Political Crap

03/08/2026

What I have learned in the past 40 years is that right now you are 100 % passionately convinced that you are right and NO WAY could you be wrong. In 2 to 5 years, you will not be so sure, and in 20 years, not only will it not matter so much, but you will also wonder how you got so easily brainwashed in the first place. Once it is no longer popular to yell, "Yay Trump" or "F-Yeah Trump", or to be on the "Hillary for Prison" or “Bernie or bust” train for that matter, is that a vast majority of the so called protestors and supporters (and for that matter the anti-Trumpers as well), will lose interest and disappear faster than rats off a sinking ship.

I think most of these so-called “Protesters” and "Supporters" have just now begun to engage in the political process, and they are still confused about how most of it works. Most people really don't want to know; they just want to give you their opinion, whether or not they know anything about the subject. They should never have gotten cell phones with an Internet connection, and we wouldn’t be dealing with this in the first place. Thankx Obama.

Who needs all that political crap anyhow? (What is Political Crap?)

If that were not true, it would not be like listening to them cheer on their favorite sports team whenever they talk (or, in this case, write). Right now, it is popular to be anti-political and to appear to be anti-politician and be called a "populist". My bet is that everything will be viewed much differently if you give it 3 or 4 years to coalesce. My question (My opinion, I know), if this is true, is "Where have you been since the end of the Vietnam war?” I'll bet the answer is probably in school, because that would be a hell of a long nap otherwise.

In addition, many of you are part of the trend that wants to choose which media to believe, if any. Because of that, there is no way to satisfy you when there is a comment asking for a reputable or believable media source to back up your facts and opinion (Like Trump and CNN), as others will just deride what you don't like or agree with. Then, because of the high numbers of neophyte supporters and our political climate, you can't even offer a reliable source yourself, because whoever you use will be quickly derided as part of the "Lame stream media", or immediately debunked as being biased by the other side of the conversation. Conversely, there is no reliable way to judge the media anymore.

Each person believes whatever source they choose, as none of them is deemed trustworthy or an arbiter of truth, and the escalation of the argument(s) just continues. The only folks I see who have it figured out are those who have studied the issues and have a well-developed sense of history (Like you, Slagle Reeves). The kicker is that none of this makes any real sense. It amazes me how little most of you know about political discourse and how easily you are manipulated by the media and by both political parties.

As if all of the hooting and hollering each side is engaging in right now will put one more gallon of milk in your fridge, or lower the price of gas by 2 cents.

As to all of the other lunacy that is going on? A replacement for the ACA that looks and sounds just like the current law? Trumps promise of Universal Healthcare with lower premiums than the ACA for everyone (that probably is going to end up being nothing like that), The doom and gloomers saying 32 million people are going to be thrown off of healthcare, How everything Trump says has to be funneled through his surrogates in order to make any sense out of it, Tweeting attacks on other members of Congress or attacking TV shows and actors ?, Defunding various organizations because of the Federal Funds spent on them and a host of other issues too numerous to list? The politicians are waiting for you to tune out so they can get back to staying elected for another 25 years.

If you can prove me wrong without calling me names, have at it. My bet is you will not be able to, and the best you can do is say, "I'm wrong, and you're right”, and you won't be able to specify why, without relying on anger and emotion, attacks, or using a derisive slur of some kind.

It's sad, really.
Prove me wrong.

Thankx for reading my Rant.

BigMike

Solve the Budget

 03/05/2026

Subject: How to solve a Budget crisis  

Hello, 

I have patiently listened to politicians and pundits go on and on about how the government will solve the current budget crisis because the economy is down and revenues are down, etc. I don't think any of the people we elected have a clue, and if they were on Wheel of Fortune, they would buy a Z and call it a vowel. 

Listen, it is not that hard. 

The main problem is that they (politicians and the like) do not think of the Budget or Revenue as real money. To you and to me, when we talk about our household budget, we are talking about the money we earn from a paycheck, and it is real, tangible, and has a beginning and an end. We start with no money. We earn money from work. We spend money on bills. What is left over (if any) is a surplus; if none is left over, we are overdrawn, and we owe the bank money. 

The reason we can afford to think this simply is because it is not difficult to understand, it is real, and it is effective to do it this way. 

It actually is that simple. 

Spend money you do not have, and it is either credit (as in credit cards) or theft. Spend money from your bank account that you don't have in the bank, and see what charges are brought against you from the bank. It is very easy to explain, very easy to understand. Real worry and real pain happen when you do not have the money to pay the light bill or do not have money for groceries, and you will be sued if you do not pay for the credit card. Trust me. 

If you borrow more money to cover a shortfall this year, your payments for this loan increase in future years. This debt increase may solve it this year, but will make it worse in future years as the payments towards the debt increase.

