Deconstructing The Absurdity

Archive for the ‘Democratic Party’ Category

Can enforced mandatory voting in a post-industrial United States increase political efficacy?

In Democratic Party, Elections, Electoral process, Republican Party, U.S Congress, U.S States, United States of America on June 3, 2016 at 9:49 am

vote

An outline of the problem

Political participation can assume various forms: protesting, voting and actively engaging in campaign activities, however in industrial democracies, more people vote than engage in a routine mass political behavior. A participatory culture creates an atmosphere where citizens depict a heightened enthusiasm for politics and take pride in the institutions and its roles in public life (Jackman 405). But interest in matters of state and policy framing is dependent on individual experience and relationship to the sociopolitical environment. Sociologist Andrew Perrin posits that we fabricate a “democratic imagination” from experiences in civic life along with other domains such as work, family, and neighborhood. This democratic imagination drives the motivation of getting involved in politics, how to do so and when to stay away (Perrin 2).

A relatively new trend in the American political system is emerging where public engagement with the policy framing process is on a steady decline towards a deep legitimacy crisis. In the 2014 U.S midterm election, a meager 36.4 percent of the eligible voting population showed up to the polls. According to the New York Times editorial board, this national election cycle marked a 70-year low in terms of voter turnout going back to 1942 when 33.9 percent of adults reportedly voted. The excuse in 1942 was reasonable as most young men eligible to vote were fighting in the Second World War (Montanaro et al).

The detrimental aspect of the 2014 midterms was the disproportionate outcome when viewed across the lines of race and ethnicity. According to the latest U.S census data: 75 percent of the population is Caucasian; 12.5 percent Hispanic or Latino (of any race); 12.3 percent African-American; 3.6 percent Asian. The United States has a tremendous mixture of ethnic groups with different expectations from government, however, the exit poll data from the last election shows a grim picture when it comes to representation from the above-listed communities. In the race for the U.S House of Representatives, 75 percent of the voters were white and the next significant number is 12 percent from the African-American community followed by eight percent of Hispanic voters (NBC news). Read the rest of this entry »

Breaking Down The Policy of Taxing

In 2012 Presidential Election, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Republican Party, U.S Congress on December 7, 2012 at 8:54 pm

During the 2012 political campaign we got to hear a lot about the tax policy and how unfair the United States taxing system is supposed to be. We also heard the slogan “Tax the rich more” several times. All this talk about the inequality of taxes levied on the citizens in this country made me dig a little deeper into the tax system to find out what was really going on. Who needs to be taxed, what tax breaks should be eliminated, who is not paying and why is our focus not on changing the tax policy?

How is it that tax rates have gone up and down over the years but it has never been enough to fix the budget or the economy. That leads us to draw the conclusion that somewhere the money is not coming in. Someone is not paying the fair share.

tax+cut

A study done by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez examines the progressiveness of the U.S Federal Tax System. The research which was published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives found that the most dramatic changes in the federal tax system almost always has taken place within the top 1 percent of income earners, with relatively small changes occurring below the top percentile. The research also suggests that any debates within the Congress on the topic of tax and tax policy also affects the top 1%. Topics like permanent reduction in tax rates for capital gains and dividends and repealing of the estate tax all concern the top income level of the society. In essence, the tax issues of the marginal voter never gets discussed making the policy of taxing in the United States extremely unfair. An opinion post on Bloomberg online carries the headline, Forget the Fiscal Cliff, Fix the U.S Tax System. The post talks about all the things wrong with the U.S Tax System and provides some ideas as to how we could fix those issues. Authors of the post, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers argue that, “The real danger, is not that we’ll fall off the cliff. It’s that Congress will solve the problem badly, missing a once-in-a-generation opportunity to design a better tax system.” The study done by Piketty and Saez only proves their [Steven and Wolfers] point. Read the rest of this entry »

Another page added to history, one more step towards change; DADT is repealed!

In 2012 Presidential Election, Democratic Party, Presidential Debates, Republican Party, Tea Party, U.S Congress on September 23, 2011 at 5:13 pm

At 12:00 am on September 20th 2011, one of the most discriminatory policies existing in the United States military ceased to exist. The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy is now officially history. For the past decade and more the idea of letting LGBT As per the December 21, 1993 Department of Defense Directive 1332.14, it was legal policy (10 U.S.C. § 654) that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. Any person engaged in homosexual acts or stated that they are homosexual or bisexual were to be discharged.  The Uniform Code of Military Justice, passed by Congress in 1950 and signed by President Harry S Truman, established the policies and procedures for discharging service members.

The one thing I love about America is how as a country we have learnt so much from our past and made changes. Slavery, civil war, civil rights, assassinations, integration, wars and finally 9/11. Every event has had a devastating impact on the American society and we always learnt something valuable from it. That learning is what made and makes the United States such a strong country and by strong I don’t just mean hard power. I am talking about social and structural power. The mistakes we made us stronger and a better country. So why is the whole sexual preference concept so alien to the American community? As a culture America is perhaps the most open and progressive culture in the western world. Popular cultural trend is mostly set by America and American institutions/people. The question mark is still on the sexual preference being such a taboo. In a free country like this, how can the people discriminate against someone who has a different sexual preference? How can you discriminate against Americans who have sacrificed their lives and are on the battlefield fighting your security or maybe even your pride?

Herman Cain is one person on the GOP hopeful roster who you’d think would be against any kind of discrimination. Considering he is a “representative” of the African-American community he would know not to discriminate a fellow human being on any basis. Cain has supported the military’s ban on homosexuals and says he would have never repealed it as president. As for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA – a proposed bill that would prohibit “discrimination” against workers on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity), the conservative commentator explains that he “would veto that relative to special rights to homosexuals.” Read the rest of this entry »

The Future of The American Jobs Act

In 2012 Presidential Election, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Republican Party, U.S Congress on September 19, 2011 at 8:23 pm

Warren Buffet has gone on record saying that his secretary pays higher taxes than he does. President Obama just released his jobs plan which he has been promoting an awful lot these days. He also has said that he is ready to work out the tax code with both Republicans and Democrats. The American jobs act was released to the public sometime ago. Let’s weigh in on the key points of the plan:

  • Cuts payroll taxes: The President’s plan will cut in half the taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll, targeting the benefit to the 98 percent of firms that have payroll below this threshold. Perhaps, Perhaps! The only point that both Republicans and Democrats might agree when this bill comes to a vote. Republicans LOVE tax cuts and this is a perfect opportunity building up to 2012 making the point that the GOP isn’t opposed to tax cuts for the middle class. Democrats have been pushing for payroll tax cuts for a long time now. It has been extended temporarily for a while but President Obama. Experts say that this might create 8-10 millions jobs in this painful economy.
  • Tax cuts for veterans:  A “Returning Heroes” hiring tax credit for veterans; This provides tax credits from $5,600 to $9,600 to encourage the hiring of unemployed veterans. Veteran unemployment is at 12% and this tax breaks would go a long way in helping veterans seeking a life after the military.
  • Tax credit for employers, employing: A $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers. Prohibiting employers from discriminating against unemployed workers when hiring. Expanding job opportunities for low-income youth and adults through a fund for successful approaches for subsidized employment, innovative training programs and summer/year-round jobs for youth.
  • Modernizing public schools: The President is proposing a $25 billion investment in school infrastructure that will modernize at least 35,000 public schools – investments that will create jobs, while improving classrooms and upgrading our schools to meet 21st century needs. Read the rest of this entry »

Tax Breaks, No Tax Breaks! Make up your mind..

In Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Republican Party, Tea Party on August 24, 2011 at 9:01 pm

It’s not really a very big secret to the conservative agenda. Republicans want lower taxes. Well at least that what they kept saying right? The Tea Party and all the Republican party members have always rallied for more and more tax breaks for Americans. Bush introduced the ‘Bush Tax Cuts’ which significantly brought down what people were paying to the United States government. The outcome of that was pretty bad but hey, we’re past that right. RIGHT?

So, we can safely confirm that Republicans love low taxes. But do they want lower taxes for everybody? Here’s where it gets weird. In his weekend radio broadcast, President Obama called for an extension to the payroll tax holiday he signed into law last year. This law benefits every working American lowering the 6.2 percent tax that funds Social Security to 4.2 percent. So you’d think that the Republicans would jump to this idea and be be all for it. But YOU’RE WRONG! GOP budget guru Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) dismissed a payroll tax holiday in June as nothing but “sugar-high economics.” Meanwhile, presidential candidate Mitt Romney said he would prefer to see the payroll tax cut on the employer side,” instead of for the employee. Both sides pay an equal amount for a total contribution of 12.4 percent per worker. Social Security payroll taxes mainly benefit middle and working-class Americans, as the tax only applies to the first $106,800 of a worker’s wages. Hence, no matter how much money someone makes, they will see a maximum benefit of $2,136 from the holiday — a chump change compared to the savings for the wealthy from the Bush income tax cuts.

“It’s always a net positive to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn,” says Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), “but not all tax relief is created equal for the purposes of helping to get the economy moving again.”

This statement otherwise says, tax cuts for the very rich good good good but tax cuts for regular, average and working class Americans bad bad bad.

What I want to know is Grover Norquist’s view on this. His own people are OPPOSING a tax cut. Does this violate his pledge in anyway. Well, we have to wait on that I guess.

S&P strips U.S credit ratings; Government cries foul!

In Barack Obama, Debt Ceiling, Democratic Party, Republican Party, Tea Party, U.S Congress on August 6, 2011 at 6:29 am

So it finally happened. All this while Washington was in a fight with itself to save the economy and protect the full faith and credibility of the nation. Some congressmen/women however were eager to let the country go ahead and default or just prioritize and pay the interest only. On Friday after the markets closed, S&P decided to downgrade the U.S credit rating from AAA to AA+. That A+ does look nice on a college transcript but here the downgrade has been done with a negative outlook. The government officials on both sides of the aisle are furious at a nearly $2 trillion error on the part of the rating agency.

Among the many reasons cited by S&P which led to the downgrade two of them stand out. S&P stated that the fiscal plan released by the U.S Congress falls short of reducing the deficit. Rep.Barney Frank (D-Mass), the former chairman of the House Financial Services Committee said, “The private debt has been over valued and the public debt has been under valued by S&P.” Government official are screaming foul and have pointed out basic math problem with S&P’s calculation. The  Treasury attacked S&P’s calculations, saying: “A judgment flawed by a $2 trillion error speaks for itself.” Many lawmakers are also of the opinion that these credit rating agencies have been given too much power. Also, S&P alone downgrading the U.S credit rating will not have much effect on the country’s economy. All three agencies, Moodys, S&P and Fitch downgrading the U.S at the same time would have cause significant financial trouble. Pensions would be greatly affected. Interest rates will shoot up for student loans and mortgages etc. Washington calling this an “amature hour at S&P’.

In midst of all this there was indeed a big black spot that S&P pointed out. It is something nobody can deny.

S&P blamed political weakness and instability for triggering the downgrade apart from criticizing the budget which would not do much to lower the deficit.

More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.

Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government’s debt dynamics any time soon. Read the rest of this entry »

What’s the Deal? The good, bad and the ugly!

In Barack Obama, Debt Ceiling, Democratic Party, Republican Party, Tea Party, U.S Congress, U.S House of Representatives, U.S Senate on August 3, 2011 at 10:03 am

Ok! So a home-made disaster just got averted. A family member spread gasoline around the house threatening to light the match UNLESS you agree to buy him his very expensive car. The deal was done and you just bought him the car and he put the matchbox in his pocket. He is sending out the message that, ‘Don’t be too happy. I might think about lighting the match anytime in the future.’

That my friends is exactly how the U.S Congress and president Obama dealt with this home-grown crisis. It is a no brainer. For the GOP there was is better time to debate spending cuts when a Democrat is in the White House. Had it been a Republican, they would have raised the debt ceiling without raising an eyebrow. Rep.John Boehner, speaker was asked by CBS if he would continue to be the speaker of the house. His reply was, “Of course! I got 98% of what I wanted and I’m happy.” 

The house passed the debt ceiling bill 269 – 161. 66 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted against the bill. This bill was forwarded to the senate where it passed 74 – 26. It was sent to the president who immediately signed the bill into a law. The progressive caucus, liberals and democrats are fuming over this debt ceiling compromise and some calling it  a ‘satan sandwich’. Republicans and Democrats alike were not happy with the deal but they had to swallow it like a bitter pill. “I would like to say this bill solves our problems. It doesn’t. It is a solid  first step.”said Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas (R), a prominent fiscal hawk in the Republican leadership. “The default of the United States is not an option,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland (D). Mr. Hoyer urged lawmakers to vote not as members of either party, but as “Americans concerned about the fiscal posture of their country, about the confidence that people around the world have in the American dollar.”  This debt deal has no mention of any revenue’s which is a major sticking point for most Democrats. Both parties were worried about defections by party members and had briefings to explain the proposal. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., told House and Senate members in separate meetings that the administration had to cut the deal with uncompromising Republicans to avoid a default. Speaker John Boehner met specially with Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee, an important voting bloc whose members were raising alarms about potential spending cuts for the Pentagon.

So where does this bill lead us? Who won and who lost? We have the facts and figures. Let’s dissect it.

This is President Obama’s video explaining the deal.

