National Senate Races

I was hoping to find time to write about some cool new tech in the works, but since it is political season, I decided to keep going while people are still interested enough to read about the national scene.  The national senate races have been quite interesting this year.  Let me break it down.

Republicans are slated to take 2 democrat seats: 1 from Nebraska and another from North Dakota. 

Democrats are likely to steal one Rep seat up in Maine from Snow who is retiring from politics.

This puts Democrats at 46 seats and Republicans at 44.  The 10 toss up senate races are in 

Arizona

Connecticut

Indiana

Massachusetts

Missouri

Montana

Nevada

Ohio

Virginia &

Wisconsin

If Republicans can bump up to 51 seats they will control both sides of the house. How likely is this?  Well the elections are about a week away and according to polls here are the current standings:

Massachusetts, Connecticut and Virginia are solidly (enough) in Democrat hands.  This pushes them up to 49 seats meaning they only have to grasp 2 more to maintain majority in the Senate.  It is very likely that Ohio will fall into the democrats court and Missouri has a slightly blue tilt after Akins now famous remarks about "legitimate rape".  If somehow Akin pulls off a win then the democrats are on shaky ground.  The Republicans are solid in Montana and Arizona with a good chance of winning Nevada.  Wisconsin, Indiana and Missouri are all true ties in the polls.  It would be unlikely that the Republicans would gain all 3 seats and here is why -the Tea party.  Todd Akin in Missouri had a solid lead and a spot at the table in DC until he gave his remarks about "legitimate rape".  He quickly squandered his lead and now the good people of Missouri are questioning whether he is sane enough to be in the Senate and the Democrats are up 2 points in the polls.  In Indiana Richard Murdock beat out long time favorite Richard Luger in the primaries by leaning further to the right.  Luger, who had kept the seat safely republican for 36 years.  Last election they couldn't even scrounge up a democrat to run against him.  Now Murdock is the nominee and in a dead heat and liable to loose the seat.  Loosing these two "safe seats" in the senate leave republicans in the lurch.  Last election cycle 3 weak Tea party candidates cost the republican ticket 3 seats in the senate and it looks like now they will loose 2 more.  Why does this even really matter you ask?  Back when Bill Clinton was president a unified republican house led to budget compromises and much was accomplished.  With a divided house we can expect little to be accomplished over the next 2 years as Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has promised preemptive gridlock for 2013 stating: the idea of any attempt at bipartisan tax reform next year is "obsolete".  So the final count comes down to 49 solid blue and 47 solid red.  

The most interesting Senate race actually comes out of Ohio despite all the Tea party's "thoughts" on rape.  There you have a young 33 year old republican names Josh Mandel.  After serving 2 tours in Iraq and getting degrees in communications and law, he joined his local city council.  After a brief stint he somehow managed to become Ohio's state treasurer without a degree in accounting.  His campaign positioned his black opponent as an extremist Muslim (he wasn't Muslim) and proclaimed if he were Treasurer he would install qualified staff instead of his friends as the democrat had done.  I guess he didn't count on reporters looking into his administration.  Friends who had been paid 13.50 to help run his campaign suddenly had salaries of $100,000.  Once again, these people have no relevant degrees to the the office they are working in.  This candidate also avoided taxes while running his campaign by labeling employees as contractors.  This way he avoids paying payroll and other necessary taxes on his employees because he calls them independent of his operation.  However they had campaign email addresses, worked exclusively for his campaign, etc.  Then he missed the first 10 meetings while in office.  Does he really care about the office of treasurer?  In less then a year of obtaining the office he had already filed papers to run as a republican contender for Senator and now he is running.  Many are questioning if even his time in the military was politically motivated.  Then there are also questions floating out their as to whether he misappropriated funds while in office as treasurer but I haven't researched those claims yet.  If this 33 year old unqualified candidate can be a state Senator for Ohio then I fear for our nation.  As the political saying states: As goes Ohio, so goes the nation.  Anyway the senate races can be fun to watch as well so I hope you do pay attention to them.  The Senate may play a greater role in what is accomplished in the next for years then even who we choose as president.

Debate 3: The ending may surprise you

The debate was great to watch.  It moved smoothly due to a great moderator and both candidates stayed on topic... that is, most of the time.  Obama did a great job explaining how he has handled the military over the last 4 years and in that regard I would say he won the debate.  Mitt Romney however could not have had a better night.  While he ended up agreeing with most of what Obama has done militarily he actually ended the debate on a much higher note then Obama.  (if you can't read it all, make sure to read the last few paragraphs)

My favorite line of the night came from Obama after Romney brought up that our navy is the smallest it has been since before WWI.  Obama stated that we also have fewer horses and bayonets. LOL He stated military spending has gone up every year during his presidency. (This is true we are now up to $711 billion for 2011) Obama brought up a great point that we spend more then the next top 10 countries combined. He goes on to state that spending should not be determined by politics but by what the military needs. 

