On November 4th, 2008 millions of Americans were shocked that a man of Barack Obama's limited experience, extreme liberal positions and radical political alliances could be elected President of the United States. For many of these Americans, the explanation was rather simple... the news media, completely enamored with Obama, simply refused to do their job.
The rather shocking video below seeks to provide some insight into which information broke through the news media clutter and which did not.
I want you to go and see this video on you tube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8
and tell me how balanced they were...
Because obviously interviewing a relative handful of Obama voters, while interesting, is hardly scientific proof of anything, Zogby has done a telephone poll which asked the very same questions (as well as a few others) with similarly amazing results.
Zogby Poll
512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points
97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates
Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions
57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).
And yet.....
Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes
Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter
And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!
Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.
Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)
I want you to go and see this video on you tube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8
Source: http://howobamagotelected.com/
and tell me How Obama Won the Election?
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness sake...
I just have seen this in Washington DC!!! The American Humanist Association unveiled the provocative $40,000 holiday ad campaign Tuesday. I did some research and found out that, last month, the British Humanist Association caused a ruckus announcing a similar campaign on London buses with the message: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
"We are trying to reach our audience, and sometimes in order to reach an audience, everybody has to hear you," said Fred Edwards spokesman for the humanist group. "Our reason for doing it during the holidays is there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of non-theists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion."
My Analysis: It's the ultimate Grinch to say there is no God at a time when millions of people around the world celebrate the birth of Christ. Certainly, they have the right to believe what they want but this is insulting. Have you noticed how big the font for "Why believe in a god?" Have you noticed, "A God". This is clear attack on Christianity / Islam / Jew - all the religion who believe in "A God", especially Christianity right on Christmas.
And I am not Christian myself, huh...
One thing Fred Edwards said that is correct, no not that agonistics, atheists are awful lot... what I am referring is They are feeing little alone... But my question is why to insult who believe in God? I do believe in God in my own way and I think, its personal matter who you believe, what you believe and how you practice your religion. and If you don't... don't...
Looks like these so called agnostics or atheists, have decided to be different than rest of the society, thinking they are better than others, and people who believe in god are weak people. But now they seems to feel lonely especially during these days of religious holidays. and how they reacts? like this??? pathetic...
Is it not Obama's Hypocrisy?
A seven-page questionnaire being sent by the office of President-elect Barack Obama to those seeking cabinet and other high-ranking posts may be the most extensive — some say invasive — application ever.
Question 18 of the Obama application asks whether “you, your spouse or any member of your immediate family” have been affiliated with Fannie, Freddie, American International Group, Washington Mutual and any other institution getting a government bailout.
The answer could duplicate the response to Question 8: “Briefly describe the most controversial matters you have been involved with during the course of your career.”
Most information must cover at least the past decade, including the names of anyone applicants lived with; a chronological list of activities for which applicants were paid; real estate and loans over $10,000, and their terms, for applicants and spouses; net worth statements submitted for loans, and organization memberships — in particular, memberships in groups that have discriminated on the basis of race, sex, disability, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.
Isn't this the same Guy who was defending himself telling that its nothing but "Guilt By Association", when his relationship with Tony Rezko, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Khalidi ... are being questioned. When his association with Acorn was being questioned.
Looks like Mr. Obama himself will not pass his own questionnaire - he is using to evaluate to those seeking cabinet and other high-ranking posts. Is it not that Obama is using different scale for measuring himself and the others? Is it not called Hypocrisy?
here is the definition:
Hypocrisy (or the state of being a hypocrite) is the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself. For example, an adult telling children not to smoke cigarettes, even though the adult smokes. Hypocrisy is frequently invoked as an accusation in many contexts.
For linguist and social analyst Noam Chomsky, hypocrisy, defined as the refusal to "...apply to ourselves the same standards we apply to others"[1][2] is one of the central evils of our society--promoting injustices such as war[3][4] and social inequalities in a framework of self-deception, which includes the notion that hypocrisy itself is a necessary or beneficial part of human behavior and society.[5] [6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
Something to think about...