So the basic facts of the deal are:

  • $1 trillion of cuts over a 10 year period.
  • It guarantees that the debt limit will be hiked by $2.4 trillion.
  • Immediately upon enactment of the plan, the Treasury will be granted $400 billion of new borrowing authority.
  • After that President Obama will be allowed to extend the debt limit by $500 billion, subject to a vote of disapproval by Congress (would need 2/3 of both houses to block).
  • That initial $900 billion of increase in the debt ceiling will be paired with $900 billion of discretionary spending cuts, first identified by the bipartisan working group that had met under Vice President Biden, which will be spread out over 10 years.
  • Obama will later be able to raise the debt limit by $1.5 trillion, subject to a vote of disapproval by Congress.
  • That increase will be paired with the formation of a Congressional committee (being called the Super Congress) of 12 members of Congress (6 from each party) that will be tasked with reducing deficits by a minimum of $1.2 trillion. That reduction can be composed of spending cuts, tax increases or a mixture of both.
  • If the Committee fails to reach $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction, it will trigger an automatic across the board spending cut, half from domestic spending, half from defense spending, of $1.5 trillion.
  • The domestic cuts would come from Medicare providers, but Medicaid and Social Security would be exempted. The enforcement mechanism carves out programs that help the poor and veterans.
  • The domestic cuts would come from Medicare providers, but Medicaid and Social Security would be exempted. The enforcement mechanism carves out programs that help the poor and veterans.
  • If the Committee finds $1.5 trillion or more in savings, the enforcement mechanisms would not be triggered as $1.5 trillion plus the original $900 billion would equal $2.4 trillion, the amount the debt ceiling would be raised under this two-stage plan.
  • If the Committee finds between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion, then the balance will be made up by the corresponding percentage of the enforcement mechanism’s cuts, still in a one-to-one ration.
  • There will be a vote on a balanced budget amendment. It would require a 2/3 majority in Congress. However, it is not likely to pass.

The Goods

The impact of this deal on the economy is mostly favorable for now. The economics team from JP Morgan says that federal fiscal policy will subtract around 1.5% points from GDP growth in 2012. The country would avoid a default and the cuts are big enough for the United States to retain its AAA rating. In fact it’s important to know that the credit agencies will not drop America’s rating. It’s just very simple economics. Any country would want to hold American credit.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was in the house. It was a wonderful thing to see her back in office. She got a 10 minute standing ovation from her colleagues with some of them even misty eyed. That, believe it or not is one of the plus points. Giffords voted on ‘Yes’ on the bill. She said, “I had to take this vote. I could not take the chance that my absence could crash the economy.” It was refreshing to see a different ray of hope among utter chaos.

Both parties have some news to be happy. Republicans virtually got everything they wanted. All their criteria’s laid down by John Boehner were met. Perhaps the only thing which the right-wing is not happy about is the amount of cuts, which in their opinion is very less. It’s a haircut, is what they love to call it. Although the  Democrats are not happy, they too get to share some ‘glee’ in this deal. At least they should. After all the time they had to take definitive action, it’s something  they brought upon themselves. The debt ceiling is out of the 2012 discussions and the deal has been struck for a long-term. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are off the table.

The Bad:

The biggest ‘bad’ point of this outcome is the creation of the ‘Super Congress’ or the congressional committee which would consist of 6 members from each party. Congress will have to agree and pass the bill this committee comes up with without any questions asked. If, however, this ‘super congress’ cannot come to an agreement then what is being called a trigger would kick in. It would mean automatic cuts across the board ranging from defense to entitlements. These cuts will be large and will be something both the parties would wish to avoid.

There are no revenue’s in the deal. This is the only time in the history that a budget deal has been struck without any revenues making up for that $1 trillion cuts. I’d like you to take a look at this chart below. It shows the spending % and the revenue % under each president of the United States before Barack Obama.

Notice something? Who has more blues than reds? Clinton, Carter and Johnson. All Democratic presidents. Who has more reds than blues? Bush Jr, Bush Sr, Ford and Nixon. All Republican presidents. I’m not trying to make Republicans presidents look bad. My point is this? Spending has been greater all throughout GOP’s life. How do you hold another party accountable when your party have never followed what you’re fighting for. Follow what you preach. Let’s take Clinton for example. Look at the revenue’s. It’s a huge variation. Why? He barely had any wars during his time and so he could focus all his resources at home.

No tax increases. The Republicans got exactly what they wanted. A spending cut deal with absolutely no tax increases. Taxes, as part of the GDP are at a 50 year low.

No impact on the recession. In the near future this deal will not have any impact on the recovery from recession. However, if the dollar value drops along with the United States credit ratings (which the agencies are still speculating), the country will go back into a recession.

The Ugly:

Now it’s time for the worst thing to have come out this debate. Hold on to something. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

When the deal was done you would expect the markets to come back to its normal state. When congress gives a thumbs up to save the economy, the market reacts the same way, giving a thumbs up. That’s what usually happens. The last time congress voted against saving the economy the markets took a hit and we went into the worst recession. This time however, the congress did vote to save the economy and the markets still tanked. After the senate voted to pass the bill DOW lost 265 points.

The whole concept of the super congress is not setting well with either parties and mostly liberals. If the committee fails to reach a deal which most think would be the case, then the automatic cuts due to take place are going to be devastating for both parties. The ‘Super Congress’ is due to present its deal by Thanksgiving. The whole part of giving a group of people so much of power is unsettling. Specially when this committee will be dealing with everything on the table. As senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) said, “For the committee, everything is on the table.” It becomes even more complex when you hear senate minority leader Mitch McConnel. McConnel told Fox News, “The chances of a tax increase passing with the appointees, speaker Boehner and I are going to put in (the committee), are very low.” With the debate already creating fiction I see a lot of fighting still to come.

The $900 billion worth of cuts come from fragile sectors such as infrastructure, education, clean air, affordable housing etc. The bill doesn’t include unemployment insurance extension and there are no payroll tax cuts.

It doesn’t help the job sector at all. With this deal the Republican side sent out a clear message. Jobs Jobs Jobs? Nope! Sob Sob Sob! 325 million job lost. 43 billion (-0.3%) from the GDP. The already slow economy comes to a screeching halt. 1.8 million fewer jobs in America. That -$241 billion (-0.21%) lost. The negative signifying the country going back into recession. Unemployment is a 9.2% and its only going to get worse as we roll into 2012 and 2013.

And the thing that is going to hut the most. In all these debt negotiations the FAA tax collecting authority has been neglected and now the government agency controlling air traffic is shut down. That means safety workers working without pay and all construction jobs frozen. It’s projected impact on the economy? The FAA shutdown cost American tax payers $30 million a day. 4,000 FAA workers are off work. 90,000 construction jobs at risk. Congress has been granting temporary extensions to the FAA for the past 20 times and now the Republicans have refused to even given the FAA a temporary extension. The FAA shutdown is projected to cost the American government $1.2 billion in revenue from uncollected airline ticket taxes in a quarrel between Senate Democrats and House Republicans who are demanding a $16.5 million cut in rural air service subsidies. Democrats say the subsidies fight is actually a ploy to get them to accept a GOP labor provision in a separate, long-term FAA funding bill passed by the House. Republicans deny that’s the case. Republicans complain that the new rule reverses 75 years of precedent to favor labor unions. Democrats and union officials say the change puts airline and railroad elections under the same democratic rules required for unionizing all other companies. Knowing the fact that air traffic controllers were caught sleeping one the job, I wonder how wise was it, on the part of the U.S congress, to shut down the FAA. The senate almost ready to go into vacation, house already on vacation, the FAA shutdown could go well beyond September. Senate majority leader Harry Reid said, “The House has tried to make this a battle over essential air service,” he says. “It’s not a battle over essential air service. It’s a battle over Delta Airlines, who refuses to allow votes under the new rules that have been passed by the NLRB [National Labor Relations Board].”

