Why Biden Has Nothing to Gain in His Debate With Palin

Because if he wins... he beat up a girl. If he looses... he got beat up by a girl.

The only way Biden will "win" is to come across as nice and a gentleman, and not try to make Palin look stupid. He should have a command of the issues, and win slightly in a very diplomatic way.

Will this happen? I doubt it, he hasn't shown much restraint for saying stupid stuff. He is as likely to gaffe as Hillary (notice I spelled her name correctly this time) Clinton is to be seen in a pant suit.

Palin's work is cut out for her. She must seem Presidential. She must have a general knowledge of the issues that will be discussed and be able to effectively communicate her positions. She must attack Biden and draw him out to hit her back (making him look like a "domestic abuser").

It is possible that this debate will have far more reaching effects than the debates between McCain and Obama. There is a lot at stake for both parties in how these two people perform because they will be one heartbeat away from the presidency.

Final Word (corny alert!)
My hope is that Joe's arguments and philosophy will not a Biden the hearts of the American people and that Sarah's weaknesses will Palin comparison to his.

The Unfortunate Political Situation In Which We Find Ourselves

Phew, I almost ended my title with a preposition.

Contrary to some people's opinion there are thoughtful and principled people in our country. Everyone who has commented on this site is in this camp, let's call us the "intellectual ideologues" (iis). However, there is also a group of people out there that are blown about with every gust of wind in the political landscape. This group, who I will call the "unthoughtful undecideds" (uus), are won or lost based on the rhetoric, and general "feeling" that they get from the different candidates. Because this group (which is between 10 and 20% [at least] of voters) always decides who the President will be, we see the type of smears, fear tactics, and general disrespectfulness that the candidates display toward each other. They aren't doing all of this to win the iis but to win the shallow uus. The iis understand the principles, experience and issues on which the candidates stand, and make their decisions based on those factors. The uus "go with their gut" and are persuaded by the lies and rhetoric of political ads and sound bites.

Unfortunately politicians find themselves in a position where they have to play these people's game because they decide who will have power and who will not. Until we have some kind of voter requirements (like a competency exam) I suppose we will have to allow the least informed, and least intelligent among us to decide who will be the President and wade through the rhetoric and lies (of both sides). I'm sure this wouldn't be a very popular position and certainly wouldn't win friends and influence people, but if you are reading this don't be offended because I'm probably not talking about you.

My Thoughts on the Debate (Quickly)

BO won.
Not in a big way, but he did exactly what he needed to do. Which was show he was competent, be respectful to McCain, and demonstrate having a handle on the issues. He did an excellent job of all three of those things.
McCain accomplished a few things- he demonstrated his experience (and called into question Obama's experience), made a really good point about how Obama's tax plan will not work, and highlighted his conservatism on wasteful government spending and comparing records on that issue.

Obviously, even if Obama had completely wiped the floor with McCain, I would still not vote for Obama, but he demonstrated an excellent ability to allow smears to roll off his back and maintain civility during heavy criticism. He also clearly presented his positions, and defended against McCain, who seemed to get the last word almost every time.

If the McCain that showed up last night shows up at the next two debates, he will lose plain and simple.

I haven't listened to any commentary yet, I wanted to put my thoughts out there before becoming tainted with the spin that is out there.

What do you think?

Update: It has been pointed out that Obama consistently referred to McCain as "John" instead of "Senator McCain" which was disrespectful to some degree, but he probably got away with it in the public. My guess is that most people didn't pick up on that, but time will tell.

Calling all Design Divas!!!

Okay friends, most of you know that I am not very confident in my decorating skills. I am constantly asking my friends to come over and make decisions for me. Well, today I went out of my comfort zone and tried a new thing. I had the opportunity to go to a Hobby Lobby today where florals were 50% off. I also found a pretty red container that was on clearance. My foyer is very blank even though we've been in this house since March. I wanted to add a little color, but I'm not sure it looks right. I also don't know what else to add to the area if this is approved by my viewers. Please comment and let me know what you think and give me advice on what else I should do to this space. Thanks!

My blank space

in the corner?

Or centered on the wall?