The answer could duplicate the response to Question 8: “Briefly describe the most controversial matters you have been involved with during the course of your career.”
Most information must cover at least the past decade, including the names of anyone applicants lived with; a chronological list of activities for which applicants were paid; real estate and loans over $10,000, and their terms, for applicants and spouses; net worth statements submitted for loans, and organization memberships — in particular, memberships in groups that have discriminated on the basis of race, sex, disability, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.
Isn't this the same Guy who was defending himself telling that its nothing but "Guilt By Association", when his relationship with Tony Rezko, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Khalidi ... are being questioned. When his association with Acorn was being questioned.
Looks like Mr. Obama himself will not pass his own questionnaire - he is using to evaluate to those seeking cabinet and other high-ranking posts. Is it not that Obama is using different scale for measuring himself and the others? Is it not called Hypocrisy?
here is the definition:
Hypocrisy (or the state of being a hypocrite) is the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself. For example, an adult telling children not to smoke cigarettes, even though the adult smokes. Hypocrisy is frequently invoked as an accusation in many contexts.
For linguist and social analyst Noam Chomsky, hypocrisy, defined as the refusal to "...apply to ourselves the same standards we apply to others"[1][2] is one of the central evils of our society--promoting injustices such as war[3][4] and social inequalities in a framework of self-deception, which includes the notion that hypocrisy itself is a necessary or beneficial part of human behavior and society.[5] [6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
Something to think about...
Friday, November 7, 2008
President-Elect Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k
Election is over... people has chosen the one they think will help them... but in the series of what is coming under Obama Administration, here is a post... all the best guys for that wishful Tax benefit you were hoping for...
I confess. Senator, and now President-elect, Obama's two tax promises: to limit tax increases to only those making over $250,000 a year, and to not raise taxes on 95% of "working Americans," intrigued me. As a hard-working legal allion, over the past 8 years I've earned from $45,000 to $100,000 per year. If he is shooting straight with us, under his presidency I could look forward to paying no additional Federal taxes -- I might even get a break -- and as I struggle to support a family and saving for the colledge for my two kids and house and preparing to start my own business, a reliable tax freeze is nearly as welcome as further tax cuts.
However, Obama's dual claims seemed implausible, especially when it came to my Federal income taxes. Those implausible promises made me look at what I'd been paying before President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as well as what I paid after those tax cuts became law. I chose the 2000 tax tables as my baseline -- they reflect the tax rates that Obama will restore by letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" lapse. I wanted to see what that meant from my tax bill.
Lapse Bush Tax Cuts
The first loophole was relatively easy to find: Obama doesn't "count" allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse -- allowing the rates to return to a higher levels -- is not actually a "tax increase." It's just the lapsing of a tax cut.
See the difference????????????????????
Neither do I...
When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up -- a lot -- but by parsing words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won't actively raise taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he's passively allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay Federal income taxes.
Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when those tax cuts lapse. That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple of house payments or about half an year of groccery in my house hold. No matter what Obama calls it, requiring us to pay more taxes amounts to a tax increase. This got me wondering what other Americans will have to pay when the tax cuts lapse. For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this increase will be $3,074. For those making just $50,000, this increase will be $1,512. Despite Senator Obama's claim, even struggling American families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase -- they'll pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007. Across the board, when the tax cuts lapse, working Americans will see significant increases in their taxes, even if their household income is as low as $25,000. See the tables at the end of this article.
Check this for yourself. Go to http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/ and pull up the 1040 instructions for 2000 and 2007 and go to the tax tables. Based on your 2007 income, check your taxes rates for 2000 and 2007, and apply them to your taxable income for 2007. In 2000 -- Senator Obama's benchmark year -- you would have paid significantly more taxes for the income you earned in 2007. The Bush Tax Cuts, which Obama has said he will allow to lapse, saved you money, and without those cuts, your taxes will go back up to the 2000 level. Obama doesn't call it a "tax increase," but your taxes under "President" Obama will increase -- significantly.
