Stealing is legal, just ask those that got shoved off the cliff.

What can I say, I’m flabbergasted. Are these crooks in Washington really going to assume the American public is that dumbed down to see through this guise? Uh… never mind.

Let’s call it what it is. This idea that Republicans failed in the “fiscal cliff standoff” is pure poppy-cock. This notion that the Democrats somehow “won” is equally a failure if we value logic and reason. For what we seen these last two days has been what the American people have wanted for years now… compromise.

The federal government finally compromised. Republicans and Democrats finally crossed the isle. With its legislative and executive branches all on board, despite all its fury, anger and alleged partisan indignation, the deal was struck. Just like the bailouts before it, along with every other hot potato-political topic involving money; the sides "somehow" came to an “agreement”. On the outside this looks like a victory for the people, and it would be if it wasn’t such an absolute charade.

This was nothing more then a WWE broadcast, the winners and losers were already predetermined. When push came to shove everyone got what they want: more for them and their sugar daddy's and you footing the bill. The fiscal cliff was likening to a pay per view event, where afterwards, backstage the heel and the face toasted champagne and laughed all the way to the bank in their stretch limos and learjet's. Meanwhile the poor bastards who bought tickets returned home in their minivans and via subways, still in awe and totally oblivious of exactly how the farce that was just performed before their very eyes. 

Here’s the impact:

Almost all of the Bush Tax Cuts are permanent, while this helps everyone who pay tax; it helps the wealthiest substantially more.

Wheres the cuts on defense spending?

The Payroll tax cut that saved everyone who works in our nation an average of anywhere between $500-$2,000 has ended (which is good for Social Security in the long run) thus acting as a tax increase from last year for everyone earning a paycheck. This will essentially raise the taxes for anyone making fewer than 100k by 2%.

Wheres the entitlement restructuring? 

We have also seen the definition of "rich" get a facelift, as “rich” is anyone making over 400k per year. They will see their taxes rise from 35% to 39.6%. This is hardly the 250k cap that Obama sought re-election on.

And last but not certainly least... the dreaded “Death Tax”.

From the Republican perspective, one of the biggest hold-ups in this “fiscal cliff deal” was the death tax or estate tax. It was 35% as of 2012 on Estates valued at five- million or more. The President wanted 45%. They reached a deal at 40%, splitting the difference. Now, in case you are wondering why you don’t know what this is or why you’ve never heard the particulars, its because it doesn’t affect you. That is unless you have an estate valued at $5 million or more.

As of 2010, courtesy of the Federal Reserve board, only 4.4% of American households had financial assets exceeding $1 million, much less $5 million. According to the IRS, the estate tax will only affect about 3k families. With the additional five percent of taxation of those that are required to pay, the liability may rise slightly, but with the exemptions staying the same, there will be no new cap, thus the limits stay the same.

What does it all mean? I’m not telling you anything you already don’t know. It is what it is. This idea that there is a real tangible difference between these two parties …is make believe. The only real differences are on the margins and that is by design. From abortion, death-taxes, tax-break for billionaires, tax-breaks for multinational conglomerates, gay-rights, funding public television, praying in schools, you name it. Basically, anything that doesn’t benefit the bulk of the populous & affects less then 10% of the population is a heated, highly-contested debate.

I don’t despise anyone for their success nor do I feel they should be punished because of it. As being of  Libertarian mindset, how could I?  However, the middle class has been exploited by the wealthy elite who then help run elite corporations that are gaming the system, all the way from General Electric to G.M and everyone in between. Meanwhile the small businesses, who make up the bulk of US employment, continue to be stifled with red tape, over regulation and are continuously outmaneuvered by big business lobbying efforts. And not to be outdone, it cuts both ways.

There are a growing number of people on the bottom of the pyramid, who are out to hustle every organization and opportunity they can. Look no further then - Supplemental Security Income (Social Security Retirement Survivors and Disabilities Income is for those who have paid into it) because they are “too depressed to work” or have kids that are born one day early (purposely) so they qualify for 18 years as a premature baby. I got story's for days on that topic.

