Why is the GOP backing away from Michele Bachmann? She has all the credential to be a viable candidate, just like most of the Republican potentials, who are vying for the front-runner position.
She is a lawyer, Congresswoman, as well as a business person; and her views are akin to conservative values of less government intrusion in people's lives, an abortion antagonist, and a constitutional student, willing to operate within its (Constitution's) bounds to the letter.
Yet, her efforts to prove that she has the persona and the background to be taken seriously in her presidential bid are being ignored.
Surely, she has made some simple mistakes in the campaign, such as wishing Elvis Presley a happy birthday on his death anniversary; however, that does not seem to take anything out of her resume.
She will abolish the Department of Education and give parents and the 50 states the right and authority to bring up their children the way they see fit, as she points out that the U.S. Constitution does not mandate any powers for the Federal Government to undertake to educate citizens.
As everyone else, there may be some nuances in her image, such as not remembering certain things occasionally, or making statements that do not relate to the specifics of a topic, her beliefs are strictly in line with conservatism.
At the moment, the field of Republican candidates seems to becoming over crowded, as Gov. Chris Christie is being serenaded by party leaders to jump in the nomination race. Former Rudy Giuliani is also contemplating running; and Candidate Herman Cain, who is already a hero, by winning the Florida straw poll, is moving up the conservative political ladder; and if all that does not give the outsider a picture of chaos or confusion within the party, then nothing will.
To many, Bachmann is being ignored for her stature as a small person, and probably because she is a woman. However, that will be deemed as an affront to women in the country, as they are also qualified, if they have the motive to be president.
She has a chance to clench the Christian vote, and the Tea Party membership has an eye on her as one of its favorites; therefore, why is she losing ground in the polls?
Needless to say that she has won the Iowa straw poll quite recently, and that must give her a boost in the nomination contest; but what is dragging her down can rather be internal; however, that can only be a guess.
Most independent voters are watching events unfolding in the GOP, even only to see if there is fairness equally in its considerations for all the candidates.
Bachmann's own ardent supporters must also have a watchful eye on the party's proceedings, in regard to fair play. They think that she shares a great deal of commonalities with all the other contenders, even though she is a female.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Thursday, September 29, 2011
AMERICA JOBS ACT & DEMOCRATS.
What is holding the America Jobs Act from getting through the United States Congress seems ridiculous.
It is just the payment of it, and although, most people know that the situation will never become agreeable, if individual members do not move from party ideology and make up their own minds, whether for or against the proposals and how it must be financially approached.
Party loyalty is preventing so many things from happening, as it has been seen in the debt ceiling and deficit reduction debates, only a short while ago; and that is affecting the progress that the country must be making economically.
President Barack Obama has laid out a plan that will reduce unemployment considerably, at a time when millions of Americans are crying out for work, and nobody seems to be doing anything close to resolving the problem, except to hold news conferences in the media and tell people that they are opposed to the plan, on the basis of party policy.
Of course, the reason is obvious on the Republican Party side, that imposing taxes on a section of the population is unacceptable, since that section contains the people that have the means and investment capabilities to create jobs.
It (section) has become the center of the current stalemate on job creation, as some are insisting that its members are not to be touched, when it comes to raising taxes; while others are saying that there must be no "sacred cows" in American society.
It all boils down to the simple fact that the wealthy people are being protected at the expense of the majority; and if that does not create a "class warfare" then what does?
In other words, the Conservatives are adamant on a warpped philosophy, that the wealthy must be protected from paying high taxes. Its (wealthy) members are the country's job creators, and the economy stands or falls on what they decide to do.
It clearly goes to show that it is not the government proposals for job creation that is objectionable; it is rather the safeguarding of the rich that must come first in the country's affairs, even before the acknowledgement that, to have social and economic stability, people must equally play their part to resolve issues.
That is what the Obama America Jobs Act is proposing; to get the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes, and to find work for millions of men and women, who are unemployed. His plan is presently stalling, due to the stiff opposition from the Republicans mainly in the United States House of Representatives.
Now, the question is, if the elected government is not being allowed to govern, then who is governing.
In a democracy, it must not be the few (people) that have the right to impose their will on the many; yet, that is what seems to be going on in Congress; with the Republican majority in the House controlling the direction of where the nation, as a whole, must be heading, instead of the government.
Comparitively, they, the Congressional Republicans, are in the minority, in terms of the whole of the nation's population; but their power seems to overshadow that of the real government. Their influence seems to be overwhelming.
That must not be the case. It is causing the people's business to be meandering, instead of it moving forward and clearing the obstacles that are standing in the way of progress that the country must be making.
Again, all decends on the confusion on Capitol Hill; which must be disentangled before the country ends up completely crippled economically, as well as politically.
That is why the next batch of elections is so important, including the presidential election, of course; because the country will be at the confluence of disorder, if matters are allowed to remain at the boiling point, as they are now.
They (elections) are going to be tipping the country one way or another; toward social and political advancement or wholesale disaster.
It is believed that the president's bill, in regard to America Jobs Act, has no sponsor; and if so, why not?
What are the Democrats sitting on their hands for? They are there to do what their constituents are expecting of them; they do not seem to be performing the duty that they have been assigned; why?
It is just the payment of it, and although, most people know that the situation will never become agreeable, if individual members do not move from party ideology and make up their own minds, whether for or against the proposals and how it must be financially approached.
Party loyalty is preventing so many things from happening, as it has been seen in the debt ceiling and deficit reduction debates, only a short while ago; and that is affecting the progress that the country must be making economically.
President Barack Obama has laid out a plan that will reduce unemployment considerably, at a time when millions of Americans are crying out for work, and nobody seems to be doing anything close to resolving the problem, except to hold news conferences in the media and tell people that they are opposed to the plan, on the basis of party policy.
Of course, the reason is obvious on the Republican Party side, that imposing taxes on a section of the population is unacceptable, since that section contains the people that have the means and investment capabilities to create jobs.
It (section) has become the center of the current stalemate on job creation, as some are insisting that its members are not to be touched, when it comes to raising taxes; while others are saying that there must be no "sacred cows" in American society.
It all boils down to the simple fact that the wealthy people are being protected at the expense of the majority; and if that does not create a "class warfare" then what does?
In other words, the Conservatives are adamant on a warpped philosophy, that the wealthy must be protected from paying high taxes. Its (wealthy) members are the country's job creators, and the economy stands or falls on what they decide to do.
It clearly goes to show that it is not the government proposals for job creation that is objectionable; it is rather the safeguarding of the rich that must come first in the country's affairs, even before the acknowledgement that, to have social and economic stability, people must equally play their part to resolve issues.
That is what the Obama America Jobs Act is proposing; to get the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes, and to find work for millions of men and women, who are unemployed. His plan is presently stalling, due to the stiff opposition from the Republicans mainly in the United States House of Representatives.
Now, the question is, if the elected government is not being allowed to govern, then who is governing.
In a democracy, it must not be the few (people) that have the right to impose their will on the many; yet, that is what seems to be going on in Congress; with the Republican majority in the House controlling the direction of where the nation, as a whole, must be heading, instead of the government.
Comparitively, they, the Congressional Republicans, are in the minority, in terms of the whole of the nation's population; but their power seems to overshadow that of the real government. Their influence seems to be overwhelming.
That must not be the case. It is causing the people's business to be meandering, instead of it moving forward and clearing the obstacles that are standing in the way of progress that the country must be making.
Again, all decends on the confusion on Capitol Hill; which must be disentangled before the country ends up completely crippled economically, as well as politically.
That is why the next batch of elections is so important, including the presidential election, of course; because the country will be at the confluence of disorder, if matters are allowed to remain at the boiling point, as they are now.
They (elections) are going to be tipping the country one way or another; toward social and political advancement or wholesale disaster.
It is believed that the president's bill, in regard to America Jobs Act, has no sponsor; and if so, why not?
What are the Democrats sitting on their hands for? They are there to do what their constituents are expecting of them; they do not seem to be performing the duty that they have been assigned; why?
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
THE MEDIA & THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.
One would not tout Howell Raines' article in CNN.com today too much, but it made interesting reading, and gave credence to President Barack Obama's stance for the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes; but you could go and read it for yourself.
What was worrisome about the tax issue was why the media, and Fox News, particularly, were taunting the president with some remarks he made in 2010, that "You cannot impose taxes in a recession; the idea farther slows down the economy." (Paraphrased)
It was as if they were trying to get him to speak the language of the Republicans, even a year or so before; and that looked dishonest and tricky on their (media's) part. They seemed to be playing on the ignorance of the American public. That would be an injustice of the highest order, even in journalistic terms, since they, the media, could not operate without it (public).
However, those remarks by President Obama were made in conjunction with a different set of circumstances; and even so, the president would not back away from them now, because they were proper at the time.
Additionally, he was not increasing the taxes on the wealthy in his new economic plan in any way, shape or form. He was asking them to pay their fair share, as they have become rich, most probably, through, tax benefits, tax incentives and the rest of the numerous tax loopholes, for many, many years.
The argument of the president's opponents was that, tax increase on the so called rich people in a recession was a job killing proposition. They were the job "creators", and therefore more taxes being heaped on them would defeat Obama's own objective; namely, job creation to combat the high rate of unemployment.
Yet, there was no true evidence of the fact that investors made their decisions on job creation. They rather, and naturally, made them on profits; on the return on their investments and nothing else.
Under the present circumstances, the Republican Party was adapting the economic proposals of the past, that the wealthy must be made wealthier, so that some of their ill gotten gains would flow down to nourish the poor below the economic ladder, as in the Reagan era; the trickle down effect.
In that case, they, the poor or the working people, would always be at an economic disadvantage, as the power of the Trade Unions that protected and defended them, in terms of occasional increases in salaries and wages, were being made to be ineffective.
They were even being gradually disorganized and dismembered, through union busting by some of the same industrial aristocrats and employers, who professed to create jobs.
Obama was fighting to give the working people a break, by getting the rich to pay their fair share of the revenues that were needed to run the country. They have been cheated for so long, and they have almost become used to the idea that they would always be poor and disadvantaged.
The Republicans would turn that around and call it "class warfare; and then blame the president for pointing out the discrepancy, the imbalance and the inequality in an economy in which the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.
The media, or most of them, would rather question Obama and urge him to change his policies, instead of clamming down on the wealthy to succumb to a measure that would change the direction of the present economy toward a better life for each and every person in the country.
Their (media's) support for the public would have been misplaced, if they went with the Republicans. They should advise the rich to follow investor Warren Buffett's example instead. America would be better off then.
What was worrisome about the tax issue was why the media, and Fox News, particularly, were taunting the president with some remarks he made in 2010, that "You cannot impose taxes in a recession; the idea farther slows down the economy." (Paraphrased)
It was as if they were trying to get him to speak the language of the Republicans, even a year or so before; and that looked dishonest and tricky on their (media's) part. They seemed to be playing on the ignorance of the American public. That would be an injustice of the highest order, even in journalistic terms, since they, the media, could not operate without it (public).
However, those remarks by President Obama were made in conjunction with a different set of circumstances; and even so, the president would not back away from them now, because they were proper at the time.
Additionally, he was not increasing the taxes on the wealthy in his new economic plan in any way, shape or form. He was asking them to pay their fair share, as they have become rich, most probably, through, tax benefits, tax incentives and the rest of the numerous tax loopholes, for many, many years.
The argument of the president's opponents was that, tax increase on the so called rich people in a recession was a job killing proposition. They were the job "creators", and therefore more taxes being heaped on them would defeat Obama's own objective; namely, job creation to combat the high rate of unemployment.
Yet, there was no true evidence of the fact that investors made their decisions on job creation. They rather, and naturally, made them on profits; on the return on their investments and nothing else.
Under the present circumstances, the Republican Party was adapting the economic proposals of the past, that the wealthy must be made wealthier, so that some of their ill gotten gains would flow down to nourish the poor below the economic ladder, as in the Reagan era; the trickle down effect.
In that case, they, the poor or the working people, would always be at an economic disadvantage, as the power of the Trade Unions that protected and defended them, in terms of occasional increases in salaries and wages, were being made to be ineffective.
They were even being gradually disorganized and dismembered, through union busting by some of the same industrial aristocrats and employers, who professed to create jobs.
Obama was fighting to give the working people a break, by getting the rich to pay their fair share of the revenues that were needed to run the country. They have been cheated for so long, and they have almost become used to the idea that they would always be poor and disadvantaged.
The Republicans would turn that around and call it "class warfare; and then blame the president for pointing out the discrepancy, the imbalance and the inequality in an economy in which the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.
The media, or most of them, would rather question Obama and urge him to change his policies, instead of clamming down on the wealthy to succumb to a measure that would change the direction of the present economy toward a better life for each and every person in the country.
Their (media's) support for the public would have been misplaced, if they went with the Republicans. They should advise the rich to follow investor Warren Buffett's example instead. America would be better off then.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
MR. HERMAN CAIN AND PRESIDENT OBAMA.
If there is any one as simplistic as can be in the 2012 political campaign, it is Herman Cain.
It looks as if he is practicing in private, even out of view of members in his own camp, as he must present himself in a special way for the public to consider him as being perfect.
The man has been coaching himself in front of the mirror, so much so that, each time he appeared in the media, particularly, on television he behaved as an actor and not a politician.
His words, his mannerisms and his portrayals, all showed that he was immature for his age; and he could presumably be in his late sixties or early seventies.
He has won the Florida straw poll, and that has paired him with the Republican Party front-runners, Perry and Romney, or so he thought; and so, he has arrived in a position, where he has to be deemed as a serious contender in the party's nomination race.
However, his naivety showed in his statements, such as, "There is no racist element in the Tea Party; and even if there is, I have not seen any sign of it," or "My message is resonating to the people, because I am not a politician," or " The private sector is the engine of the economy...", and so many others, which sounded so childish for a grown man as he.
Yet, the latest that needed comment, and should not be overlooked would be the one of calling President Barack Obama a liar on national television. With all due respect, he has to remember that to use such a strong word in a public setting was improper; and even though, the two were contesting in the same political arena, he did not have the audacity to inflict that word on the president.
He would not do such a thing to his Republican colleagues, and so, why should he utter an unsavory remark like that to President Obama, solely because he was on the other side of the political aisle.
Besides, he could not dare to say it to his face; otherwise, he would find himself in the doctor's office, almost instantaneously.
After all, it was not the president, who initiated the statement that taxing the rich amounted to "class warfare". It honestly was the Republicans; and so, if he, Cain, had any qualms with that, he should warn his friends not to classify the president's plan as such.
He, Obama, was just refuting the statement that there was any intent to discriminate against the wealthy people in the country. He was asking them to contribute their fair share, in view of the enormous benefits that they enjoyed through the economy.
It, economy, happened to be strained, and the rich should help, by going an extra mile to unravel that strain on a commodity that has made them what they were, through paying a little bit more in taxes.
America has never been a class society, as opportunities were open to all and sundry. People might come from different backgrounds, but they have equal chance at every type of discipline; in education, in business, and even in the political field in which Cain presently found himself.
It would be far fetched to ask him to apologize to the president; as it would be a welcome gesture. However, it would be an unwelcome episode, badly affecting his own reputation, if he did not.
