Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Bush Will Be Regarded To be One Of The Greatest President And You Can Kiss My Arse!

I can not believe how I can so duped by the drive-by media. I thought I was total informed to weed out what is crap to what is the actual truth.

I believe in this current president. I knew he will bring this economy back from the inherited recession from the Clinton Administration and I was relieved that President Bush was there after the devastation of 9/11. I believe a person who earned an MBA from a prestigious ivy league school to run this country than someone who has a Masters in Political Science. The goal of the President is to keep its citizens safe in America. Period. That mean to keep us from being attack and to make sure that we have the avenue to prosper in this country.

Because of the idiocy that I started to believe in, I actually started to rationalize President Bush's legacy. I surmised last year that President Bush has the strong economic savvy of Ronald Reagan, the strong military of FDR, and the committed conviction of JFK. I referred President Bush as a Blue Dog Democrat, who is God-fearing with a strong military an pro-growth values.

I need to make an apology if I confused many of what I said. I have to thank Myspace friend Mr L's Tavern to direct me to the right path. Mr. L's Tavern is very informative and extremely keen in his knowledge of Conservatism. Thank you.

My conviction of my idea allows me to state that President George W. Bush will be renowned as one of the greatest President of the United States. History will dictate that down the road and I will repost this very same blog when that time comes.

I should have realize that not one media outlet will praise the President's job towards the economy or what he has done. Everything is focus on Iraq. Why? Because no comment can be said negatively about the economy. The work done in Iraq is to promote Democracy, which will end a safe haven for terrorism. Ironically, Bush never wanted "nation building", but that change after 9/11. The military is doing an honorable thing. Let them do their job. If you want to bitch and whine of dying Americans, why don't you direct your energy to the crimes and murders done by illegal aliens. There are more kidnaping along the border of Mexico than the kidnaping in Baghdad. There is a substantial amount of senseless murders committed to the American people here on our own soil. Work on strengthening border security and ways to decrease the violent crimes in the United States. There is no honor when an a unarmed, innocent American dies, and allowing these criminals run free doesn't make any sense; but there is honor in our military, who are doing a noble deed and being proactive to bring peace and stability to the world.

I will not question this commander in chief and his role to protect America. I have to say Bush is doing a fantastic job and that is undeniable. I need to hear those who think otherwise.

I'm satisfied to see Bush knows how to expand the economy and keep the "supply-side" model on fiscal responsibility in tact. I wrote my last blog about the success of President Bush. I have receive emails that his spending has gone way out of control. After reading, researching, and pondering from experience, I am able to state that if one has to compare Bush spending to past president, it may be high, but the problem is comparing apples to oranges. It's important when regards to spending that one needs to include the GDP (Gross Domestic Product), which is defined as the dollar value of all goods and services bought by the final user. This chart from Investor Business Daily (Presidential Spending base on the GDP) shows that Bush's spending based on GDP is well within line of other past presidents.

Therefore, the rhetoric that Bush is a bigger spender than Lyndon Johnson is totally false. Keep in mind that LBJ didn't take office until late in 1963 and didn't serve 2 full terms like Reagan, Clinton, and Bush. Johnson had Vietnam and a huge spending spree, which included the Great Society, that ended with high inflation, huge deficits, and higher taxes; but Bush had the war in Afghanistan, Iraq and also the War in Terrorism, inherited a recession, and September 11; and we still have low inflation, unemployment and a robust economy. Why? It's because Bush is able to expand the economy to withstand a recession. Based on the GDP, Bush spending in the past 7 years was in line with his former predecessors or even better. Just to note, Bush's spending equates to what Clinton did during his term in office.

I agree spending needs to be curbed to a point without hurting the economy, but tell that to Capitol Hill. I also have to mention that Congress decides spending and not the President. Its so easy to blame the President on spending because he officially signs Congress' bill into law. I just want to point out that Congress has the spending power and money to do whatever they want constitutionally and its their duty to be better gate keepers of our national economy. I just want to stress that it's not Bush's fault that Congress can't control spending.