Before you utter the words “class warfare”, read the writing on the wall. This fiscal cliff deal did nothing to hurt those at the top or the bottom, just everyone in between. The rich were not hit hard nor was those too poor to pay taxes, with their 6-10k tax refunds on $13,000 in income.

One of the paramount reasons Obama was elected in the first place was his promise of transparency. You can at least say that’s one campaign promise he lived up to. The middle & working class, the backbone of this country, is under siege and its right out in plain sight. So if you are looking for politics for an ally on either “side” you might need to look again because the only thing these two parties have compromised on is you. They say jump, you say how high.

Democrat Sheriff goes HAM on Liberal gun grabbers.

"I'm Sheriff David Clarke and I want to talk to you about something personal: your safety. It's no longer a spectator sport; I need you in the game. But are you ready? With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option. You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back. But are you prepared? Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family."

I got a little tingle up my leg it appears?? Sign me up!!

This was a public service announcement on radio last week in Milwaukee courtesy of County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. Here is a man with a badge telling you that your best option for safety in Milwaukee is no longer calling your police it’s protecting you and your family with a fistful of steel (thank you RATM). 

 

Now of course this didn’t go over well with everyone in Milwaukee. The Mayor had this to say about Sheriff Clarke’s call for public action in arming themselves:

"Apparently, Sheriff David Clarke is auditioning for the next Dirty Harry movie,"

With layoffs and furloughs this could be a political sparring match with the Mayor and the Sheriff but the good Sheriff has held this strong belief even in the wake of Newtown. He went to as far call for an armed officer in every school in the country (which I strongly agree with).

Not to be undone, Sheriff Clarke had this to say about the Mayor:

"Several years ago, a tire-iron-wielding suspect beat Mayor Tom Barrett to within inches of his life. I would think that he would be a lot more sensitive to people being able to defend themselves in such instances. A firearm and a plan of defense would have come in handy for him that day."

Here we have an interesting situation. We have a man of the law who is actually a Democrat not only advocating for an increasingly armed public but also going out of his way to call those (read Liberals) that support gun restrictions what they truly are:

"Shame on liberals for exploiting tragedy once again in our country and try to use tragedy as a reason to take our rights away.  Liberals are shameful."

And you are never going to guess how the Sheriff suggests we pay for a cop in every school…

“With all the money we spend on going green projects and other waste of money social service spending we do."

Bu... bu... but we cant do that, what about global warming? It appears Sheriff doesnt care for talking points, now does it? Here is a Democrat, who won his last election with 70% of the vote, thinking outside the box and favoring people’s rights and security over those of the state’s; which naturally are seized when you deny the rights of the public. Does it get better than this?? 

Now ask yourself, where do you come in on this debate? Are you a “wolf at the door” as Sheriff Clarke called the criminal? Are you a sheep who is in favor of gun control? Or are you a man/women of free will who wants to maintain their God given rights to protect his/her life?

Now only if we could have this non partisan common sense in Washington.

In Response to: "Ron Paul is a bigot"

That was a headline last week in a piece by David Cohen who served in the administration of former President George W. Bush as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior. No beating around the bush there (pardon the pun). You have to respect the honesty of someone because often time headlines can be elusive of the following story so that is a positive in my opinion. The content thou is where i have the issue.

In his article Mr Cohen opines:

"As a conservative, I do not make the charge of bigotry lightly. I do not accuse people of bigotry simply because I have good faith differences of opinion with them over policy."

On one hand, in Mr Cohens piece he acknowledges Mr Pauls "Libertarian message" but if he has a libertarian message, doesn't that trump his personal feelings anyway in terms of action-ability? Lets say Ron Paul is in fact a bigot, does that mean he cant stick to his "libertarian message" of individuality and liberty, thus making racism and bigotry null in void? Its like saying Bud Selig couldn't be commissioner because he currently lives and was the owner of the Milwaukee Brewers. Its silly to think one has to always "legislate from the bench". Opinions and integrity are not always one in the same, hence Mr Cohens article.