It looks as if he is practicing in private, even out of view of members in his own camp, as he must present himself in a special way for the public to consider him as being perfect.
The man has been coaching himself in front of the mirror, so much so that, each time he appeared in the media, particularly, on television he behaved as an actor and not a politician.
His words, his mannerisms and his portrayals, all showed that he was immature for his age; and he could presumably be in his late sixties or early seventies.
He has won the Florida straw poll, and that has paired him with the Republican Party front-runners, Perry and Romney, or so he thought; and so, he has arrived in a position, where he has to be deemed as a serious contender in the party's nomination race.
However, his naivety showed in his statements, such as, "There is no racist element in the Tea Party; and even if there is, I have not seen any sign of it," or "My message is resonating to the people, because I am not a politician," or " The private sector is the engine of the economy...", and so many others, which sounded so childish for a grown man as he.
Yet, the latest that needed comment, and should not be overlooked would be the one of calling President Barack Obama a liar on national television. With all due respect, he has to remember that to use such a strong word in a public setting was improper; and even though, the two were contesting in the same political arena, he did not have the audacity to inflict that word on the president.
He would not do such a thing to his Republican colleagues, and so, why should he utter an unsavory remark like that to President Obama, solely because he was on the other side of the political aisle.
Besides, he could not dare to say it to his face; otherwise, he would find himself in the doctor's office, almost instantaneously.
After all, it was not the president, who initiated the statement that taxing the rich amounted to "class warfare". It honestly was the Republicans; and so, if he, Cain, had any qualms with that, he should warn his friends not to classify the president's plan as such.
He, Obama, was just refuting the statement that there was any intent to discriminate against the wealthy people in the country. He was asking them to contribute their fair share, in view of the enormous benefits that they enjoyed through the economy.
It, economy, happened to be strained, and the rich should help, by going an extra mile to unravel that strain on a commodity that has made them what they were, through paying a little bit more in taxes.
America has never been a class society, as opportunities were open to all and sundry. People might come from different backgrounds, but they have equal chance at every type of discipline; in education, in business, and even in the political field in which Cain presently found himself.
It would be far fetched to ask him to apologize to the president; as it would be a welcome gesture. However, it would be an unwelcome episode, badly affecting his own reputation, if he did not.
Monday, September 26, 2011
AMERICA JOBS ACT.
President Barack Obama is trying very strenuously to push his America Jobs Act, and to get the high unemployment to decrease. Yet the question remains, if he will get a Republican House of Representatives to cooperate and pass a bill that will be in his favor.
They are adamant in stalling any proposals, the details of which may sound good and look basically attractive to the general public, but they know that the president will hyperventilate as much as he wants, they are not going to allow him any leeway on the House floor with their votes, where they count most, for him to advance his agenda.
Is it not a wonder that the Speaker (of the House) John Boehner, can say publicly that, "Job creators in this country are on strike,"; which is indicating that there is some kind of a conspiracy going on behind the scenes by business owners and politicians, who are vehemently against the president's efforts. As such, employers are not hiring.
Otherwise, how can he come out with a statement of that nature, if he and his backers, both in and out of the House, are not deliberately engaged in making the president to fail? So, a favorable bill is doubtful; is it not?
The America Jobs Act will be a great advancement "to bolstering the economy by helping small businesses, boosting public education, improving infrastructure and other components.", we have all heard that from the president's speech to a joint session of Congress only recently.
It is an Act chock full of extra ordinary ideas, that his opponents in the House may even be wishing, somewhere in their hearts, that they can help to get it out; because it will surely make things easy for many of their own constituents. After all, it is a job plan that is supposed to put unemployed Americans to work; is not that true?
Yet, why is it being blocked by the Republicans? Are they doing so, just to shame the president; and if so, how does that profit them?
However, the odd thing about it is that, it seems the president is going it alone; and giving a whole lot of speeches and doing a number of fundraisers, where he is stressing his plan to influential people in this country, who can go on television and on the radio, and seriously assist him; but none or very little of that is happening. There too the question is, why not?
Of course, there is the occasional impromptu program in which there will be someone like investor Warren Buffett saying that the high earning executives, as himself, are to pay more taxes to give the president's plan a boost.
The betterment of the country's economy rests on every individual, to come to its aid; and they fully know that paying their fair share in taxes cannot be ruled out, for it (economy) to become healthy again. So, why are they all sitting around doing nothing?
The real support that must come from the Trade Unions, small business owners and other staunch members of society, who always emerge to speak their mind on important issues and to draw attention, and to bring public awareness to them, is sorely missing.
That may mean that people are not listening hard, or they are quietly waiting to cast their votes against the Congressmen and women, who are obstructing the president, and therefore the America Jobs Act. They will be kicked out of Congress, and that will be another great idea.
Us independents are standing afar and watching things unfold; and we will do our civic duty, when the time comes.
They are adamant in stalling any proposals, the details of which may sound good and look basically attractive to the general public, but they know that the president will hyperventilate as much as he wants, they are not going to allow him any leeway on the House floor with their votes, where they count most, for him to advance his agenda.
Is it not a wonder that the Speaker (of the House) John Boehner, can say publicly that, "Job creators in this country are on strike,"; which is indicating that there is some kind of a conspiracy going on behind the scenes by business owners and politicians, who are vehemently against the president's efforts. As such, employers are not hiring.
Otherwise, how can he come out with a statement of that nature, if he and his backers, both in and out of the House, are not deliberately engaged in making the president to fail? So, a favorable bill is doubtful; is it not?
The America Jobs Act will be a great advancement "to bolstering the economy by helping small businesses, boosting public education, improving infrastructure and other components.", we have all heard that from the president's speech to a joint session of Congress only recently.
It is an Act chock full of extra ordinary ideas, that his opponents in the House may even be wishing, somewhere in their hearts, that they can help to get it out; because it will surely make things easy for many of their own constituents. After all, it is a job plan that is supposed to put unemployed Americans to work; is not that true?
Yet, why is it being blocked by the Republicans? Are they doing so, just to shame the president; and if so, how does that profit them?
However, the odd thing about it is that, it seems the president is going it alone; and giving a whole lot of speeches and doing a number of fundraisers, where he is stressing his plan to influential people in this country, who can go on television and on the radio, and seriously assist him; but none or very little of that is happening. There too the question is, why not?
Of course, there is the occasional impromptu program in which there will be someone like investor Warren Buffett saying that the high earning executives, as himself, are to pay more taxes to give the president's plan a boost.
The betterment of the country's economy rests on every individual, to come to its aid; and they fully know that paying their fair share in taxes cannot be ruled out, for it (economy) to become healthy again. So, why are they all sitting around doing nothing?
The real support that must come from the Trade Unions, small business owners and other staunch members of society, who always emerge to speak their mind on important issues and to draw attention, and to bring public awareness to them, is sorely missing.
That may mean that people are not listening hard, or they are quietly waiting to cast their votes against the Congressmen and women, who are obstructing the president, and therefore the America Jobs Act. They will be kicked out of Congress, and that will be another great idea.
Us independents are standing afar and watching things unfold; and we will do our civic duty, when the time comes.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
PRESIDENT OBAMA & SOLYNDRA.
The Solyndra executives stonewalling a Congressional committee hearing of its abrupt bankruptcy, with a huge amount of $535 million dollars of taxpayers' money involved, does not bid well at all for the Obama administration, particularly, in these times, when there are a whole lot of disagreements on Capitol Hill.
Under the present circumstances, it will not be proper for the executives to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights, as that will cast more doubt on the case, and how they have used or misused the money.
In many people's eyes, that will be tantamount to lying, which will get them in more trouble than they will normally be for spending public money unwisely.
It will not be just them that will be adversely impacted, but the whole country, as their actions are suggesting that they are trying to fool all of America.
Their attorneys will be wise to advise them to come out and tell the truth, or their behavior, in front of a highly strung Congressional committee, will do more damage to themselves; because the committee is ready to go to all lengths to get them to tell how the company has come to find itself in such a horrible situation.
Such a large sum of money to a small company cannot vanish into thin air within such a short period of time, between 2009 and 2011; and they (executives) must have a very good reason for making that to happen.
Now is the time for them to show that they have no intention to dupe anyone; but the more they hesitate, the more their conduct will be deemed suspicious, if not criminal.
Many people will rightfully assume that the White House has tried to help "green" companies to get start-up capital, because President Barack Obama himself is passionately involved in the effort for America to become energy independent.
Yet, for a company like Solyndra to take advantage of the generosity of the Obama government, which is interested in helping small entrepreneurship, particularly, in energy programs, will be a grave disappointment, not only to the investigative committee probing the matter, but to the whole nation.
The president is pushing for more money to be spent in his new plan to create jobs; he wants the high unemployment level to go down, and to get the stale economic condition that the country finds itself to improve, get better and grow.
However, if the country allows a case like Solyndra to exist, then what is the use of shelling more money out that will find its way into the hands of shady characters such as these Solyndra's executives?
If Obama's job plan will have any meaning at all, it will take the president to clear the air about this case, which is threatening to be a huge scandal for his administration, and for his reelection bid. He cannot afford such a scandal.
His plan is to encourage companies to hire more people; but let him, first and foremost, straighten out Solyndra, and then employers will pay attention to what he is attempting to do, to bring out the good in them.
After that, if they do not respond to the president's plea for them (employers) to start hiring, then the blame of the country's economic plight will be on them.
Under the present circumstances, it will not be proper for the executives to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights, as that will cast more doubt on the case, and how they have used or misused the money.
In many people's eyes, that will be tantamount to lying, which will get them in more trouble than they will normally be for spending public money unwisely.
It will not be just them that will be adversely impacted, but the whole country, as their actions are suggesting that they are trying to fool all of America.
Their attorneys will be wise to advise them to come out and tell the truth, or their behavior, in front of a highly strung Congressional committee, will do more damage to themselves; because the committee is ready to go to all lengths to get them to tell how the company has come to find itself in such a horrible situation.
Such a large sum of money to a small company cannot vanish into thin air within such a short period of time, between 2009 and 2011; and they (executives) must have a very good reason for making that to happen.
Now is the time for them to show that they have no intention to dupe anyone; but the more they hesitate, the more their conduct will be deemed suspicious, if not criminal.
Many people will rightfully assume that the White House has tried to help "green" companies to get start-up capital, because President Barack Obama himself is passionately involved in the effort for America to become energy independent.
Yet, for a company like Solyndra to take advantage of the generosity of the Obama government, which is interested in helping small entrepreneurship, particularly, in energy programs, will be a grave disappointment, not only to the investigative committee probing the matter, but to the whole nation.
The president is pushing for more money to be spent in his new plan to create jobs; he wants the high unemployment level to go down, and to get the stale economic condition that the country finds itself to improve, get better and grow.
However, if the country allows a case like Solyndra to exist, then what is the use of shelling more money out that will find its way into the hands of shady characters such as these Solyndra's executives?
If Obama's job plan will have any meaning at all, it will take the president to clear the air about this case, which is threatening to be a huge scandal for his administration, and for his reelection bid. He cannot afford such a scandal.
His plan is to encourage companies to hire more people; but let him, first and foremost, straighten out Solyndra, and then employers will pay attention to what he is attempting to do, to bring out the good in them.
After that, if they do not respond to the president's plea for them (employers) to start hiring, then the blame of the country's economic plight will be on them.
Friday, September 23, 2011
A CLEAR WINNER.
Of all the civic institutions, the fourth estate (the mass media) is where people look for the truth, and if that fails them, then there is nowhere else to go, but probably, the church.
This morning's news headlines tell it all about last night's Republican Party-Fox News-Google debate, except one.
Like "Perry Takes Heat From Candidates", "Perry focus of attention, attacks in debate", "Perry, Romney and Authenticity"; all giving a true clarification of the debate, with the exception of "Perry Stumbles, But No Clear GOP Debate Winner".
Of course, there was a clear winner, and it was Romney. So, why should the media hesitate or hedge around the periphery of the event by saying that there was "No Clear" person who won?
In every debate, the participants should be sturdy and accurate with their responses, facts and answers. If that did not happen, then the occasion would have been a waste of time.
However, to give the Republican Party the benefit of the doubt, the show was a good one. It was a program worth watching; but their main front-runner, Perry, fumbled repeatedly, and that was, somehow, not a good omen for the party.
Perry was nervous; he perspired profusely, there was no clarity in his words at certain points. He was a real mess for a person, who was aspiring to be the president of the United States; the leader of the Western World. He was a great disappointment; a failure.
Romney, on the other hand, spoke eloquently, with a very distinct and refined voice for the audience to hear him. It was deliberate, but he did it so naturally as a born actor, to show that he was prepared for the debate. His communications skills were good. He looked people straight in the eye, including the moderators, and replied them accurately. He was more alert than ever.
Even those who posed the electronic questionnaires would have been given the same preference, of making a direct eye contact with them, if they have been left on the screen long enough for him to do so.
The moderators monitored everything, answers and responses, very closely. They did not want to miss anything or give it to chance; and that added to the goodness of the debate.
Other candidates, who were impressive were Santorum and Huntsman. Bachmann was too repetitive, with her mantra of "Obamacare, Obamacare, Obamacare" angry outbursts filling the air of the vast auditorium.
Herman Cain was derisive, by talking about his 999 economic plan, to the point that Perry almost insisted that he was full of "games". His economic strategies were so simplistic, they deserved to be heard only in a Pizza parlor.
Yet, Romney, in many people's opinion, crafted a name for himself, as an eloquent speaker. He was also the only one, who really looked presidential among the candidates. The others were just dressed up for a special outing; so to speak.
The mainstream media should be taken to task for not telling the whole truth about the debate; that it was Romney, who won the night.
They should rethink how objective they should be, in the assessment of the news that they were reporting; for the public has the right to know what actually transpired at events, like this Republican debate, at all times. The news must always be laid out without any fluff or prejudice.
In other words, all Americans demanded that the outcome of any type of happenstance must always be accompanied by accurate and authentic report on the part of the media. They must be believable.
This morning's news headlines tell it all about last night's Republican Party-Fox News-Google debate, except one.
Like "Perry Takes Heat From Candidates", "Perry focus of attention, attacks in debate", "Perry, Romney and Authenticity"; all giving a true clarification of the debate, with the exception of "Perry Stumbles, But No Clear GOP Debate Winner".
Of course, there was a clear winner, and it was Romney. So, why should the media hesitate or hedge around the periphery of the event by saying that there was "No Clear" person who won?
In every debate, the participants should be sturdy and accurate with their responses, facts and answers. If that did not happen, then the occasion would have been a waste of time.
However, to give the Republican Party the benefit of the doubt, the show was a good one. It was a program worth watching; but their main front-runner, Perry, fumbled repeatedly, and that was, somehow, not a good omen for the party.
Perry was nervous; he perspired profusely, there was no clarity in his words at certain points. He was a real mess for a person, who was aspiring to be the president of the United States; the leader of the Western World. He was a great disappointment; a failure.
Romney, on the other hand, spoke eloquently, with a very distinct and refined voice for the audience to hear him. It was deliberate, but he did it so naturally as a born actor, to show that he was prepared for the debate. His communications skills were good. He looked people straight in the eye, including the moderators, and replied them accurately. He was more alert than ever.