This is much the same as running up a big credit card balance. Using a credit card may help you now, but later, when you have to start paying for it, you'll need to use real money to cover the expense. If you raise taxes to cover a revenue shortfall, the folks who pay the taxes make reductions in other areas because it is real money, and there is only so much of it to go around. The way we treat it is: if you raise my taxes, I take less vacation (for example), and your revenues from vacationers are lower because I have less to spend, and I have to make a reduction somewhere. There is a defined amount of money to spend. This is what is known as the self-fulfilling prophecy. You make me pay more; therefore, I have less to spend, so I spend less; and you (the Government) still have less money to work with, and the problem is not any smaller; it is just paid a different way. You robbed Peter and paid Paul with the same money. 

Simple huh? I think if I can figure this out and you can understand it, then anybody can. I also think this is what ordinary people do every day when managing real money. They (our Politicians) need to treat the budget just as you and I do. They (our Politicians) need to treat it as real money, and they usually don't. They (our Politicians) forgot that every dime they spend comes from you and me to begin with. 

The Politicians would have you believe that it is a whole lot more complex than I've explained. The problem (at least at the Federal level) is that if you run out of money, you either borrow more or print more. At the State and local level, you either borrow more, or you try to raise taxes to cover the costs, or you may try to adjust the money you spend to meet the expected level of revenue. In all cases, they (our Politicians) forgot to treat incoming money as real dollars and cents. 

Typically, none of the three things mentioned above actually work, and none of them solves the problem. It seems like it is due to bookkeeping, but it really isn't because the issue never goes away, and we keep hearing about it year after year. Using any or all of these methods just extends the problem into the future. 

If the Federal government decides it needs more money and prints more money to increase the money supply, it immediately worsens the problem on two levels. First, because the money supply is larger, each dollar in that supply is worth less. Read this simple explanation of fractions, and you'll see what I mean.

If you have one (1) of something and there are five (5) in total, then you have one-fifth of the overall supply. If you have one (1) of something and there are six (6) of them in the overall supply, then you have one-sixth of the total supply. The amount you control is worth less in the overall supply.

When you hear about the cost of the dollar or how the dollar rates against a foreign currency, this is what it means. Importing goods from abroad costs more because you have to use more of your money to pay for it.

Second, because the value of the money you control is worth a smaller amount, you have to spend more of it to purchase goods and services. This is because businesses raise prices to maintain the same level they are used to, to make a profit at the level they need to continue doing business. This is called inflation.

When you hear someone talk about the "Buying Power" of money, this is what they mean. 

The next thing they always try seems logical, yet it is not a viable solution because it never properly accounts for fixed costs and overvalues items we cannot afford, given the revenues we have to work with. Certain things in any government budget just won't go down all that much when trying to reduce expenses by making cuts across the board. Things like the costs of housing prisoners cannot really be reduced. What are you going to do, have fewer guards or have fewer prisons to house the same number of prisoners?

It is a silly proposition, and it never works. Ever. 

First, if the President or a Governor says to his staff, "Reduce expenses by Ten Percent (10 %) in every department," they may make some changes, but they will never really make a substantial change because they do not really control the purse strings. It sounds good on the News or in the newspaper, but makes very little difference because nothing is ever eliminated from the budget. You just end up with the same things at a smaller level. 

Second, the legislature (or Congress) controls what is spent by appropriating funds to programs. If the head of State (the Governor or President, for example) makes too many changes, they can just rewrite the legislation to make it law-enforceable by the courts, or take it out of the Head of Government's control. This is due to the influence afforded to selected groups of people routinely called "special interests".

You then run into the NIMBY effect. Everybody thinks we need a new prison or a new waste dump, as long as it's NOT In My BackYard. 

We would never have to cut the number of teachers, fire police officers, close fire stations, or provide fewer children's services if they had the guts to do one thing right. 

Every item in every budget should be assigned a priority, just like you and I do. If we have less money, what do we do? We go to the movies less, we spend less money at Christmas, we take less expensive vacations, and we buy cheaper goods instead of expensive ones.

We don't reduce our spending across the board by ten percent; we eliminate expenses we cannot afford until we spend less than the required amount. Here is what they ought to do, yet never will do, because of the influence of "Special Interests". 

Let's say there are 2000 (two thousand) items in a State (or any Government) budget. There are undoubtedly more, but let's say it is 2000.

Put the highest-priority items at the top; start with Number One (1), then prioritize, and number every item until everything in the budget is on the list, numbered One (1) through Two Thousand (2000). Along with each item, list the cost of each item next to it.

Now put the accountants to work and figure out, as closely as we can, how much real money we have coming in. Classify every budget expense as one of three things. One is a need (absolutely must have), the next is a desire (just would like to have), and the next is a want (Would like but could do without).

1. Cut all wants first. 
2. If that is not enough, cut out the desires. 
3. If it gets bad enough, you have to cut back on needs. If you absolutely must meet all needs, you can raise taxes.
4. Adjust each line item to the level of what remains; if that is not enough, start with the last item on the list and eliminate it. 
5. Keep eliminating until your expenses match your revenue. Understand: if we do this, we will eliminate things that would be nice to have but cannot afford at this time. We may not be able to give block grants to build a new park or to fund some arcane study of some state insect, but we would have teachers, etc., at the level we have to.
6. I suspect that if politicians would do this one simple exercise, we would never lay off a teacher, a firefighter, or a police officer again. I also think that if they looked at it this way, we wouldn't mind paying a little more in taxes, because we would know why they are necessary to raise. 