So if you’re a person about to travel and looking for someone to blame/ sue incase something happens to you while in an aircraft. You know who to pin the blame on. Delta Airlines!!! I know I will, since I have to fly in the next 17 days. Good luck to all those who are taking a flight soon.

And finally I leave you with a graph which shows the job losses over the last ten years. Job Creation! Something which the American government should start working on looks something like this. This however, was before all this chaos regarding the debt ceiling came up. Before all this happened. THIS is where we were heading.

The irony that’s killing Washington..

In Debt Ceiling, Democratic Party, Republican Party, Tea Party, U.S Congress, U.S House of Representatives, U.S Senate on July 30, 2011 at 11:55 am

In all my time of only covering United States politics, I have never seen Washington so stubborn and irresponsible. Yeah! They made some very bad decisions regarding policy and war. But that was mostly because of external causes. This right here is a self-inflicted disaster. It’s manufactured by the American government for the American people and America herself. For all this time this debt ceiling debate has been going on, we have been hearing these idealistic phrases. ‘Washington needs to cut down on spending, Too much spending is being done, We should live within our means, We should not spend what we don’t have.’ All these statements are mostly thrown out by the GOP and Tea Party supporters and politicians. On the practical side  we have to agree that spending needs to be curbed. Holy crap! We really need to stop spending on so many wasteful things. These GOP and Tea Party guys are absolutely right about this part. But somebody explain this part to me. HOW IS THE DEBT CEILING RELATED TO FUTURE SPENDING? Why are we confusing paying for dues and future spending. Yes, future spending needs to be reduced but you HAVE to pay for what you have already consumed. The Republicans love referring to micro economics of an average American household. The thought goes. The American government needs to spend like an average American family. “When someone is overextended and broke they don’t continue paying for expensive automobiles, they sell the expensive automobiles and buy a cheaper one. They don’t continue paying for country club dues, they drop out of the country club,”  Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) told Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC. Perhaps they could sell their Mercedes or maybe the middle class families could forget about that vacation they were thinking of taking to the Seychelles. This statement of his shows a tremendous lack of understanding about the average American family on the part of Brown. Mr Brown most Americans do not have complete health care let alone a ‘country club’ membership. These severely deluded congressman forget that when you try superimposing micro economics over macro the two just don’t cover each other up. The American government cannot exactly function the way an American family does.

So the question often kept popping up in my mind. Why is the congress acting this way? What could they possibly be getting out of it. The already tainted image of U.S as a military power is getting even worse as a degrading economic power. Washington is falling apart with statements like ‘Nothing can pass the House’ and the president of America almost on his knees begging his fellow politicians to think about the country before pushing for their own agenda. Just think about it for a minute. The most powerful man in the world in control of supposedly the most powerful country in the world has to beg his own people to think before they act. John Boehner could barely pass his own bill in the house that he has a majority in. Now there are several reasons why his own caucus didn’t support his but I’ve already discussed that in my previous post. This is not about Boehner. This whole problem is so much bigger than one person or one party. Nobody can speculate the exact effects of the disaster of not raising the debt limit. Nobody knows because in all of American history there has never been a mention of America defaulting. In fact it’s unconstitutional (section 4, 14th amendment).

Coming back to the point of economics. Let’s take this latest bill that John Boehner forced through the House. Not a single Democrat is on board his plan and neither are 22 Republicans. But did that stop him from wasting tax payer dollars and creating wasteful bills. Harry Reid in the senate has already said that this kind of bill is D.O.A. It can never pass the senate leave alone the president signing off on it. Then why doesn’t Boehner make a constructive bill. Let’s see what the Boehner and Reid bills have to offer.

John Boehner’s Bill (House of Representatives)

  • The Boehner bill (including the July 29 changes) would save $917 billion.
  • It would cut about the same amount (about $1 trillion) from the 2012 and 2013 budgets (the only budgets that this Congress has any real authority over)
  • Creates a super-committee – a bipartisan committee of 12 members from both houses – to come up with a bill that reforms taxes and entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security). Both houses would be required to vote on whatever bill the committee came up with.
  • It cap discretionary (non-entitlement) spending. The caps rise with inflation after 2014.
Harry Reid’s Bill (Senate)
  • The Boehner bill (including the July 29 changes) would save $917 billion.
  • It would cut about the same amount (about $1 trillion) from the 2012 and 2013 budgets (the only budgets that this Congress has any real authority over)
  • Creates a super-committee – a bipartisan committee of 12 members from both houses – to come up with a bill that reforms taxes and entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security). Both houses would be required to vote on whatever bill the committee came up with.
  • It cap discretionary (non-entitlement) spending. The caps rise with inflation after 2014.
So there you have it. It’s not like both the bills are hugely apart. They have quite a few similarities. The reason why mentioned the similarities separately is because none of what is in Reid’s plan is a Democratic idea. The Democrats would never side for something like what Reid has proposed had it not been this extreme moment. Nancy Pelosi and President Obama are also doubtful of about leader Reid’s plan to some extent. The important point to be noted. The Democrats stepped out of their comfort zone. Heck they walked a mile from it. Now, I know by this point y’all must be asking. So what are the differences. Here they are:

Differences:
Reid’s plan assumes a drawdown of United States’ forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to save $1.2 trillion. These savings are not included in Boehner’s bill. House Republicans are calling this part of Reid’s bill a “gimmick”. They are saying that drawdown of troops will reduce spending no matter which bill is passed. Ok! So if you are so wise. Why hasn’t speaker Boehner proposed the same thing? No clue!

The Reid plan would raise the debt ceiling enough to get past the 2012 election in a single vote – a one-step process. The Boehner plan would require a two-step process – a small debt limit increase now, a large debt limit increase later which would be tied to the super-committee bill. This means once this debt limit crisis is averted. Another one would be following six months later. We’re all back in the same loop. Do they really think that the markets are going to approve of that idea?

AND that’s it ladies and gentleman. Broadly. These are the differences. After speaker Boehner failed to get enough votes to pass his bill in the House on Thursday, he added a balanced budget amendment requirement to the bill in order to get more Republicans to support it. This stunt that he pulled made it even more impossible to pass the senate.

When Boehner knew that this bill would never pass the senate. Why did he waste precious time in ramming through a pill that ultimately would be no good? In fact when he couldn’t get a majority from his caucus he added a clause that would most certainly kill the bill in the senate. Money lost, time lost and the country is still hanging by a thread. Why not work with the Democrats and come up with something really bi-partisan. None of the Democrats in the house signed up for Boehner’s proposal. NONE! The big question mark is here. Boehner did not step out of his comfort zone and on top of that he made it certain that the bill would be killed. Now that the bill has been passed onto the senate the Republicans in the house and the country can put their hands up and blame Obama and the Democrats. This has been their game plan since November 2010. Push your agenda and blame Obama. Is is still applicable now that the economic collapse of the United States is on the brink? Can any politician afford to push his/her agenda first?

Neither one of these plan had ANY tax increases. Something which the Tea Party and GOP are dead against. Republicans said they would not support a plan that increased taxes (even if it came from eliminating deductions, rather than increasing tax rates). Democrats said that they would not support a plan that did not include some tax increases (which could come from eliminating deductions). Ironically, the Reid bill, supported by Democrats, has no tax increases and the Boehner bill, supported by Republicans, most likely would increase taxes (by eliminating deductions) through the super-committee bill. THIS is the irony that is murdering Washington and the United States right now. Pray for the country. Each and every working individual needs it.