Even those who posed the electronic questionnaires would have been given the same preference, of making a direct eye contact with them, if they have been left on the screen long enough for him to do so.
The moderators monitored everything, answers and responses, very closely. They did not want to miss anything or give it to chance; and that added to the goodness of the debate.
Other candidates, who were impressive were Santorum and Huntsman. Bachmann was too repetitive, with her mantra of "Obamacare, Obamacare, Obamacare" angry outbursts filling the air of the vast auditorium.
Herman Cain was derisive, by talking about his 999 economic plan, to the point that Perry almost insisted that he was full of "games". His economic strategies were so simplistic, they deserved to be heard only in a Pizza parlor.
Yet, Romney, in many people's opinion, crafted a name for himself, as an eloquent speaker. He was also the only one, who really looked presidential among the candidates. The others were just dressed up for a special outing; so to speak.
The mainstream media should be taken to task for not telling the whole truth about the debate; that it was Romney, who won the night.
They should rethink how objective they should be, in the assessment of the news that they were reporting; for the public has the right to know what actually transpired at events, like this Republican debate, at all times. The news must always be laid out without any fluff or prejudice.
In other words, all Americans demanded that the outcome of any type of happenstance must always be accompanied by accurate and authentic report on the part of the media. They must be believable.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
MUD SLINGING IN ALL DIRECTIONS.
The only person running a political campaign in the Republican presidential race is Mitt Romney.
He is now attempting to deal with issues, like Social Security, and the ways to figure out how it can be made to last for future beneficiaries. Either to extend the retirement age by a year or two, or to use the interest accrued from it to stabilize it; and not to be misused or spreading it to inflate the benefits of higher-income recipients.
After all, Social Security can be viewed as a trust fund, which is to be utilized to benefit the people for whom it is established and nothing else. Yet, many governments have borrowed from it in the past for other projects, such as budgets; hence, the awful condition it is in today.
The other Candidates are gleefully attacking President Barack Obama on every issue, from the economy through to his Middle East policy, particularly, with respect to the Israelis and the Palestinians. A controversy that has been pivotal for many years; even before he will be born.
Although, some of his critics are nowhere near to achieving the Republican Party's nomination, they are acting as if they have already done so.
Perry's camp likes to chuck loads of political mud in Obama's direction, but now the advisers there are turning on Mitt Romney, on several fronts; showing that they can throw mud in many directions, and as the 2012 campaign continues to unfurl, the American public must look forward for more of the same.
The latest is Romney's rivals critique on his book, "No Apology", in which he has used an analogy of savings to establish trust funds by two separate grand-parents for the future education of their grand-children.
The monies have been used for other things by the bankers; so when the children are ready for college, the accounts are empty. "The bankers must go to jail.", Romney ascertains, for misuse of the monies.
Now, the crust of the matter is that Perry has described Social Security as a Ponzi Scheme, which has been met with a great deal of outrage on the part of the program's recipients; and to turn the tables on Romney, the Perry camp is accusing him of making a similar remark.
"Mitt Romney’s own book compared Social Security to a criminal enterprise,”; is part of a statement by the Perry camp.
Thus, they were comparing the "Ponzi Scheme" comment to an innocent and a simple example that Romney has made in his book about how Social Security funds have been invaded in the past by many previous U.S. administrations.
However, the comparison of the two circumstances do not match, as Romney has not used the words the Perry people are attributing to him, which are "criminal enterprise", either verbally or anywhere in his book, in connection with Social Security.
As the days go by, many distortions like this one will be found in the 2012 campaign speeches and statements; but those who are likely to put them out, must be aware that the American public will do its own research to verify the truth in all of them.
It is a promise; and it is one that politicians and their strategists can take to the bank. It (public) will not allow anything to go over the heads of its members, as they will be more alert now than ever before.
The next general election is so important for people to take any chances with statements that are being pushed on them, even accidentally, by candidates and their helpers, just to gain political advantage.
They have to be sure that they have their facts correct before they splurt them out.
He is now attempting to deal with issues, like Social Security, and the ways to figure out how it can be made to last for future beneficiaries. Either to extend the retirement age by a year or two, or to use the interest accrued from it to stabilize it; and not to be misused or spreading it to inflate the benefits of higher-income recipients.
After all, Social Security can be viewed as a trust fund, which is to be utilized to benefit the people for whom it is established and nothing else. Yet, many governments have borrowed from it in the past for other projects, such as budgets; hence, the awful condition it is in today.
The other Candidates are gleefully attacking President Barack Obama on every issue, from the economy through to his Middle East policy, particularly, with respect to the Israelis and the Palestinians. A controversy that has been pivotal for many years; even before he will be born.
Although, some of his critics are nowhere near to achieving the Republican Party's nomination, they are acting as if they have already done so.
Perry's camp likes to chuck loads of political mud in Obama's direction, but now the advisers there are turning on Mitt Romney, on several fronts; showing that they can throw mud in many directions, and as the 2012 campaign continues to unfurl, the American public must look forward for more of the same.
The latest is Romney's rivals critique on his book, "No Apology", in which he has used an analogy of savings to establish trust funds by two separate grand-parents for the future education of their grand-children.
The monies have been used for other things by the bankers; so when the children are ready for college, the accounts are empty. "The bankers must go to jail.", Romney ascertains, for misuse of the monies.
Now, the crust of the matter is that Perry has described Social Security as a Ponzi Scheme, which has been met with a great deal of outrage on the part of the program's recipients; and to turn the tables on Romney, the Perry camp is accusing him of making a similar remark.
"Mitt Romney’s own book compared Social Security to a criminal enterprise,”; is part of a statement by the Perry camp.
Thus, they were comparing the "Ponzi Scheme" comment to an innocent and a simple example that Romney has made in his book about how Social Security funds have been invaded in the past by many previous U.S. administrations.
However, the comparison of the two circumstances do not match, as Romney has not used the words the Perry people are attributing to him, which are "criminal enterprise", either verbally or anywhere in his book, in connection with Social Security.
As the days go by, many distortions like this one will be found in the 2012 campaign speeches and statements; but those who are likely to put them out, must be aware that the American public will do its own research to verify the truth in all of them.
It is a promise; and it is one that politicians and their strategists can take to the bank. It (public) will not allow anything to go over the heads of its members, as they will be more alert now than ever before.
The next general election is so important for people to take any chances with statements that are being pushed on them, even accidentally, by candidates and their helpers, just to gain political advantage.
They have to be sure that they have their facts correct before they splurt them out.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
THE CALIBER OF A PRESIDENT.
Why is Obama's reelection bid such a big problem? Somebody or some people are scared to death that he will win a second term.
One will have to assume that there are so many of them, and they are so afraid that their whole lives will come to a sudden end, when that happens.
At the moment, they are throwing everything, including the kitchen sink, into the scathing attacks at him; like the Palestinian Statehood attempt, along with the Jewish vote; the Solyndra executives taking the fifth before Congress; the diabolical news that a Navy general is asked to change his deposition on an electronic target system to lawmakers; the high jobless rate in the African American community; ....and the list goes on and on. All are his fault.
Pretty soon, he will have to come out and say, "OK, OK, that's enough; I give up.", and the world will go back to being normal again for these people.
However, that is not going to happen in a million years, and they know it. So, each and every morning, some hired political strategists will come on and add some more scandal to the already vicious onslaught to make things look rather depressing than the previous day's for all of us.
One thing they forget to realize is that, this is the United States of America, the citadel of the world information highway; and the social culture demands that people are liable to check what they see and hear several times over, before they make a decision, either for or against.
Some say that they have to see whatever it is nineteen times, or hear it more than twenty-five times, and then they will decide to make it part of their lives; or chuck it out of their thinking processes completely, if they are overly inundated.
As for Obama's backers, they know that all that comes across the media is pure politics. They are watching his performance and comparing it with the persons that are set to challenge him for the presidency in 2012.
Presently, these persons are doing their damnedest to discredit him in every way possible; but none of these so called potential contenders comes close to being a real challenger. What they have so far heard from their paid political advisers is to keep on throwing more mud and somehow it will stick.
Americans have been watching him (Obama) doing his work as president, and how the opposition is trying so hard to make them (Americans) its captive audience, and continues to cast aspersion on the president, without proper evidence whatsoever.
They accuse him of making speeches, as if from a political soapbox; and they want his economic and work creation plans to be futile; but again, this is America, and he is very much aware that people will judge and back him up, if he does the right things, and does them in the best interest of the nation as a whole.
Through that his reelection will be assured, no matter what others may do or say.
Again, many people concur that his work is hard; but he can do it to the best of his ability, because he is not at all soft. That is the true caliber of a great president.
One will have to assume that there are so many of them, and they are so afraid that their whole lives will come to a sudden end, when that happens.
At the moment, they are throwing everything, including the kitchen sink, into the scathing attacks at him; like the Palestinian Statehood attempt, along with the Jewish vote; the Solyndra executives taking the fifth before Congress; the diabolical news that a Navy general is asked to change his deposition on an electronic target system to lawmakers; the high jobless rate in the African American community; ....and the list goes on and on. All are his fault.
Pretty soon, he will have to come out and say, "OK, OK, that's enough; I give up.", and the world will go back to being normal again for these people.
However, that is not going to happen in a million years, and they know it. So, each and every morning, some hired political strategists will come on and add some more scandal to the already vicious onslaught to make things look rather depressing than the previous day's for all of us.
One thing they forget to realize is that, this is the United States of America, the citadel of the world information highway; and the social culture demands that people are liable to check what they see and hear several times over, before they make a decision, either for or against.
Some say that they have to see whatever it is nineteen times, or hear it more than twenty-five times, and then they will decide to make it part of their lives; or chuck it out of their thinking processes completely, if they are overly inundated.
As for Obama's backers, they know that all that comes across the media is pure politics. They are watching his performance and comparing it with the persons that are set to challenge him for the presidency in 2012.
Presently, these persons are doing their damnedest to discredit him in every way possible; but none of these so called potential contenders comes close to being a real challenger. What they have so far heard from their paid political advisers is to keep on throwing more mud and somehow it will stick.
Americans have been watching him (Obama) doing his work as president, and how the opposition is trying so hard to make them (Americans) its captive audience, and continues to cast aspersion on the president, without proper evidence whatsoever.
They accuse him of making speeches, as if from a political soapbox; and they want his economic and work creation plans to be futile; but again, this is America, and he is very much aware that people will judge and back him up, if he does the right things, and does them in the best interest of the nation as a whole.
Through that his reelection will be assured, no matter what others may do or say.
Again, many people concur that his work is hard; but he can do it to the best of his ability, because he is not at all soft. That is the true caliber of a great president.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
STEVE CHAPMAN'S ARTICLE.
Steve Chapman's piece urging President Barack Obama to consider stepping aside from his reelection bid baffles the mind. He happens to be a Chicago Tribune editorial writer, and for all intents and purposes, he must be taken seriously. However, he is making just one simple mistake, by jumping to an unfortunate conclusion.
His deductions for bringing that up are from Obama's record-low approval ratings, an unease in the Democratic base, the prospect of a double dip recession......but he fails to mention why these things are happening.
Obama assumed the presidency at a time, when America was involved in two wars, and the economy was not at all good either. Unemployment was already very high, at 8%; and it was like giving a person a spade, instead of a ladder, to climb out of a hole.
If Steve Chapman was a really observant person, he would have noticed that the opposition that Obama was to face in his first term would not just emanate from party politics. He had to deal with racism, first and foremost, before he could do anything else.
America had never had an African American as president before, and it was something that had taken its people by surprise; and therefore the criticisms from a biased media would start to mount from the very beginning, and would make it even more difficult for him to settle down in the strangest of all places, the White House, for a black leader.
Biased media, because they never thought the day would ever arrive to visualize a black Western leader; and so they were taken aback. They did not know how to handle him; should it be with respect or disdain, they had asked among themselves.
Yet, he had to carry on, without knowing the outcome himself.
Chapman's suggestion of bringing in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to replace Obama is a Republican idea, to cover up the uncertainty that is going on in their own camp. The party is faced with an enormous problem of finding a winning candidate for the 2012 general election; and so, the attempt to create confusion in the Democratic Party is not in all estimation too far fetched.
Besides, the opposition in the Congress of the United States has made the gridlocks and stalemates possible, and not Obama. Any proposal from him has been met with nothing but sheer hatred and vehement animosity.
He has done what the war mongers among members in Congress wanted him do; to continue the war in Afghanistan, with the increment of more than 30,000 soldiers. They have forced him to extend the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy.
His aim was to curtail them (tax breaks) and to stop that war, but he could not have the chance in hell to accomplish his objectives. He was not sure that many of the measures he would be forced to undertake would take a chunk of support out of his base. The fact being that his backers thought that he was a "dove", and that he would bring peace, as he had promised during his campaign.
However, wars were fought before peace could be achieved; and he could not hop out of a bad situation, from which the attacks of 9/11 had emerged and call for an instant stoppage of the Afghan war.
He had found himself in a position, where he had to decide on what was best for the country, and not what was in his own best interest; no, not anymore. He wanted to unite all of America, because he thought that attitudes have changed for the better; but he was wrong.
Lately, he was being compelled to go another way, to bring back the overwhelming support that had catapulted him to the presidency.
So, if Chapman had given candidate Obama the backing to become president, he should be prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, that what he (Obama) expected to see was a consensus on many issues, after he was sworn in, but it was not there.
The unity that should come to a changed nation, to give him a promising start was missing; and so, he had to do the best he could.
All Americans knew what was going on, that Congress has become dysfunctional not for anything, but racism. To permit a black person to succeed in the highest office of the nation must not happen.
The opposition has been reinforced by the members, who were voted in around November of 2010; and he has been struggling with double jeopardy. He has been stopped in his tracks ever since.
If Chapman had a mind that could not be swayed as easily as others, he would be able to realize that Obama has done very well as president, under all circumstances; therefore, his reelection should be a must for the whole world see that the new experiment, that has started in 2008 and made Obama the leader of the United States, was going well; and it needed time to succeed.
His deductions for bringing that up are from Obama's record-low approval ratings, an unease in the Democratic base, the prospect of a double dip recession......but he fails to mention why these things are happening.
Obama assumed the presidency at a time, when America was involved in two wars, and the economy was not at all good either. Unemployment was already very high, at 8%; and it was like giving a person a spade, instead of a ladder, to climb out of a hole.
If Steve Chapman was a really observant person, he would have noticed that the opposition that Obama was to face in his first term would not just emanate from party politics. He had to deal with racism, first and foremost, before he could do anything else.
America had never had an African American as president before, and it was something that had taken its people by surprise; and therefore the criticisms from a biased media would start to mount from the very beginning, and would make it even more difficult for him to settle down in the strangest of all places, the White House, for a black leader.
Biased media, because they never thought the day would ever arrive to visualize a black Western leader; and so they were taken aback. They did not know how to handle him; should it be with respect or disdain, they had asked among themselves.
Yet, he had to carry on, without knowing the outcome himself.
Chapman's suggestion of bringing in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to replace Obama is a Republican idea, to cover up the uncertainty that is going on in their own camp. The party is faced with an enormous problem of finding a winning candidate for the 2012 general election; and so, the attempt to create confusion in the Democratic Party is not in all estimation too far fetched.