Politicians will never do this because they have forgotten that their job is to represent us, not to do things that will ensure their re-election. 

What do you think?  

Thankx for reading my rant.



BigMike

 

 

Boomer Talks About Term Limits

 

Boomer Talks

About Term Limits

The Electoral College has a purpose

Monday, 06/22/2020 at about 7:30 a.m. (I've been watching television, sorry)

Again with the lectures and oh well, I see folks talking about stuff like they know,

Well, boys and girls, it's that time again, another day in the lecture series entitled "What you should know in order to be an American citizen."

I'm BigMike and welcome to my Ted Talk.

First, I have to say, I am just absolutely blown away as I read social media and the news and commentary not only on the Internet but on physical newspapers and other sources. I am stunned at how many people really don't understand how our country was designed to operate but also have not the first clue how to participate in it. They do not vote and do not know how to vote. One guy said to me "If I register to vote, the next thing you know they will be calling me for jury duty." In addition, it is overwhelming at the sheer number of people that express the sentiment that they do not care what goes on around them, but they also have no desire to learn it either. Another man told me "I am a busy man with a life to live and a family to raise who has time for all the voting shit." To live life in this country and never want to participate or experience how it works is to me, just depressing.

I cannot understand how anyone can think like that. It is almost easier to understand how people can want to withdraw from society altogether than to be able to wrap your brain around the thought that there are people who want to live here and just want the government to leave them alone in every other aspect of their lives.

Elementally there are certain things I think that every citizen should know. Really, I think there are things that every citizen should be required to do, and I am not sure how you would go about ensuring that it happens. It is amazing to me that immigrants have to be tested to achieve naturalized citizen status and people that were born here cannot even tell you where most of the states are. Jay Leno on the Tonight Show used to have a segment on that he called "Jay-Walking", where he would take a microphone and a camera into the streets of downtown LA and just ask people questions, to see if they could answer basic questions that everybody should know. One of the things he would do is walk around near a college campus and ask college students to identify states on a big US map. Almost everybody could identify their home state, almost none of them could identify the Eastern seaboard states. Usually close to zero could tell him how laws were created, or how our militaries were structured. Until he got to immigrant communities, they could almost tell him everything he wanted to know. People who wanted to be Americans so bad would study everything they could find on the subject in order to prepare for the tests.

People that lived here could care less and would walk away. It's the same way today and it is stunning.

One of the most misunderstood mechanisms of our election system for example is the Electoral College system. Most people know that it exists in some form or another but almost NOBODY can tell you what the purpose of it is or how it operates or why. Students of history may be able to reason out a few details however, Joe Average American doesn't have a friggin clue and to me, that is one amazing and terrifying statistic at the same time.

Almost no one can tell you how a vote they cast in a Presidential election in November translates into the votes of their electors in their states December. Many people think that the name of the system designates a place or a group of buildings and it has nothing to do with that at all. The only reason the term "College" is even used in the name at all is that it was a term that was used long ago to describe a gathering of representatives of the people that were ordained to represent their interests in a collegial way, that is peacefully and with dignity. It never was intended to describe a building or a location.

The number of electors assigned to each state is equal to the number of senators plus the number of members of the house of representatives in the US Congress. In this manner, smaller states with smaller populations have more power than their population may suggest but not as much as bigger more populous states do.

The electoral college was created by a set of so-called uneasy compromises at the end of the constitutional convention in 1787. The framers could not decide whether the choice of a president should be made by Congress or by the States. They also could not decide whether all states should have an equal voice (or power) in the selection or if more populous states should have more of a say in the overall outcome or process. Also, there wasn't agreement as to whether the choice of a state should be made by local elites or by popular votes cast. In the end, the declared "Committee on Unfinished Parts" created a unique structure that was ultimately approved, called the electoral college.

State legislatures could use their discretion to determine how to choose electors and some states just appointed electors until around the mid-1800s. In most states, the legislature gives the winning party the duty of choosing their electors and most states have a "winner takes all" process, although some states allow for a proportioned choice of electors based on the popular vote totals. Most electors are typically members of their respective parties and are pledged to vote for their party's choice for President. These are called "Faithful electors", that are electors that are bound to vote for their party's choice. Some states do not absolutely require this to be and those electors are called "Faithless Electors", and they are not bound by anything ut tradition to vote for their party's choices. As you can imagine, neither party is thrilled with this kind of elector. The political party likes to know what the outcome is going to be with certainty when the electors meet to cast their ballots in December.

This month, the US Supreme court will issue a ruling on the independent powers of the electoral college. This ruling should finally clear up the meaning of and determine the use of the college in the future. We'll have to wait and see what happens in the future to what impact it has on future elections.