Eh Righties! Can you hear us now?

In Debt Ceiling, Democratic Party, Republican Party, Tea Party, U.S Congress, U.S House of Representatives, U.S Senate on July 28, 2011 at 7:15 am

The very first thing John Boehner and Republicans in the house did when they came into power in 2010 was to read the constitution of America. Remember? If not then here’s the full new from back then.

Ironically congressman Steve Israel (D-New York) read section 4 of the 14th amendment. It reads:

 “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.”

So if President Obama does end up invoking the 14th amendment the GOP should have any issues about it right? Hey after all it was Boehner and his house mates who wanted to get the constitution clearly read out and understood by each member. Hope the Tea Party was paying attention.

Do you REALLY know your 2012 presidential candidates well?

In 2012 Presidential Election, Democratic Party, Republican Party, Tea Party on July 27, 2011 at 6:22 am

2012  Presidential elections will be a very interesting one specially for us bloggers, political journalists, political pundits and enthusiasts. A lot of things have happened since the 2010 house/senate elections. Decisions have been made, major bills have been passed and now some governors are being put on recall.

In this post we’ll be looking at these presidential hopefuls and what they bring to the table very critically. If you want a sweet report on your favorite candidate you can always go to their website or look at their campaign video. You’ll find enough nice lofty idealistic ideas and anti-Obama statements from them. Here we will be digging deep into the dark side of each of these guys. I can guarantee you that there would be AT LEAST one person who don’t know on this list. And if you do then Congratulations! You’re THE informed one.

First up…

Michele Bachmann (R)

Queen of the Tea Partiers and polling second to Mitt Romney as the possible Republican candidate, Bachmann is a three-time Congresswoman from Minnesota and the current chair of the Congressional Tea Party caucus. If you didn’t know here’s something interesting. Bachmann started off her life as a Democrat. In fact she met her husband at former President Jimmy Carter’s campaign. Later in life she turned Republican. Michele Banchmann’s 2012 campaign video ends with, “I-WILL-NOT-VOTE-TO-RAISE-THE-DEBT-CEILING”. Her second campaign video begins with, “I-WILL-NOT-VOTE-TO-RAISE-THE-DEBT-CEILING.” Notice how she doesn’t say I will not until or unless XYZ. The stand is simple. Let’s just go into default. Who cares right? Ms Bachmann recently made the news because of the controversial ‘Marriage Vow’ pledge. The vow condemns divorce, polygamy, homosexuality, Shari-law and PORNOGRAPHY? She’s condemning porn? I mean what…why…ugh…???!!!???? Reproduction is praised as “beneficial to the U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.” 

“Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President,” the Marriage Vow said.

After the vow was criticized for implying that African-Americans were better off under slavery than they are today, the Family Leader removed the statement from the preamble. The group said the statement was being “misconstrued.” Bachmann immediately stepped up and said the she only signed onto the preamble and not this. Oh well. We all know her fascination with slavery don’t we.

Anyhow that’s not just one of the things she has said so far. Oh! And during an interview with Glen Beck she was explaining her crazy view on the census. She made Glen Beck shake his head in disapproval. That should account for something right? I mean Glen Beck eager to get her off the screen. Watch it here.

Here are some more Bachmad quotes:

“I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out under another, then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. I’m not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it’s an interesting coincidence.” -Rep. Michele Bachmann, April 2009. Actually Ms Bachmann the 1976 Swine Flu outbreak that happened when Gerald Ford, a Republican was president.

“Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.” -Rep. Michelle Bachmann, April, 2009

“That’s why people need to continue to go to the town halls, continue to melt the phone lines of their liberal members of Congress, and let them know, under no certain circumstances will I give the government control over my body and my health care decisions.” -Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN).

A pro-lifer who completely missed the irony of using the same slogan as the pro-choice movement in arguing against health care reform.

And the list could go on and on and on. Michele Bachmann is known to say some very crazy things on national television. She also instead of taking it back double’s down on it. Remember, “slavery was ended by our forefathers?”

Herman Cain (R)                                          

Aah! Herman Cain. The former CEO of a mafia themed pizza chain. In 2000, Mr Cain briefly ran for the Republican presidential nomination but lost to George.W.Bush. He called it, “More about making political statements than winning the nomination”. He added about GWB that, ” He was the chosen one, he had the campaign DNA that followers look for.” However, Cain went on to state, “I believe that I had a better message and I believe that I was the better messenger.”

In 2004, Cain ran for Senate but got only 26.2% votes and lost to Johnny Iskasen who managed to bag 53.2%.

Mr Cain’s view about Social Security:

“In order to fix Social Security, we must restructure it so that we continue to provide for our Nation’s seniors that are approaching retirement age, but allow for younger taxpayers to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in private accounts.”

But Mr Cain. Social Security is already in surplus of $2.6 trillion. It’s far from bankrupt so it really doesn’t need extreme reform that urgently.

Herman Cain also is known for having anti-Muslim views. When asked whether he’d be comfortable with a Muslim in his Cabinet, Cain said, well, no, not really. He elaborated, but it was too late. The die had been cast. Recently, he got into more trouble for saying that communities had the right to lash out against mosques.

Newt Gingrich (R)

Does he really an introduction? Sometime ago this guy was all over the news. Making comments, taking back comments, releasing statements, retreating statements, creating controversy and trying to cover it up. Just the usual Gingrich stuff. Gingrich is uncertain about some major political and social issues. Why do I say that? Because he is THE master of flip-flops. Former speaker of the house during the Clinton presidency Gingrich was blamed for the then government shutdown. Mr Gingrich recently was forced to change his opinion on the Paul Ryan kill Medicare plan after he called it, “right-wing social engineering” on NBC’s Meet the Press. He then blamed it on the liberal media and said he was misquoted. No misquote sir. You said those exact words. See here. He also changed his position on the Libya war saying that, “This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with.” As soon as the no fly zone was imposed he changed his position to,“No No! This is all wrong” on the Today Show that very evening.

Most recently, Mr Gingrich’s senior campaign staff just upped and left one day. It happened because of this. Gingrich vanished from the campaigning scene and was spotted between Greece and Turkey on a HOLIDAY!!!!! What a time huh..

When this news broke his senior campaign staff quit and not just in one state but in all the important primary states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. The New York Times reporting on this found that several of his advisers pleaded with Mr.Gingrich not to go on the trip. “But Mrs. Gingrich wanted to go. We have a spouse who controls the schedule,” said an aide, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the internal workings of the campaign. As of today Mr Gingrich’s campaign is in a state of limbo. Many say that his presidential run is pretty much over. His poll numbers have plummeted and his visibility on national tv is diminishing.

