Oh How the Left Loves to Hide Anti-Rich Propaganda...

You know why (well, one of the many reasons) the left teams up against the rich? It isn't just the jealousy, or the pure envy, but a mixture of those emotions and the fact that there are so few rich to compared to the amount of non-rich that exist.

Frankly, there is a bullying element in it.

But regardless, the left will stop at nothing to incorporate the "we hate the evil, stinking, filthy rich" feeling into everything they do. It feels too good not to. Those who pride themselves on "social" everything love banding together in groups (hello unions) in order to facilitate a change.

Why did I bring this up? Well, it's because I wanted to discuss the article titled, "After Your Job is Gone." - (http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/01/after-your-job-is-gone/)

Obama says "There is no Immediate Debt Crisis"

And then claims, "in fact, for the next 10 years, it's gonna be in a sustainable place."

Wait, WHAT?!

I just had to post this. It seemed so "out of whack" that I figured it would be something worth talking about: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/president-obama-there-is-no-debt-crisis/

Take a look at The President's interview, and share your thoughts. I will say, upon looking at some of the comments in the article, these sum it up the best:

 - "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies... Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem, and a failure of leadership. America deserves better." - Senator Barack Obama, March 16, 2006

- "The problem is, is that the way Bush has done in the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt form $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back - $30,000 for every man, woman, and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic." - Candidate Barack Obama, July 3, 2008

What do YOU think?

The Fiscal Cliff Deal: Country-Helping Compromise or Crap Sandwich?

You've now undoubtedly heard that the House of Representatives has voted in favor of the Senate's version of the Fiscal Cliff bill (officially titled the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012). President Obama is expected to sign it soon. To see the pdf of the bill, go here: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/01/01/american.taxpayer.relief.act.pdf

So what do you think? Is this good for the country? Did one side win? Did one side lose? What about the process?

My opinion:

First, I want to address the process. This might sound odd to some, but in my opinion, the process is the biggest winner here... to some extent. Our bicameral legislature was established to do exactly what the Congress just did: Debate, delegate, argue, and move slowly towards a compromise. While the Fiscal Cliff negotiation process was "oversensationalized" by the media, (albeit, a heavily-slanted media that used this opportunity to push an agenda), it went precisely as our Forefathers envisioned. Our legislative body, the Congress, was designed to be slow. It was designed this way to ensure tyrannical, quick, dictator-like laws were difficult to enact. Our Forefathers believed that if laws were passed quickly, they would not be passed properly. If it was possible for a bill to become law in quick fashion, without debate (which is a representation of the people spread around this country), why not just have one man or woman, namely, a king or queen, simply implement laws? I addressed this previously, and I do believe wholeheartedly in the concept of legislative compromise:

Attention Democrats: There is a Difference Between Asking and Forcing

With all the recent talk about the "fiscal cliff" and tax revenues, I've noticed a political "framing" that is central to the left's attempt to sell tax increases on the wealthy. It comes down to one simple notion:

Just ask.

It shouldn't be news to anyone that Obama, even well before his reelection victory, has been touting a consistent tax policy of "tax the rich." As any reader of this blog knows, I'm vehemently opposed to this and any progressive tax rate system with respect to economics, fairness, and democracy grounds. Of course, I've summarized the fairness issue in this article from April, 2012. Regardless, as I said, team Obama and the left like to frame this "tax the rich" issue as if it's a simple request. He has said, time and time again, that part of his tax policy approach is to "ask the rich to pay a little more."

How convenient. It sounds nice. It sounds warm and fuzzy. The word "ask" sounds as if we're all drinking buddies, and we're simply requesting a favor: "I don't mean to impose, but I'm low on cash today, can you please pay for my beer?" On top of that, if were truly a measure of asking, if the rich were to squirm or rebel or protest, well, it gives the non-rich citizens of this country, who comprise the vast majority, another reason to loathe them.

A "Quick and Dirty" Look at Obama's Tax The Rich Plan

I couldn't resist. I saw the following article and I just had to write about it: http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/14/news/economy/obama-taxes-deficit/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Yes, I know that in the post-2012 election era, this blog will naturally pivot to more philosophical writings, but some economic analyses will come up here and there. This is an example of one of these economic analyses.