There is a movement underfoot in America, funded by the democrats,  that wants to eliminate the Electoral college. It is my opinion that this effort will fail as it will require the passage of a Constitutional amendment to remove this process from American politics and I do not think there is enough political will to make it happen. Also, as most people who are in favor of this, are poorly educated on the way the process works, they have a tough time explaining it other than expressing a general dislike for it, they cannot make a strong enough case to make it happen. It's hard to explain something this complicated to people who don't want to hear the information in the first place.

The popular sentiment is that because of the electoral college system, we have had presidents elected to office who received fewer votes than the person who lost the election. Based upon the aggregate popular vote totals this is a persuasive argument, however it is not how our election system works and is not how it has ever worked and is nothing new really. People have called the Electoral system anti-democratic because of this. In two of the past five elections have been decided by this system and not by popular vote totals. For example, both G.W. Bush and Donald Trump have gone on to become president although they lost the aggregate popular vote totals.

So what would happen if we eliminated the Electoral College system? Well, one thing that would immediately happen is that the saying "one person- one vote", would take on more significance than it ever has. In practice, the system in place now requires a majority of the electoral votes cast to be elected. The majority at this time is 270 votes, which is one more than 50% of the total of 538 Electors. The # of electors varies by state, for example while Alabama has 9, Massachusetts has 11 and Vermont only has 9.
.
The problem created by removing the system is that smaller less populous states have will have much less influence in the outcome and the larger your population the bigger your influence. That seems like a good idea maybe until you consider that in some states larger cities can be more than 65% of a state's population and theoretically you could win an election by winning big cities and ignoring rural America altogether. The other side of that argument is that it is exactly what Barack Obama did in 2008 so it didn't make any difference to begin with, however, his x-factor was minority voters as well as everyone else so it is difficult to extrapolate that election using that argument.

The bottom line is the system worked as intended and because of the system doing its job and attempting to represent the nation, Barack Obama won and Hilary Clinton lost. Although the popular vote was huge for Hilary in California, the electoral college diminished the effect of the popular vote by reducing it to the number of electors controlled by the state. That made every other state count more equally and that is what it is designed to do. Without the college, you could control 10-12 major cities more or less without caring much about the vote anywhere else, win the election and the will of 35 or so states would be negated. This protects the votes of small towns and rural America.

That is why we need the electoral college no matter what your political affiliation is.

1. Comedian-actor D.L. Hughley collapsed onstage in Nashville TN the other night and has now tested positive for COVID-19
   
   
2. A federal judge has denied the Trump administration's request to block publication of John Bolton's book. Saying "the cat was out of the bag, the judge opined there was no way to undo what was already done.
   
   They are still going to try to take away any profits he makes from the sale of the book, however.
   
   
3. A warrant has been issued for the arrest of the subject who allegedly burned Wendy's restaurant where Rashard Brooks was shot by police.
   
   A white, blonde-haired woman is being sought.
   
   
4. Sick outs continue on the 5th day in Atlanta as cops refuse to report for duty because of how stupid the politicians are.
   
   No word on a resolution.
   
   
5. Several bags of human remains have washed ashore in Seattle WA on the shoreline. At least two bags were recovered. No word on sex or identities or how many bodies.
   
   Probably a coincidence there is civil unrest there too.
   
   Yeah, that's it, a coincidence.
   BigMike

we oughtta do somethin!!

Why BLUFF, BLUSTER, RANT and RAVE

There OUGHTTA BE A LAW !!

We need a new law to go on top of the laws already being ignored

because we oughtta DO SOMETHIN!!

Thoughts and Prayers, but we oughtta do somethin!!

https://youtu.be/6OTcJAMfutQ

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

“Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. “- Daniel Patrick Moynihan

I am overweight and white. I am handicapped and I am in my 50’s. I am a male. I don’t speak for fat, gimpy, white, male 50 year olds everywhere. I am not the spokesman for my race. I have a concealed gun carry permit, am not a member of the NRA and occasionally do carry a handgun but I don’t profess to speak for any other gun owners. In the last 6 elections I have voted both Democrat and Republican. I am liberal and I am Conservative depending upon the candidate and the issue. I don’t represent a political affiliation or a party view.

I have 2 questions about the Zimmerman-Martin conflict/trial/outcome (The events, death, fight, shooting, the trial and the verdict)

Almost everyone I have talked to thinks this was a case sort of described as “about a grown adult attacking and shooting a tiny 13 year old kid who was outweighed by over 100 lbs"  

Did you see the following reporting in the mainstream media anywhere –printed, video or verbal on the Radio, TV or online or in Newspapers?

