« The "Americans Elect" Trojan Horse | Main | Romney's Michigan Gamble »

February 16, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


There are two ways to level the playing field on taxes and while the President presents the straight forward one as a tax hike on the top 2% he actually smoke and mirrored his way to lowering taxes on the 98% by getting the Republicans to extend the payroll tax cut. See, relatively speaking the payroll tax means nothing to the top 2%. What's $40 a week to a person making a Million a year? Payroll tax only really applies to the first $80,000 or so, So, most relief is felt by the people earning less than that. In effect the taxes of the people earning below $80,000 is lowered a point or two while the upper 2% stay the same. Another way to "level the playing field".

Now what will he do to prevent the raising of the payroll tax on these people? Likely, one of two things: Keep the rate the same and extend the cutoff up from $80,000 to say $100,000 putting the tax on the higher earners. Or, reform the payroll tax rates to lower them but extend them to all income or he actually could be thinking if he can get the corporate rates lowered to 28% then he can incease only the corporate portion to cover the worker portion. You have to watch his every move.


So, exactly what are we saying when we close down the oil exploration in the Gulf and prevent any offshore drilling in the US waters? Then, we turn around and loan Soros company in Venezuela a couple billion dollars for exploration and development of offshore oil and tell them that we will be their best customer? Then, we turn down the Keystone Pipeline extension and the oil from Canada? Now, Hillary announces a major partnership with Mexico to develop the deep water offshore oil and gas in the Gulf? What I get from this is:
1. We like to develop jobs in other countries.

2. We like to payout dollars for oil rather than develop our own ans export oil to others.

3. Environmentalists in the US are so powerful in this White House that we would rather exploit other countries environments than our own.

4. We do not care how vulnerable we are to the price of oil set by other nations of the world.

An energy policy that is totally inconsistent and ignores America's needs for jobs, energy security and balance of payments. This policy ensures America will have to develop alternative energy sources and pay higher prices for fossil fuels in the future.

Thanks for this motivational post. It is impressive.

Israel--please don't--it's an election year!

Forget the meaning to Israel of Iran obtaining a nuke and/or sharing it with their terrorist buddies. Forget Iran attacking the Saudi Ambassador in America. The President drew a line in the sand in Dec of 2009 and Iran ignored it. Iran has continued to play mined games stalling for time ever since. For 3 years the President has had time to imlement the sanctions. Now that we have partial sanctions in place on 18% of Iranian oil with Russia, India and China ignoring them the President send Panetta out once again to announce his smoke and mirrors diplomacy--we hve no prooof of Iran's intention to build a Nuke. Smoke and mirrors won't do it for Israel. The US could likely absorb the devastation of an Iranian nuclear strike but for Israel it would likely end their existence.
Poor Panetta, he said he was against the dramatic defense cuts then had to announce the plan for them. With Hillary the possible Biden replacement on the ticket Panetta becomes the new "appeasement" spokesman for the President trying desperately to get reelected. As the NY Ties so boldly commented yesterday: this President stands for nothng but reelection, says nothing straight and cannot even lead his own party promoting budgets that get defeated 97-0. Iran can't thank the administration enough: now they are coming into talks with the major nuclear powers--more delays. The one major issue that was on his plate internationally when he took office was Iran's nuclear program and now he is desperately trying to put it aside for 9 more months. No wonder he gave the Iranians 6 months before the sanctions were to begin. Getting reelected means a sellout of the Syrian, Afghan,Iraq and Israli people as well as the continued delivery of massive spending programs that we have no ability to pay for. What a shameful example of leadership.


IRAN: Secretary of Defense issues a statement that we have no evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons yet. Today Iran cancels their planned military exercise. Another step in appeasement? Or a political move to make sure Obama is not accused of making up evidence against Iran (as they accused GWB of in Iraq)? Or, a message to Isreal to back off?

INFLATION: Core inflation up 2.3% for the year. That's without food and energy. Oil up again yesterday. Gasoline up again last night.

AFGHANISTAN: Karzai enters Taliban peace talks. While we say we are in exploritory talks with the Taliban who refer to Karzai as a puppet we now find that the talks have been underway for a year. Midway in the talks we announced a speed up to withdrawal. We talk of prisoner release. Now enter the puppet Karzai. Now we day there are good Taliban and bad Taliban. So we will withdraw after a deal with the good guys? Pakistan supports the bad taliban and they have the nuclear weapons.

GAS: Oil continues to rise. Gasoline is projected to reach $4 plus this summer removing Billions of dollars from consumers pockets. Three refineries have closed. Wall Street speculators have options on three years worth of Gas supplies. Obama raises the rebate on the Volt to $10,000.