Jon Greenspon (R)

47-year-old ex-Marine who is a self-professed Jeffersonian/Regan Republican. Greenspon believe that’s Barack Obama was a bad choice for the president of the United States. Yeah! Of course he thinks that way. In a interview with the European Union Times he said, “In America, we take free speech for granted. We have Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Howard Stern as proof of that.” He also added, “I think that it is entirely within reason to say that “free speech” can be given realistic limits, such as restricting profanity during family television time.”  And he thinks GLEN BECK and RUSH LIMBAUGH are the champions of ‘free speech’ and restricting profanity? Woah!!!  Wonder how this guy hasn’t made national t.v yet.

When asked his views about the debt/economic crisis in the country Mr. Greenspon says, “I think one of the first things the United States needs to do, from a local standpoint, is put itself on a firmer financial footing. This includes halting some of our reckless spending, and balancing our budget. Part of this “Balancing Act” needs to include paying off debt that has spiraled outward to other countries.” Huh!! Anything new? Let me check. Uh uh uh. NOPE! Same old same old. So why is he different? Why -o-Why should we not vote for let’s say….Ron Paul? Mr Greenspon explains that ‘blame game’ on everything wrong with the U.S now, on previous administration doesn’t yield any result. Very impressive sir. So, you’re saying that you’ll not blame Obama when/if you take office and feel the pressure? So essentially you’re saying…Oh so what if the Bush Tax Cuts caused the majority of this problem! Carry on and forget about them. Let them be. Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be…whisper words of wisdom….

Pardon me. Back to the topic.

Jon Huntsman (R)

Oh-Oh-Oh! Before I begin to talk about him you must watch this video. This video is courtesy my favorite anchor/broadcaster and also my mentor Rachel Maddow. Thank You Rachel for a wonderful insight into this candidate.

So Jon Huntsman! Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman has had quite a show before he finally declared his candidacy for the presidential race. Even on the day he declared his presidential bid things started going south very quickly. Here’s a list of things that didn’t go as planned. YES! There’s a list 😀

  • His campaign announcement was supposed to be with a backdrop of the statue of Liberty in the background. Original? Absolutely not. This is a rip off of the Regan speech which also had the statue of liberty in the background. 
  • Unfortunately just before Mr. Huntsman could come to the stage and give his speech a passenger boat docked right behind him. That probably ruined the Regan speech feeling huh. Since they couldn’t ask the boat to move they just went with it. You can see the boat in the 1st picture on the top right.
  • Apparently the crowd was so to say ‘very thin’. The reporters outnumbered his supporters if there were any.
  • After his 30 minute speech Huntsman left for his next campaign event in New Hampshire. A flight was organized for the media. The press boarded the flight and found that it wasn’t going to New Hampshire instead it was going to…wait for it. SAUDI ARABIA!!!
  • 12 minutes before the announcement the generator died. Everything was shut off. They got it back just in time for the event to commence.
  • The best part is this. The campaign organizer for Jon Huntsman printed their own candidate’s name wrong. The press pass given to the media spelt his name as John Huntsman with a H. Common! How good are things going when your own campaign staff print YOUR name wrong?

Fred Karger (R/I)

Fred Karger goes by the campaign slogan of ‘Fred Who’? Using his anonymity to his advantage this 61 years old Republican is the first openly gay aspirant. Karger is an active member of the LGBT community. In 2006 Karger founded Save the Boom!!!, a grassroots campaign to save the oldest gay bar in the Western United States, the landmark Boom Boom Room and Coast Inn in Laguna Beach, California. Karger supports ending the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

Karger is vehemently against republican candidate for president Mitt Romney and openly accused him of voter fraud. Karger describes himself as an “old opposition research campaign consultant.” Karger filed a complaint Monday with the State of Massachusetts, asking that Romney be investigated for registering to vote from an address that he did not live at.

All in all Fred Karger’s dream of being elected is a pretty long shot from where he stands right now.

Mitt Romney (R)

MITT ROMNEY! The man who has the Republican party up in arms against him, the man who is topping all polling charts, the man who implemented somewhat of a similar health care plan in Massachusetts as Obama did on the federal level?

Mitt Romney looks the man who might just take the Republican nomination to run against president Obama in 2012. He took a lot of heat from the Republican party because of his health care issue which now is fondly referred to as ‘Romneycare’. Mitt Romney now distances himself from ‘Romneycare’ as it is a very liberal heath care policy and also because it is similar to president Obama’s health care plan which came under heavy fire from the right. If you’re a Republican candidate the last thing you want is something that puts you on president Obama’s side. Apparently the stars of this GOP class are those, who blame Obama for everything. You’re the class president, if somehow, you can manage to blame Obama for the steak which you were trying to cook but ended up with a burnt one.

Mitt Romney’s problems don’t end on ‘Romneycare’. Massachusetts law defines a residence as “where a person dwells and which is the center of his domestic, social, and civil life.” Mitt Romney has been accused several times of not living in the state but citing Massachusetts as his home state. He doesn’t own a property in Massachusetts but his registered address in state is his son’s basement. Romneys live in a California house that they purchased in 2008 and spend summers at a New Hampshire home they purchased in May 2009.

Unfortunately for Mr Romney his job creation record which he plans to run on is not the very best. Even his Republican counterparts who were governors had a better job record than him. Romney’s jobs record was nearly flat, based on a comparison of annual employment totals for the year before he took office and the final year of his term, the method recommended by the Center for Labor Market Studies. For Romney, whose term began in 2003, those years would be 2002 and 2006. Federal data show that during that time Massachusetts added a scant 13,800 jobs—a 0.4 percent increase. And that’s not all. Romney opposed the bailout of GM, Ford and Chrysler. In an op-ed Wednesday in The New York Times, Mr. Romney argued that the Big Three should not get the bailout they are seeking, writing that “Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.” He also argued that “If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.” Well it seems like things didn’t quite go as Romney has thought it would. GM, Ford and Chrysler not only did did not perish, Chrysler repaid their loan 6 years in advance. Both companies have shown signs of a comeback. GM has posted two straight profitable quarters and is expected to conduct an initial public offering later this year that would help the U.S. reduce its 61 percent stake in the company. Chrysler, placed under control of Italian automaker Fiat, has narrowed its losses and is considering a public stock offering sometime in 2011. So Romney should be ashamed right? He did say it out loud that the federal government should let the American car manufacturing industry die instead of helping them. But NOPE!. Romney continues to defend his opinion that the automakers should have gone through bankruptcy. In fact, he takes credit for giving the Obama administration the idea. “I think the Obama administration finally did what I told them they had to do” to save General Motors and Chrysler in 2009, Romney told the Detroit Free Press“The auto companies that were in distress needed to go through bankruptcy.” Romney conveniently leaves out the details of how they were to get funding to successfully emerge from bankruptcy as they have done. WOW! What nerves.

When Mitt Romney attacks Obama for being a failure  to create more jobs he forgets that during his term his state ranked 49th in job creation.

Gary Johnson (R)

The former Libertarian governor of New Mexico does not attend church, is pro-choice, anti-big government, pro-immigration and an outspoken critic on the war on drugs. He favors legalizing of marijuana. POT? He wants to legalize POT? OH YEAH!! Now we’re talking. Wohoo!! 😀

In an interview with the Atlantic, Johnson explained his views on marijuana legalization, before he spoke to a small group of students at American University, one of many colleges he visited in the past year. “Well, it turns out that half of what we spend on law enforcement, the courts and the prisons, is drug related, and to what end? Now this is where I came from it initially, and I have smoked marijuana in my life also, so I’ve never really thought it criminal — I’ve never really thought it warranted jail sentences.”Is he a liberal, is he conservative? No! He’s Libertarian.