Come on Design Divas, don't let me down!

musical cousins

Here are some pictures from the last board meeting. Our cousins from Mississippi were in and the girls had so much fun playing with the boys. Bradley and Addie Leigh are exactly a year apart and play well together. Piper loves playing with babies, so she just loved little Michael. We spent two weeks with them in Florida, and thought it would be Thanksgiving before we would see them again, but what a wonderful surprise we got when they were able to come hang out with us during and after the board meeting.

Piper's storytime with Meemama

I love this one!

Between Two Worlds: Martin Luther King Response to \"You Can\'t Legislate Morality; You Have to Change Hearts First\"

Between Two Worlds: Martin Luther King Response to "You Can't Legislate Morality; You Have to Change Hearts First"

Posted using ShareThis

Why Our Tax System Has to Go!!

Ok, finally a non-partisan (kind of) post about our income tax system.

Here are the reasons we need to trash our current system and replace it with a whole new one, which I will outline in a future post.

1. Our current system is terribly inefficient- We currently pull in approximately $1.7 Trillion dollars a year in income taxes. It costs us about a third of the total revenue to do the accounting, and pay the IRS to bring in these taxes. In other words, it costs us a $1 to pull in $3. This has got to change. 

2. It is so complicated that no one can fully understand it- The IRS tax code has over 600,000 pages. It is estimated that less than 1% of tax returns are perfectly right. When people ask complicated tax questions to accountants the differences in the answers received are always significant. Even when getting a ruling or clarification from the IRS itself, they are rarely consistent.

3. It is used by politicians and special interests to give breaks to their people and tax everyone else. The current system has infinite possibilities for being manipulated so that it has become a tool used by politicians to stay in power.

4. It punishes success and has pushed over $10 Trillion dollars worth of businesses off shores by it's oppressive structure. Entrepreneurs are punished for making more money, hampering their ability to create more jobs. Since it is an income tax, it is flawed from the ground up.

These are the biggest reasons why our current system will not work in the long run. 

Corporate Taxes? Yeah Right.

Rant Warning... Again

Ok, this is another thing that really makes me mad about the left. One of their most effective strategies is to say that they will lower taxes on the poor and middle class and shift more of the burden onto the wealthy and "corporations." Here's why this is bogus: News Flash- There is no such thing as a tax on a corporation. Only individuals are taxed- either as owners of corporations, workers in corporations, or buyers of products from corporations. Any tax hike on a corporation ultimately effects individuals-owners, workers, consumers. 

Example:

Joe owns company A that makes widgets. His gross income before taxes is $1,000,000. Currently Joe makes an after tax profit of approximately $650,000 (in a 35% tax bracket). He sells 100 of his widgets for a profit of $10,000 a piece. So currently a buyer of Joe's widget is effectively paying $3,500 in taxes.

If Obama gets elected he wants to raise Joe's tax bracket to 39% making his income $610,000 all things remaining equal. Joe is a businessman and is taking risk. It is good and right for Joe to make a profit. Joe now has a decision to make, either he will: 

1. Take the pay cut and continue making 100 widgets per year and selling them for $10,000 each (this will not happen). 

2. cut the pay of his workers or the quality of his materials by $40,000 and continue to sell the widgets for $10,000 each, in which case he will continue to make $650,000. 

3. raise the price of his widgets by $400 each- still making $650,000. 

4. do some combination of options 2 and 3 (this is most likely). 

It is unlikely that Joe will take a pay cut, because every other producer of widgets doesn't want to take a pay cut, and doesn't have to. They just pass the increased cost along to workers or consumers, because that's what every other widget producer will do (assuming market forces work to drive the price to equilibrium, so that they get rewarded appropriately for the amount of risk they are taking). 

Now, under Obama's plan the workers of corporations, or the consumers of corporations pay the taxes. Joe's widget's now cost $10,400 meaning you pay $3,900 in taxes instead of $3,500 in taxes, or the worker's pay has been cut so that the profit remains. 

The reason politicians get away with this is because in figuring tax increases they don't take into account the effect of corporate taxes on the individual. Obama can say that his tax plan will reduce taxes on 95% of Americans, and it will reduce income taxes, but it will have an offsetting increase on embedded taxes in the products we all buy, thereby raising the tax burden across all classes of society. 