Have you ever seen it reported anywhere at all in any medium?
(Hint – It’s a trick question, as this a small, miniscule tip off to the information iceberg that wasn’t reported because it wasn’t convenient and it wasn’t ratings or subscriber worthy.) (PS “This” and the “It” , I use are made to refer to the inconsistencies, lies, distortions, speeches, and manipulations presented in the media concerning this story. There are literally millions of resources available to tell this story and a very high majority of them got it wrong on a lot of factual levels.)For the life of me I cannot understand the reaction of Leonard Pitts Jr (Nationally Syndicated Columnist for the Miami Herald and a Pulitzer Prize winner), beyond the attachment to the story because of his racial makeup. I read everything he wrote and have to say, I am confused if he used facts or assumption or made it up as he went along in order to write his articles and response to the act and the trial.

  

If he is responsible for black response and portrays it “accurately” then let’s see….

Was “it” Reported in the New York Times, or in the LA Times or the NY POST?-Noooo I don’t think so.

Was “it” reported in the Wall Street Journal or even the National Enquirer?
-NOOOO You also didn’t see it in the bottom of a bird cage and it wasn’t on Men in Black either.

Was “it” Seen on NBC, CBS, and ABC, CNN, FOX News or anywhere else for that matter?
-Hell NO, you are joking right?

“It” Definitely was not pushed, prodded and promoted by the Rev's Sharpton, Jackson or Farrakhan (You may know them as the official spokesmen for Black Americans everywhere.)

They said this was a lynching somewhat like the killing of Emmitt Till. (That reference pissed me off and I am lily white!)

What a bunch of morons. You would think the public Big 3 in charge of Black response would at least know the history. This is the whole problem with the way this story was presented by our so called "journalists". This is what is wrong with politics, and is exactly why you, as you read this, don't really give a rat’s ass about it at all. It’s called the NIMBY affect. Doesn’t affect me, I don’t care. As long as it’s NOT IN MY BACK YARD. I cannot understand why people are not pissed off and vocal about this 12 month LIE!

What is “it” you say, well,

 

Take a look at this video –

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56&load=8689

And then take a few minutes and read this article (link below).

The link below is one of the only discussions I have seen thus far that addresses the factual elements.Everybody else got “it” wrong and some are still getting “it” wrong as you read this.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2013/07/13/answering-7-key-questions-about-the-george-zimmerman-trial-n1639838/page/full

I’m not trying to change your mind; as a matter of fact you can think whatever you want, you can support Jesse Jackson and his idiocy, it’s OK with me. The facts would be nice, but whatever. It won't change anyone's mind about what happened, however at least the framework of your thought process will be surrounded by facts instead of by sound bites, vapid talking head stupidity and racial bigotry from all sides. No one will respond to this in a positive manner. I get that. Go ahead and spew your racial filth and gripe all you want. I don't care too much about your nonsense, because the facts don't change because you don't like them. Every one wishes it would go away. I get that too. This is a very tough subject to think about intellectually. Easier to spew racial epithets and say stupid crap that doesn't have any bearing on the facts.

Anyone who has an opinion about the trial should read this. Factually almost 100 % of what you heard about the night this kid was shot was incorrectly reported, the facts were wrong and distorted or plain wrong on a lot of levels and mostly by the mainstream media.

ALMOST Every major news outlet reported the facts WRONG and really NO ONE has corrected their bad reporting. Almost everyone I have talked to thinks this was a case sort of described as “about a grown adult attacking and shooting a tiny 13 year old kid who was outweighed by over 100 lbs". Even the picture his parents are using to defend the kid is almost 4 years old. I don't blame them and I hope they find peace, but look at the facts. Just once, make up your own mind.

As the author of the article said "It's sad that this case has become polluted with politics, racial grievances and wild speculation in the media because the evidence in this case overwhelmingly suggests that it should be considered a tragedy, not a crime."

I’m a gun owner. I carry a pistol sometimes. Given the ACTUAL facts, I might have shot him too. Everyone who in any official act who caused the Sanford Police Chief to lose his job for not charging Zimmerman should be charged with malfeasance and breach of public trust. Who should be prosecuted here are the politicians. President Obama should be ashamed of supporting this thug.

We are a bunch of stupid, stupid people.

I understand his parent’s motivation however.

Their actions are thus far the only ones that make sense and I get.

I hope they find peace.

Thankx for reading my Rant.

BigMike

I am ticked off at the Politicians and am telling them about it !!

Check out Rant # 4, I am ticked off at Politicians and am telling them all about it.

Please tell all of your friends see it too.

Let’s tell all the politicians too finally and once and for all to get off the over-paid butts and do something!!

If they don't lets fire all of them!!

http://www.youtube.com/user/bgbos

Thankx for reading and watching my rants!!

-bigmike

Political Junk!

Here's the part I don't understand.We been changing Republican candidates like they are underwear.It's making me a little crazy trying to keep up with it.

Well anyway this is crazy. One candidate is making fun of another. One of them is crying space and the fruitcake. Ron Paul thinks he is a viable candidate . I don't get it.Are we supposed to take any of these clowns seriously. The woman is a goofball. The pizza guy cannot keep it in his pants,one of them has a half $1 million credit line at Tiffany's,the other one created Obama care. He says he's a conservative,and were supposed to vote for him even though he doesn't believe in the same God that every body else believes in.