To summarize, George Bush has done exceptional job for this country. He protected this nation from another attack since September 11, 2001. He kept this country prosperous with an expanding economy. This economy have withstand a recession, high oil and high gas price, the weak dollar, sub-prime mess, housing slump, nuclear threat, terrorist, and natural disaster. No other Administration in our history was able to sustain a strong economy with elements that would adversely affect it. Do you recall President Bush in 2003 when he promised to cut the deficit in half from 3.5% of GDP, even after tax cuts? Well in 2007, the deficit dropped to $158 billion. The deficit is now 1.2% of GDP and we are headed to a $70 billion surplus in 2012. It would be foolish to question a MBA graduate who knows what he is doing. I'm not worried. History will write a promising legacy of George W. Bush.

MSNBC Showcased The Democrat Debate Like The Jerry Springer Show

It's so wrong for the media to meddle into politics. Bernie Goldberg, a former journalist for CBS that broke out how the mainstream media is biased, was right to say that journalist should report the news and stop making bloviated opinions on it. It's also wrong for the media to act as a puppeteer in directing the flow of the election to get good ratings.

Last night, I had to watch the Democrat debate and I noticed that Obama actually used the prepared speech by Chris Matthew, who is a journalist, former speech writer for Jimmy Carter, and host for MSNBC "Hardball," to attack Hillary Clinton. You had Tim Russert, the moderator for the evening's debate, directed questions to expose Hillary hypocrisy. Whether of not Russert was a fan of Hillary is not the point. I'm getting an impression that Tim Russert had enough of the generalized answers from a leading Democrat candidate for the presidency. Russert is a known Democrat supporter and he intends to promote a successful candidate to win in 2008.

The whole debate was an MSNBC-SPONSORED event and that made me think something "smells" funny. On one hand, you have Matthews announced on his show how he would expose Hillary Clinton if he was in Obama's shoe with a prepared speech that Obama should use. In fact, many of the Democrat candidates were paraphrasing parts of the speech. On the other hand, you had Tim Russert asked dubious question on hypothetical events like attacking Iran to if you believe in UFO's to weed out and expose the weak candidates. Seem like the decks are stacked to improve MSNBC ratings.

Well, I did get entertained, but rather be watching Adult Swim's Family Guy and Futurama.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

The Democrat Debate At Drexel University. Implosion At Its Finest

I just watched a small portion of the Democrat debate at Drexel University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. I want to vomit. Why these candidates suggest that Bush and Cheney will be around after 2008 elections is beyond me.

For those who forgot, Bush is not long able to run for a third term. Why are they keep blaming Bush on everything and stating he is out of control? Isn't the Democrats in the Majority in the House and Senate? If they hate what Bush is doing, don't whine, but do something proactive and stop him. Why are they saying that Bush is not being fiscal responsible? In 2003, Bush promise to bring down the deficit by half 2007 and he did. The economy is not in a recession; it's still expanding and spending kept under control. Also, I didn't know that we are going to war with Iran and I didn't know impeachment for Bush was on the table. The Democrats couldn't have the guts to pledge that United States will stop Iran in developing nuclear weapon. I just want to point out that the Democrats have no idea about foreign policy. Instead of talking about Iran, they see Pakistan is a nuclear threat too.

Even though Clinton stated her opposition to the war, she would not explain why she voted to go into war. Hillary states that she will bring the troop home as soon as she becomes president, but keep some troops there for the long haul. She says diplomacy is the only way to decrease military use to solve the problem of the world. Yeah right. What do you think we are doing now? Diplomacy will not work with uncooperative nations like Iran. Appeasement never win wars. She also stated that she will attack special interest groups that tangle up the high cost of Healthcare. If I remember right, her whole campaign is full of funds from special interest groups like insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies.

Obama is very generalized with his answers and I think he is vague of his mission if he is elected President. For Edwards, he placates the left wing-nut organization's rhetoric. He breathes MoveOn.org agenda from the beginning of the debate. Edward still blames Bush will attack Iran before his term come to a close. Like I said earlier, I didn't know we are going to attack Iran in the next 8-12 months. To bring hypothetical ideas, is not only dangerous, but also ignorant like Obama statement saying there is no crisis in Social Security. It was worth to note that both Edward and Obama attacked Clinton for being an easy target for the GOP because Republicans has a lot of ammunition in their arsenal; due to the fact, she has too much baggage.

I had to stop watching this spectacle. Each attacking one another is funny. They all claim that each are not without a skeleton in their closet. It nice to know which candidate got what special interest group in their payroll. Not only they show their hypocrisy, but their weakness. Good grief. I couldn't believe I wasted my time watching this circus and I am not even remotely curious how it ends. Dennis Kucinich said it best, "This debate is a total flop."

