Barrack Obama: Bringing change we can all pay for.

So, Barrack has announced that he will be releasing a "stimulus package" for almost 1 Trillion Dollars- at the same time he says that his plan will be able to cut the "deficit" in half by the end of his first term. So- he is going to add about a Trillion Dollars to the deficit and then somehow cut the deficit in half. There are only two ways to decrease a deficit- Either you decrease spending and let the tax dollar surplus pay the down the difference, or you increase taxes to pay down the difference. Since we are increasing the total budget- there is no other way than to increase taxes if the deficit truly will be paid down within 4 years.

So, we are in the worst economic crisis in 70 years. I can't believe that our plan is to increase taxes on the American people. How will that help increase consumer spending and stimulate commerce? People will have fewer dollars in the bank and so the banks will not be able to lend! Anyway... the article below is great. Take the time to read it. We really need to understand the dollar figures that we are dealing with in the upcoming changes.




WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama unveiled a multi-trillion-dollar spending plan Thursday that would boost taxes on the wealthy, curtail Medicare, lay the groundwork for universal health care and leave a string of deficits dwarfing any in the nation's history. In addition to sending Congress his $3.55 trillion budget plan for 2010, Obama proposed more immediate changes that would push spending to $3.94 trillion in the current year. That would result in a record deficit the president projects will hit $1.75 trillion, reflecting the massive spending being undertaken to battle a severe recession and the worst financial crisis in seven decades. The new deficit total is roughly equivalent to $12,000 for every taxpayer in the United States, or approximately $6,000 for every man, woman and child in America. The new budget also plans for additional financial bailouts of up to $750 billion, a senior administration official told NBC News. But the White House believes that as the economy improves it will get roughly $500 billion back, so the expected cost to taxpayers is $250 billion. Obama, in a morning briefing, spoke of "hard choices that lie ahead." He called his budget "an honest accounting of where we are and where we intend to go." GOP assails plan
But Republicans contended Obama was avoiding hard choices in favor of exploding the deficit and raising taxes. "The American people deserve a budget that puts fiscal discipline and jobs first. The budget offered by the Obama administration fails on both counts," said Rep. Mike Pence, the chairman of the House Republican Conference. The spending blueprint Obama sent Congress was a 134-page outline with further details to come in mid to late April, when the new administration sends up the massive budget books that will flesh out the plan. The plan balances efforts to fulfill Obama's campaign pledges to deliver tax cuts to the middle class, expand health care coverage and combat the economic crisis with an effort to keep a soaring deficit from becoming a permanent drag on the economy. However, Republicans assailed the budget for the tax increases, and some Democrats worried that Obama was not doing enough to get the deficit under control. getCSS("3088867")[Photo]

"I would give him good marks as a beginning, but we have to do a lot more to take on this long-term debt buildup," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D. "Everyone agrees that all Americans deserve access to affordable health care, but is increasing taxes during an economic recession, especially on small businesses, the right way to accomplish that goal?" asked House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. In a written statement, Sen. Judd Gregg, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, called the administration's budget outline "a half-hearted attempt" to reduce the deficits and "missed opportunity" to take the country in a fiscally sound direction. Judd, Obama’s former nominee to lead the Department of Commerce, also complained the budget “…raises taxes on all Americans, implements massive new spending, and fails to make any tough choices to control the deficit and long-term fiscal crisis posed by the huge entitlement programs."
The $634 billion down payment on expanding health care coverage would come from a $318 billion increase over 10 years in taxes on the wealthy, defined as couples making more than $250,000 per year and individuals making more than $200,000. The other half of the money for expanding health care — $318 billion — would come from curtailing payments to hospitals and insurance companies under Medicare and drug payments under Medicaid.
The cost of the stimulus bill and the increased bailout support would push the deficit for this year to $1.75 trillion, nearly four times last year's record $455 billion and a percentage of the economy — just over 12 percent — not seen since World War II. The deficit would remain near $1 trillion over the next two years before dropping to $581 billion in 2012 and $533 billion in 2013, the year that Obama has pledged to cut the deficit he inherited in half. However, to meet that goal, the administration's budget depends on optimistic projections that the economy, currently in the longest recession in a quarter-century, will come roaring back with economic growth of 3.2 percent next year and 4 percent-plus rates in the following three years, significantly higher than private economists are forecasting. Christina Romer, head of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, defended the administration forecast, telling reporters at a briefing that the private forecasters may not be taking into account all of the efforts the government is employing to jump-start the economy.
She said in past downturns, the more severe the recession, the stronger the recovery from the slump. Obama's budget projects $2 trillion in deficit reduction over a decade — split between tax hikes on wealthier Americans and trimming a variety of government programs ranging from subsidies paid to wealthy farmers to eliminating ineffective government programs. However, previous presidents have also sought to target wasteful government spending only to find the programs targeted had powerful supporters in Congress. Obama's blueprint awards domestic agencies budget increases, on average, of 7 percent in 2010 over 2009 levels. The Pentagon would get a 4 percent boost, to $534 billion next year, but would then get increases of 2 percent or less over the next several years.
Reserve fund for health care
Obama's plan proposes to build up a $634 billion reserve fund he would use to expand health care coverage to some of the 48 million currently uninsured Americans currently. The fund would represent a little more than half the money projected to be needed to extend health insurance to all Americans. Obama also asked for $205 billion to cover the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through 2010, and wants to budget the costs of operations there at $50 billion annually over the next several years. The plan also contains a contentious proposal to raise hundreds of billions of dollars by auctioning off permits to exceed carbon emissions caps, which Obama wants to impose on users of fossil fuels to address global warming. The Medicare plan is sure to incite battles with hospitals, health insurance companies and drug manufacturers. Some of the Medicare savings would come from scaling back payments to private insurance plans that serve older Americans, which many analysts believe to be inflated. Other proposals include charging upper-income beneficiaries a higher premium for Medicare's prescription drug coverage. To raise the other half of the money for expanding health coverage, Obama wants to reduce the rate by which wealthier people can cut their taxes through deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions, local taxes and other expenses to 28 cents on the dollar, rather than the 35 cents they can claim now. Even more money would be raised if the top rate reverts to 39.6 percent, as Obama wants.