Newt Gingrich space says he's not good do negative political attack ads. However, all of his competition who are also Republican conservative politicians are spending all their time beating en up on each other. And then when all this is over. We are supposed to forget everything they've said and just focus on the candidate that is the last one left standing. It makes me nuts. It's no wonder the average American will not pay attention to politics and more. How can they? Space you can't take him serious. Space Herman Cain Herman Cain never met a brassiere that he couldn't tame. I told you it's making me loop. When is it going to stop?

I found out today that we had a Republican candidate that dropped out of the race and is now a Libertarian candidate, and I did not even know he was in the race. I used to be a student of politics loved it. I couldn't get enough. I would read about it all day, research it, blog about it, write about it, talk about it, e-mail about it, and generally pontificate until I can watch the eyes on the people that I was talking to start to roll back into their head as the drool come out of their mouth ever so gently and start to leak down their lips.

Now, not so much. I mean think about it was I supposed to vote for Bob Dole? Al Gore? John Kerry? John McCain? Sarah Palin (you have to be kidding right?) . People sit around and weep about how George W. Bush got elected, and the best they can do. Are these dried-up idiots or millionaires that think they deserve a shot at the presidency because they been there longer than anybody else.I'm a Republican.

I just want Obama to go. I don't think he has been good for America. I don't think he was qualified to be the president in the first place. He had no work experience, he had no life experience , he was an unknown state legislator,whose claim to fame was he married a good-looking woman and he had a law degree. He had also written a couple books.I'm still waiting to be impressed. Jimmy Carter has wrote way more than a dozen books and he was still a terrible president. He was a pretty good writer, though.

The point is, just because you're good public speaker that doesn't mean you're qualified to be someone that can make decisions of this magnitude. There are people that believe very strongly space that he was the right man for the job at the right time in history. I am proud of America for having the guts to stand up and say his race did not matter. Space I wish they also would've said "his race didn't matter because he was not qualified for the job. " But we were so head over heels in love with the guy space that we could see our way to the end of the election without destiny getting in the way.

I felt sort of the same way about Hillary Rodham Clinton. My objection to her was not because of her experience level, because I think she would've made a better president than Obama. My objection to her was because I think she's as crooked as her husband was. And I can never forget her famous vast right wing conspiracy speech,where she stood by her husband and blame the vast right wing conspiracy for this mere allegations in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Although if my choice was either Hillary or Obama, I think I would've picked Hillary even though I don't like her. She had at least been exposed to the operations of the White House and understood it and had been a politician most of her adult life. Space I never understood and still do not understand what people see space in the presidency of Barack Obama.

I will tell. I know people don't always agree with me and that's okay. You don't have to. Space we can agree just to disagree. I'm okay with that.

Let's take a little time this election cycle and may be asked to candidates are real important question. What qualifies you to be president. I still have not heard that one answered and I haven't been real impressed with any of the candidates. I have seen so far ..



Thank you for reading my rant.
 Dictated with Dragon NaturallySpeaking space version 11.5–
Big Mike

Politicians are no Help and never have been

Over the years I have had occasion to listen to a great many political speeches and to pay close attention to the descriptions of a lot of political promises. In the final analysis I don’t know why WE ALWAYS fall for the same tired old crap but we always do. Politicians promise us the moon and deliver a piece of green cheese.

It happens every single stinking time.

It just irritates me that a politician can blithely promise anything and it is written off as a “Campaign promise”, and if we were to do the EXACT SAME THING at work, it would be called a lie and we would get fired. See ya, wouldn’t want to be ya !

I’m not going to go back to the beginning of time; however I am sure you will recognize a few of these gems.

• We are going to mark a DMZ at the 38th parallel that will define the two countries so that we can train the local troops, which will allow Americans to come home. This was the idea in 1955 in Korea. We still have thousands of troops deployed there and hundreds of other places around the globe that have very little to do with the original reason we went there to begin with. If you don’t believe me, just answer what the hell we are still doing in Germany, decades after WWII, and have thousands of troops deployed there and Korea and Japan and etc.

• We are going to create “Enterprise zones”, which will encourage investment in poverty stricken areas, thereby preventing gentrification and the wholesale destruction of local neighborhoods. This was the idea behind one plan pushed by Ronald Reagan, and was the force which basically unleashed “Eminent Domain” actions by localities, thereby ensuring the wholesale destruction of local neighborhoods.

• Tax cuts will help those less fortunate to be able to “Insert latest lie”. Tax cuts do not help low income wage earners. It is no help to have your taxes cut $5 per paycheck. When you roll it up it allows a politician to say they have cut taxes by millions or billions of dollars, however the individual person isn‘t helped at all. Someone who has a billion dollars on the other hand? Well I guess it depends upon if you call a 20 million dollars reduction in tax liability “help”.