Sunday, October 28, 2007

You Say The 2003 Bush's Tax Cut Didn't Affect You. Think Again

I was challenged in a debate that the economy is heading into the wrong direction. I was shown the same survey that I used in my last blog saying that over 60% of Americans willing to see a raise in taxes to support a Universal Healthcare plan. My friend tried to explain to me that he didn't get a direct benefit from Bush's Tax Cuts. I said, "Get the HELL outta here!"

I had to tell him that it may not affect one directly, but it will affect them indirectly. In fact, not many people will come out to admit that the tax cuts help them. That is because they are not looking at the total picture. Answer me this? If the media is so biased, why aren't they reporting something that would definitely embarrass the Bush Administration. That is because we are being poisoned and mislead by other people who do not like the president.

Look here. As of today, we are experiencing 50 consecutive months of job growth. Since August 2003, our economy has created more than 8.5 million jobs. The current unemployment rate remains at a low 4.7%, which is considered full employment. Please do not tell me that the 8.5 million jobs consist of low end jobs like flipping burgers or a delivering newspapers. These jobs encompasses a wide variety of jobs in the white collar and blue collar work force.

Since President Bush took office and enacted his 2003 tax cuts, more than 30% of the nation's net worth as been added. Real after-tax per capita (person) personal income has increased by 12%. That mean one should see an increase in their earnings, and the national average is $3750.00 per person. Make that comparison from your pay stubs from 2003 and now. Can you see a difference? You should.

We have seen real wages grown by 2.2% over the last 12 months. That is much higher than the average growth rate seen during the Clinton Administration in the 1990's.

Because the government created the weak dollar, we became very competitive with our trade with other countries. Our exports have increase by 15% in the 12 months that ended in July. This has resulted in a $8.3 billion reduction in the trade deficit.

The most notable benefit of the tax cuts is the expansion of the economy. The Real GDP (Gross Domestic Product) grew at 3.8% in the second quarter of 2007. We are experiencing nearly 6 years of uninterrupted growth of 2.8% a year since inheriting Clinton's recession and the devastation of 9/11.

What does this mean overall? Low interest rate and low inflation. You can't physically touch them, but you are reaping the rewards for it. For example, keeping inflation in check means that you don't expect to pay $1.00 for a stamp; with a low interest rate, we benefit in the ability to repay the bank on the loans we taken out to purchase a home, education, car, and consolidating bills.

The strong economy during the Bush Administration was due to not increase taxes. Please, can someone tell me how the Democrats plan in raising taxes will be better for America?

Sunday, October 14, 2007

Al-Qaeda is Crippled in Iraq. Does Anybody Care?

Have you notice something lately in the news? Not much news coverage in the war in Iraq. That's right. And do you know why? Lately, winning is not worth reporting in the mainstream media. The 'surge' is working and reports of Al-Qaeda in Iraq crippled.

The Washington Post just reported that the US military dealt a devastating and irreversible blow to al-Qaeda in Iraq in the past months. With so much success, US military is unwilling to declare total victory because they do not want to 'count their chickens before they are hatch.'

The Washington Post tried to downplay the success by stating such declaration could entice criticism that the Iraq conflict has really become a civil war, which the US military should not get involved. Also the Post stated we should not underestimate our enemy because they have shown great resilence.

Typical, the drive-by media is trying to overshadow good news with some bad news. I will say that al-Qaeda is the worthy foe, but I would adamantly disagree that it's a civil war. It's apparent that the 'civil war' is provoked by the insurgency and not between the Sunnis and Shites. The mission to halt the progression of the insurgency will stop such 'civil war'. The war is won through the 'surge' and Iraqi's understanding that al-Qaeda is the true enemy in Iraq. There is still much to do, but we can say this portion of the war is now secured.

I hear critics saying that after killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in 2006, we should see a decrease in violence, but that didn't transpire. Critics say that being too optimistic is being unwarranted because this enemy has proven themselves not to give up. My rebuttal is that killing al-Zarqawi is not the war. The goal is to stabilize the country. Success is when the levels of violence decreases. By killing a high level al-Qaeda leader may be optimistically short lived, it is not the smoking gun to solve the problem in Iraq. The true goal is to kill the insurgency and end their march in creating havoc.