Besides, the opposition in the Congress of the United States has made the gridlocks and stalemates possible, and not Obama. Any proposal from him has been met with nothing but sheer hatred and vehement animosity.
He has done what the war mongers among members in Congress wanted him do; to continue the war in Afghanistan, with the increment of more than 30,000 soldiers. They have forced him to extend the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy.
His aim was to curtail them (tax breaks) and to stop that war, but he could not have the chance in hell to accomplish his objectives. He was not sure that many of the measures he would be forced to undertake would take a chunk of support out of his base. The fact being that his backers thought that he was a "dove", and that he would bring peace, as he had promised during his campaign.
However, wars were fought before peace could be achieved; and he could not hop out of a bad situation, from which the attacks of 9/11 had emerged and call for an instant stoppage of the Afghan war.
He had found himself in a position, where he had to decide on what was best for the country, and not what was in his own best interest; no, not anymore. He wanted to unite all of America, because he thought that attitudes have changed for the better; but he was wrong.
Lately, he was being compelled to go another way, to bring back the overwhelming support that had catapulted him to the presidency.
So, if Chapman had given candidate Obama the backing to become president, he should be prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, that what he (Obama) expected to see was a consensus on many issues, after he was sworn in, but it was not there.
The unity that should come to a changed nation, to give him a promising start was missing; and so, he had to do the best he could.
All Americans knew what was going on, that Congress has become dysfunctional not for anything, but racism. To permit a black person to succeed in the highest office of the nation must not happen.
The opposition has been reinforced by the members, who were voted in around November of 2010; and he has been struggling with double jeopardy. He has been stopped in his tracks ever since.
If Chapman had a mind that could not be swayed as easily as others, he would be able to realize that Obama has done very well as president, under all circumstances; therefore, his reelection should be a must for the whole world see that the new experiment, that has started in 2008 and made Obama the leader of the United States, was going well; and it needed time to succeed.
Monday, September 19, 2011
THE NATIONAL DEBT & MORE.
President Barack Obama will reveal his new plan to cut the national debt by about "$3 trillion over the next decade."
That would be the greatest idea that ever happened in American modern history, since the national debt has risen and continued to rise, each and every single year. It would be nothing less than a miracle; if not something more.
According to reliable reports he will include the "Buffett Rule" that will enable the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes.
The idea is being taxed from the advise of investor Warren Buffett, who has always insisted that high-income individual earners must pay more to help the country's unending and unbalanced fiscal situation. It is an issue that must be disturbing to every person in the nation.
His secretary pays 29% in taxes, from $60,000 a year salary, while he pays 17% out of the $45 million dollars that he makes on the average in any given year. That goes to show a great deal of imbalance in the nation's tax system, and therefore there is a need for reform to straighten it out.
The Democrats in the United States Congress have insisted that the rich must pay as much taxes as they could afford, to defray the national debt, rather than cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other so called entitlement programs, which catered to the old and the needy.
While Congressional Republicans have maintained that raising taxes on the more affluent citizens was an anathema, as it did not encourage capital investments; and it also did not help, particularly, the present sluggish economy.
In their view, the idea of making the well-to-do Americans to pay more in taxes diminished job creation efforts; hence, the high unemployment rate of 9.1%, which the nation was currently experiencing.
The Republicans wanted Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlement programs to be cut more instead; however, that would seem as if they were protecting millionaires interests and not those of the electorate, who, on the aggregate, were poor.
Their alternative to close the deficit gap, and thus to reduce or even to get rid of the national debt is unsustainable, especially when they like to make the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy permanent.
They also would want to keep open the tax loopholes that benefited high income earners and corporations only, and which Obama would like to eliminate.
If those measures are to be ruled out in any tax reforms, then it will be the Middle Class and working people, who will be saddled with the staggering problem of fighting the country's debt crisis.
If the actions and plans of a few Republicans in Congress do not give the ordinary person a glimpse of a present day "class warfare", then nothing will. In other words, if there happens to be any such war between the rich and the poor, it is being advocated by those few Republicans.
The president must demonstrate, as he has always maintained, that the reduction, and the possible elimination of the nation's fiscal problems, should be borne by all Americans; and that the brunt of those problems must be shared equally.
They (problems) must be the concern of citizens, rich and poor alike. Most will agree with the president on that score.
That would be the greatest idea that ever happened in American modern history, since the national debt has risen and continued to rise, each and every single year. It would be nothing less than a miracle; if not something more.
According to reliable reports he will include the "Buffett Rule" that will enable the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes.
The idea is being taxed from the advise of investor Warren Buffett, who has always insisted that high-income individual earners must pay more to help the country's unending and unbalanced fiscal situation. It is an issue that must be disturbing to every person in the nation.
His secretary pays 29% in taxes, from $60,000 a year salary, while he pays 17% out of the $45 million dollars that he makes on the average in any given year. That goes to show a great deal of imbalance in the nation's tax system, and therefore there is a need for reform to straighten it out.
The Democrats in the United States Congress have insisted that the rich must pay as much taxes as they could afford, to defray the national debt, rather than cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other so called entitlement programs, which catered to the old and the needy.
While Congressional Republicans have maintained that raising taxes on the more affluent citizens was an anathema, as it did not encourage capital investments; and it also did not help, particularly, the present sluggish economy.
In their view, the idea of making the well-to-do Americans to pay more in taxes diminished job creation efforts; hence, the high unemployment rate of 9.1%, which the nation was currently experiencing.
The Republicans wanted Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlement programs to be cut more instead; however, that would seem as if they were protecting millionaires interests and not those of the electorate, who, on the aggregate, were poor.
Their alternative to close the deficit gap, and thus to reduce or even to get rid of the national debt is unsustainable, especially when they like to make the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy permanent.
They also would want to keep open the tax loopholes that benefited high income earners and corporations only, and which Obama would like to eliminate.
If those measures are to be ruled out in any tax reforms, then it will be the Middle Class and working people, who will be saddled with the staggering problem of fighting the country's debt crisis.
If the actions and plans of a few Republicans in Congress do not give the ordinary person a glimpse of a present day "class warfare", then nothing will. In other words, if there happens to be any such war between the rich and the poor, it is being advocated by those few Republicans.
The president must demonstrate, as he has always maintained, that the reduction, and the possible elimination of the nation's fiscal problems, should be borne by all Americans; and that the brunt of those problems must be shared equally.
They (problems) must be the concern of citizens, rich and poor alike. Most will agree with the president on that score.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
DEAREST MAYOR.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg has found a new job for himself. He has actually done nothing, since he became Mayor some ten years ago, except to polish the shoes of his masters on Wall Street.
He has been sitting on the shoulders of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani for too long, as he (Giuliani) had done most of the work that Bloomberg was getting credit for.
One could start from New York's Times Square renovation, The Air-bus mono rail at JFK Airport, the stoppage of the squeegee-clean spectacle that was a disgrace to the city, and most of all, the handling of the September 11, 2001 attack on the WTC; all were done for Bloomberg to "rule the roost".
Except for his own personal accomplishment for being rich, and a few ceremonial functionalities that came with the mayorship, he could not point one single thing out that he has achieved for New York City.
Of course, some might say that he has performed his regular duties with distinction; but many others would not consider that alone as being wonderful and without reproach. He could do more than that.
It was a good thing that he has found out about what his colleagues in Washington D.C. were doing, to sabotage the efforts of President Barack Obama for his job creation plans to materialize; and also his insatiable quest to have the private sector to join in getting the acute unemployment situation in the country to go down.
All have gone unheeded; and so, his administration achieved "0" jobs in August of this year.
He, the mayor, was forecasting doom in the United State by using events in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East as pertinent examples; because he has seen the writing on the wall, such as "Business lobby rips Obama Jobs Act".
In that case, why should he not be bold and confront those who were perpetrating those acts? He has the power and the wherewithal to meet head on, and to challenge those people that were putting obstacles in the president's way.
Why could he not tell the leadership of the Republican Party to relent its insidious tactics and uncompromising opposition to Obama's job plans; with the recent one that he presented to a joint session of the U.S. Congress only a week or so ago, to be dealt with, as it should, for jobs to become available around the country?
One could adjudicate to the fact that the president has been pushing forward many proposals, in the creation of work, for the business world and the financial sector to join him to bring the high rate of unemployment down; but he has met with very little or no response at all from them.
The economy was going bad, not because of lack of ideas on the part of the Obama administration; but for the mere reason that his endeavors to get it (economy) back on track have been forestalled with counter proposals intended to "kill" his ideas.
The Republican opposition and some entities in the business and financial sectors, who incidentally had more capacity to grow the economy quicker than the government, have lobbyists working in Washington to impose their will on Congress.
They (lobbyists) have fundamentally been instructed to obstruct any plan that the administration had put forward to produce jobs. Hence, no bill could go through the Republican controlled House of Representative, that was designed for jobs to be plentiful across the country. Why?
As a result, the whole nation was under a brutal attack of an acute unemployment situation.
Now that Mayor Bloomberg has seen the light, let him do something about it. That would be his new assignment or job.
Basking in "Giuliani's sun" alone should not be enough.
He has been sitting on the shoulders of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani for too long, as he (Giuliani) had done most of the work that Bloomberg was getting credit for.
One could start from New York's Times Square renovation, The Air-bus mono rail at JFK Airport, the stoppage of the squeegee-clean spectacle that was a disgrace to the city, and most of all, the handling of the September 11, 2001 attack on the WTC; all were done for Bloomberg to "rule the roost".
Except for his own personal accomplishment for being rich, and a few ceremonial functionalities that came with the mayorship, he could not point one single thing out that he has achieved for New York City.
Of course, some might say that he has performed his regular duties with distinction; but many others would not consider that alone as being wonderful and without reproach. He could do more than that.
It was a good thing that he has found out about what his colleagues in Washington D.C. were doing, to sabotage the efforts of President Barack Obama for his job creation plans to materialize; and also his insatiable quest to have the private sector to join in getting the acute unemployment situation in the country to go down.
All have gone unheeded; and so, his administration achieved "0" jobs in August of this year.
He, the mayor, was forecasting doom in the United State by using events in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East as pertinent examples; because he has seen the writing on the wall, such as "Business lobby rips Obama Jobs Act".
In that case, why should he not be bold and confront those who were perpetrating those acts? He has the power and the wherewithal to meet head on, and to challenge those people that were putting obstacles in the president's way.
Why could he not tell the leadership of the Republican Party to relent its insidious tactics and uncompromising opposition to Obama's job plans; with the recent one that he presented to a joint session of the U.S. Congress only a week or so ago, to be dealt with, as it should, for jobs to become available around the country?
One could adjudicate to the fact that the president has been pushing forward many proposals, in the creation of work, for the business world and the financial sector to join him to bring the high rate of unemployment down; but he has met with very little or no response at all from them.
The economy was going bad, not because of lack of ideas on the part of the Obama administration; but for the mere reason that his endeavors to get it (economy) back on track have been forestalled with counter proposals intended to "kill" his ideas.
The Republican opposition and some entities in the business and financial sectors, who incidentally had more capacity to grow the economy quicker than the government, have lobbyists working in Washington to impose their will on Congress.
They (lobbyists) have fundamentally been instructed to obstruct any plan that the administration had put forward to produce jobs. Hence, no bill could go through the Republican controlled House of Representative, that was designed for jobs to be plentiful across the country. Why?
As a result, the whole nation was under a brutal attack of an acute unemployment situation.
Now that Mayor Bloomberg has seen the light, let him do something about it. That would be his new assignment or job.
Basking in "Giuliani's sun" alone should not be enough.
Friday, September 16, 2011
JAMES CARVILLE & WOLF BLITZER.
James Carville asking President Barack Obama to "panic" in an interview with Wolf Blitzer was like an advise from hell.
There has never been a time, when Carville gave anything good to Obama, especially during the campaign of 2008, so why should anyone take him seriously at a moment, when the president has no real challenger to his presidency?
The two men, Carville and Blitzer, were talking about the New York and Nevada special elections, which resulted in losses for the Democrats; and that should cause Obama to panic. Yet, the question was, why?
The Nevada election was obviously held in a rural area, where naturally Republicans outnumbered Democrats, and so the loss there was not actually a big surprise.
However, the New York one was not surprising either, since the district was dominated by Democrats; but for Jewish voters in the district, who have been instigated by outside politicians to "stick it to Obama", for his policies toward Israel. (There were some insiders too).
In other words, the issues were different, where in one case (Nevada) voters were casting their vote on the economic status of the United States, while on the other hand, Israel became the focal point in the New York election.
The first and foremost people that should be conversant with the two divergent situations were Blitzer and his friend, Carville. So, for them to be so pretentious of the results of the two elections was just fascinating, if not deceitful; and the idea that Obama's reelection win concerned Carville so much for him to advise the president to "do something", as Carville suggested in the interview, was quite outrageous.
When Blitzer insisted on what the president should do to reverse the trend of Democratic losses, Carville replied by saying that he should fire somebody, anybody, anyone; using former presidents as examples. Yet, that was the most stupid advise he could give to someone that he had never supported before.
Carville was mean and nasty, directly or indirectly, to candidate Obama in the 2008 campaign; and as such, could his advise now be real or genuine? Also, for one thing, Carville, a Democrat, was married to a Republican strategist, and so, who in the world, in his or her right mind, would or could trust him?
Even if "2012 could be very rough for Obama", as he was putting it, he could not be saying so out of good will, to protect or defend Obama. He, Carville, just wanted to foster doubt in the minds of viewers; but he was doing so by hiding the real truth about the New York's 9th district election that was won by a Republican from them.
They, Carville and Blitzer, were both being facetious of Obama and the Democrats. They were actually poking fun at them in "the Situation Room" on CNN. That was rather unfair, and it should not be tolerated.
However, many did not share their joke; because the president did not have anyone as his challenger at the present moment; not Romney or Perry, from the Republican side.
The only person, who came close to being a true adversary, to really oppose Obama, would be Bachmann; but she was being practically ignored or overlooked by her own party, and she knew it.
So, Carville, take your advise and shove it. No supporter of Obama would want to hear from you again.
There has never been a time, when Carville gave anything good to Obama, especially during the campaign of 2008, so why should anyone take him seriously at a moment, when the president has no real challenger to his presidency?
The two men, Carville and Blitzer, were talking about the New York and Nevada special elections, which resulted in losses for the Democrats; and that should cause Obama to panic. Yet, the question was, why?
The Nevada election was obviously held in a rural area, where naturally Republicans outnumbered Democrats, and so the loss there was not actually a big surprise.
However, the New York one was not surprising either, since the district was dominated by Democrats; but for Jewish voters in the district, who have been instigated by outside politicians to "stick it to Obama", for his policies toward Israel. (There were some insiders too).
In other words, the issues were different, where in one case (Nevada) voters were casting their vote on the economic status of the United States, while on the other hand, Israel became the focal point in the New York election.
The first and foremost people that should be conversant with the two divergent situations were Blitzer and his friend, Carville. So, for them to be so pretentious of the results of the two elections was just fascinating, if not deceitful; and the idea that Obama's reelection win concerned Carville so much for him to advise the president to "do something", as Carville suggested in the interview, was quite outrageous.