Romney later brings up that Obama's own Secretary of Defense called these defense cuts devastating.

On overall policy and drone use they are both on the same page.  Both wish to use military as a last resort and both agree with economic sanctions that are in play against Iran.  Obama constantly tried to bring up Romney's shifting position and stated we need someone consistent leading our troops abroad.  Mitt Romney kept stating that personal attacks are not policy and do not tell the country how the next four years will be better.  These were probably the best possible tack each candidate could take.

Romney also brought up the "apology tour" when Obama met with many Arab leaders and avoided Israel. Obama states it just isn't true. Romney then went on to quote Obama as saying America had "been dismissive and derisive" and had "dictated to other nations".  Romney states we have not dictated, we have freed people from dictators. (But couldn't both be true?  Doesn't America dictate to dictators?)

Romney did a great job clarifying his stance on Russia being our greatest political foe as they constantly block us in the UN.  He continued that in that same paragraph he had listed Iran as the nation who is the greatest threat to our national security.  The media has had a field day claiming Romney still thinks we're in the cold war.  These debates have finally given Romney opportunities to clarify statements that the media constantly miss-interprets...on purpose?  I think so. 

On Syria: Romney and Obama's stance is pretty much the same.  Romney said this is what we should be doing and Obama said we are already doing it.  In associated news however Qatar and Turkey and several other middle east nations say they have a plan to move forward with Syria but are waiting on the USA.  My guess is elections are stalling any real action on Syria for the moment.

Obama also during this portion came out saying that the USA is the one indispensable nation in the world.  a great statement as the republican party often paints him as an anti-nationalist.

On Iraq: 

The candidates traded sharp barbs.  Obama attacked Romney stating just two weeks ago he said we should still have troops in Iraq.  Romney came back clarifying that back in 2011 both Obama and he thought there should be a Status of forces agreement-this means we leave some troops behind.  Obama looked right at Romney and said "no I didn't".  CNN's fact check has proved Romney to be accurate.  The Obama administration fought to keep some troops behind in Iraq to continue training personnel but the Iraqi's wouldn't agree to it.  

On Israel and Iran:

Obama stated Israel is our greatest ally and we will stand with Israel if they are attacked.  But stopped short of declaring we would actually defend them militarily when asked by the moderator.  He reminds everyone that we have put down harsh sanctions against Iran.

Romney says we have their back not just politically, not just socially but militarily. The governor said we should tighten sanctions-don't allow another countries ships carrying Iran's oil to enter our ports.  Indite Iran's president (seems extreme seeing as how Iran actually hasn't done anything yet).  Romney had 7 steps to stopping Iran and sanctions is the first step, war would be the very last.

Obama-was tough on sanctions-put them in as quickly as world community would allow. Visited the Holocaust museum and and went to Steroke and reminded himself what this means and funded the Iron dome program to stop Hamas missiles from killing Israels.

Romney says he see our influence receding in the world.  Reminds us that Obama received a letter from 38 democrat senators asking him to repair the relationship with Israel.

On Pakistan:

Romney-Pakistan is important because they have over 100 nukes and terrorist in partial control of their country.  Pakistan needs a more stable government.  We need to continue to support them or terrorist may overcome all the work we have been doing in that region.  They are an ally even if though they aren't acting like one at the moment.

China: This segment just blew my mind.  Romney really knows what is going on here.

Obama shows how aggressive he has been by bringing lawsuits against china -now we can sell steel to china.  He also stopped cheap Chinese tires from being shipped into the USA and flooding the tire market. 

Romney:  China wants a stable world.  They have 20 million people coming out of the farms every year into the cities to find work.  They need job markets to grow.  I will label them a currency manipulator which will allow us to take strict measures against them.  They are stealing our designs and hacking into our systems.  -When the moderator asked if this would cause a trade war.  Romney's response was stellar!-   China has a lot more to fear from a trade war then us.  China exports this much to the US (hand up high by his head)  The US exports this much to China (hand down by his waist)  Its really unbalanced and if anyone has need to fear a trade war it isn't us.  There is already a silent trade war with china and it is costing American jobs.  China is selling cheap valves and counterfeiting products and duplicating serial numbers.  This cannot continue. (People are afraid the price of products would go up here in the USA, but with China's biggest buyer -the EU- in such a financial mess, their second biggest buyer -the USA- stopping trade with China it would destroy their economy.  China has been trying to stock up on raw materials from many countries.  They are well aware that if a trade war occurs, the world will side with the USA.)

Obama's response is simply that Romney ships jobs overseas.  (pathetic response- rhetoric is what you throw out when you have no plans of your own.  We have seen both candidates do it, but for the President to be so limited on how to deal with China is just sad) 

Domestic issues:  Watch out Obama, Romney is about to throw another Grenade at you!

Obama picks up with a thought that the government has been investing in research.  Stating that the private sector never does enough research and research needs government help.  Romney's retort is that government investments do not make us successful.  Making battery operated cars is not research.  Investing in Solyndra is not research! (for those who don't yet know- Solyndra went bankrupt because it had a solar tech that didn't use polysilicon which at one point was $400 a kilogram.  However before the government even gave them money the price had dropped to just over $50 a kilogram as plant productions increased the supply.  This meant that Solyndra's Tech was way overpriced and their bankruptcy was inevitable.  Private investors would do their homework before investing in something like this.  But what do democrats even care, its just tax payers dollars, right?) Romney continues that if you want to push technology forward you invest in universities and think tanks not manufactures.   

Romney- attacking me is not an agenda.  I am a son of Detroit and love American cars.  I said companies need to go through managed bankruptcies.  Obama says Romney said to let the car industry fail and Romney replied that we should provide guarantees as major manufactures go through managed bankruptcy.  Obama says "No you did not".  So what are the facts- according to the LA Times here is what Romney said. “A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs,” Romney wrote. “The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.”  Romney never said we should liquidate the industry. 

Last Obama states that Romney was against hiring teachers-Romney's retort- Let states hire teachers.  We cut some funding in Massachusetts and still had the best rated schools.  We did it without the federal government. 

In Conclusion: Obama defended his military record admirably and as this was the main reason of the debate it is fair to say he won.  He and Romney were in agreement on so many military issues, you couldn't tell their programs apart.  However whenever it came to trade and economics I think it is quite fair to say that Romney put the Smack down on Obama.   Yeah I said it, I said it cuz I can.  Romney wants to increase trade with Latin America stating that Latin America has the same rough population size as China and would be much easier to work with, language, etc.  Obama has been one of the the toughest democratic military leaders in recent memory (compare to Clinton who kept giving North Korea money to stop them from building nukes...any guesses on what Korea did with the money?)  Mitt had a tough job of representing the traditional military party and trying to sound tougher then Obama while avoiding mention of war, which the American people are quite tired of.  

Extra:

Romney's plan to allow the middle east to reject extremism on its own

1.assist with economic development

2.provide a better education

3.promote gender equality

4.Promote rule of law

Many countries such as Qatar and Turkey could help with these type of endeavors.

Obama replies

We cannot do nation building in these regions.  We need nation building at home.

I guess that will do.   Now go vote.

Presidental debate round 2

The second debate was more agressive then I expected and the candidates were passionate at times to say the least.  Obama definitly wins style points for being an effective speaker this go round and I think he got the upper hand on the debate.  The weakest link in his chain was the Libya issue and when Romney tried to nail him on being dishonest about the terrorist attack Obama came back with a passionate statement about having to greet the coffins as they came back to the USA.  He argued effectivley that he doesn't take American lives lightley or use them to score cheap political points.  If only I actually believed him.  Don't get me wrong.  I think Obama is a good guy and it is true the day after the deaths he refered to the attack as being terrorist activity.  But the administration backtracked and said the deaths were due to random civilians angered over a youtube video and they did indeed follow that tack for 2 weeks when they were aware it was due to an Al Qeada days after the attack occured.  Like most things in politics, if they turn it into a gray area people will stop caring and forgive them for it. 

My Favorite Tweets of the night were about Romney's Binders of women which went viral after the debate.  When talking about his time as Governor all the applicants applying for his cabinet were males. Mitt Romney actively went out to womens groups and asked for referrals and was able to fill half his cabinet positions with women.  The Womens groups gave him Binders full of Women.  This sounded funny to many liberals who ran with it. 

Where Romney and Obama really differ is on economic plans and many of the debate questions revolved around job creation.  We will get into the "trickle-down government" phrase Romney has been using as well. (most of the following information about their economic policies was obtained from CNN) Romney and Obama's economic plans differ on three major points: how much government should redistribute income through taxation; what kind of federal spending is worth its costs; and whether governments or markets allocate resources more efficiently.
Obama believes in Trickel-down Government while Romney believes in Trickle down economics.
On the tax side: Romney's position is more convincing. Raising rates on high-income households will generate only modest revenue, and higher rates on dividends and capital gains are bad for economic growth. Likewise, lower corporate tax rates will boost growth. More broadly, Obama's focus on redistribution sends a chilling message to entrepreneurs and innovators (you will be heavily taxed up to 44% of your income), and any negative impact on growth makes the debt situation worse.

On spending:
Obama wants to focus spending on helping the poor and Romney would prefer to spend more money on the military.  The Federal Government tends to waste a lot of money when spending it whether it is military or domestic projects. And the belt could be tightened much more in all these areas, no matter who wins.  Liberals continue to attack Romney as not caring about the middle and lower class by ending funding for many programs which in many ways are wasteful.  But the military is very wasteful as well.

On Medicare:
Both candidates agree that, under current projections, Medicare grows faster than the national's overall economic output forever, which means Medicare is essentially bankrupt.
Obama's approach to save health care consists of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a creation of the Affordable Care Act. The IPAB will have the power to restrict Medicare expenditure, chiefly by controlling health care prices and limiting reimbursement for care deemed unnecessary or not cost-effective.

Obama's approach has little chance of success, given the failure of similar efforts in the past. Price controls incentivize health care providers to game the system, such as by billing for extra tests, procedures, and medications. This also means that price controls will introduce myriad inefficiencies in the health care system.
Romney wants to shift most or all future Medicare beneficiaries (those currently 55 and younger) to a voucher type system. By limiting the rate at which the voucher amount increases over time, this approach can also slow Medicare expenditure. And if competition among insurers makes the health insurance market more efficient, vouchers can reduce spending further.
The Romney voucher approach has more potential, but the devil is in the details. Any voucher system must include enough insurers to generate real competition. And the definition of "health insurance" must be sufficiently broad that competing insurers can offer policies that genuinely limit costs.

When asked about bringing jobs back to America Obama correctly stated that some jobs are never coming back.  This is true as some countries pay lower wages then American's would ever consider working for.  However the question dealt directly with making Apple products in America and making Apple products in the USA this could definetly be done and here is why.  China only assembles the various components which makes up for about $6 worth of the expense of putting the Ipad or Iphone together.  High end transistors, touch screens and internal components are made in Japan, Korea and even Germany and making those parts pays out at about $34 an hour.  These are jobs that should be done in the US.  In order to do this it would mean we would need a comprehensive competitiveness strategy similar to those now pursued by South Korea, Germany, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, China and others.  It is my sincere beliefe that Obama is incapable on formulating any such plan based on his last four years in office.  Both candidates seemed oblivious to these facts during the debate.  Hopefully they start doing homework that will really benifit America instead of political ploys used to damage moral in the other party.  Whoever wins this election is going to have to study long and hard to get high paying manufacturing jobs back into the US of A.

As For Trickle-down: Trickle-down is originally the idea that if tax breaks are given to businesses they will then have more money to provide better wages and benifits to employees.  Many cynical people believe that employeers only pay their employees the minimum amount necessary to keep them working.  (This is true in many cases but tax rates factor into determining where companies set up shop and hire poeple as well.  So if Canada has a Corporate rate of 15% and the USA has a corp. rate of 44%, guess where companies are going to hire people.) Romney has flipped the phrase to Trickle-down government.
Trickle down government means we allow the Fed to keep more of our hard earned money through higher taxes which then hires more goverment workers to watch over everybody and re-distribute the wealth through government mandated benifits and regulations.  Thereby big government insures everybody somehow is better off even though they are taking more of our wealth away. Its really just another way to say big government or big brother is watching over us.  The best example of this is the many additional IRS workers that will have to be hired to insure everyone is paying for health insurance.  Who is going to be paying for all those extra government employee's?  -The Tax payers.

Sorry this post is so long but the debate brings up a lot of points.  If you are still reading this congralations!  You deserve to get a sucker.  Hopefully you have one lying around.  :)

On Energy: Obama touts an increase in energy production and Romney states the increase has come from private corpations and that Obama has cut down Energy production in the USA.  Romney brings up that most of the oil production increase came from the Bakken Range in ND.  He then goes on to say that the president brought a lawsuit against them because 25 birds were killed.  He states the president has reduced permits by half and brought up that the EPA is shutting down coal plants and prohibiting any coal plants from being built.  Mitt says the president has actually hurt manufacturing jobs by reducing permits for drilling.  The president gave a great response by saying the public lands they wanted to drill on weren't getting used.  So the administration said the companies couldn't just sit on them for 10-30 years.  Decide when you want to drill before you come asking for permits, (use it or loose it). Romney brings up production on government land is down-this has been confirmed by many fact checkers already.  The president says production is up. But we can tell if production is up or not by looking at how much your paying according to Romney.  The cost of Gas is up.  Electricity is up.  President Obama says a bad economy results in cheaper prices so if Romney destroys the economy then we could be looking at cheap gas once more.

