start their new business. Excessive banking regulations (Dodd/Frank) that inhibits, or prevents, the ability of people to get loans hurt job growth. We need to make sure that reasonable business ventures "get a shot" at being created and becoming a success.

Attitude and expectations play an extremely important role in job growth. Investors need to feel optimistic about the future - that their possible fiscal venture has a reasonable chance of success. Our goal needs to be to do everything we can to make the climate favorable for investment, business creation, and job growth. Without this investment, these businesses will simply not get built, and therefore the new jobs won't be forthcoming. For, in new startups, they "did build that".

Welfare/Unemployment Benefits Recipients: Many people on welfare (foodstamps/housing subsidies) and on unemployment choose to sit at home rather than go to work at the "Walmart"'s of this world. Comment: This is one of the major factors relating to our current economic woes. In order to get people off the dole, and save at least some of the billions being poured into these entitlement areas, we need to do one of the following:

a.) Directly reduce entitlement dollars: Make the pay/benefit differential between "Walmart", and welfare/unemployment greater by reducing the entitlement payments, and/or reducing the timeframes that the entitlement payments are allowable, or

b) Enforce Entitlement Rules: We need to ensure enforcement of the Clinton era requirement for people on welfare or unemployment to actually look for/accept semi-suitable employment, or

c) Supplement low wage earners by removing tax burden: As an inducement to work (vice draw entitlement dollars), set a dollar amount, below which no taxes of any amount are deducted from the pay of a wage earner.

Entitlement Programs: Changes need to be made to social security, medicare and medicaid. In the first four years of Obama's Presidency, he hasn't taken any actions to fix the long term problems inherent in our entitlement programs - and to ensure their viability into the future. Solving the entitlement problem is the most significant issue in resolving the deficit problem.

 Trend toward greater and greater dependency: Support for a lifestyle/culture of dependency - making it easier to get and stay on food stamps, extending employment benefits way beyond the amount of time originally intended, contribute/lead to a culture of dependency and sadly restore the state of affairs that existed prior to Bill Clinton's signing of the Welfare Reform Act which helped alleviate this situation back in the 1990's. While having people become/remain dependent garners the Democratic Party votes, it breeds a culture of hopelessness and despair, and helps keep people in a downtrodden (unemployed) state.

Government's Role:  Before retiring I was a Comptroller of a organization with approximately 800 employees, and $400M/year in revenue. I sort of liken overhead costs at our organization with the function of the federal government. With the federal government being the overhead to the private sector. The federal govt has numerous vital functions - national defense, the courts, providing for the safety net, social security, etc. However, in general, believe that overhead at an activity and the role of the federal govt are basically the same - provide for vital functions for the organization/country at the lowest possible cost.

When I say provide vital functions - this does not in any way include make work projects just to get people off the unemployment roles. This also does not mean farming out monies for the Solyndra's of this world - or for PBS for that matter. Vital means vital. If it isn't absolutely necessary, you don't do it. We need government to be as small as it can be. Keeping costs down will help with the deficit, and free up taxpayer monies for taxpayer usage. We need to grow the private sector (which will help even more with the deficit), not the government sector. Growing the government sector just increases our debt.

Resource Utilization: "The United States has largest energy reserves on Earth.  Even a hardened progressive such as Walter Russell Mead was forced to admit the obvious:

"If the energy revolution now taking shape lives up to its full potential, we are headed into a new century in which the location of the world’s energy resources and the structure of the world’s energy trade support American affluence at home and power abroad….

The energy bonanza changes the American outlook far more dramatically than most people yet realize. This is a Big One, a game changer, and it will likely be a major factor in propelling the United States to the next (and still unknown) stage of development — towards the next incarnation of the American Dream".

We need to fully utilize our natural resources - coal, oil, natural gas. We need to build additional nuclear power plants. We need to try to figure out a way to get nuclear fusion to work. We need to approve the Keystone pipeline. NOTE: The above actions will have the very important side benefit of creating at least 1 million new jobs.

We simply need to make ourselves energy independent. We need to be rid ourselves of our dependency on countries that we are not friends with (middle east countries/Venezuela). We have huge supplies of energy (coal, gas, oil) within this country. Now, with our new recovery techniques (such as fracking), it's time to garner and utilize this energy.

The energy is out there, and countries will garner and use it. Energy is what makes the world run, and there is simply and ever growing need for it. If Obama is truly concerned about greenhouse emissions and their adverse effect on our planet, he should want the country that is in the best position to garner these resources in as climate friendly of a manner as possible to be the one doing so - and that would be us - certainly not a Russia, a China, a Saudi Arabia, a Venezuela, or a Brazil.
 

Consolidation:  Recently moved to the Pittsburgh area.   Anyway, was looking at a Pittsburgh county map, and noticed that there were in excess of 50 townships (or they might call them bureaus). 

Started thinking about the above.  You have 50+ of everything - political officials, township bldgs, police bldgs, administrative support personnel, utility bills, school districts, etc, etc, etc. Have to believe that if states (I'm assuming that the Pittsburgh area is not unique in this situation) would consolidate to the maximum extent possible, huge savings would be garnered for the taxpayers.

Consolidation should also be practiced within the federal government to the maximum extent possible. The BRAC closings done by the Department of Defense in the 1980s and 1990s are perfect examples.

Too big to fail:  We need to fix this situation. Nothing should be too big to fail. If a bank is so big that we (the United States) can't afford to let it fail because of its probable adverse affects on the economy, it needs to be broken up. NOTE: An example of breaking up companies is Teddy Roosevelt back in the early 1900s. Believe they called it trustbusting.

Once the "too big to fail" banks are broken up, banks will know that a bail-out is no longer an option, and they will exercise due discretion in their business transactions.

Indeed, the housing bubble that caused "The Great Recession" was related to overvalued housing prices and bad mortgages - and not George Bush/Corporate greed - as Democrats are prone to say. The over valued housing prices set us up for a fall, but it was the bad mortgages - a plan pushed by our federal government since the Clinton administration that forced banks to make loans to people who would not normally qualify for home loans that caused the recession. While getting people in their own homes is a laudable goal, getting people who can't afford their mortgage payments in a home was a recipe for disaster, and is what caused the recession. Some Democrats like to blame the practice of bundling of mortgages as one of the main causes of the recession. Untrue, bundling good mortgages is not a problem, and would never cause a problem, it's the bundling of bad mortgages that created a mess.

Unions: Unionization in general is fine, but union members, and specifically union management, need to keep in mind that excessive demands, that make the companies/industries that their union members work for uncompetitive, is totally counterproductive - i.e., not in the best interests of, the union members that they are representing. On a totally related aside, kneejerk support by Democrats of unreasonable union demands is NOT in the best long term interests of anyone.

Summary on Capitalism:   To optimize  GDP growth/job creation under Capitalism, we need to incentivize people to invest in new business ventures, and we need to disincentivize people from sitting on the sidelines and receiving entitlement benefits (see paragraphs above).

Once we increase investment, the people working the new jobs will spend additional money in society, and their new spending will lead to the creation of more jobs - and so on, and so on, in a never-ending snowballing effect - as we gradually turn our nation into a more affluent society.  Likewise, people going back to work (coming off welfare/unemployment) also create new jobs - in the same snowballing effect - AND reduce the deficit through a larger tax base (more workers)/fewer entitlement costs accruing against our federal budget.