Not once in this article does Mr Cohen ever talk about votes or policy, not once. Instead the focus is entirely around the eight sentences written 20 years ago that Mr Paul denied writing. My question is, if Mr Paul is a bigot than surly his record would indicate that to be true, right? If we are putting so much stalk in a few outlandish sentences written so long ago than his work as an elected representative for 30+ years should carry at least the same amount of scrutiny and be at least equally viable to help produce the conclusion of bigotry; or at least one would assume? However, that simply isnt the case.

Mr Cohen says he doesnt like to accuse people of something based on policy but he does however feel the need to brand someone as a bigot based on such a small sample size written many years ago without ever taking his voting record or policies into consideration? Is that logical? Or is that emotional? Mr Cohen calls himself a conservative but yet he worked as a bureaucrat under George W Bush the most liberal "Republican" in the history of this nation in terms of expansion of government... hardly conservative. I cant seem to find anything hes says negative about his former boss so therefore Mr Cohen isnt a conservative at all, despite what he calls himself . Hes a Neoconservative. A Big spending (liberal) Neoconservative. In fact that is what this article should have read:

David Cohen is a Neo-Con.

That basically amounts to incomplete gibberish, doesn't it? The defense rests. And what about Pauls record? Can we think of anything that is more destructive to the black community than the alleged "war" on drugs? Not only is this a war on all of our freedoms, but specifically; it is a war on black males. The war on drugs is bigotry through and through, and Mr Pauls stance?

“The "war on drugs" is a losing battle and has put tens-of-millions of non-violent Americans in prison giving America the highest prison population in the world. Doesn't sound like the land of the free afer-all, does it?. Legalizing drugs will make drugs lose their street value thus ending the stealing and killing that drug dealers cause. We need to work to help those that are addicted to drugs, not kill them or throw them behind bars! The losing drug-war has cost taxpayers billions while lining the pockets of government backed cartels!”

Black males make up roughly 7% of Americans yet make up 40% of her prison population; mainly due to drug offenses. Coincidentally enough, our population is the most imprisoned population in the world and not just of a grand total of inmates but also per capita. Is this not a system completely out of the realm of fairness? Is that not bigotry? 

This is one last quote ill leave you with regarding Mr Pauls racist viewpoints: "A system designed to protect individual liberty will have no punishments for any group and no privileges. Today, I think inner-city folks and minorities are punished unfairly in the war on drugs. For instance, Blacks make up 14% of those who use drugs, yet 36 percent of those arrested are Blacks and it ends up that 63% of those who finally end up in prison are Blacks. This has to change. We don’t have to have more courts and more prisons. We need to repeal the whole war on drugs. It isn’t working. We have already spent over $400 billion since the early 1970s, and it is wasted money. Prohibition didn’t work. Prohibition on drugs doesn’t work. So we need to come to our senses. And, absolutely, it’s a disease. We don’t treat alcoholics like this. This is a disease, and we should orient ourselves to this. That is one way you could have equal justice under the law."

What holds more weight… a voting record as consistent as there is in any branch of government since the days of our founding fathers, a "libertarian message" that promotes individuality thus eliminating collectivism (racism) and the quotes above and many more like it from the same person? Or, maybe a few sentences from a few newsletters that was of racist content and denied by the alleged author written 20 years ago? How anyone can assume the latter is not only slander based on the content proving otherwise; it’s just not logical or even relevant. Or maybe for Mr Cohen, it’s more than that... maybe Dr Paul's plan to end the Department of the Interior on Day 1 of his presidency hits home thus nullifying his 15 minutes of fame? Or maybe, its just me and my emotion and imagination running wild. Funny how that happens sometimes isn’t it? Bureaucrat to the end it appears.

Lesser of two evils come November? I cant see it.