Obama has willfully deceiving you and me when he has said that no one making under $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes. If I were keeping score, I'd call that Tax Lie #1.
See the difference????????????????????
Neither do I...
When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up -- a lot -- but by parsing words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won't actively raise taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he's passively allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay Federal income taxes.
Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when those tax cuts lapse. That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple of house payments or about half an year of groccery in my house hold. No matter what Obama calls it, requiring us to pay more taxes amounts to a tax increase. This got me wondering what other Americans will have to pay when the tax cuts lapse. For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this increase will be $3,074. For those making just $50,000, this increase will be $1,512. Despite Senator Obama's claim, even struggling American families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase -- they'll pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007. Across the board, when the tax cuts lapse, working Americans will see significant increases in their taxes, even if their household income is as low as $25,000. See the tables at the end of this article.
Check this for yourself. Go to http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/ and pull up the 1040 instructions for 2000 and 2007 and go to the tax tables. Based on your 2007 income, check your taxes rates for 2000 and 2007, and apply them to your taxable income for 2007. In 2000 -- Senator Obama's benchmark year -- you would have paid significantly more taxes for the income you earned in 2007. The Bush Tax Cuts, which Obama has said he will allow to lapse, saved you money, and without those cuts, your taxes will go back up to the 2000 level. Obama doesn't call it a "tax increase," but your taxes under "President" Obama will increase -- significantly.
Obama has willfully deceiving you and me when he has said that no one making under $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes. If I were keeping score, I'd call that Tax Lie #1.
Remove Cap on Payroll Tax
The next loophole involves the payroll tax that you pay to support the Social Security system. Currently, there is an inflation-adjusted cap, and according to the non-profit Tax Foundation, in 2006 -- the most recent year for which tax data is available -- only the first $94,700 of an unmarried individual's earnings were subject to the 12.4 percent payroll tax. However, Obama has proposed lifting that cap, adding an additional 12.4 percent tax on every dollar earned above that cap -- and in spite of his promise, impacting all those who earn between $94,700 and $249,999.
By doing this, he plans to raise an additional $1 trillion dollars (another $662.50 out of my pocket -- and how much out of yours?) to help fund Social Security. Half of this tax would be paid by employees and half by employers -- but employers will either cut the payroll or pass along this tax to their customers through higher prices. Either way, some individual will pay the price for the employer's share of the tax increase.
However, when challenged to explain how he could eliminate the cap AND not raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000, Obama suggested on his website that he "might" create a "donut" -- an exemption from this payroll tax for wages between $94,700 and $250,000. But that donut would mean he couldn't raise anywhere near that $1 trillion dollars for Social Security. When this was pointed out, Senator Obama's "donut plan" was quietly removed from his website. This "explanation" sounds like another one of those loopholes. If I were keeping score, I'd call this Tax Lie #2.
Capital Gain Tax
The next loophole involves the payroll tax that you pay to support the Social Security system. Currently, there is an inflation-adjusted cap, and according to the non-profit Tax Foundation, in 2006 -- the most recent year for which tax data is available -- only the first $94,700 of an unmarried individual's earnings were subject to the 12.4 percent payroll tax. However, Obama has proposed lifting that cap, adding an additional 12.4 percent tax on every dollar earned above that cap -- and in spite of his promise, impacting all those who earn between $94,700 and $249,999.
By doing this, he plans to raise an additional $1 trillion dollars (another $662.50 out of my pocket -- and how much out of yours?) to help fund Social Security. Half of this tax would be paid by employees and half by employers -- but employers will either cut the payroll or pass along this tax to their customers through higher prices. Either way, some individual will pay the price for the employer's share of the tax increase.