In the past three months, many indicators showed dramatic improvement from decrease in suicide bombing to increase in capturing intelligence information by the Iraqi people. Even though the borders of Iraq is porous, reports showed that foreign insurgence entering through Syria has significantly diminished. These are major improvement from last year. The reason for the success is General Petraeus's war plan. Heck, he wrote the book on counterinsurgency, which they are applying to this war. By putting more troops in sensitive area in Iraq like the Anbar province, it has help fragmented the coordination of any insurgency securing bases in those regions. So far, reports from he US military estimated that our enemies capabilities have diminished by 60 to 70% since the beginning of the year.

So let give where credit is due. There is still more to do to declare total victory. You still can hear the politics and debates about the war, but one can not deny that the 'surge' is working and the leadership of Gen. Petraeus and his war plans has quelled the propaganda by the media about the war.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Hillary Clinton's Spending Promise Is Unrealistic and Idiotic

I was listening to Talk Radio this morning, and it was reported by the Boston Globe that Hillary Clinton was quoted to say, "I have a million ideas. The country can not afford them all." Then I heard Hillary Clinton spoke to a financial journalist stating that she had many ideas that is possible to enact them without raising taxes "on behalf of the common good.".

It may look unassuming on the surface, but you can be sure that her expanding government policies will be extremely expensive. From what I have gathered so far, Hillary's plan include $440 billion on Hillarycare; $100 billion for her taxpayer funded retirement scheme; and $6 billion for government funded transportation. It is still months before the primaries, and her spending has reached so far $700 billion.

WOW! This is insane. This is the same Senator that wanted to give away $5,000 of tax-payers money to every child born in the USA. There is approximately 4 million babies born each year in the United States. That is purely stupid. Hillary's socialist ideas entitled to pledge $300 million into our education system to educate criminals and reintegrate them into society. That is extremely idiotic. She also promised to create a "American Retirement Account" by providing a government run 401k retirement saving plans available to all Americans that will cost $25 billion per year. Next to her expensive healthcare plan, this is the most unrealistic big government spending waste that only a Liberal can conjure up.

Unlike these unrealistic policies if elected as president, Hillary's history on spending is evident in the past several months. After the Minnesota bridge collapse, she proposed to spend $1.6 billion per year for public transit and $10 billion over 10 years to do a major make-over of every ailing bridges in America. She proposed $1 billion to bail-out those affected the sub-prime loans from avoiding foreclosure. I am unable to detail her spending thirst, but here is the breakdown of Hillary's spending proposals, which is totaling over $700 billion:

Hillary's Health Care Plan Would Cost $110 Billion Per Year, Multiplied By 4 Years (One White House Term) = $440 Billion. "Clinton's price tag is $110 billion a year, but analysts say her [health care] plan will cost a lot more than that." (Donald Lambro, Op-Ed, "Health Care Nightmare," The Washington Times, 9/24/07)

Hillary Pledged To Create A "$50-Billion Strategic Energy Fund." "As president, Clinton said she would … Create a $50-billion strategic energy fund to research ways to boost energy efficiency and reduce reliance on fossil fuels." (Beth Fouhy, "Clinton Would Fund Stem Cell Research," The Associated Press, 10/4/07)

Hillary Has Proposed 401(k) For All Americans, Funded In Part By The Government At A Cost Of Up To $25 Billion Per Year, Multiplied By 4 Years = $100 Billion. "Hillary Clinton unveiled her second-biggest proposal of the campaign so far – after health care -- a plan to make 401(k) retirement savings plans available to all Americans. … Clinton's 'American Retirement Accounts' would cost about $20 to 25 billion each year, Clinton's advisors said yesterday." (Marcella Bombardieri, "Clinton Targeting Middle Class," The Boston Globe, 10/9/07)

Hillary's Baby Bond Proposal Would Give $5,000 To Each Of The 4 Million Babies Born In The U.S. Each Year, Totaling $20 Billion Per Year, Multiplied By 4 Years = $80 Billion. "Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said … that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 'baby bond' from the government … Approximately 4 million babies are born each year in the United States." (Devlin Barrett, "Clinton: $5,000 For Every U.S. Baby," The Associated Press, 9/28/07)

"It Would Be Expensive -- About $20 Billion A Year -- And Clinton Offered No Way To Pay For It." (Editorial, "Clinton's Baby Boondoggle," The Chicago Tribune, 10/2/07)