Although Ron Paul proved it in 2007 – 2008 and showed the libertarians could raise significant money online , but for the Johnson  the road doesn’t seem all that smooth specially when you don’t know which side he is on.

“I would say that his chances for the Republican nomination would be remote,” said former RNC chairman and current GOPAC Chairman Frank Donatelli. “That being said, I think it’s great to get as many candidates in the race who have many viewpoints on things …

“If Gov. Johnson is going to be running as a social and economic libertarian, I say more power to him. I don’t know how much mileage he’s going to get on the social libertarian message, as opposed to the economic libertarian message.”

Gov. Johnson was one of those Republicans who were ‘outraged’ by the ‘Marriage Vow’ signed and endorsed enthusiastically by Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum. On the Johnson campaign’s “Truth For Change” blog, Johnson calls the pledge “offensive and unrepublican.” He also went on to say, “Government should not be involved in the bedrooms of consenting adults. I have always been a strong advocate of liberty and freedom from unnecessary government intervention into our lives.”

Although he is a long shot candidate but for these nominations it’s not always about winning. Ron Paul for instance made a huge impact on the political scene in 2007-08 and brought forward the libertarian ideology.

Andy Martin (R)

Martin is a self-professed People’s Attorney General. If the name doesn’t strike an immediate chord you might also know him as ‘The Birther King’. That’s right ladies and gentlemen. He was one of those cartoon characters who stormed our t.v sets for nearly a month with questions about Obama’s birth certificate. He however got overshadowed by the Donald ‘Duck’ Trump. Martin solely credits himself for starting this dubious ‘birther movement’ and feels that the White House release of Obama’s long form birth certificate was a ‘triumphant victory’ for the birthers. Sometimes while watching television I couldn’t make up my mind. Who is more insane. This guy, Trump or Charlie Sheen? Anyhow for all of them it was WINNING!

There is nothing more about this man. He has no policy ideas, he doesn’t have an opinion on the debt, he has nothing to say about health care, gay rights, abortion and all the issues that the Republicans hold dear to their heart. He launched his campaign just to challenge Obama based on his birth certificate. OK! Good luck Mr Martin.

For his part, Martin doesn’t plan to drop his own campaign to challenge Obama for president. “I’m running as the guy who now forced Obama” to release his birth certificate, Martin says triumphantly. Then he adds without elaboration: “Our god is stronger than Obama’s god, whatever his god is.”

I don’t know why I’m wasting my time and space on this guy. Ge’ez! Moving on

Thaddeus McCotter (R)

Hey guess what Mr McCotter and I have something in common. FINALLY! A candidate that I share a common ground with. 🙂

Thaddeus McCotter is a five times Rep from the 11th district of Michigan. He however is not very well know at the national level politics. “A decision hasn’t been made, but it will be made soon…. I’m not going to put a timeline on it,” he told the Daily Caller.

McCotter is the proud owner of a star-spangled Telecaster that he plays as lead guitar for the Second Amendments, a bipartisan rock band of House members that performs for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. McCotter has also been known to quote rock lyrics while on the House floor. One of his key stumping points in the 2012 elections was the repealing of the health care reform. Mr McCotter wanted his fellow congressman to join him in giving tax breaks to pet owners. Yes! You heard it right. Pets. So you want to tax break for yourself? Go get a dog, cat, hamster or maybe something exotic like a rocky python. He called it the Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (HAPPY) Act.In 2006, McCotter defeated Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., for chairman of the Republican Policy Committee. But in 2010, he provoked an internal GOP struggle by proposing to shut down the committee and use its $360,000 budget to reduce the deficit. Then-GOP Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., stopped the plan and Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., took over the committee.

Ge’ez! Seriously, instead of concentrating on the crazy debt, unemployment, economy, ending the wars and bring back our military from foreign soil these guys are thinking about more tax breaks for absolutely useless reasons.

Jimmy McMillan (R)

This is the Rent is Too Damn High guy. Yes! Mr McMillan the rent indeed is too damn high. I get the rent but how about the debt Mr McMillan? How about the spending on war, tax cuts for the very rich and the highest profit reeling oil corporations? Aren’t they all a very high price average Americans have to pay? I mean why just single out rent?

McMillan has run for office at least six times since 1993, including in the 2010 New York gubernatorial election on the “Rent Is 2 Damn High” line. He declared on December 23, 2010 that he would run in the 2012 U.S. presidential election as a Republican.

Some of his finest moments:

On the deficit: “It’s like a cancer. It will heal itself.”

On negative campaigning: “As a karate expert, I will not talk about anyone up here.”

On gay marriage: “The Rent Is 2 Damn High Party feels if you want to marry a shoe, I’ll marry you.”

On… Jesus, I have no clue what prompted this one: “We plan to bulldoze some of those mountains in Upstate to make New York an independent state. I want my own cable company; I want my own telephone company.”

On the rent: Too damn high.

Huffington Post reporting on McMillan.McMillan urged Obama to call him up on the phone and invite him to serve in the administration. That scenario aside, McMillan said he would register as a Republican to avoid a primary challenge from the president, a man that he called “a good-looking young guy” that he admired. “I’m coming after his black ass,” he said of Obama.

Tom Miller (R)

Sounds like it could a good band name eh? The Tom Miller band. Would make for a real nice southern rock band name. Anyhow! Mr Miller is a career flight attendant and he like EVERY OTHER Republican feels that the country is being destroyed chiefly by a series of failed fiscal and immigration policies. He is for small government and basically is planning to run on that. I wonder how Mr Miller feels about GOP latest threat to slash airport staff and unions of the staff working in the airports all across the country.

Mr. Miller’s father was a decorated World War II Marine veteran. When visiting his campaign website and clicking on the link for his resume, a waving American flag appears. When The Post & Email asked Mr. Miller if that was intentional, he said, “That is my resume’, natural-born Citizen, over the age of 35 years and have lived within the U.S.A. for at least 14 years (I have never resided off of our soil). For those who can understand the respect that I have for the Office that I am seeking and what the true requirements are to be President, I thought that by showing the flag as my resume’ would make a bold and patriotic statement of who I am and what I believe in.”

A person who has never seen the outside world wants to take control of the most powerful country in the globe? So how would a person like this politically direct countries that seek support or look to U.S for military or political support. And to think of it he’s actually proud of the fact that he never travelled or lived or experienced other cultures. Of course by his comments it’s clear  he indirectly is pointing at president Obama and all that birther chaos. He thought that showing the American flag as his ‘resume’ he would make a bold statement, I say he sure is making a statement. Statement is, I’m not sure about what I should say about the major issues. The American flag would bring me all the support I need. Mr Miller people of America are very passionate about the soil, the flag, the national anthem and the national bird but we sure as hell aren’t stupid.