However, when challenged to explain how he could eliminate the cap AND not raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000, Obama suggested on his website that he "might" create a "donut" -- an exemption from this payroll tax for wages between $94,700 and $250,000. But that donut would mean he couldn't raise anywhere near that $1 trillion dollars for Social Security. When this was pointed out, Senator Obama's "donut plan" was quietly removed from his website. This "explanation" sounds like another one of those loopholes. If I were keeping score, I'd call this Tax Lie #2.
Capital Gain Tax
Obama has also said that he will raise capital gains taxes from 15 percent to 20 percent. He says he's aiming at "fat cats" who make above $250,000. However, while only 1 percent of Americans make a quarter-million dollars, roughly 50 percent of all Americans own stock – and while investments that are through IRAs, 401Ks and in pension plans are not subject to capital gains, those stocks in personal portfolios are subject to capital gains, no matter what the owner’s income is. However, according to the US Congress’s Joint Economic Committee Study, “Recent data released by the Federal Reserve shows that nearly half of all U.S. households are stockholders. In the last decade alone, the number of stockholders has jumped by over fifty percent.” This is clear – a significant number of all Americans who earn well under $250,000 a year will feel this rise in their capital gains taxes. Under "President" Obama, if you sell off stock and earn a $100,000 gain -- perhaps to help put your children through college -- instead of paying $15,000 in capital gains taxes today, you'll pay $20,000 under Obama's plan. That's a full one-third more, and it applies no matter how much you earn.
No question -- for about 50 percent of all Americans, this is Tax Lie #3.
Raise Taxes on Business
No question -- for about 50 percent of all Americans, this is Tax Lie #3.
Raise Taxes on Business
Finally, Senator Obama has promised to raise taxes on businesses -- and to raise taxes a lot on oil companies. I still remember Econ-101 and i have worked with Business closely. From both theory and practice, I know what businesses do when taxes are raised. Corporations don't "pay" taxes -- they collect taxes from customers and pass them along to the government. When you buy a hot dog from a 7/11, you can see the clerk add the sales tax, but when a corporation's own taxes go up, you don't see it -- its automatic -- but they do the same thing. They build this tax into their product's price. Senator Obama knows this. He knows that even people who earn less than $250,000 will pay higher prices -- those pass-through taxes -- when corporate taxes go up.
No question: this is Tax Lie #4.
No question: this is Tax Lie #4.
There's not a politician alive who hasn't be caught telling some minor truth-bender. However, when it comes to raising taxes, there are no small lies. When George H.W. Bush's "Read my lips -- no new taxes" proved false, he lost the support of his base -- and ultimately lost his re-election bid. This year, however, we don't have to wait for the proof: Obama has already promised to raise taxes, and we can believe him. However, while making that promise, he's also lied, in at least four significant ways, about who will pay those taxes. And that's the truth.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Obama Won election what is next...
Some days back (before election) i had written an email to one of my long time idea contributor, who lean towards Obama.
Here is the content:
(Obama Says,) McCain is like Bush, look at his record, he voted 90% of time with Bush - we need change - Don’t trust what McCain says, look his records... But trust me - I will lower your tax - because I say so.. even though my records shows I have always voted for higher taxes all 94 times I got chance. Even though I have plans to spend another Trillion dollars + in new government spending on top of current deficit or equal amount.. I will produce this money by magic - I am Messiah, I can make rum out of water.. Trust me... Trust me... Trust me...
My plan will not increase any tax for people earning 250,000 Dollars, even though infomercial I endorsed say 200,000. that is just campaign gaffe. even though my running mate Biden say 150,000 - its another gaffe, it doesn’t matter... trust me... trust me... trust me...
I don’t believe in socialism, just spread the wealth around... Trust me... Trust me... Trust me...
some time it really makes me think, how one in right mind can agree that by increasing taxes to the corporations employing very high number or people can make them grow / make them. What principle of economy will make that happen? But again... Trust me... Trust me... Trust me...
My question remained stranded, as the response i got from him was "Well 1 more week ... and we will have 4 years to see what happens."
Election night was over - about 11 ESt it was declared, OBAMA is president elect. I went to bad after hearing his speech.