For Public Transit, Hillary Would Spend $1.5 Billion Per Year, Multiplied By 4 Years = $6 Billion. "[S]he proposed spending $1.5 billion per year for public transit …" (Christina Bellantoni, "Democrats Can't Afford '08 Promises," The Washington Times, 9/20/07)

Hillary Would Spend $10 Billion On Bridges Over 10 Years, Equal To $1 Billion Per Year; $1 Billion Multiplied By 4 Years = $4 Billion. "After the Minnesota bridge collapse last month, she proposed … $10 billion over 10 years to redesign and reconstruct ailing bridges." (Christina Bellantoni, "Democrats Can't Afford '08 Promises," The Washington Times, 9/20/07)

Hillary Plans To Spend $1 Billion For At-Risk Mortgage Borrowers. "She has proposed $1 billion to help at-risk mortgage borrowers avoid foreclosure." (Christina Bellantoni, "Democrats Can't Afford '08 Promises," The Washington Times, 9/20/07)

Hillary Would Commit $10 Billion For Education In Developing Countries Over 5 Years, Equal To $2 Billion Per Year; $2 Billion Multiplied By 4 Years = $8 Billion. "Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton wants the U.S. government to commit $10 billion over five years to get young children in developing countries into school …" (Amy Fagan, "Hillary Seeks 'Education For All,'" The Washington Times, 5/2/07)

Hillary Pledged $300 Million For "Second Chance Education." "Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, vowing to 'stop the revolving door from the streets to prison,' pledged to invest $300 million as president into public-private programs for 'second chance education' and reintegrating ex-offenders into communities." (Peter Hecht, "Clinton Vows To Back Programs For 'Second Chance Education,'" Sacramento Bee, 10/1/07)

Hillary Committed $36 Million For School Phys-Ed Programs. "Smaller-ticket items … [include] $36 million for school physical-education programs." (Christina Bellantoni, "Democrats Can't Afford '08 Promises," The Washington Times, 9/20/07)

Hillary's Universal Pre-K Would Cost $5 Billion The First Year, And Over The Next 5 Years Annual Expenditures Would Increase To $10 Billion, Meaning At A Minimum It Would Cost $5 Billion Per Year Over The First 4 Years; $5 Billion Multiplied By 4 Years = $20 Billion. Hillary Clinton's "Fact Sheet" On Universal Pre-K: "The federal government will allocate $5 billion in the first year to states to establish and administer universal Pre-K. Over the next five years, the federal commitment will increase to $10 billion as states increase their commitment to Pre-K." (Hillary Clinton For President Website, hillaryclinton.com, Accessed 9/28/07)

Hillary Would Increase The Number Of National Science Foundation Fellowships And Increase The Size Of Each Award, At An Annual Cost Of $378 Million; $378 Million Multiplied By 4 Years = Over 1.5 Billion. "Triple the number of NSF fellowships and increase the size of each award by 33 percent. … It is estimated that this would increase the annual cost of the program from $122 million to $500 million." (Hillary Clinton For President Website, hillaryclinton.com, Accessed 10/10/07)

She Would Double The NIH's Budget Over 10 Years – An Additional $28 Billion, Equal To 2.8 Billion Per Year; $2.8 Billion Multiplied By 4 Years = $11.2 Billion. "At a recent cancer forum, Mrs. Clinton said she would 'double' the National Institute of Health's $28 billion budget … over 10 years." (Christina Bellantoni, "Democrats Can't Afford '08 Promises," The Washington Times, 9/20/07)

And Would Double The National Cancer Institute's Budget Over 10 Years – An Additional $5 Billion, Equal To $500 Million Per Year; $500 Million Multiplied By 4 Years = $2 Billion. "At a recent cancer forum, Mrs. Clinton said she would 'double' … the National Cancer Institute's nearly $5 billion budget over 10 years." (Christina Bellantoni, "Democrats Can't Afford '08 Promises," The Washington Times, 9/20/07)

This is what you call the beginnings of a total socialist government style ideology. The more power and control the government has onto the American people we will destroy the essence of the intent of the founding fathers. When we allow the government to run our lives, it will only destroy our morals and will to function as a society. I suggest that you read the book "1984" by George Orwell to understand what I am trying to convey to you.