When Blitzer insisted on what the president should do to reverse the trend of Democratic losses, Carville replied by saying that he should fire somebody, anybody, anyone; using former presidents as examples. Yet, that was the most stupid advise he could give to someone that he had never supported before.
Carville was mean and nasty, directly or indirectly, to candidate Obama in the 2008 campaign; and as such, could his advise now be real or genuine? Also, for one thing, Carville, a Democrat, was married to a Republican strategist, and so, who in the world, in his or her right mind, would or could trust him?
Even if "2012 could be very rough for Obama", as he was putting it, he could not be saying so out of good will, to protect or defend Obama. He, Carville, just wanted to foster doubt in the minds of viewers; but he was doing so by hiding the real truth about the New York's 9th district election that was won by a Republican from them.
They, Carville and Blitzer, were both being facetious of Obama and the Democrats. They were actually poking fun at them in "the Situation Room" on CNN. That was rather unfair, and it should not be tolerated.
However, many did not share their joke; because the president did not have anyone as his challenger at the present moment; not Romney or Perry, from the Republican side.
The only person, who came close to being a true adversary, to really oppose Obama, would be Bachmann; but she was being practically ignored or overlooked by her own party, and she knew it.
So, Carville, take your advise and shove it. No supporter of Obama would want to hear from you again.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
NEW YORK'S REPUBLICAN WIN.
Democrats in Queens, New York, should not worry about the Republican Party's win of the Congressional seat that was occupied by Rep. Anthony Weiner.
It was a fluke victory, sponsored by hate mongers and racists, who thought that it would farther their cause, and demonstrate their incredible hatred for President Barack Obama.
Even the Democrats among them did not vote for him in the 2008 presidential election, and so they should not be considered as honest or trustworthy, for the "political weathervanes" they were.
They would pretend to like a person, but inside of them, there was so much filth, so much enmity; they could stab that person in the back, on short notice, at anytime.
There should be no doubt that Weiner himself was part of the deal, to punish the Democrats and Obama; despite the fact that his "political wounds" were self inflicted. Yet, he chose to blame party leaders and those who forced him to resign.
Nevertheless, what boggled the mind was that Obama had a job creation plan before Congress, and the jobless issue affected a whole number of people; with some of those who voted in New York included.
Needless to say that, they perfectly knew that a vote against the Democratic candidate was a vote against Obama and his new job creation plan. Therefore, how could a majority of them vote against the person, who was fighting to make it easy for them to find work?
Did they really want to work; and did they care about whether the country's economy, which was "soggy", when Obama took over, becoming soggier? Their votes should have counted more than mere political instigation, as they were bombarded with all kinds of persuasive arguments by both local and outside politicians.
The United States Congress was now dysfunctional more than ever, and therefore gridlocks and stalemates would continue, and Obama's job creation plan would be in limbo; and if so, where would that leave the job seeker; the family man or woman, who could not make ends meet, for being out of work?
He or she would be out of luck just as well; for there would be no compromise between lawmakers to be able to get anything done. That has happened before, and it was more likely for it to happen again.
Some politicians so badly looked forward to winning next year's presidential election, they would do anything to achieve their goal; and because of that, nothing else mattered.
Fourteen months to the general election was a long way away; and the callousness of some lawmakers was at its peak. For they wanted Americans to "stew" in the current unsavory economic situation that bade no one any good; but why?
Were not they, who should be voted out of office in the next election cycle? Common sense should dictate that outcome.
Besides, Labor Unions had a big role to play in the encouragement of job creation. What were they doing now? ZILCH.
No one has seen them taking any practical or positive action to redeem the president of the United States in his bid to improve the economy, with its heavy baggage dragging and unreasonable unemployment figures. He seemed to be doing it alone, and if so, why?
It was a fluke victory, sponsored by hate mongers and racists, who thought that it would farther their cause, and demonstrate their incredible hatred for President Barack Obama.
Even the Democrats among them did not vote for him in the 2008 presidential election, and so they should not be considered as honest or trustworthy, for the "political weathervanes" they were.
They would pretend to like a person, but inside of them, there was so much filth, so much enmity; they could stab that person in the back, on short notice, at anytime.
There should be no doubt that Weiner himself was part of the deal, to punish the Democrats and Obama; despite the fact that his "political wounds" were self inflicted. Yet, he chose to blame party leaders and those who forced him to resign.
Nevertheless, what boggled the mind was that Obama had a job creation plan before Congress, and the jobless issue affected a whole number of people; with some of those who voted in New York included.
Needless to say that, they perfectly knew that a vote against the Democratic candidate was a vote against Obama and his new job creation plan. Therefore, how could a majority of them vote against the person, who was fighting to make it easy for them to find work?
Did they really want to work; and did they care about whether the country's economy, which was "soggy", when Obama took over, becoming soggier? Their votes should have counted more than mere political instigation, as they were bombarded with all kinds of persuasive arguments by both local and outside politicians.
The United States Congress was now dysfunctional more than ever, and therefore gridlocks and stalemates would continue, and Obama's job creation plan would be in limbo; and if so, where would that leave the job seeker; the family man or woman, who could not make ends meet, for being out of work?
He or she would be out of luck just as well; for there would be no compromise between lawmakers to be able to get anything done. That has happened before, and it was more likely for it to happen again.
Some politicians so badly looked forward to winning next year's presidential election, they would do anything to achieve their goal; and because of that, nothing else mattered.
Fourteen months to the general election was a long way away; and the callousness of some lawmakers was at its peak. For they wanted Americans to "stew" in the current unsavory economic situation that bade no one any good; but why?
Were not they, who should be voted out of office in the next election cycle? Common sense should dictate that outcome.
Besides, Labor Unions had a big role to play in the encouragement of job creation. What were they doing now? ZILCH.
No one has seen them taking any practical or positive action to redeem the president of the United States in his bid to improve the economy, with its heavy baggage dragging and unreasonable unemployment figures. He seemed to be doing it alone, and if so, why?
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
WASTED EFFORTS.
The winning of the special New York's 9th Congressional district election by Republican Bob Turner leaves a lump in the throat of many New Yorkers.
They are lamenting the loss of a safe Democratic seat, recently vacated by Rep. Anthony Weiner.
Weiner has resigned from Congress abruptly, due to a sex scandal; but nobody ever thought that the district would fall prey to the Republican political machinery; and so the announcement of the Turner win took many by surprise.
The Republican win can also be looked at as a referendum on President Barack Obama's policies; particularly on his suggestion that Israel has to go back to pre-1967 borders, in the long standing Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
However, the race was supposed to be about the protection of entitlement programs, like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; something the Republicans could not be trusted to do.
Then, all of a sudden, it switched to the question of Israel "being thrown under the bus" by Obama; as described by some turn-coats. Turn-coats, because, some of those people were purported to be Democrats.
That ostensibly influenced the voting in Queens, New York, with a large chunk of Jewish votes going to elect Turner, who would not help to preserve those programs.
Yet, how about America itself? Should not voters consider the state of the country's economy first, and move to help to push the Obama job creation plan through Congress to put people back to work?
One could only think about a ganging up on those of us who wanted to see that what happened in recent months, of unnecessary arguments over the debt ceiling and the deficit reduction, by those who were just bent on bringing the Obama government down, should cease forthwith.
They (arguments) have cost the nation so much, in terms of getting the economy back on track, and making the high unemployment rate to recede.
For example, the closeness of the United States Government defaulting on its financial obligations must not occur again, as the fallout of that was still hurting the country; and not to mention the down grading of America's credit rating.
The nation has lost so much because of the actions of some people in Congress; therefore, the question should be, what was more important to the citizens of this country; America or Israel?
The Democratic Party loss in Queens, New York, showed how external influences could be used to control events in Homeland America, even if it was just a simple local election.
It also gave the impression that President Obama was wasting his time thinking about the gloomy economy, and how he could convince Congressional Republicans to help in making his new proposals to become a reality.
He was doing all he could to get it (economy) straightened out, to make things better for Americans; while others were deliberately sabotaging his efforts.
That must be considered as being pretty much absurd.
They are lamenting the loss of a safe Democratic seat, recently vacated by Rep. Anthony Weiner.
Weiner has resigned from Congress abruptly, due to a sex scandal; but nobody ever thought that the district would fall prey to the Republican political machinery; and so the announcement of the Turner win took many by surprise.
The Republican win can also be looked at as a referendum on President Barack Obama's policies; particularly on his suggestion that Israel has to go back to pre-1967 borders, in the long standing Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
However, the race was supposed to be about the protection of entitlement programs, like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; something the Republicans could not be trusted to do.
Then, all of a sudden, it switched to the question of Israel "being thrown under the bus" by Obama; as described by some turn-coats. Turn-coats, because, some of those people were purported to be Democrats.
That ostensibly influenced the voting in Queens, New York, with a large chunk of Jewish votes going to elect Turner, who would not help to preserve those programs.
Yet, how about America itself? Should not voters consider the state of the country's economy first, and move to help to push the Obama job creation plan through Congress to put people back to work?
One could only think about a ganging up on those of us who wanted to see that what happened in recent months, of unnecessary arguments over the debt ceiling and the deficit reduction, by those who were just bent on bringing the Obama government down, should cease forthwith.
They (arguments) have cost the nation so much, in terms of getting the economy back on track, and making the high unemployment rate to recede.
For example, the closeness of the United States Government defaulting on its financial obligations must not occur again, as the fallout of that was still hurting the country; and not to mention the down grading of America's credit rating.
The nation has lost so much because of the actions of some people in Congress; therefore, the question should be, what was more important to the citizens of this country; America or Israel?
The Democratic Party loss in Queens, New York, showed how external influences could be used to control events in Homeland America, even if it was just a simple local election.
It also gave the impression that President Obama was wasting his time thinking about the gloomy economy, and how he could convince Congressional Republicans to help in making his new proposals to become a reality.
He was doing all he could to get it (economy) straightened out, to make things better for Americans; while others were deliberately sabotaging his efforts.
That must be considered as being pretty much absurd.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
WHEN IS A DEBATE NOT A DEBATE?
Many, like myself, did not have the privilege of watching the CNN/Tea Party debate; but from the many news reports, it was just argumentative than a real debate, when one would answer questions directly that was not based on what the other participant had just said.
With each person trying to set up his or her own policies, and asserting that others should follow his or her example, it became a marketplace of perplexed ideologies and nothing more. The public could not be "sold" in that manner.
Like the first debate, the moderators wanted to have straight answers for viewers to assess how much knowledge a candidate has about running a government, but it became a helter-skelter of episodes only. It was like jumping or running from one issue to another and not reaching definite conclusions by most candidates. Some even seemed to be sneering at fellow participants.
The fact being that, after all said and done, politicians depended on bureaucrats to follow up on proposals, which have been turned into law by legislators.
All the president or governor has to do was to make sure that his or her policies embedded in those laws were fully adhered to by the people that they were intended for. That was the real extent of their (politicians') power; and those candidates could not be any different, if they attained the goal of becoming the president.
Basically, that is the system here in America; while in other countries, a public relations office is attached to that of the president, prime-minister or governor, to collate and coordinate the laws to see how they are actually working in the public arena.
It gives the chance for corrections to be made in mid-stream, while any piece of legislation in progress is having an overview to ensure how it was faring, and whether it is having difficulties or not, by experts conversant with every situation "on the ground"; they have to base their reports on reality, which are piped to the office of the president, prime-minister or governor. This is done by the adjunct public relations office, through the chief secretary or chief-of-staff.
It is the most practical way of governing; and although, there are other branches and departments that handle government business of numerous kinds, the detailed advise coming from a closely knit of experts, with insight into public reactions at all stages, count more than any other.
That was what many people expected the candidates to be talking about; how to govern effectively.
In last night's debate, even if a question was close to finding out how a government was run, the response was diverted to discussing border protection or injections for little school girls in Texas, or an illegal alien in a coma at a local hospital, who should not be anyone's responsibility. What?
The candidate who maintained that Social Security was a Ponzi scheme should not be deemed a serious person, as the program has been in existence for years, and nobody has ever described it as being dishonest or faulty to the extent of it being ended. It only needed to be adjusted from time to time to suit its recipients and current fiscal condition of the nation.
Social Security, like Medicare and Medicaid, has to be revamped to meet with present day standards and requirements; but to attempt to abolish it completely would be dishonest on the part of any government.
Also, job creation must not just be a "word of mouth" exercise. There should be a plan to support the ideas that would reduce any type of unemployment situation happening anywhere, be it in the Obama administration or anywhere else.
Or the repealing of the Affordable Health Care for America Act, should not be taken lightly, as it covered extremely serious medical conditions that many families were experiencing or were related to through a family member or a loved one. Those families would be completely devastated, if they went back to facing the old system, in which only Insurance moguls dictated policy. Or where patients were directed to less qualified doctors to cut costs
Becoming the President of the United States takes more than just espousing a few moral principles, or bringing life experience stories into debates to prove one's exceptionalism.
One has to be knowledgeable and competent enough in all aspects of life, with an agenda to serve the people that elected him or her; and not to be a master or a controller of all he or she surveyed.
With each person trying to set up his or her own policies, and asserting that others should follow his or her example, it became a marketplace of perplexed ideologies and nothing more. The public could not be "sold" in that manner.
Like the first debate, the moderators wanted to have straight answers for viewers to assess how much knowledge a candidate has about running a government, but it became a helter-skelter of episodes only. It was like jumping or running from one issue to another and not reaching definite conclusions by most candidates. Some even seemed to be sneering at fellow participants.
The fact being that, after all said and done, politicians depended on bureaucrats to follow up on proposals, which have been turned into law by legislators.
All the president or governor has to do was to make sure that his or her policies embedded in those laws were fully adhered to by the people that they were intended for. That was the real extent of their (politicians') power; and those candidates could not be any different, if they attained the goal of becoming the president.
Basically, that is the system here in America; while in other countries, a public relations office is attached to that of the president, prime-minister or governor, to collate and coordinate the laws to see how they are actually working in the public arena.
It gives the chance for corrections to be made in mid-stream, while any piece of legislation in progress is having an overview to ensure how it was faring, and whether it is having difficulties or not, by experts conversant with every situation "on the ground"; they have to base their reports on reality, which are piped to the office of the president, prime-minister or governor. This is done by the adjunct public relations office, through the chief secretary or chief-of-staff.
It is the most practical way of governing; and although, there are other branches and departments that handle government business of numerous kinds, the detailed advise coming from a closely knit of experts, with insight into public reactions at all stages, count more than any other.
That was what many people expected the candidates to be talking about; how to govern effectively.
In last night's debate, even if a question was close to finding out how a government was run, the response was diverted to discussing border protection or injections for little school girls in Texas, or an illegal alien in a coma at a local hospital, who should not be anyone's responsibility. What?
The candidate who maintained that Social Security was a Ponzi scheme should not be deemed a serious person, as the program has been in existence for years, and nobody has ever described it as being dishonest or faulty to the extent of it being ended. It only needed to be adjusted from time to time to suit its recipients and current fiscal condition of the nation.