Next day on, co-incidentlly, i was travelling and I have visited two states. Minnesota and Long island, both blue. Every evening i am meeting so many people who voted for OBAMA, feel emotional about OBAMA. Iask the same question to them, how will OBAMA produce those 3 Trillion dollar for the deficite and the new expense. and no one yet have given me answer - but puzzled blank stare back to me.
But one of the barman gave me straight answer yesterday, he will not be able to find that money, and thus he will not be able to fulfill his promises he has given.
In other words, through out his campaign, while promissing to the people which he know he will not be able to fulfil. I mean, if i can think this much, i am sure, Mr Economy Expert, Obama, should be able to know - isnt it? and if it is, is it not called Dishonesty? i will let you decide...
Ok.. let us go ahead... i was watching, CNN, ABC and others, so called balanced medias (See some old posts), Other than, obviously repeatadly the same sound bytes from OBAMA victory speech. and all crying and happy and emotional African american, keep reciting the past - how bad it was - and how this victory is historical, how it is fulfilment of Dr King's Dream and so and so on....
But hiding in these emotional mumbo jumbo... they have started following a hiddne agenda...
Here is the part of speech, where Obama has given a cue to America - he will not be able to fulfil his promises.. sorry guys... i have used you, by promissing so much.... too bad now i am president elect - i dont need you - and here is what is coming....
The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term. But, America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you, we as a people will get there.
There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as president. And we know the government can't solve every problem.
So All the best guys... for your trust in his promises....
we talked about the tone he is setting, and now about media... they have started their assigned work... by Obama to help resetting the mass expectation low... and all the news channels i am hearing, has one message to pass "President Obama's First Step: Reset Expectations"
Here is what you should expect hearing now for few months to come:
Nov. 5 (Bloomberg) -- New York City, , must roll back a property tax cut and reduce its workforce by 3,000 to help shrink a $4 billion budget gap over the next 18 months, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said. The job cuts, including the firing of 500 workers, and a 7 percent property tax increase starting in January. He also seeks to rescind a $400 homeowner rebate, producing $256 million. "We cannot justify sending out the checks,'' Bloomberg said
The proposed increase in personal income tax would hit the middle class, costing those who earn $50,000 to $90,000 about $116 to $356 more next year, according to City Hall's estimates.
first indication - whats coming... All the best...
Here is the content:
(Obama Says,) McCain is like Bush, look at his record, he voted 90% of time with Bush - we need change - Don’t trust what McCain says, look his records... But trust me - I will lower your tax - because I say so.. even though my records shows I have always voted for higher taxes all 94 times I got chance. Even though I have plans to spend another Trillion dollars + in new government spending on top of current deficit or equal amount.. I will produce this money by magic - I am Messiah, I can make rum out of water.. Trust me... Trust me... Trust me...
My plan will not increase any tax for people earning 250,000 Dollars, even though infomercial I endorsed say 200,000. that is just campaign gaffe. even though my running mate Biden say 150,000 - its another gaffe, it doesn’t matter... trust me... trust me... trust me...
I don’t believe in socialism, just spread the wealth around... Trust me... Trust me... Trust me...
some time it really makes me think, how one in right mind can agree that by increasing taxes to the corporations employing very high number or people can make them grow / make them. What principle of economy will make that happen? But again... Trust me... Trust me... Trust me...
My question remained stranded, as the response i got from him was "Well 1 more week ... and we will have 4 years to see what happens."
Election night was over - about 11 ESt it was declared, OBAMA is president elect. I went to bad after hearing his speech.
Next day on, co-incidentlly, i was travelling and I have visited two states. Minnesota and Long island, both blue. Every evening i am meeting so many people who voted for OBAMA, feel emotional about OBAMA. Iask the same question to them, how will OBAMA produce those 3 Trillion dollar for the deficite and the new expense. and no one yet have given me answer - but puzzled blank stare back to me.
But one of the barman gave me straight answer yesterday, he will not be able to find that money, and thus he will not be able to fulfill his promises he has given.