 

Is there a difference between Romney and Obama? I have been critical of both Mr Romney and President Obama for various reasons but both being so different in terms of background, surly they cant be that similar, right? When the subject comes up of differentiating between the two I find myself scratching my head. The same head scratching can be said for those folks who ask me my support for either two, and when I reveal my support of Ron Paul regardless if he’s third party or not, it’s often met with the same rebuttal: “it’s a waste of a vote, its better to pick the lesser of two evils”. However, I just can’t seem to grasp the difference between the two men as far as policy is concerned.  

  

Sure, Romney has the business experience, that is unquestionable a difference and he has balanced the budget as Governor in Massachusetts. Both of those are very big props for Romney in my book… but other than that, I looked and I can’t find a difference between the eventual nominee for the Republicans (Mittens) and the incumbent, President Obama (at least not in the pivotal positions).

- Obama has maintained the foreign policy of an empire, just as Romney would do (although Romney said he would actually increase spending on defense) not to mention he chastised the President for pulling out of Iraq. No savings there.    

- Obama has continued to support even more of an assault on our personal liberty’s extending the Patriot Act and signing NDAA, wouldn’t you know it - Romney supports both. Liberty trampled on again.

- Obama passed Universal Healthcare as did Romney. Romney even is proud of his healthcare bill, (‘I’m very proud of my health-care plan and think it should be a model for other states to adopt’) or at least he was before he was against it again.

What do we have left? Taxes. Yes, taxes, death and Mittens oh boy! This is the same guy who didn’t release his taxes because he didn’t wantto show he paid at or under the 15 percentile reserved for Capital gains (between 13.9-15%) on over 40 Million dollars of income. That would show he is using loopholes (although legal) just like many of our corporations do.

Romney said recently that Obama passed 19 tax increases under his terms as POTUS. Most people on the right would believe that to be true, he is said to be the most polarizing president in our history isn’t he? Although the validity to those tax hikes in question has been shaky and even a few of the 19 suspected raises have been actually proved false, Mitt continues his assault. For the record, the Obama tax increases were minimal in nominal terms considering (the large deficit) and directed at very specific small targets; not wide wielding swaths of people and demographics as Romney would have you believe.

The truth of the matter is Obama has cut taxes too. He did so in his 700+ Billion dollar stimulus (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) he then cut taxes in the ‘December 2010 tax deal’ that extended the Bush tax cuts. Those tax cuts were worth $654 Billion and if you factor in the 250+ Billion from the ARRA cuts in his 2009 Stimulus act, we are talking 900 Billion in Tax cuts through his administration. I think its safe to say he has cut more taxes than he has increased taxes by a large sum.

Look at the revenue or receipts our government is pulling in. If we were seeing tax increases, wouldn’t we also being seeing soaring revenue? We aren’t. We are in a massive economic quagmire and tax cuts will not get us out of it. And if we continue to cut taxes and keep the budget as is or increase it, we will only cause even more damage down the road. And that seems like the message from Newt, Obama or Mitt.  

While I agree with the Republican field running for the oval office about the over-regulation that we are seeing under this administration; it’s not what ails us either. What we have is a political atmosphere where nobody wants to make the touch decision and cut major aspects off our budget or raise taxes to pay for the bills we have. Obama or Romney will never do it; they lack the thick skin and willingness to lead by example despite the consequences. responsible debt is one thing, what these kooks are proposing is simply not feasible long term. 

Romney has no plan to cut government just spend an equal amount or more and lower taxes for the richest Americans. Obama seems to have no plan at all and while he lowered taxes he increased regulation and didn't do anything to make cuts. Gingrich? He thinks we can save 500 Billion annually on modernization, he’s also the same guy who said Fannie and Freddie hired him as a historian... not a lobbyist. He won’t be the nominee but it further drives home the point. The 900 lb gorilla in the room remains Keynesian economics. Until we face the reality of the magnitude that beast has in terms of influence and destruction we will be here every four years with the same logical outcome: vote for a Paul (Ron or Rand).