As many readers of this blog know, rarely would I conduct an analysis on a simple article such as the one listed above. Usually, as seen in this previous analysis, I prefer digging deeper and analyzing primary-source data... usually involving IRS data tables, OMB information, or anything of the like. Since this is a simple analysis of the second-hand information discussed in an article, it is officially a "quick and dirty" look. :-)

Obama's Second Term Plan Diagnosis: Déjà Vu

Okay, I'll admit it... all the good titles for this post were used already. What I wanted to use was "does the math add up," but that was taken already. I'll get to that in a second. Moving on, here is the official second term plan from President Barack Obama titled, "A Plan for Jobs and Middle Class Security - The New Economic Patriotism"

See Obama's second term plan here: https://secure.assets.bostatic.com/pdfs/Jobs_Plan_Booklet.pdf

The first surprising thing to me is that CNN's Jessica Yellin said, "it's not anything significantly new." - Check it out: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/10/23/cnns-jessica-yellin-not-anything-significantly-new-obamas-just-releas

Quantitative Easing 3 (QE3) - Another Bad Move by The Fed

I'm sure by now you've heard the about the announcement by the Federal Reserve to start what it calls Quantitative Easing - Round 3. If you haven't, here is the an article from Bloomberg online that sums it up: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-13/fed-plans-to-buy-40-billion-in-mortgage-securities-each-month.html. Ron Paul supporters should be up in arms about this, and quite frankly, I am, too.

For my take, I will try my best to keep my thoughts simple. But first, I will attempt to explain this (who knows how this will go) with an analogy:

Have you ever had an issue with drafty windows in your house? It's a pain in the rear, isn't it? Have you ever tried to fix the issue by simply starting fires in your living room? Probably not. If you started a fire in the living room, sure, you'd be warm, but the draft would still exist, and most importantly, you'd have a new problem to worry about. As rough as this analogy is, it applies to QE3. The US has a problem (well, we have many problems). The economy is not recovering quickly enough, and too many Americans are out of work. So what does the Fed do? It creates another problem! It starts another fire for what it thinks will be a fix to the "drafty window" problem. It's bad policy, bad economics, and its potential benefit is certainly not worth the potential drawbacks. Let's get to some "technicals."

Obama Continues to Lie about Taxes

As I have previously written, it seems that President Obama is taking the "throw it at the wall and see what sticks" approach to his campaign ads. This means that he is making claims, regardless of how false they are, while hoping they get enough viewership without the average American even checking on the validity of these claims for themselves. If repeated often enough, the electorate will simply believe these claims, without question, ultimately voting for a president based on lies and misinformation. For additional examples, see this post: http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2012/06/fill-in-blank-obama-campaign-is-based.html. In fact, I highlighted the "science" behind the President's campaign strategy here: http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2012/06/obama-campaign-deceit-machine-rolls-on.html

In Obama's newest campaign ad, he goes right after Mitt Romney and his tax rate. First,... why??? What in the world does this have to do with anything? Does Obama really think the American people are that stupid? Let's get some things straight:

READER'S POST #17 - Are Celebrities Stupid, or do They Think We Are?

By: 32slim32

I saw where Cher made this tweet about Mitt Romney:

“I Feel if he [0bama] doesn't get all his DUCKS IN A ROW we'll b forced 2 listen 2Uncaring Richy Rich! The whitest man in MAGIC UNDERWEAR in the WH”

http://twitchy.com/2012/06/29/anti-mormon-bigot-cher-richy-rich-romney-whitest-man-in-magic-underwear/

That is just priceless, Cher calling Romney Richey Rich. While Romney is worth $250 Million, Cher is worth $305 Million. Pot meet kettle.  I’m not even going to touch that “whitest man in magic underwear” thing.  By the way, what is Magic Underwear and would it be better if he were the blackest or brownest man in magic underwear?

Don't Blame the 1% For America's Pay Gap - A Great Read

May Day has come and gone, and the OWS movement will continue to march and protest the "atrocities" of the "1% against the 99%"........ for whatever that means. Now that this day has passed, and the protests have subsided, in the spirit of civil debate, I wanted to put this article front and center:

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/24/pay-gap-rich-poor/?hpt=hp_c1

It is by Fortune Magazine senior editor Nina Easton, and to me, it preaches to the choir. This blog is about expressing views and engaging in civil, respectful, and insightful debate. That's why I'm posting this article. I think an open dialogue is a good thing, and the sharing of personal beliefs and opinions should be beneficial to all involved.

May Day OWS Protests: Freedom of Speech Gone Too Far?

I don't support the Occupy Wall Street movement... not one bit. I honestly don't think they have any clue about what they're protesting. It seems they live their world in a fantasy land, and when challenged for facts, they can rarely give you the "meat and potatoes" behind their positions. I believe they rant and chant because they want attention, and because it feels good to appear to be part of a "cause." I believe they are entitled, "gimme, gimme, gimme" loons who have no clue how finance, economics, labor, Wall Street, and everything of the like work and coexist.

That being said, I completely defend and support their right to peaceably assemble and protest. PEACEABLY is the key. This post is not about the who, what, when, where, or why OWS is protesting; it's about the how. To start off, The First Amendment, our most sacred amendment states: