Joe The Plumber

History will tell us whether Joe the Plumber unwittingly made the difference in the 2008 presidential campaign. There are a few things though we can already learn from Joe's imprint on this campaign. First of all, it is possible for an average citizen to have some kind of impact on a national level. Joe did not set out to make that kind of impact. In fact if Obama had not answered his question using the phrase "spread the wealth around", most likely Joe would have been long forgotten by now. So Joe was essentially an innocent bystander, minding his own business in his neighborhood when Obama came calling. Joe asked a simple, no nonsense question about Obama's plan to take even more money from wealthy people and give it to others. Obama made the news with his "spreading the wealth around" comment. The second thing we learn from Joe the Plumber is that if Obama and his followers do not like a question, or if Obama messes up an answer, their immediate action is to discredit someone else. In this case it was Joe. All the attention went toward digging up any dirt on this guy. His private records were accessed and he was dragged through the mud. So while one individual can make a difference, that difference may very well come with a price.

But there is something else we learned from Obama's response to Joe the Plumber. Obama believes in a "trickle up" theory of economics. He believes that if the waitress, the mechanic, or the taxi driver is making substantially more money, then anyone who traditionally earns more would equally benefit. In other words, if the waitress is earning more, she will enjoy a higher quality of life, spend more, and consequently drive the economy upward for the higher earners in the world. While this sounds nice, there is a part of the equation that I don't understand: how does the waitress, the mechanic, or the taxi driver get paid more? Where does that money come from? My best guess is one or all of the following: 1) profitable businesses would need to forego any profit in order to pay higher wages; 2) businesses would have to charge substantially more for goods and services; or 3) the government would need to intervene with subsidies (taxes) or by taking over certain businesses. None of these fit into our traditional concept of a free market capitalistic society. Without profits, companies will not grow, hurting our economy in the long term. If companies are charging substantially more in order to pay their employees more, fewer people (including those employees) will be able to afford their goods. All you are doing is shifting numbers higher. And no one (except for maybe Democrats) believes that government should be owning private industries. So my question to Obama is to please explain how all of this happens. How does he pull off a "trickle up" economy without effectively changing our fundamental economic values? What serves as his examples of how this works or that it does work? How do you provide higher pay to these lower income people? If it is through education, then wouldn't these people elevate themselves into higher paying jobs and careers rather than stay an educated waitress or taxi driver?

Today Obama ridiculed McCain for calling Obama's economic and tax plans as being "socialistic", and his answer to that was that McCain was being selfish. Selfish? Someone makes a living, earns a good, honest wage . . the government comes along asking for an even bigger cut of that in order to give it to someone who is not earning a decent, honest wage . . and for complaining about that he is now called selfish? God help us.

Are You Sure You Want This Guy?

I've always believed that Obama was great at pursuing job titles, but not so great (or even good) at performing those jobs. He's like the guy that is all about the pursuit of various women, but once he gets them, he is not comfortable with maintaining or building that relationship. This video gives us a glimpse of Obama as a U.S. Senator. Watching it, you get the sense that his commitment toward being a senator is not all that deep. Most of these sound bites occurred prior to his run for president. Imagine if being a U.S. Senator was a real job. Would any employer be happy to have an employee who was always late to work like this, or would they fire him? Would you hire someone who was constantly late to work? If not, why give him the job of president? It's 3:00 am . . where is President Obama? Oh, he's running late again, or maybe he's now running for king of the world.

Obama and Taxes

Generally speaking, I do not believe politicians, especially during campaigns. They promise everything to everyone, with either no intentions of actually following through or any idea of how they could actually fulfill their promises. Obama's tax "cuts" for people earning under $250,000 is a great example. He claims that 95% of people in America would experience a tax "cut". By now most people have heard that nearly 40% of Americans do not pay Federal income taxes, so there is no way they can experience a tax "cut". In Obama's plan these 40% would actually receive money from the government, even though they did not pay any income taxes. This is all part of Obama's "spread the wealth" philosophy (also know throughout the world as Marxism). Obama sees these checks as compensating and "cutting" what these people pay in payroll taxes (Social Security), hence the tax "cut". My question is what impact will this have on the future of Social Security? Isn't this working against the purpose and future health of Social Security? Isn't the concept that ALL Americans are to pay into Social Security?

But there is one other aspect of Obama's tax plan that has not been covered by journalists or by the McCain campaign. In 2010 the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire. In 2010 everyones effective tax rate will increase, regardless of how much someone earns. To Obama this is not considered a tax increase ( I wish someone would push him to explain why). For a married couple making $75,000, your taxes will go up by $3,074 when the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. For Obama, an extra $3,074 is not a tax increase. How can he get away with claiming tax "cuts" for 95% of the people when he knows everyone will be paying more when the Democratic congress and Obama himself allow the Bush tax cuts of 2003 to expire in 2010? Do you think they will fight to extend those cuts? Fat chance. Democrats have complained about those cuts for the past 5 years.