• The latest round of tax plans, Housing ideas, College tuition programs that all the candidates are blathering about have one thing in common. They are all so full of holes, tests, disqualifiers and so called “means testing” that they are more confusing than a tax form and when you get right down to it, a very low percentage of affected individuals are eligible for their “savior” programs and an even lower percentage will take advantage of it.

Here is why Its just another lie.

If you have to be 100 % caught up on your mortgage payments, have great credit, have “X” dollars in savings then your program is not designed to help people that are “underwater” or “in trouble” on their home mortgages. It is designed to help the doctor that lives next door to the Politician and owns a million dollar (or more) mansion. It certainly will help no one who is currently in foreclosure or bankruptcy , because by virtue of the fact that they have had to declare bankruptcy , it virtually ensures they will have no money, be behind on mortgage payments, and have ruined or wrecked credit.

Who do these idiots think they are fooling anyway? Why don't they just have Ron Popiel do all the political ads? Then at least they would be funny, memorable and you wouldn't mind being lied to so much because you would know it was a ridiculous boast to begin with.

I'd love to talk more about it but my pocket fisherman in the glove box is calling.  We are having fish for dinner tonite and I'm gonna cook. Just put it in the Oven and "Set it, then Forget it!"

I see my wife on the corner over there. ":Hey Good Looking, I'll be back to pick you up later!!". 'Scuse me while I spray my hair on.......

So I was wondering if Its just me

Seems like the more we talk about a recovery the longer it takes. If I remember right this has been going on since early 2007 in some sectors and tanked for sure about a month before the election that saw Obama swept into office. So under two Presidents, three different Congress's and getting ready to be three election cycles, nothing much has changed has it?

Lets see.

• Banks are still foreclosing on people and charging stupid outrageous fees to use our money right ? 

• Jobs are still headed over seas and no one is hiring except Fast Food restaurants ?

• Unemployment is still "Officially" over 10 %, reality is closer to 20 % right ?

• We still have a war going in Afghanistan and whatever you call that mess in Iraq right ?

• We are still TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS in debt right ?

• Bankruptcies are at an all time high still , right ?

• Advertising dollars are still lower than they have been in years right ?

• Meaningless statistics are still being touted as a useful measure of the Economy right ? (Housing starts for one)
• Wholesale prices have began to rise triggering Inflation in  some very important sectors including coffee , Right ?
• Oil prices are still high, Auto sales are still low and not much over last year if at all, right ?
• We are still fighting about the "debt ceiling" (14.9 trillion dollars) right ?
• Access to credit is still tight , right ? Most credit cards are close to 20 % on average, even though large banks borrow money at close to 0 % right ?

OK, so I am obviously confused.
What is it that is better ?

Behold, the future is here

Well, I'm not saying it will never happen again, but I think I am about done writing about politics. It seems as if I write for the benefit of myself and a couple of other people and that's about it. It is almost the same way when the subject comes up in conversation. I'll answer a political question from someone with more than the standard , often repeated answer and slowly but surely the eyes begin their travels. First its side to side, then add in the up and down motion, then a look of panic and I get amused and now I can't stop talking because you look scared and then the eyes begin their travels into the back of your head as you slowly begin to gurgle.

Similar when I write about it. 8 paragraphs with facts and research and opinion and hard hitting concise comments and it gets turned into somebody Else's comment that usually is two words and the last one is either "sucks" or is "You". As in "He sucks" or "F**k you".

So whats the point ?

Its not like I work for Newsweek. I just think about this stuff and thought others would like to share in the dialog.

Guess not.

So until I find an audience for it, in a place where we can be as full of crap as the politicians, I am gonna find other topics I think.

An Important Lesson in Political Math

10 Steps to Bragging about what you are doing for the American Taxpayer

Or how politicians say they are saving you Money , therefore leading to their own re-election because of their historic voting , strong record and pro-business stance.

1. Propose a program that will lead to some dubious untested benefit that does not have to be quantified, qualified or proven. Do not worry about whether or not the program will work as the other party will bash it greatly no matter what you say nor what you do.
2. Come up with a final cost number in the Press release for the announcement of the Program something on the order of "Senator X says 60 Billion dollar jobs plan will help economy".
3. Also somewhere in the statement guess at the number of "jobs" (or other benefits) that will be created as a result of implementing your plan. "Senator X says his job plan will create 2500 jobs."
4. Ignore and do not count any jobs that are lost as a result of the plan and always count low paying non union jobs that replace high paying or unionized jobs as equal positions. For reference please see "NAFTA - What the hell happened to my job , by Dr. Suess"
5. Create rules for implementing the program that keep out the Riff Raff, meaning anyone who has no need for the money created by this program.
6. Add up the final expenses for the program and narrowly define as expenses only those items you really cannot blame on someone else. Assume this number is half of the original estimate no matter what the facts say.
7. Add up the final jobs you say were created for the program and narrowly define as a created job every item for which tips, wages or barter like trading was used to pay anyone like a paperboy, your babysitter or the morning wino you give spare change to on your way to work. Include the homeless bum who holds the "Will work for food sign at the Interstate".  Assume this number is double the original estimate no matter what the facts say.
8. Form exploratory committee and PAC to advise you on important issues. Staff both organizations with your cronies. Loan both organizations your top speechwriters. Have everybody except you put out press releases and articles to newspapers etc, saying what a wonderful job your program did for the American People. Have both organizations distort the facts and further muddy the waters by claiming wild claims like for example Tell one of them to say Your program has cured AIDS.
9. Book several appearances on Sunday Morning Talk shows and talk to Important Newspaper writers, television news celebrities Like Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer. Make no public comments until you begin to speak out on the issues.
10. Announce you are running for President and then ask for time to set the record "straight" in order to counter claim some of the more wild things that have been said in the past few days. Announce that your program saved the American Public 30 Billion dollars (Even though you actually spent 30 Billion dollars) and that it created 5000 jobs and spent less money than was projected in order to do so. Call this productivity at its highest level and then spend some time being humble , admitting somebody got it wrong by saying your program was a cure for anything.