In other words, through out his campaign, while promissing to the people which he know he will not be able to fulfil. I mean, if i can think this much, i am sure, Mr Economy Expert, Obama, should be able to know - isnt it? and if it is, is it not called Dishonesty? i will let you decide...
Ok.. let us go ahead... i was watching, CNN, ABC and others, so called balanced medias (See some old posts), Other than, obviously repeatadly the same sound bytes from OBAMA victory speech. and all crying and happy and emotional African american, keep reciting the past - how bad it was - and how this victory is historical, how it is fulfilment of Dr King's Dream and so and so on....
But hiding in these emotional mumbo jumbo... they have started following a hiddne agenda...
Here is the part of speech, where Obama has given a cue to America - he will not be able to fulfil his promises.. sorry guys... i have used you, by promissing so much.... too bad now i am president elect - i dont need you - and here is what is coming....
The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term. But, America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you, we as a people will get there.
There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as president. And we know the government can't solve every problem.
So All the best guys... for your trust in his promises....
we talked about the tone he is setting, and now about media... they have started their assigned work... by Obama to help resetting the mass expectation low... and all the news channels i am hearing, has one message to pass "President Obama's First Step: Reset Expectations"
Here is what you should expect hearing now for few months to come:
- The deficit will be more than $1 trillion a year for several years
- The country needs a massive new fiscal stimulus
- The housing market will continue to decline through at least 2010
- Interest rates and taxes will eventually have to rise (after the economy stabilizes)
- Weak corporations have to be allowed to fail
- Millions of homeowners will lose their house
- Unemployment will probably rise to 10%
- The government simply cannot "bail the country out" -- not because it lacks the will, but because it lacks the power
Nov. 5 (Bloomberg) -- New York City, , must roll back a property tax cut and reduce its workforce by 3,000 to help shrink a $4 billion budget gap over the next 18 months, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said. The job cuts, including the firing of 500 workers, and a 7 percent property tax increase starting in January. He also seeks to rescind a $400 homeowner rebate, producing $256 million. "We cannot justify sending out the checks,'' Bloomberg said
The proposed increase in personal income tax would hit the middle class, costing those who earn $50,000 to $90,000 about $116 to $356 more next year, according to City Hall's estimates.
first indication - whats coming... All the best...
Fair and Balance Media in election 2008
According to a report, the media have spent twice as much money traveling with the Obama campaign as with John McCain. The Politico newspaper reports Federal Election Commission records from the time they announced their candidacy through the end of September, show the press spent $9.6 million on hitting the trail with the Obama camp versus $4.4 million on McCain's.
The gulf in spending is due in part to Obama's prolonged battle with Hillary Clinton and his costly trip to the Middle East and Europe, but the Politico says, "The gap shows more media interest in traveling on the Obama Express than the Straight Talk Express."
The most one-sided TV network was CBS. It spent $1.2 million traveling with Obama and just $222,000 on McCain. The most balanced was FOX News, which spent $496,000 on Obama and $313,000 on McCain.
You decide - who the main stream media in tank for - do you need any more proof?
The gulf in spending is due in part to Obama's prolonged battle with Hillary Clinton and his costly trip to the Middle East and Europe, but the Politico says, "The gap shows more media interest in traveling on the Obama Express than the Straight Talk Express."
The most one-sided TV network was CBS. It spent $1.2 million traveling with Obama and just $222,000 on McCain. The most balanced was FOX News, which spent $496,000 on Obama and $313,000 on McCain.
You decide - who the main stream media in tank for - do you need any more proof?
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Economic Bailout - Truth, Fiction and real question
Obama says bailout a step in the right direction
In a 30-minute TV ad he bought on three networks, the Democratic presidential nominee said Wednesday night that the $700 billion bailout was "a step in the right direction." But he promised tax cuts and business credits to help more.