If you want to read some more about Obama and his tax plans, check this article out. Bottom line: don't trust this guy.

Why I Cannot Vote For Obama

There is no question that Barack Obama is a very telegenic politician. He has managed to capture the imagination of at least half the country. But to me there is a huge disconnect between the masterful speaker and his record of accomplishment. I look at it like this: either we are electing a car salesman for president, or a surgeon. Each comes with a very different set of qualifications. The car salesman is a smooth talker, skilled in making the customer feel good about buying something they maybe don't really need. There's nothing wrong with that. Sales is their job. Contrast that with the surgeon. We want our surgeons to be experienced, well schooled, tested and competent. It would be great if they were good communicators and had a nice bedside manner, but given the choice, we would prefer knowing that they have successfully done this surgery before, many times in fact. I prefer a president with the skill set similar to that of a surgeon over those of a car salesman.

I started to write something here about why I just cannot trust Obama, and therefore why I cannot vote for him. I read today something though that lays it out much better than I ever could, and I would encourage you to take some time to read through this article and watch its accompanying support videos.

Please Help Us Avoid An International Crisis

According to Joe Biden, "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy . . We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy." If that is the case, then doesn't it make sense that we should not elect Barack Obama as president? Biden is convinced that this international crisis will take place if Obama is president. Let's say this event takes place in much the same way that 9/11 occurred. Wouldn't it be prudent to do whatever we can to prevent that, including not electing the guy who would unwittingly be responsible for such an event? Please do your part to make sure we never have to find out.

Nice Video Showing Tolerance of Liberals

Some McCain/Palin supporters march through the streets of NYC a couple weeks ago. This video shows how the tolerant society responds. The video says it all.

Barack's Socialism

American Thinker has a great article titled "Why Obama's Socialism Matters". It is a great review and description of socialism. And if you are not convinced that Obama has a Socialistic world view, check this out.

The Rage at McCain Rallies

Over the past couple days much has been made of the apparent rage against Obama heard among people going to McCain/Palin rallies. I don't get the sense that it is all that prevalent or all that scary, but many in the press sure seem to be concerned. They don't like bad things being said about their guy. I tend to think that many of the people in the crowd are actually growing impatient with McCain himself, wishing he would "grow a pair" and start challenging Obama with more conviction and passion. Obama has gotten a free ride throughout the campaign, despite his shady background and his elusive answers, and conservatives are more than disappointed with McCain. I also have to wonder if some of those people hurling insults toward Obama at these rallies are in fact Obama followers who have infiltrated the other side, trying to stir up controversy. It fits in with the kind of tactics used by these people in demonstrations and other venues. Think of it this way: a half dozen Obama supporters at a McCain rally protesting McCain would not make much of an impact (okay, the media would make it out that there were hundreds there); but a half dozen Obama supporters pretending to be McCain supporters and then yelling outrageous insults about Obama ("he's a terrorist", "kill him") . . now that would get noticed. And it would make the McCain supporters look bad.

Regardless, Michelle Malkin has assembled an outstanding collection of rage on the left aimed toward McCain, Palin, and Bush. All of this of course is not a problem for the media or for the Obama campaign. They have no control over it. Yeah . . right.

Some Down Time

I'm taking advantage of some down time by making a trip out to Oregon. Visiting some friends in Portland and then down to Ashland/Medford area. It's always tough leaving Virginia during the fall, especially since the weather has been so great lately. But I'm definitely looking forward to seeing some old friends out west. After that trip I'm heading up to New York City for the PhotoPlus Expo. Looking at some album companies as well as hearing from some nationally recognized photographers. All in all the next couple weeks should provide some fun travel.

ACORN

I just had the displeasure of watching ACORN spokesman Scott Levenson on tv this morning (check it out below). He was being interviewed along with John Fund, who has written a book about stolen elections. I'm not sure I have seen a more annoying person being interviewed then this Levenson guy. What a jerk. It is common for people to interrupt others on these kind of split screen interviews, but this guy took it to a new level today. When he was speaking he was extremely insistent on finishing his comments, not letting John Fund say a word. When it was Fund's turn to answer a question, this Levenson guy would interupt or sigh out loud or go "tsk, tsk, tsk". I could tell that John Fund was in disbelief at Levenson's arrogance and rudeness.



I don't know a whole lot about ACORN, but it is clear that somewhere in there structure they are instructing their below entry level helpers to secure as many registrations as possible, without regard to their legality. How else do you explain that in the 20 states ACORN operates, some 13-14 states are experiencing serious problems with voter fraud via ACORN. If it was one or two states, maybe you could attribute it some rogue person; but this is a pattern that has spread throughout the country. I don't believe Obama's campaign is directly involved in any of this, even though they have contributed several million dollars to ACORN. What bothers me is that Obama and ACORN operate pretty much from the same Saul Alinsky playbook of deception, intimidation, and by shutting down any dissent. Not a good sign for the country if Obama should win this election.