Cue American Flag.

Cue Pictures of Family.

Fade to black.

Ride to Elected office in big black limo smoking fat black stogie.

Life is good.

Obama's New Job Plan - DOA

So the latest is that Obama has a new Jobs plan. Big whoopee. Another stupid political lie.

Supposedly it includes 300 Billion dollars and a lot of spending. Most of it I suspect is smoke and mirrors and a bunch of typical Washington DC Lies.

It will not be released until Thursday  when in a speech before a joint session of Congress he will propose to lift the ailing economy through the familiar and tired yet useful  litany of tax credits, job training for the unemployed , school renovations and a program to prevent teacher layoffs. Also somewhere muddled in this morass of jumbled items is a proposal to ask lawmakers to renew the 2% payroll tax cut and to once again extend jobless benefits to the unemployed. These details are fluid and could change as this is what is called “informed sources”; meaning leaked on purpose to gauge reaction and won’t be finalized until the Administration is ready to give the Speech.

That part pisses me off because what it says to me is that it really is not important enough to be a good plan as long as it looks like a good plan.  That means you and me? We are not important as long as we don’t do enough to make the Administration look good. This is probably one of the biggest arguments for term limits in my opinion. They work for reelection and don’t work for us. Democrats and Republicans alike are more worried about what they say and how it plays out in the press than they ever are worried about doing the right thing and helping the country get back on its ”proverbial feet”.

They are more worried about how it looks than they are about what it does. Actions mean nothing to this crop of Politicians. I could not serve with this bunch. I would be arrested once a week from slugging a few of them in the mouth every time they said something stupid or told another in a long string of lies.

See here is the part they won’t tell you. It may be a “Quote 300 Billion Dollar Program”, but when you look at the overall picture and at the total number of unemployed as well as the impact made by the 2% tax credit continuance which is part of that big number and the other parts you realize it really isn’t all that much money being directed at a trillion dollar problem. It doesn't spend the money creating jobs and won't help you ar me one bit. Just like always.

They are all scared to tell the American public that it will take at least another Trillion dollars to fix this mess.

We have almost 10 % Unemployment in this country. Just using these numbers to calculate against that represents at least 30 million unemployed. This number does not take into account all the adjusting and the people who are not counted in this number like the chronically unemployed, the underemployed and so forth. The 2% tax credit renewal counts for about 1/3 of the 300 Billion (about 90 Billion dollars) and this is not money we will spend at all, it is money we will not collect.

Without even doing any serious math you can see the cost of the program starts out at 210 Billion and the politicians lie about the non collection of future income being counted as expenditure. The tax credits amount to the same kind of thing. Revenue we will not collect and never see is counted as an expense.

Here is why this is important. Let’s talk about it like it is paycheck money.

Let’s say I am your employer and I tell you I am giving you a 25 % raise in the form of a credit. In order to earn the credit you must drive a brand new car that burns Bio-Diesel fuel, seats 9 people, participates in a car pool and is available to the local police department as a loaner vehicle. Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it.? That’s no kind of raise at all is it? It’s not real money is it?

Well this is exactly how congress gives a tax cut and how it counts it as spending. When they project how much it will cost they say enormous sums like 45 billion dollars if it is fully utilized. Then reality sets in and people start to try to use the credit and they find out they do not qualify, because they do not meet the "reasonable conditions" of the program (sort of like the Loan Modification Programs in the housing loan mess huh ? ) .  

It turns out that nationwide only 5% of employees can meet the requirements of the program and the entire program only costs 5 Billion dollars.

If you ask a politician to explain it he will tell you that the American taxpayer under his watch saved 40 Billion dollars and nowhere in his response will he mention that he spent 5 billion bucks to implement a silly ass program like this in the first place.

The next thing is they are going to renovate a bunch of schools. I am asking FOR WHAT PURPOSE?? You have already fired all the teachers. Do any of you numbskulls read the news? What are you going to do, build a bunch of classrooms, and not have any teachers to teach in them?

I can’t wait to see the real numbers associated with this bull**t.