I guess my point is, don't be fooled by the lure of the corporate tax, it is a myth, and a ploy used by politicians to buy your vote. Think about what this means for Obama and company. There are only two possibilities (if you can come up with a third please let me know):

Either they know the corporate tax is a sham and they peddle this to the unsuspecting American people, or they don't know their basic economics and are doing this with genuine motives. They are either conniving, or innocently ignorant. 

I'll leave that decision to you,

JB 

The Hypocrisy of the Left on Charitable Giving

Warning: Here comes another rant.

Yeah, this makes me mad, really mad. Democrats are all about “helping the needy” and “taxing the rich and giving to the poor.” But when it comes time to pay up and accomplish this, what do they do? Give to these efforts out of their own pocket? No way, they want the government to pick your pocket to pay for their pet charities (just one example: the government gives $330 Million per year to Planned Parenthood- the largest abortion provider in the world).

Senator Joe Biden recently released his tax returns since 1998 to the present. While he and his wife were making $200,000-$300,000 a year they were giving anywhere from $120 to $995 per year to charity. Barack Obama’s record pre-2005 when he started his run for President was better than Biden’s but not by much. From 1997 until 2005 Obama’s average giving was well under the national household average of 2.2% per year. To put this in perspective in the year 2002 Obama and his wife claimed $1050 to charity while the average American household gave $1872. Keep in mind that their income was $259,394 that year putting them in the top 2% in terms of income earners in the US. Al Gore and the Clinton’s were not very generous during their administration either, though to their credit they have been very active in charitable giving since. Bush, Cheney, McCain on the other hand have been much more generous than their Democratic counterparts, giving an average of around 10% of their income per year to charities. They could do more and probably should, but if everyone would follow these Republican’s example in giving we would be able to take care of all the people in the United States who cannot help themselves, and let the government get out of the business of charity.

All of these facts illustrate my main point: Some High-Profile Democrats are hypocrites by claiming to be the party who is on the side of the poor and the downtrodden, yet their charitable giving tells a much different story. Your checkbook tells much more about where your heart is than anything you say with your mouth. Obama and Biden ought to be ashamed of themselves for claiming to be on the side of the poor, and yet not giving of their own funds to support the very people who put them in office.

I know what the reply will be… “But they give with their tax dollars!!” Well so do the Republicans, and that didn’t stop them from giving generously. Maybe it is a difference in philosophy. I believe that individuals and non-government entities do a much better job of getting help to people who need it than the government. Maybe the Democrats think government does a better job, but I didn’t see in any of their tax returns where they paid more than their share of taxes.

Sarah Palin’s tax returns will be let out in the next few days from what I hear and my prediction is that she and her husband have been much more generous than either Biden or Obama.
Rant over and out… until next time.
Jon

Why Hilary Doesn't Want Obama To Win, and Why She Must Campaign For Him

Warning: This is just a guess (real possibility). Don't take me seriously (unless you want to of course.) I am engaging in speculation (which I don't normally do and don't reccomend). I just know the Clinton's well enough to make an educated guess on her thoughts and feelings in the situation she is currently in (I also have at least half a brain). I realize that this is imputing less than honorable motives to Hilary (but she is a politician afterall).

If Obama wins the Presidential race, it will be at least another 8 years before Hilary even has a shot at leading the free world. If he wins, it almost guarantees that she will never be President. On the other hand if McCain wins, she will have another shot in 4 years.
Her predicament is that she must campaign for him because not doing so would also kill her chances of becoming President. My prediction is that the Clinton's will campaign for Obama, but only enough to appear to be in full support of him, secretly hoping that he loses the race. There will be no real way to prove that this is what happened, but the recent decision of Hilary to pull out of the U.N. Rally against Ahmadinejad got me to thinking about it. If you see Hilary and Bill making few and half-hearted attempts at campaigning, I will be vindicated. If they go all out and campaign for Obama, I will eat crow.
But I don't think I'll be picking feathers out of my teeth any time soon.
Let me know what you think.

Update: One of Hillary's big supporters just announced that she is supporting McCain for President! Very interesting...