Regarding Rommney's weaknesses: at least so far there has been a substantial decrease in enthusiasm as measured by turnout in the primaries. Something like 60% of Reps would like to consider some new candidate. Now that contraception is back on the table Obama will have no shortage of enthusiastic voters.

Al B.
What do you mean by "entitlement"? Legal? Moral? something else?

My point is that not all will be able to get the best care, and who will decide. Will we (all citizens of the world) one day have to write guidelines saying that (for example) if a person is older than 65 you can't have a heart transplant even if you pay for it due to a shortage of available hearts? I surely wouldn't want to serve on the committee to determine who wins and who loses?

I have no answer, but the time to consider the problem is now because in some ways we are there. Already medical advances provide more potential care than we can pay for.


Pandering to the 20% of Americans on the far left inhibits Obama's ability to moderate his approach and makes him ineffective as a leader. The fact that he actually is one of them makes it even more difficult as he is just not credible when he says he is negotiating versus posturing. That's why I call him the smoke and mirrors man.

Romney is trying to coax the 20% of Americans on the far right to support him while trying to maintain his ability to appeal to the moderates. It is for him like walking a tight rope with Santorum and Gingrich trying to convince the right not to support him. To her credit Palin is not endorsing a far right candidate. She makes overtures to support Gingrich from time to time but she is wise enough to know that it is likely that only Romney has a shot at the White House.

As Bill points out about Romney he has many strengths. But I believe one of his weaknesses to Conservatives is actually a strength: healthcare. Let's face it Republicans can talk all they want about repeal. It will not happen unless the Supreme Court does it. So, likey what is needed is someone who can lead the country to reform the laws and make them work for employers and the people. Romney has the experience with the issue to know what works and what does not.

So, the 40% of our nation at the fringes hold the 60% in the center hostage during these primaries forcing brutal battles for the nomination. In the end however you have to have a winner who can compete nationally for most of the vote of the 60% while energizing the base to come along or lose to the bad guys.

You have chastised those reading this Blog for not taking up the “moral question” you posed. I think all readers would agree that there is not enough money, or trained doctors and staff, or hospitals, to extend the best cutting edge technology to everyone who might benefit from that care. Implicit in your argument is that everyone is “entitled” to the best medical care. Your question seems to be limited to the USA. If this is a “moral question”, however, shouldn’t the discussion extend to everyone in the world? Implied is a criticism that folks who do not accept a conclusion that everyone must be treated equally are somehow morally deficient. Nonsense.

Ever since the Garden of Eden there has been an uneven sharing of resources—food, medicine, income, etc. Gifts, such as talents, motivation, birthrights, etc. are not equally distributed either. Economic systems that give lip service to equally distributing resources all have failed. Supply inevitably falls, demand climbs, and those running the system divert an ever increasing percentage for themselves.

This state of affairs has been with the human race forever. Having raised this as an issue, Harry Cat, what do you proposeas a solution? There is nothing new here, posed by the rapid acceleration of medical technology. For example, it has long been true that there are not enough young motorcycle riders to fill all the needs for liver transplants. So, lists of those needing transplants are prioritized, and many die before they reach the top of the list. How would you “morally” create equality in this example? Everyone gets a piece of the organ? Have the government find a way to expand supply?

Inequalities have always existed, and always will. The concern about inequality in medical care is no more or less a moral question than are inequalities with any limited resource, whether it be food, personal safety, a comfortable environment, access to the most prestigious consumer goods, etc.

The question of “morality”, at least to me, is a highly subjective exercise of determining where, and how, the lines of “acceptable” inequality are drawn for limited resources. For example, it is easy to conclude that everyone reporting to an emergency room with symptoms of a heart attack should be given aspirin. I am not bothered “morally”, however, if one of these patients is a 25 year old mother, otherwise in good health, who receives a heart transplant under Medicaid, whereas her fellow patient is a 95 year old male also having terminal pancreatic cancer, who is denied a transplant although he would pay cash for it.

Hope this helps. You did get a reply after all. The problem is much easier to think about if one does not first conclude that cutting edge medical care is an "entitlement" from the federal government.

THE TIME LINE; Getting the 'O' Campaign to expend it's supposed billion dollar fund over the next 34 months wrather than allowing it to hold back for the final 6 weeks following the Convention.
I believe Romney has been holding back 'fire power'; but the 'world class' Bain research & strategy capabilities should be brought into action sooner than later.

The comments to this entry are closed.