Barack is in- let's get behind him

For any of you that ever read my blogs know that I have not been the biggest supporter of Barack Obama. I have not given any real direct attacks on him, more just blogged about things that he supports like socialism and foreign policy.

We are now days away from having a new President. I know that many of us share a common lack of enthusiasm for this change. As I think about the coming 4 year term, the current state of economic affairs at home and abroad and of conflict in the Gaza strip- I think about who our captain is. Who is leading the ship? What decisions will he make to fix our severe economic downturn? What level of involvement will the future President choose to have in Gaza? When will US troops exit Iraq?

I think only time will tell the answers to these questions.

I am making a personal decision during this next term. I am choosing to do my utmost to support Barack Obama in all of his correctly principled ventures. No doubt, I will not agree with all he chooses to do- especially tax plans and socializing anything- but I believe that with the charisma he has, he will accomplish many things. All I hope for is that what he accomplishes does not cause the United States to digress.

In the past I have taken a strong offensive position against Barack Obama- I now choose to take a more neutral position as I feel that it is important to provide as much support to our elected officials as possible. I will always be a voice for a Capitalist America, but I believe that our nation needs a leader that we support. The fact is: Barack is our President wheather we like it or not...so, I think we should do our best to like it, and support only his correctly principled adgendas.

That being said, we all must do our part to speak against things that hurt America's economic growth. We must urge our elected officials to vote for things that incentivize the populous to be entrepreneurs. We must promote individual responsibility and capitalism. We cannot allow our country to be more socialized.

Automotive Bailout?? Yikes.

The following is an article put in the New York Times and written by Mitt Romney. I've been wanting to write a blog about the automotive bailout- but let's hear about it from a Venture Capitalist and non-socialist like Mitt Romney.

"IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for this year’s Republican presidential nomination."

New York Times- November 18th 2008

Thanks Mitt. This is a great article he wrote- he would have been a very economically sound President. He would make a great cabinet member for Obama also. Well, I am going to leave this topic at that. Thanks Mitt for keeping us all Capitalist minded in a Socialist shifting economy.

Parable of the Talents

In a recent conversation with a friend- I made a joke about a few of Barack Obama's policies. I said on Facebook: "Under Obama's plan, anyone with more than 249 Facebook friends will have to redistribute the remainder to less popular users." My friend wrote back a comment to me, part of which said, "...You're right, survival of the fittest. Darwin was right. Jesus had some cute ideas and all but that stuff isn't always convenient..." I actually found that comment to be pretty interesting. So I want to make it the topic of my blog. Let's talk about one of Jesus' "cute ideas."

For the sake of a refresher course, let's review it- it is only a few verses:

Matthew 25:
15 And unto one he gave five talents , to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.

16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.

17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.

18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.

19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant : thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

25 And I was afraid , and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:

27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.

29 For unto every one that hath shall be given , and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.


Well, nobody says it better than Jesus- let's be honest. For the sake of current-day application, I will expound. Jesus chose to give each of the three people a certain number of talents. One received ten, another received two and another received only one. Both he that received ten and he that received five returned with double what they had been given, while the one that received one returned with the same only.