Social Security, like Medicare and Medicaid, has to be revamped to meet with present day standards and requirements; but to attempt to abolish it completely would be dishonest on the part of any government.
Also, job creation must not just be a "word of mouth" exercise. There should be a plan to support the ideas that would reduce any type of unemployment situation happening anywhere, be it in the Obama administration or anywhere else.
Or the repealing of the Affordable Health Care for America Act, should not be taken lightly, as it covered extremely serious medical conditions that many families were experiencing or were related to through a family member or a loved one. Those families would be completely devastated, if they went back to facing the old system, in which only Insurance moguls dictated policy. Or where patients were directed to less qualified doctors to cut costs
Becoming the President of the United States takes more than just espousing a few moral principles, or bringing life experience stories into debates to prove one's exceptionalism.
One has to be knowledgeable and competent enough in all aspects of life, with an agenda to serve the people that elected him or her; and not to be a master or a controller of all he or she surveyed.
Monday, September 12, 2011
THE JOB PLAN BY OBAMA.
Industry and private enterprise should take the Obama job plan and use it, or better still, to make it work. He could not do it alone, or all by himself. The policies would be in place, if a bill would become the law of the land, after the U.S. Congress had debated it, agreed on it and passed it.
The implementation of the content of the final bill, which the president would sign into law, would then become applicable or practical. Yet, the operability of the law would be dependent on businesses putting it into effect, and syphoning off the benefits that were due them.
Job creation would then become a reality, as businesses would begin to hire, expand and generate profits; while at the same time encouraging consumer confidence in spending, by the production of quick, satisfactory and essential "supply and demand" types of goods and services in the (consumer) markets.
Thus, putting the practical aspect of the new legislation into high gear would start to grow the country's mangled economy again.
Its success would be a dual effort by both government and business; with the administration providing the proper guidelines, within which all industrial concerns and businesses, large and small, would operate.
President Barack Obama mentioned at least three things in his speech that could be put into effect without delay; namely, payroll tax reduction, tax cuts and tax credits for businesses, both big and not so big, to utilize to make swift progress.
Infrastructure and other items that would require contractual and detailed arrangements would take a little while to materialize; and it was obvious that everyone that was listening to the president understood what he said; that the urgency of getting something done must not be underestimated. It would start with Congress; and if lawmakers would perform their responsibility without rancor, then much could be achieved in a short span of time.
It was almost like saying, "Let's get the economy moving again and all other things will follow suit," or "Get going guys. There shouldn't be anymore delays."
Now, what should be expected of the Republican opposition was its sincerity to move a bill through both chambers of Congress, in an expeditious manner; and be able to pass it, with the cooperation or the compromise that the Democrats have been requesting all those months, if not (2 1/2) years, that they have had the White House in their possession and the control of the Senate, to be forthcoming.
In other words, party politics should vicariously be set aside; particularly by Republican lawmakers, for the Obama administration to produce and serve what it has promised the American voter, since its (administration's) inception in November of 2008; jobs, jobs, jobs. If that should happen, then the country would be out of the woods in no time at all.
However, if Obama's job law was passed and it did not produce what he said it would, then he might as well forget about his reelection bid. The Republican Party would have won the 2012 general election effortlessly in advance. Who could then blame its members for anything that they have done to derail Obama in the past?
His (Obama's) efforts to put the economy back on track would have been deemed as being clumsy anyway; as it (economy) could not be left to remain in limbo, and the country would not wait any longer to see another party taking over the reins of government.
At the moment, all have work to do; as the nation hopefully waits for a good outcome and better results from the new Obama job plan.
The implementation of the content of the final bill, which the president would sign into law, would then become applicable or practical. Yet, the operability of the law would be dependent on businesses putting it into effect, and syphoning off the benefits that were due them.
Job creation would then become a reality, as businesses would begin to hire, expand and generate profits; while at the same time encouraging consumer confidence in spending, by the production of quick, satisfactory and essential "supply and demand" types of goods and services in the (consumer) markets.
Thus, putting the practical aspect of the new legislation into high gear would start to grow the country's mangled economy again.
Its success would be a dual effort by both government and business; with the administration providing the proper guidelines, within which all industrial concerns and businesses, large and small, would operate.
President Barack Obama mentioned at least three things in his speech that could be put into effect without delay; namely, payroll tax reduction, tax cuts and tax credits for businesses, both big and not so big, to utilize to make swift progress.
Infrastructure and other items that would require contractual and detailed arrangements would take a little while to materialize; and it was obvious that everyone that was listening to the president understood what he said; that the urgency of getting something done must not be underestimated. It would start with Congress; and if lawmakers would perform their responsibility without rancor, then much could be achieved in a short span of time.
It was almost like saying, "Let's get the economy moving again and all other things will follow suit," or "Get going guys. There shouldn't be anymore delays."
Now, what should be expected of the Republican opposition was its sincerity to move a bill through both chambers of Congress, in an expeditious manner; and be able to pass it, with the cooperation or the compromise that the Democrats have been requesting all those months, if not (2 1/2) years, that they have had the White House in their possession and the control of the Senate, to be forthcoming.
In other words, party politics should vicariously be set aside; particularly by Republican lawmakers, for the Obama administration to produce and serve what it has promised the American voter, since its (administration's) inception in November of 2008; jobs, jobs, jobs. If that should happen, then the country would be out of the woods in no time at all.
However, if Obama's job law was passed and it did not produce what he said it would, then he might as well forget about his reelection bid. The Republican Party would have won the 2012 general election effortlessly in advance. Who could then blame its members for anything that they have done to derail Obama in the past?
His (Obama's) efforts to put the economy back on track would have been deemed as being clumsy anyway; as it (economy) could not be left to remain in limbo, and the country would not wait any longer to see another party taking over the reins of government.
At the moment, all have work to do; as the nation hopefully waits for a good outcome and better results from the new Obama job plan.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
"MAN OF THE DAY".
If America should choose "The Man of the Day", after last Thursday night, it would be House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, for his bold remarks to cooperate with most of the sentiments expressed by the president in his speech.
He was the person, who ruined several of President Barack Obama's days during the debt ceiling and deficit reduction debates, with opposing arguments and counter proposals to almost any suggestion that came out of the president's mouth.
He and Speaker of The House of Representatives John Boehner showed a different attitude after the president's speech to the joint session of the U.S. Congress, with such positiveness, that they were willing to work with those ideas that were put forward in the speech.
They demonstrated that they understood what real leadership was about, and that not everything was objectionable to the Congressional Republican Party members; but if some proposals were reasonable, then there would be no need to hold them back.
The president's speech was about job creation, to reduce the high rate of unemployment, which stood at 9.1%.
The country's economy was running at a very slow pace, and if something was not done to give it a boost, the end result would affect every person in the country in so many negative ways.
He was urging Congress to pass a bill based on the premise that an emergency existed, which everyone knew about, and it has to be dealt with almost instantaneously; and the crust of his speech to members of Congress would be that there was no more time to delay. The situation was so dire, it required a quick and urgent solution.
He could have sat in the Oval Office and delivered the speech; but its impact would not be the same as looking straight in the eyes of those who represented the whole nation and held the ultimate responsibility of making laws to address the nation's problems; and that if they saw the red in his own eyes, they would take action.
All that was lacking was cooperation between the White House and Congress; for after all, members were not there to defend "party ideology". They were there to attend to the nation's business.
The comments that came from the two opposition leaders after the president's speech were encouraging. They showed that there was no enmity between them and the president, when it came to dealing with important issues affecting America's national interests; and that the economy, which was being stifled by an acute unemployment situation, was a vital national interest.
Their ardent and immediate responsibility now was to convince other party members to "tow the line".
The hope of all citizens would be that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party would find a common ground to get the country out of its present economic quagmire, by putting life into what was said in the president's presentation; with all their members joining in the effort of passing a bill that would clear the way for an economic prosperity for all to become a reality.
The nation awaits.
He was the person, who ruined several of President Barack Obama's days during the debt ceiling and deficit reduction debates, with opposing arguments and counter proposals to almost any suggestion that came out of the president's mouth.
He and Speaker of The House of Representatives John Boehner showed a different attitude after the president's speech to the joint session of the U.S. Congress, with such positiveness, that they were willing to work with those ideas that were put forward in the speech.
They demonstrated that they understood what real leadership was about, and that not everything was objectionable to the Congressional Republican Party members; but if some proposals were reasonable, then there would be no need to hold them back.
The president's speech was about job creation, to reduce the high rate of unemployment, which stood at 9.1%.
The country's economy was running at a very slow pace, and if something was not done to give it a boost, the end result would affect every person in the country in so many negative ways.
He was urging Congress to pass a bill based on the premise that an emergency existed, which everyone knew about, and it has to be dealt with almost instantaneously; and the crust of his speech to members of Congress would be that there was no more time to delay. The situation was so dire, it required a quick and urgent solution.
He could have sat in the Oval Office and delivered the speech; but its impact would not be the same as looking straight in the eyes of those who represented the whole nation and held the ultimate responsibility of making laws to address the nation's problems; and that if they saw the red in his own eyes, they would take action.
All that was lacking was cooperation between the White House and Congress; for after all, members were not there to defend "party ideology". They were there to attend to the nation's business.
The comments that came from the two opposition leaders after the president's speech were encouraging. They showed that there was no enmity between them and the president, when it came to dealing with important issues affecting America's national interests; and that the economy, which was being stifled by an acute unemployment situation, was a vital national interest.
Their ardent and immediate responsibility now was to convince other party members to "tow the line".
The hope of all citizens would be that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party would find a common ground to get the country out of its present economic quagmire, by putting life into what was said in the president's presentation; with all their members joining in the effort of passing a bill that would clear the way for an economic prosperity for all to become a reality.
The nation awaits.
Friday, September 9, 2011
A NEW JOB PLAN BY OBAMA.
President Barack Obama laid out his plan to create jobs before a joint session of the U.S. Congress, and the nation as a whole.
It is now the opposition's turn to pass a bill to implement the contents of his plan, to alleviate the pressure that the country is feeling under an acute unemployment situation. It is high time for the Republican Congressional membership to act in a positive way in response to the president's ideas.
They have the chance to do so now, more than ever before, as so many of their demands have been satisfied in the Obama Job Plan. It has tax cuts, tax credits, infrastructure investments, and some of the suggestions that have always had bipartisan support.
Although, many of the measures in the president's plan have been in existence for more than two years; but they are not rehashed ideas or a "tired agenda", as a leading Republican Senator describes the plan. (Fox News report, 8/9/11).
They have to be brought back to support the frustration the president and many Democrats have felt; that they were being stopped by the Republicans from doing what they were elected to do in the first place; and that was to solve the nation's problems, such as unemployment and a crippled economy.
The Republicans must not go back and introduce their own plan that will interfere with what the Democrats have already agreed with them on. It will rather confuse the issue of getting millions of people back to work for the nation's economy to gain strength, as it must.
They have a national duty to perform, and for the sake of patriotism, they must do it by putting party politics aside, and giving support to what will help a great number of Americans who are presently hurting and are unemployed.
They should pass a bill that would engulf the president's proposals, and not one that would be designed to complicate the already stalled economy.
If there was an economic crisis to the day, it would be that, there was no compromise in the U.S. Congress, because of ideological differences between Democrats and Republicans, and nothing else.
The debt ceiling debate proved that, if Congress could not resolve its own problems, then who would do it? There would only be quarrels leading to dissensions on all issues confronting the nation as a whole.
That was what caused the U.S. to almost default in its financial responsibilities, for the first time in history, and thus creating havoc in ALL world financial markets. They (markets) have continued to falter ever since.
Congress needs to come together and agree on certain things, for the government to have the opportunity to deliver what is needed to promote its policies; for the country to make progress, politically, socially, and most of all, economically. Political reasons alone must not be allowed to influence members' decisions.
It is now the opposition's turn to pass a bill to implement the contents of his plan, to alleviate the pressure that the country is feeling under an acute unemployment situation. It is high time for the Republican Congressional membership to act in a positive way in response to the president's ideas.
They have the chance to do so now, more than ever before, as so many of their demands have been satisfied in the Obama Job Plan. It has tax cuts, tax credits, infrastructure investments, and some of the suggestions that have always had bipartisan support.
Although, many of the measures in the president's plan have been in existence for more than two years; but they are not rehashed ideas or a "tired agenda", as a leading Republican Senator describes the plan. (Fox News report, 8/9/11).
They have to be brought back to support the frustration the president and many Democrats have felt; that they were being stopped by the Republicans from doing what they were elected to do in the first place; and that was to solve the nation's problems, such as unemployment and a crippled economy.
The Republicans must not go back and introduce their own plan that will interfere with what the Democrats have already agreed with them on. It will rather confuse the issue of getting millions of people back to work for the nation's economy to gain strength, as it must.
They have a national duty to perform, and for the sake of patriotism, they must do it by putting party politics aside, and giving support to what will help a great number of Americans who are presently hurting and are unemployed.
They should pass a bill that would engulf the president's proposals, and not one that would be designed to complicate the already stalled economy.
If there was an economic crisis to the day, it would be that, there was no compromise in the U.S. Congress, because of ideological differences between Democrats and Republicans, and nothing else.
The debt ceiling debate proved that, if Congress could not resolve its own problems, then who would do it? There would only be quarrels leading to dissensions on all issues confronting the nation as a whole.
That was what caused the U.S. to almost default in its financial responsibilities, for the first time in history, and thus creating havoc in ALL world financial markets. They (markets) have continued to falter ever since.
Congress needs to come together and agree on certain things, for the government to have the opportunity to deliver what is needed to promote its policies; for the country to make progress, politically, socially, and most of all, economically. Political reasons alone must not be allowed to influence members' decisions.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY DEBATE.
Yesterday's or last night's Republican Party Candidates' debate was quite sublime, with small jabs, here and there, to introduce some spice in the overall action of the participants. There were no actual punches thrown to ruffle anyone's shirt.
It seemed to a "blue tie" occasion, as many of the gentlemen wore blue ties; and the lady among them, whose figure was not so petite, was dressed in black and white.
The politicians, as usual, were all in custom tailored suits, and appearing very stylish and debonair.
Yet, politics, as we know, is a dirty game. It does not call for cleanliness of any kind, when it comes to criticizing another personality to gain points.
There was no such thing to be seen at the Reagan Library, as the place was held in high esteem by Republicans and other citizens, with myself included.
Mrs. Nancy Reagan was there, and she was presented with a homage being paid to her late husband, President Ronald Reagan, to make the event a noble and deeply respectable one.
The moderators were well prepared, with questions that gave the main stream media a good grade in journalistic discipline; comprising of how the candidates intended to handle the economy, in the way of job creation; the overall protection of U.S. borders and national security; plus a few other salient back and forth questioning and answering session with the candidates.
Candidates Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich came out swinging for just a little while, in regard to whether FEMA must be abolished, and if its responsibilities in emergency situations were really necessary to the American public.
Gov. Rick Perry and Gov. Mitt Romney traded a couple of strong points on Health Care plans in their states they governed and used to govern, respectively.
Otherwise the debate was cordial and rather subdued; except when it came to running the affairs of the country as presidents, when they all turned on President Barack Obama, by saying that he was doing a lousy job, as the current president.