At White House, McCain Plays Bailout Spoiler
According to Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/25/at-white-house-mccain-pla_n_129438.html:
Inside an intense White House meeting over the financial crisis on Thursday, where nearly every key player came to an agreement on the outlines of the bailout package, Sen. John McCain stuck out. The Republican candidate, according to sources with direct knowledge, sat quiet through most of the meeting, never offered specifics, and spoke only at the end to raise doubts about the rough compromise that the White House and congressional leaders were nearing.
McCain's reluctance to jump on board the bailout agreement could throw the entire week-long negotiation into a tailspin. Sen. Chris Dodd, after leaving the White House, suggested on CNN that the tenuous process could be derailed by what he viewed as McCain's political motives... and so and so on......
Most of the Blogs, News papers, Discussions, TV channels talks and talks around this bailout.. no one seems to tell you truth.. neither John McCain's Campaign is providing the explanation why McCain was no supporting the bailout. Every one took it for granted like Sen. Chris Dodd... McCain's political motives... and republican policy to be against government takeover...
But I had recently got chance to read some article in some law Journal - and that had open my eyes. I am trying to give justice to put content from there:
The real question - that no one is asking - Is the Bailout Constitutional?
In the current crisis, bank runs and other forms of financial panic could lead to the collapse of the country's or even the world's economic edifice. Extraordinary measures might be in order. In extremis, it may seem quixotic to question the constitutionality of the federal bailout-but it's essential nonetheless. one might say, "Save your ivory-tower doubts for the law journals.", "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." Douse the flames first; then repair the bad wiring. But a declaration of unconstitutionality, if justified, serves three vital purposes. It imposes a heavy burden on proponents of the bailout to explain why the Constitution can be violated with impunity. It reinforces the case for abandoning the program once any true emergency has passed. And it helps establish a presumption against adopting similar measures that might be proposed to resolve future "emergencies.". and as you can see, one after the other bailouts are keep coming - latest in series as on today's news is Detroit carmakers.
Some experts, believe that alternative proposals (perhaps even constitutional proposals) could achieve the desired ends without socializing the financial sector and without establishing statist precedents that could haunt us for decades or longer. Opponents of the bailout are unconvinced when media pundits and presidential candidates carp about the failure of deregulation, the need for immediate government intervention, and the final days of capitalism. According to bailout skeptics, government created this crisis-with everything from artificially low interest rates to political pressures for "affordable" housing, quick loans for bad credit risks, and the subsidization of agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (See my previous articles) The predictable result of those perverse incentives: greater leverage and more risk. Heads, the private sector wins; tails, the taxpayer loses. Critics ask why a solution to the problem should now be entrusted to the bureaucrats who got us into this mess. On that question, I concede insufficient expertise. More important, events on the ground seem to have superseded the policy debate. The bailout moves ahead, never mind that many economists and public finance specialists insist it is more invasive than required and unlikely to address root causes. We embark on this adventure notwithstanding the controversy regarding its necessity and effectiveness. I turn, therefore, to the threshold question that should have, but has not been, adequately examined: Is the bailout constitutional?
No Authority
No Sir... The federal government has no constitutional authority to spend taxpayers' money to buy distressed assets, much less to take an ownership position in private financial institutions. And Congress has no constitutional authority to delegate nearly plenary legislative power to the Treasury secretary, an executive branch official.
Congress can proceed only from legitimate authority, not from good intentions alone. That means we must find a constitutional pedigree for each proposed law.
One possible rationale for the bailout is the all-encompassing commerce clause. As the country grew and some people came to believe that most of its problems required national regulatory solutions, Congress sought to find a specific constitutional power that would justify an ambitious federal agenda. The commerce clause became the vehicle of choice.
Yet that is not why the clause was written into the Constitution. Under the Articles of Confederation, the national government lacked the power to regulate interstate commerce. Each state was free to advance local interests and to create barriers to trade without regard to possible prejudice to out-of-state interests. That process devolved into what Justice William Johnson, concurring in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), characterized as a "conflict of commercial regulations, destructive to the harmony of the States."