I don't look at this talent so as to draw a conclusion about the number of talents that we have each received. We each have been allotted what we need. I will simply say that we are required to return with profit, so to speak. One man hid his talent and did nothing with it- Jesus said, it would have been better off making interest with bankers. When the man with one talent returned having made nothing from his one, he lost that which he had and it was given to the one that had made ten with his ten.

Our lives is all that we really have. We have the ability to do whatever we want to with it. From Hitler to Mother Theresa, we choose who to be. From Warren Buffet to the extremely low income households. There are exceptions- but for the most part, the reason that people struggle in life is because they make poor decisions- and they have their "talent" from them. I am not saying that everyone has equal opportunity at birth- we are all born into different circumstances, but for those who choose to live a life and make decisions that carry the consequences of difficulty, hardship and bondage- then they should live with those negative consequences. When people choose to live a life that brings wealth, freedom and ease- then they should be able to live with those positive consequences.

Positive/Negative Choices------->Positive/Negative Consequences

In this day in age, there are many that suffer needlessly- it is horrific to think of so many of the travesties that have occurred and are occurring in this world and in our nation. My heart and prayers go out to those that suffer by no choice of their own.

Tyranny, oppression, bondage, unnecessary war, genocide and hatred are all examples of needless suffering, there will be a day of reckoning for those who have caused such things. In many cases- these things are needless and hateful, they are Godless and horrifying.

I recognize that there are millions who legitimately suffer. How could we not?

When I consider this country's future plans to redistribute wealth, to socialize medicine and overhauling education- I am greatly concerned for my own future. So, first of all- let me admit, yes- I am self-motivated and self-interested in this topic. But why shouldn't I be? I am 25 years old, and I feel that I have a very bright future in the world of business. I know that I will be a great contributor to stimulate commerce. Also people that currently do and will in the future work beneath me will be able to generate significant income to provide for themselves and their families. If I am a "successful business man" and create jobs and endorse a free exchange of money in my business, then that is good for me, it is good for those that work for me, and it is good for our nation.

Success and money are not finite- it is there for the taking and there to be made. That is a capitalist mentality. People tell me that our President-Elect is not a socialist. Now, that may be- but he certainly has plenty of socialistic policies and plans to implement a more socialistic governmental shift. I don't think that we are going to be Marxist or anything- but I do oppose higher taxation that would redistribute earnings to people who did not make as much.

Michelle Obama said on April 9th, 2008:

"Most Americans don't want much."

"They don't want the whole pie, there are some who do, but most Americans feel blessed just being able to thrive a little bit. But that is becoming even more out of reach."...

"If we don't wake up as a nation with a new kind of leadership...for how we want this country to work, then we won't get universal health care," she said.

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."

Barack Obama Said,

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."


That is like taking the talents from the man who had ten and made ten more, and then taking his talents and giving it to the man who buried his. I don't know if he meant something different than what it sounds like- but, it is a little hard to misinterpret "spread the wealth around."

Why is it the Government's job to do that? We need to elect officials that incentivize lower income households to generate more income, and raise themselves out of poverty...not continually legitimize mediocrity by supporting people's choice to not make more of themselves and for themselves. The fact is, under a system of wealth redistribution, the Government perpetuates the problem of poverty. People will always view it as acceptable to remain in poverty and to not rise above and elevate themselves when they are be supported by others.

Is health care broken, yes. Is our education system over funded and underachieving, yes. I do not argue that our current systems are not broken...I am simply saying, that by growing the government, we as a people lose control. We need a new solution- I don't believe that further socialization of government is that solution.

We have many social programs that are great and currently work. Roads, Libraries, and so many others. However, there is a line crossed when you completely supports income of another person from what is deemed as discretionary funds of others. Welfare, unemployment and disability are often abused by those who are completely capable to provide for themselves. Reform of these social programs are absolutely required.

So, what can we do right now to start funding the legitimate problems without having to have net higher taxes. (I say net, because there are so many tax programs that are starting and ending that both raise and lower different types of taxes)

End the war in Iraq- 10 Billion Dollars a month
I don't understand why we spend so much money overseas when we have a broken core to our current systems.

Well, this quickly became my longest blog posting. It isn't meant to be anti-Obama, it is really meant to be anti socialism, especially with respect to the redistribution of wealth. People need to be responsible for themselves and those whom they choose to be responsible for. I love this country, I hope to someday love its leader.

I bet that there are many of you who disagree with me in this blog in particular. I welcome your difference in opinion, and I respect it as well. Best wishes. Post comments guys- I want to hear from you.