He has failed the country with his policies, and his new proposal to create jobs that he was getting ready to put before a joint session of The United States Congress on Thursday, 8th. September, 2011, would not be any different from his previous plans.
Gingrich was gentlemanly, and almost complimentary of his colleagues, by saying that any of the Republican candidates would be a better president than Obama.
The whole country awaits the outcome of the Republican Party primary, to see who will be the the party's choice in the 2012 presidential election, to attempt to unseat President Barack Obama; either a man or a woman.
It seemed to a "blue tie" occasion, as many of the gentlemen wore blue ties; and the lady among them, whose figure was not so petite, was dressed in black and white.
The politicians, as usual, were all in custom tailored suits, and appearing very stylish and debonair.
Yet, politics, as we know, is a dirty game. It does not call for cleanliness of any kind, when it comes to criticizing another personality to gain points.
There was no such thing to be seen at the Reagan Library, as the place was held in high esteem by Republicans and other citizens, with myself included.
Mrs. Nancy Reagan was there, and she was presented with a homage being paid to her late husband, President Ronald Reagan, to make the event a noble and deeply respectable one.
The moderators were well prepared, with questions that gave the main stream media a good grade in journalistic discipline; comprising of how the candidates intended to handle the economy, in the way of job creation; the overall protection of U.S. borders and national security; plus a few other salient back and forth questioning and answering session with the candidates.
Candidates Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich came out swinging for just a little while, in regard to whether FEMA must be abolished, and if its responsibilities in emergency situations were really necessary to the American public.
Gov. Rick Perry and Gov. Mitt Romney traded a couple of strong points on Health Care plans in their states they governed and used to govern, respectively.
Otherwise the debate was cordial and rather subdued; except when it came to running the affairs of the country as presidents, when they all turned on President Barack Obama, by saying that he was doing a lousy job, as the current president.
He has failed the country with his policies, and his new proposal to create jobs that he was getting ready to put before a joint session of The United States Congress on Thursday, 8th. September, 2011, would not be any different from his previous plans.
Gingrich was gentlemanly, and almost complimentary of his colleagues, by saying that any of the Republican candidates would be a better president than Obama.
The whole country awaits the outcome of the Republican Party primary, to see who will be the the party's choice in the 2012 presidential election, to attempt to unseat President Barack Obama; either a man or a woman.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
SEPTEMBER 11th. 2001, AND THEN SOME.
The tenth anniversary of September 11th, 2001, comes on the heels of the downgrading of the United States credit rating.
It is like combining two somber events that have extremely negative connotations, together; and so they must be forgotten.
However, they should be remembered as two ominous occasions that alerted Americans that they should be on their guard always, because there were those, who would do anything to hurt them, solely out of sheer envy.
The U.S. is the only super-power in the world today; and in view of that, other countries are doing all they can to overtake it, in its leadership, in that respect.
There is no need to name names; and we are all aware of the fact that leadership has its advantages; but it also has its disadvantages. The most outstanding one is that, there is always someone or an entity who is planning to displace and/or replace a leader.
In view of that, America must be more vigilant than any other nation on earth, due to its leadership role in the world.
The U.S. Congress may be vigorously debating an issue, which many may take it as an internal affair, and so it has nothing to do with any outsider. That will be a big mistake, because, others are keenly watching. Whatever goes on in America is "everybody's business".
Therefore, members of Congress, must be very careful of what they say at all instances, for others are attentively listening.
There are those who can be referred to as friendly nations; yet, the fact remains that America is envied, and therefore it must have enemies as well.
Its foes will use the slightest excuse to make it lose its power, in almost every major field of world activities; be it its influence in worldwide business markets or in the overall global financial industry.
It happens to have the strongest economy, and that alone can make its enemies envious. It can even be used as a pretext to make it difficult for the U.S. currency to be as powerful, as it has been for many years. There are those who want that power to diminish, and so they compete with it everyday in financial markets all over.
Even in world politics, those who are not happy with America's leading role in the world, will be anxious to know that all is not well with the U.S.
Hence, the attacks on Washington D.C. and New York City on 9/11; and also the downgrading of its high credit rating, if only for that to be just an embarrassment to the country.
September 11th. 2001, must only be remembered with sadness, because many citizens lost their lives out of envy for America. Families are still suffering from it; and they have to be comforted.
The downgrading of America's credit status has come about, because Congress could not reach a compromise in time, in regards to the nation's internal fiscal affairs; and so, it must be looked on with much regret.
It has caused the country's economy to become unease; a onerous and burdensome event that has raised the level of unemployment to an ominous high figure of 9.1%.; and has prompted the stock markets and exchanges to be running helter skelter ever since.
These two occurrences, like Pearl Harbor, are now among the things that the country can never be proud of.
It is like combining two somber events that have extremely negative connotations, together; and so they must be forgotten.
However, they should be remembered as two ominous occasions that alerted Americans that they should be on their guard always, because there were those, who would do anything to hurt them, solely out of sheer envy.
The U.S. is the only super-power in the world today; and in view of that, other countries are doing all they can to overtake it, in its leadership, in that respect.
There is no need to name names; and we are all aware of the fact that leadership has its advantages; but it also has its disadvantages. The most outstanding one is that, there is always someone or an entity who is planning to displace and/or replace a leader.
In view of that, America must be more vigilant than any other nation on earth, due to its leadership role in the world.
The U.S. Congress may be vigorously debating an issue, which many may take it as an internal affair, and so it has nothing to do with any outsider. That will be a big mistake, because, others are keenly watching. Whatever goes on in America is "everybody's business".
Therefore, members of Congress, must be very careful of what they say at all instances, for others are attentively listening.
There are those who can be referred to as friendly nations; yet, the fact remains that America is envied, and therefore it must have enemies as well.
Its foes will use the slightest excuse to make it lose its power, in almost every major field of world activities; be it its influence in worldwide business markets or in the overall global financial industry.
It happens to have the strongest economy, and that alone can make its enemies envious. It can even be used as a pretext to make it difficult for the U.S. currency to be as powerful, as it has been for many years. There are those who want that power to diminish, and so they compete with it everyday in financial markets all over.
Even in world politics, those who are not happy with America's leading role in the world, will be anxious to know that all is not well with the U.S.
Hence, the attacks on Washington D.C. and New York City on 9/11; and also the downgrading of its high credit rating, if only for that to be just an embarrassment to the country.
September 11th. 2001, must only be remembered with sadness, because many citizens lost their lives out of envy for America. Families are still suffering from it; and they have to be comforted.
The downgrading of America's credit status has come about, because Congress could not reach a compromise in time, in regards to the nation's internal fiscal affairs; and so, it must be looked on with much regret.
It has caused the country's economy to become unease; a onerous and burdensome event that has raised the level of unemployment to an ominous high figure of 9.1%.; and has prompted the stock markets and exchanges to be running helter skelter ever since.
These two occurrences, like Pearl Harbor, are now among the things that the country can never be proud of.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
THE IDEAL MERGER OF PLANS.
Some people are saying that there will be more spending in President Barack Obama's new plan, on infrastructure and the like. While others are thinking of what the Republican leadership is contemplating; tax cuts or tax breaks and regulatory laws to be rescinded for businesses to have the freedom to operate under normal circumstances.
Let us assume that the president's plan is "Plan A", and that the one, which is being proposed by the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, John Boehner, is "Plan B".
What would stop the two sides from sitting in the same room and butting heads, until an agreement is reached, which will be acceptable to both sides?
Bipartisan approval is what everyone in Washington D.C. wants. Members of Congress are talking about it, each and every single day; but it seems that nobody is actually doing anything to achieve it.
Both plans have the same objective, and that is to create jobs; so, what seems to be the problem, when both sides can decipher the "good" ideas from the "not so good" ones, and approach the problem of getting something that can be considered as appropriate to go through the U.S. Congress. They will be doing everything together, to break the impasse or gridlock that has been holding up a solution to the country's economic crisis.
President Obama and the Labor Unions cannot have everything they want to solve the acute unemployment problem; and the Republicans are not bent on having everything that they are proposing and have any peace of mind at the same time. They have to relent at a certain point, when there is ample reason for them to do so.
"Meeting of the minds" is what runs every organization, be it a company, a social club or even a household family.
Moderate Democrats and Republicans must come together to resolve some of the problems that are holding the nation back.
If both sides decide to pay homage only to party ideology and dogma, then they will be acting like very little children, who have no idea of the principle of cooperation.
As in every dispute, a solution can only be found through the principle of give and take. Otherwise, there will never be a way out of any predicament.
That principle is what lawmakers are presently lacking; and that is, to endeavor to observe from the other person's point of view, and manage to accept it, even if only half way. That is a "two way street" observance that always leads to a compromise in every situation.
Companies, big and small, have not hired in August, and the economy will not go anywhere, if people are not getting hired. Businesses will be making their profits anyway; but how about the person who needs a job to be able to survive? Where does he or she go? What can he or she do?
The government cannot employ all of those who happen to be out of work. It can only take in some of them. Private enterprise or the private sector becomes the only option for the rest of the unemployed to find work; except for those who can become self-employed.
The bickering in Congress must stop, because after all, lawmakers are not enemies; and even if they do not see eye to eye on issues, their aim must be the same; and that is, to find answers to national problems. That is their basic responsibility.
If they refuse to see it any differently, then the stage will be set for deadlocks, gridlocks and whatever one will call all forms of disagreements, throughout the coming years, no matter which party wins the 2012 presidential election.
There must be a demarcation line on Capitol Hill, where the arguments must cease, for common sense to start and to prevail. The two sides have to put their differences aside and come to some form of an agreement. That will be the beginning of an ideal merger of plans.
Let us assume that the president's plan is "Plan A", and that the one, which is being proposed by the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, John Boehner, is "Plan B".
What would stop the two sides from sitting in the same room and butting heads, until an agreement is reached, which will be acceptable to both sides?
Bipartisan approval is what everyone in Washington D.C. wants. Members of Congress are talking about it, each and every single day; but it seems that nobody is actually doing anything to achieve it.
Both plans have the same objective, and that is to create jobs; so, what seems to be the problem, when both sides can decipher the "good" ideas from the "not so good" ones, and approach the problem of getting something that can be considered as appropriate to go through the U.S. Congress. They will be doing everything together, to break the impasse or gridlock that has been holding up a solution to the country's economic crisis.
President Obama and the Labor Unions cannot have everything they want to solve the acute unemployment problem; and the Republicans are not bent on having everything that they are proposing and have any peace of mind at the same time. They have to relent at a certain point, when there is ample reason for them to do so.
"Meeting of the minds" is what runs every organization, be it a company, a social club or even a household family.
Moderate Democrats and Republicans must come together to resolve some of the problems that are holding the nation back.
If both sides decide to pay homage only to party ideology and dogma, then they will be acting like very little children, who have no idea of the principle of cooperation.
As in every dispute, a solution can only be found through the principle of give and take. Otherwise, there will never be a way out of any predicament.
That principle is what lawmakers are presently lacking; and that is, to endeavor to observe from the other person's point of view, and manage to accept it, even if only half way. That is a "two way street" observance that always leads to a compromise in every situation.
Companies, big and small, have not hired in August, and the economy will not go anywhere, if people are not getting hired. Businesses will be making their profits anyway; but how about the person who needs a job to be able to survive? Where does he or she go? What can he or she do?
The government cannot employ all of those who happen to be out of work. It can only take in some of them. Private enterprise or the private sector becomes the only option for the rest of the unemployed to find work; except for those who can become self-employed.
The bickering in Congress must stop, because after all, lawmakers are not enemies; and even if they do not see eye to eye on issues, their aim must be the same; and that is, to find answers to national problems. That is their basic responsibility.
If they refuse to see it any differently, then the stage will be set for deadlocks, gridlocks and whatever one will call all forms of disagreements, throughout the coming years, no matter which party wins the 2012 presidential election.
There must be a demarcation line on Capitol Hill, where the arguments must cease, for common sense to start and to prevail. The two sides have to put their differences aside and come to some form of an agreement. That will be the beginning of an ideal merger of plans.
Monday, September 5, 2011
OBAMA'S MAKE OR BREAK PRESENTATION.
There are conflicting reports that former Gov. Sarah Palin may run or may not, in the Republican Party primary; and even though her speech in Iowa has attracted a great deal of main stream media attention, it has forced reporters to ask the question, "Is Sarah Palin Wearing Out Republicans' Welcome Mat?"
Candidate Michele Bachmann "Downplays Perry Surge, Calls Race 'Marathon, Not a Sprint' ", is a remark that makes the Republican front runner. Gov. Perry, feel slightly giddy; particularly, with the Super PAC ad. by the Bachmann camp saying that he is, "not worthy of Tea Party support."
Now, former V.P. Dick Cheney is chiming in, with the notion of Secretary of State. Hilary Clinton challenging President Barack Obama, on the Democratic Party side, in his 2012 campaign for his reelection.
He did so on Fox News Sunday program, after his new book "In My Time", has caused a backlash from former Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, as well as former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, respectively.
He is hoping, as many political pundits are also thinking that, it will be a good idea for Hilary Clinton to jump in and disturb the cool atmosphere presently prevailing in the Democratic Party. It is only Obama, who is the party's candidate now. So, to start a disturbance for him will not be deemed as objectionable at all.
All of these news tidbits add up to how confusing politicians, past and present, want the 2012 campaign to be; and voters will find it very difficult to make up their minds in the final analysis.
If they think the choice of candidates is becoming darn hard now; they must wait and see how the general election itself will fare. Not many people will go out to vote, because there will be too much rhetoric during the preceding six months or so to election day, it will almost be impossible to know whom to vote for, either a Democrat or a Republican.
The Republican side is really tight, and the candidates are somehow becoming somewhat uncomfortable; and therefore there must be some commotion on the Democratic side as well, just to level the playing field; Otherwise, Cheney and others will not go out of their way to find someone to "dethrone" Obama, or at least make him feel a little bit insecure.
It is a tricky or even an unwelcome thing to do, on the part of these Republican fanatics, but they are doing it anyway. Therefore, if Obama wants to keep his place, he must make sure that his speech on Thursday night to a joint session of Congress, will not be just a speech, but one that will convince the majority of Americans that their trust in him, as it has been the last time around in the 2008 campaign, is still not been misplaced.
That, he is still worthy of that trust, and he has something better to offer. Or else, his campaign, leading to the 2012 general election, will be futile.
It will be a "make or break" presentation for him, not only before the U.S. Congress, but before the whole nation; and he must prepare himself for a bad reaction from his audience, of another outburst of, "That's a lie."; if his audience is not too happy with what he is saying.
He has heard that once before; however, it would come from a whole lot of people, and not just one person, as it did in a similar address to another joint session of Congress, only a short while ago.
The presidency of the United States cannot be a toss-up affair; and so, he must be streaming with new ideas in a speech that will fully restore confidence in the nation's economy.
That is what everybody is looking forward to seeing him do. Besides, actions speak louder than words; and that is what people are saying all over the country. He must therefore have the courage and come out to say what they want hear.
He must buck up; for it is not so bad as his opponents are making it out to be.