Ron Paul (R)

Now here is a man who has makes quite a statement. In the first Republican debate hosted by Fox news a majority of people declared Herman Cain as the winner of the debate. I beg to differ. In my humble opinion it was Ron Paul who stole the prize. The best part of his argument was when he supported legalizing of heroin. You could literally feel the emotions in the audience through your television screen. You could almost hear the deep sigh’s in the crowd.

Paul is almost a Republican with a little exception where he brings forth his libertarian values. You could say that he is a social and an economic libertarian unlike Gary Johnson who is pretty much just a social libertarian. Paul’s campaign slogan for 2004 was “The Taxpayers’ Best Friend!”. He would completely eliminate the income tax by shrinking the size and scope of government to what he considers its ‘Constitutional limits’, noting that he has never voted to approve an unbalanced budget. He has observed that even scaling back spending to 2000 levels eliminates the need for the 42% of the budget accounted for by individual income tax receipts. So with income tax gone and very low corporate taxes and with the lowest tax on the wealthiest American where does Ron Paul think the revenue would come from? All cutting and no revenue makes U.S.A a poor country with no money. Paul says that Social Security is in “bad shape … The numbers aren’t there”. Umm mr Paul. A little correction here. Social Security is in surplus right about now. To be precise $2.6 trillion in surplus funds.

“We must stop spending trillions of dollars overseas on foreign wars,” Paul wrote. “There is no point in debating a foreign policy we cannot afford. It no longer matters what neoconservatives want. Our interventionist foreign policy is financed on credit, and our credit limit has been reached. Our economy would be infinitely better off if those trillions of dollars had never been removed from the private economy or added to our debt.” Ron Paul told the Digital Journal.

In the third Republican debate on June 5, 2007, Paul said about the U.S. military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy:

“I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don’t get our rights because we’re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there’s heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality. It’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.”

On almost every poll Ron Paul is always at number 5-7 barely making it to double digits. The latest CNN poll but Ron Paul at 8% at 6th position.

If someone could really give president Obama some competition it could have been this guy. Mainly because he can draw the attention of the independents and get them to his side. To bad the GOP is not considering Ron Paul as a strong option. It would have been a good fight in 2012.

Tim Pawlenty (R)

The former Governor of Minnesota now is frequently being referred to as Mr 2%. A lot what Tim Pawlenty has said over the past few days has been dismissed by both parties and media. As per the latest CNN poll Mr Pawlenty is polling in single digit with 3% at number 9. Good news for him is that he’s doing better than McCotter, Huntsman and Johnson. His recent comments where he tried to sling mud at Michele Bachmann regarding her supposed migraines didn’t quite go down well for him. As a matter of fact any thing he is saying right now is not going in his favor. Mr Pawlenty very enthusiastically supported the recent Minnesota shutdown along with fellow candidate Michele Bachmann. Really Mr Pawlenty? You’re seriously happy when government workers in your state are not getting paid and when all government-run services are shut down? You’re happy putting people through misery?

Tim Pawlenty has been an outspoken critic of president Obama’s and Mitt Romney health care plan at the federal and state level. In various tv and print interviews he tried to show down Mitt Romney as much as possible. Everybody was psyched up for the first presidential debate hosted by Fox where both Romney and Pawlenty were present. As soon as the question popped Tim Pawlenty could not accuse his counterpart anymore. He very meekly side tracked the question and when the camera focused on Romney, you could see him with a cheeky grin on his face. And since then Pawlenty has lost out on both poll percentage’s and people’s and the media’s interest.

Pawlenty course of action in 2012 is to run as a fiscal conservative.  In almost all of the speeches he gave recently Mr Pawlenty likes to boast about his financial record. “I drew a line in the sand,” he says, pointing out that he vetoed every tax increase and demanded that state government officials “live within our means just like families, just like businesses, just like everybody else.” A close scrutiny of the former Governor reveals a whole new picture of Minnesota during his time in office. Pawlenty did veto almost all proposed tax increases, apart from one on cigarettes labeled a “health impact fee.” He curbed the rate of growth in state spending — though not growth overall. Most importantly, he left the state with a $5-billion projected deficit, one of the highest in the nation as a percentage of the state’s general fund, only slightly trailing California’s massive gap.

The L.A Times reported on this saying:Pawlenty blames the deficit on Democrats in the Legislature who he said ignored his requests for permanent budget trims and insisted on continued spending. But Pawlenty’s critics fault him for what one called “sleight-of-hand budgeting” and a failure to work with a Democratic-controlled Legislature before he left office in 2011.“Tim Pawlenty’s philosophy of fiscal management can be summarized as ‘kick the can down the road,’ “ said former Minnesota Gov. Arne Carlson, a Republican, referring to what he calls Pawlenty’s pattern of “engaging in heavy borrowings and shifting costs to local governments, including school districts, while not confronting the state’s serious challenges.”

Overall he started off pretty good polling very high and was expected to be the second best option after Mitt Romney. As of today some polling agencies are planning to remove him from their list because of his decreasing popularity.

Rick Santorum (R)

The man who cannot be Googled. Googling Santorum give all out kinds of weird results. Urban Dictionary describes Santorum as “The sometimes frothy, usually slimy, amalgam of lubricant, stray fecal matter, and ejaculate that leaks out of the receiving partner’s anus after a session of anal intercourse.” Oh dear Lord. No wonder nobody wants him.

The former U.S Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum is very low on every poll. And I mean very low. Santorum became involved with a series of sontroversy primarily regarding homosexuality. The Santorum controversy arose over Republican former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum’s statements about homosexuality and the right to privacy. In an interview with the Associated Press (AP) taped on April 7, 2003, and published April 20, 2003, Santorum stated that he believed consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts. Santorum described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts as comparable to the states’ ability to regulate other consensual and non-consensual sexual behavior, such as adultery, polygamy, child molestation,incest, sodomy, and bestiality, whose decriminalization he believed would threaten society and the family, as they are not monogamous and heterosexual.

You could very well say that Mr Santorum is the male Michele Bachmann. Rick Santorum has a long, colorful history of making bizarre, inflammatory and just plain ridiculous statements about all sorts of important issues which has led him into a series of conflict with women and the LGBT community. I will feature some of his best towards the end of his section. Santorum proudly co-signed the controversial ‘Marriage Vow’ with fellow presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann. On the issue of jobs he voted ‘No’ to repeal tax subsidies to companies that move U.S jobs offshore. he obviously along with the complete  During these terrible financial times Santorum voted to not increase minimum wage from $6.5 to $7.5. And NOW for the ‘Greatest Hits’ of Rick Santorum.

In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be….If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”  April 2003

Marriage is an institution that’s a bridge too far for too many African-American women and is not desirable among African-American males….I think [Obama] has to realize that flying to New York is…self-indulgent. Go down to the corner bar and have a drink, a shot, and a beer.”  June 2nd, 2009

I think the Democrats are actually worried [Obama] may go to Indonesia and bow to more Muslims.” March 23rd 2010

“I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people’. Rick Santorum on President Obama’s race and pro-choice beliefs, 1/19/2011

And like Michele Bachmann the crazy stuff  just keeps on coming. If you want more info on this man I suggest you have a look at the website Santorum Exposed. They really do expose most of what the right wing media tries desperately to bury in the sand.