The solution: a constitutional convention at which, "If there was any one object riding over every other in the adoption of the Constitution, it was to keep the commercial intercourse among the States free from all invidious and partial restraints.
Instead of serving as that shield against interference by the states, the commerce power has become a sword wielded by the federal government in pursuit of a boundless array of regulatory programs. That financial markets are interstate does not authorize the federal government to do anything and everything to manage those markets. The commerce power is to "regulate," but commerce is not regulated by eliminating private risk and substituting tax-funded handouts to favored economic actors. The Framers who crafted the commerce clause could not have intended to empower Congress to give an executive official virtual carte blanche over all financial institutions.
Moreover, it is not a commerce clause argument to say that Congress created the mess and, therefore, Congress can do whatever it wants to fix the mess. Legislators' misdeeds do not ipso facto justify the socialization of private banks, brokers, mortgage companies, and insurance companies, Car companies -and who knows where it stops. Even if Congress could defend the bailout as a means of preventing interstate impediments to commerce, that would not legitimize any and all means.
Necessary or not, temporarily effective or not, the bailout is unconstitutional.
To legitimately invoke the commerce power, Congress must show not only that a federal program is necessary, but also that it is proper-that is, the program does not violate other foundational principles, such as federalism, separation of powers, and limited government. Congress has not made that showing.
Indeed, the bailout quite clearly violates the Constitution's separation-of-powers principle-in particular, what has become known as the non-delegation doctrine, which states that Congress may not delegate its legislative power to any other entity, including the Cabinet departments of the executive branch. Article I, section 1 of the Constitution states, "All legislative Powers ... shall be vested in a Congress." A plain reading of that text shows that lawmaking is for the legislative branch, which does not include the Treasury Department. Yet when Congress authorized the bailout package, it gave Secretary Henry Paul son Jr. unprecedented power to act as a super-legislature.
True enough, the Supreme Court, in a series of cases beginning in 1928, condoned some forms of delegation. Legislators may delegate their authority, said the Court in J.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928), so long as Congress "shall lay down ... an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized ... is directed to conform." What, then, is the intelligible principle to which Henry Paulson must conform? No one knows-least of all the taxpayers, who will bear the cost. "Make things better" is not an intelligible principle. These days delegation has become a formula for irresponsibility. Congress gets to claim credit for the supposed benefits of the bailout, yet dodge culpability for the associated costs.
But Congress itself, not an executive official, must be accountable for the consequences of laws that Congress puts in place. That tenet has been a cornerstone of our Constitution for more than two centuries. John Locke got it right in his Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690): The separation-of-powers principle means that "the legislative [branch] cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands." The legislative power, wrote Locke, is "to make laws, and not to make legislators."
Despite that sound advice, the Treasury secretary is now the one calling the shots as he partially nationalizes a significant sector of our economy.
Final Words...
Maybe the bailout is necessary. Maybe it will even work. But necessary or not, temporarily effective or not, the bailout is unconstitutional. And constitutionality is not restored merely by the invocation of "emergency" by the administration and Congress.
Conservatives should have learned that lesson when the Great Depression drove the New Deal expansion of government. Liberals should have learned it more recently when civil liberties were compromised in pursuit of real and imagined terrorists. To preserve the rule of law, we must condemn all legislation that offends the Constitution-no matter how unlikely the prospect that courts will invalidate the offending acts; no matter how unwise, from a policy perspective, court intervention might be.
When policy is allowed to trump constitutionality, three choices are available to honest citizens. We can abandon the proposal and try to accomplish the desired ends using alternative but constitutional means. We can change the Constitution so that the proposal is no longer unlawful. Or, at a minimum, we can acknowledge the truth-that we are violating the Constitution in pursuit of demonstrably necessary ends, which could not be otherwise attained.
But we have chosen none of the above. Instead, we have proceeded with the bailout despite few, if any, cautionary words about its unconstitutionality. That's a recipe for lawlessness, not to mention a precedent that will rear its ugly head every time there's serious trouble that the federal government thinks it can fix.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