Candidate Michele Bachmann "Downplays Perry Surge, Calls Race 'Marathon, Not a Sprint' ", is a remark that makes the Republican front runner. Gov. Perry, feel slightly giddy; particularly, with the Super PAC ad. by the Bachmann camp saying that he is, "not worthy of Tea Party support."
Now, former V.P. Dick Cheney is chiming in, with the notion of Secretary of State. Hilary Clinton challenging President Barack Obama, on the Democratic Party side, in his 2012 campaign for his reelection.
He did so on Fox News Sunday program, after his new book "In My Time", has caused a backlash from former Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, as well as former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, respectively.
He is hoping, as many political pundits are also thinking that, it will be a good idea for Hilary Clinton to jump in and disturb the cool atmosphere presently prevailing in the Democratic Party. It is only Obama, who is the party's candidate now. So, to start a disturbance for him will not be deemed as objectionable at all.
All of these news tidbits add up to how confusing politicians, past and present, want the 2012 campaign to be; and voters will find it very difficult to make up their minds in the final analysis.
If they think the choice of candidates is becoming darn hard now; they must wait and see how the general election itself will fare. Not many people will go out to vote, because there will be too much rhetoric during the preceding six months or so to election day, it will almost be impossible to know whom to vote for, either a Democrat or a Republican.
The Republican side is really tight, and the candidates are somehow becoming somewhat uncomfortable; and therefore there must be some commotion on the Democratic side as well, just to level the playing field; Otherwise, Cheney and others will not go out of their way to find someone to "dethrone" Obama, or at least make him feel a little bit insecure.
It is a tricky or even an unwelcome thing to do, on the part of these Republican fanatics, but they are doing it anyway. Therefore, if Obama wants to keep his place, he must make sure that his speech on Thursday night to a joint session of Congress, will not be just a speech, but one that will convince the majority of Americans that their trust in him, as it has been the last time around in the 2008 campaign, is still not been misplaced.
That, he is still worthy of that trust, and he has something better to offer. Or else, his campaign, leading to the 2012 general election, will be futile.
It will be a "make or break" presentation for him, not only before the U.S. Congress, but before the whole nation; and he must prepare himself for a bad reaction from his audience, of another outburst of, "That's a lie."; if his audience is not too happy with what he is saying.
He has heard that once before; however, it would come from a whole lot of people, and not just one person, as it did in a similar address to another joint session of Congress, only a short while ago.
The presidency of the United States cannot be a toss-up affair; and so, he must be streaming with new ideas in a speech that will fully restore confidence in the nation's economy.
That is what everybody is looking forward to seeing him do. Besides, actions speak louder than words; and that is what people are saying all over the country. He must therefore have the courage and come out to say what they want hear.
He must buck up; for it is not so bad as his opponents are making it out to be.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
OBAMA'S NEW PLAN.
President Barack Obama's new plan for creating jobs seemed to have had a foregone conclusion, as both industry and labor were critical of its contents, though in different directions, and wanted to dismantle it on paper before it even came out.
There was a surety in saying that private businesses employed more people than the government, and therefore job creation should be left to the private sector, in most part, since the government was limited in that sphere.
It could therefore be taken that the Obama plan would only cover a section of unemployment with programs that would meet with the kinds of work that traditionally came under federal or government supervision, like infrastructure repairs, rebuilding and management; and that would be it.
Aside from that, there was nothing much he could do to fight unemployment at its present level of 9.1%.
He should admit that he needed help, which would not be a shame at all, since it was common knowledge that he had inherited an economy with so many difficulties involved in it.
Simply put, he had a hard nut to crack, and all he could actually do was to assess the situation, and to apply the best methods to eliminate those problems that he thought were essential to tackle, and so to find a way out of the whole mess, of funding two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, simultaneously; among other things.
Unemployment would have been worse without his stimulus programs to save many state and local authorities from going under; the motor manufacturing industry and the banks; as The Troubled Assets Relief Program, T.A.R.P. bailouts, contributed to stabilizing the economy to a very large extent.
Needless to say that even Wall Street benefited from Obama's initiatives, and its share in a gloomy economy was for it, and the financial industry as a whole, to employ more people to get unemployment reduced.
In fact, the business sector was ready to begin hiring, if it was not for so much regulatory laws the Obama administration has strewn in its way. Only if some of those regulations would be removed, there would be joy and happiness for investor confidence to return into the business world and assist in reducing the ghastly unemployment figures.
One could only assert that party ideology and dogma were standing in the presidents way. However, from his present status in the polls, in which his own approval rating was at stake, one would hope that he would look reality straight in the eye and put party ideology and dogma aside, and leave the business sector to deal with unemployment, as best as it knew how.
The economy would bounce back; and that would be the only thing that could ensure his reelection bid to be a success. Nothing else could come between himself and victory in November, 2012, under such circumstance.
His opponents, like hawks, were watching to pounce on any weakness they saw in his plan, and to take advantage of it; therefore, he should be a 100% sure of what he said to the joint session of the U.S. Congress next Thursday, 8th. September, 2011.
There was a surety in saying that private businesses employed more people than the government, and therefore job creation should be left to the private sector, in most part, since the government was limited in that sphere.
It could therefore be taken that the Obama plan would only cover a section of unemployment with programs that would meet with the kinds of work that traditionally came under federal or government supervision, like infrastructure repairs, rebuilding and management; and that would be it.
Aside from that, there was nothing much he could do to fight unemployment at its present level of 9.1%.
He should admit that he needed help, which would not be a shame at all, since it was common knowledge that he had inherited an economy with so many difficulties involved in it.
Simply put, he had a hard nut to crack, and all he could actually do was to assess the situation, and to apply the best methods to eliminate those problems that he thought were essential to tackle, and so to find a way out of the whole mess, of funding two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, simultaneously; among other things.
Unemployment would have been worse without his stimulus programs to save many state and local authorities from going under; the motor manufacturing industry and the banks; as The Troubled Assets Relief Program, T.A.R.P. bailouts, contributed to stabilizing the economy to a very large extent.
Needless to say that even Wall Street benefited from Obama's initiatives, and its share in a gloomy economy was for it, and the financial industry as a whole, to employ more people to get unemployment reduced.
In fact, the business sector was ready to begin hiring, if it was not for so much regulatory laws the Obama administration has strewn in its way. Only if some of those regulations would be removed, there would be joy and happiness for investor confidence to return into the business world and assist in reducing the ghastly unemployment figures.
One could only assert that party ideology and dogma were standing in the presidents way. However, from his present status in the polls, in which his own approval rating was at stake, one would hope that he would look reality straight in the eye and put party ideology and dogma aside, and leave the business sector to deal with unemployment, as best as it knew how.
The economy would bounce back; and that would be the only thing that could ensure his reelection bid to be a success. Nothing else could come between himself and victory in November, 2012, under such circumstance.
His opponents, like hawks, were watching to pounce on any weakness they saw in his plan, and to take advantage of it; therefore, he should be a 100% sure of what he said to the joint session of the U.S. Congress next Thursday, 8th. September, 2011.
Friday, September 2, 2011
"SMART ALECKS" IN AMERICAN POLITICS.
Many people are fed up with the confusion that some "smart alecks" want to bring into the political campaign for next year's presidential election.
They will not wait a single minute to draw attention to the "President Barack Obama and Speaker John Boehner date differentials", with respect to whether he, Obama, can deliver his speech on job creation to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on the same night as the Republican Party's organized debate at the Reagan Library.
There happens to be many different versions of the story that has led to the snafu.
However, the White House version seemed to be more reasonable than the others; that an approach has been made to the Speaker for the president to speak on the same night as the debate. There was a span of time for about an hour without a response, and that lulled the White House into believing that there was an agreement.
Then all of a sudden a letter came from the Speaker's office to say that the date for the debate could not be changed. It was scheduled for Wednesday, 7th September, and therefore it could not be postponed (paraphrased).
The White House then pondered it and decided to switch the president's speech to the following day, Thursday, 8th September.
So, what was all the fuss about? Should the president have insisted on giving his speech no matter what anyone said?
Yet, not long ago, there have been volatile debates on the debt ceiling and deficit reduction, whose agreement to save the country from defaulting on its debt payments came too late, to the detriment of all concerned.
For example, the U.S. credit rating was downgraded, for one; and as a result, its economy was drastically affected, causing world financial markets to be disrupted. There were other setbacks for the country, which were too numerous to recall.
The whole country was on edge, and asking for a compromise between the Obama administration and the Republican Party members in Congress during those debates, before something bad should happen.
However, now that the president has agreed to move his date, those people were phrasing his action as backing down, "when Boehner balked," and "Overnight, President Obama acceded to Republican dmands,", among other similar statements.
Many people would agree that there was no actual argument between the two sides, as both were willing to compromise; and that there only happened to be a minor breakdown in communications that has caused the incident.
Must that be a contentious moment for the whole nation to worry about, instead of concentrating on an issue as important as job creation, which the president was going forward with, for the economy to get better?
The country did not need political campaign "frolics", to distract it from the idea that its economy in the dumps and it must be straightened out for it to become better and stronger for the good of all.
Both the two people, President Obama and Speaker Boehner, were real gentlemen; and they would not miss an opportunity to reach a compromise, when the occasion demanded it; and so they did, and that should be the end of the story.
Presently, what Washington D.C. needs is a compromise in a whole lot of cases to get things done, rather than gridlocks.
They will not wait a single minute to draw attention to the "President Barack Obama and Speaker John Boehner date differentials", with respect to whether he, Obama, can deliver his speech on job creation to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on the same night as the Republican Party's organized debate at the Reagan Library.
There happens to be many different versions of the story that has led to the snafu.
However, the White House version seemed to be more reasonable than the others; that an approach has been made to the Speaker for the president to speak on the same night as the debate. There was a span of time for about an hour without a response, and that lulled the White House into believing that there was an agreement.
Then all of a sudden a letter came from the Speaker's office to say that the date for the debate could not be changed. It was scheduled for Wednesday, 7th September, and therefore it could not be postponed (paraphrased).
The White House then pondered it and decided to switch the president's speech to the following day, Thursday, 8th September.
So, what was all the fuss about? Should the president have insisted on giving his speech no matter what anyone said?
Yet, not long ago, there have been volatile debates on the debt ceiling and deficit reduction, whose agreement to save the country from defaulting on its debt payments came too late, to the detriment of all concerned.
For example, the U.S. credit rating was downgraded, for one; and as a result, its economy was drastically affected, causing world financial markets to be disrupted. There were other setbacks for the country, which were too numerous to recall.
The whole country was on edge, and asking for a compromise between the Obama administration and the Republican Party members in Congress during those debates, before something bad should happen.
However, now that the president has agreed to move his date, those people were phrasing his action as backing down, "when Boehner balked," and "Overnight, President Obama acceded to Republican dmands,", among other similar statements.
Many people would agree that there was no actual argument between the two sides, as both were willing to compromise; and that there only happened to be a minor breakdown in communications that has caused the incident.
Must that be a contentious moment for the whole nation to worry about, instead of concentrating on an issue as important as job creation, which the president was going forward with, for the economy to get better?
The country did not need political campaign "frolics", to distract it from the idea that its economy in the dumps and it must be straightened out for it to become better and stronger for the good of all.
Both the two people, President Obama and Speaker Boehner, were real gentlemen; and they would not miss an opportunity to reach a compromise, when the occasion demanded it; and so they did, and that should be the end of the story.
Presently, what Washington D.C. needs is a compromise in a whole lot of cases to get things done, rather than gridlocks.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
THE TEA PARTY GROUP.
Many people would agree that the Tea Party group was formed from almost out of nowhere.
In that the Republican Party members in the U.S. House of Representatives were chastising the new government for spending too much on social programs; but they did not have an inkling that they would ever attract any support from the general public.
They maintained that the national budget was becoming too big, and therefore some cuts must be used to lessen it. There was no "Tea Party" then, but just a strong opposition in the U.S. Congress against government spending.
The loud outcry of "spending, spending, spending", particularly in the House, but lesser in the Senate, extended into the public arena. Ordinary folks did not associate Social Security benefit, Medicare and Medicaid with the spending that the Republicans were arguing about.
They were thinking that the Obama socialist plan of money going from the rich to the poor was being put in place.
One could remember the "Joe, the plumber" episode of a man who confronted the then Senator Barack Obama about "spreading the wealth", and setting agog the notion that he, Obama, intended to promote socialism in America.
That was therefore where the money was going, when as president he introduced his budget with many social programs in it.
Members of the public would do all they could to avenge the taxpayer from what they thought was a bad manipulation or distribution of funds by the government.
There was also a rumor in the media, particularly with one coming from a FoxNews video that money was being given out to African Americans in Detroit.
So, when the mid-term election of 2010 came around, voters decided to vote the Democrats out and replace them with people who were liable of stopping any programs that gave freebies to African Americans or blacks.
The Tea Party, which was then a ramshackle group, organized to get the Republicans to gain a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, just to curb the spending by President Barack Obama.
However, its members were not sure of where the money was actually going until a short while ago, when it became clear that, with all the social entitlements, there were a slew of expenditures that covered a whole lot of items, from the military through to border protection.
Since then, voters have become aware and more informed of how the national debt and the deficit crisis have evolved.
The debt ceiling debate also opened many eyes; and therefore they (voters) would cast their vote as "educated customers" in any type of election from this day forward.
By the way, one should not count racism out as being the basis of the formation of the Tea Party group. Also, it is a "group" and not a movement.
In that the Republican Party members in the U.S. House of Representatives were chastising the new government for spending too much on social programs; but they did not have an inkling that they would ever attract any support from the general public.
They maintained that the national budget was becoming too big, and therefore some cuts must be used to lessen it. There was no "Tea Party" then, but just a strong opposition in the U.S. Congress against government spending.
The loud outcry of "spending, spending, spending", particularly in the House, but lesser in the Senate, extended into the public arena. Ordinary folks did not associate Social Security benefit, Medicare and Medicaid with the spending that the Republicans were arguing about.
They were thinking that the Obama socialist plan of money going from the rich to the poor was being put in place.
One could remember the "Joe, the plumber" episode of a man who confronted the then Senator Barack Obama about "spreading the wealth", and setting agog the notion that he, Obama, intended to promote socialism in America.
That was therefore where the money was going, when as president he introduced his budget with many social programs in it.
Members of the public would do all they could to avenge the taxpayer from what they thought was a bad manipulation or distribution of funds by the government.
There was also a rumor in the media, particularly with one coming from a FoxNews video that money was being given out to African Americans in Detroit.
So, when the mid-term election of 2010 came around, voters decided to vote the Democrats out and replace them with people who were liable of stopping any programs that gave freebies to African Americans or blacks.
The Tea Party, which was then a ramshackle group, organized to get the Republicans to gain a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, just to curb the spending by President Barack Obama.
However, its members were not sure of where the money was actually going until a short while ago, when it became clear that, with all the social entitlements, there were a slew of expenditures that covered a whole lot of items, from the military through to border protection.
Since then, voters have become aware and more informed of how the national debt and the deficit crisis have evolved.
The debt ceiling debate also opened many eyes; and therefore they (voters) would cast their vote as "educated customers" in any type of election from this day forward.
By the way, one should not count racism out as being the basis of the formation of the Tea Party group. Also, it is a "group" and not a movement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)