Sorry if the writing doesn't flow so well but a lot of information had to be covered and I am late getting this up.  Hope it helps in deciding who to vote for!

VP debate

The VP debate was not as interesting as the first debate but still had its moments.  The liberal press has already stated that this debate will have little to no impact on the election.  Therefore I will try and keep this post somewhat brief. 

My favorite tweets about the night: "Joe Biden would very much like for Paul Ryan to get off his lawn"- Joe was the barking bull dog of the night.

"While Ryan speaks, Biden looks like he's trying to order a drink at the bar and the bartender is ignoring him."

My overall impression is that Joe Biden has handled foreign policy fairly well in many instances.  This is a huge swing in my personal opinion on this topic.  On domestic issues I think Ryan came across very clearly that the president does not have a plan for the next four years and has stagnated the economy in the past 4.   Here are a few critiques about the Statements made last night.

On Libya: The first question was about the massive security breach in Libya that led to the death of the American ambassador there.   Biden's response was to ignore the question and promise to get to the bottom of it (Which by this time they already had).  He went on to compare how critical Romney is of the president's "successful" foreign policy.  Biden claimed that Ryan voted to cut the militaries budget but what he leaves out is that he also supported to cut the militaries budget.  -Biden states that he wasn't told the military wanted more security in Libya.  But they already knew there was an Al qaeda cell in Benghazi.  According to a CBS interview with the top US security chief in Libya on October the 8th they stated that they had been told by the pentagon to stop asking for support.  The interview went like this: 

ATTKISSON: Do you feel like there was a disconnect between what you saw on the ground and what the State Dept. folks thought was going on in Libya?

WOOD: There was certainly no disconnect in our transfer of information to them. They were getting the information on the situation on the ground. We sent it up through State Dept. cables and I sent it up to the military side on the D.O.D. side. So, there was awareness of what the situation in Libya was about.

ATTKISSON: How did you get the word that your team would not be allowed to stay?

WOOD: We knew that was coming through the cables and the draft cables that were going back and forth. The requests were being modified to say ‘don’t even request for D.O.D. support’.

ATTKISSON: So State Dept. was telling the folks on the ground in Libya ‘don’t continue to ask for this help’?

WOOD: Correct.

 I guess the President had stopped communicating with the D.O.D. ?

On Employment:

Ryan states correctly that job growth is slower each year.  That the unemployment rate in Biden's home town went up from 8% to 10%.  We are going in the wrong direction.  When Ryan spoke about Mitt Romney I teared up.  Mitt Romney won't tell the stories about his charitable actions but MITT IS A GOOD MAN.  Biden says he has no doubt Romney is committed to individuals, then goes on to say he has no commitment to the auto industry.  But wait just a second.  Aren't those corporations?  I thought the Dems. believed Romney was ONLY for corporations. 

on Medicare:

This is where they really got at each other and started interrupting each other non stop.

Ryan stated correctly that Obama is using an accounting gimmick by promising that savings in medicare would be used to extend the life of medicare while at the same time using those same dollars to stabilize Obamacare!  Biden completely ignores this even though Ryan brings it up multiple times.  He also stated Obama hasn't put a credible plan on the table to save medicare. Ryan states that the foundation of Romney's plan is choice and competition as opposed to medicare becoming a piggybank for Obamacare.

Biden states that Obama cut the cost of medicare by stopping "overpayment" to hospitals.  Ryan stated that 1/6 hospitals will go out of business because of these cuts.  These are not overspending by hospital, simply support being cut from hospitals for medicare and medicaid. Ryan goes on to state that 7.4 million senior will loose the medicare advantage coverage they have in 2014 based on statements from presidents own actuaries.  Romney;s plan would reduce medicare benefits for the rich, a little bit for the better off and not at all for the poor.  

Biden during this segment asks if seniors have lost any benefits?  However the new law hasn't gone in effect yet and won't until 2014.  So how can Biden claim the new program is preventing loss of benefits when it won't be fully implemented until after the election?  When it comes to economics and health care, Biden came off strong to a casual observer.  But to anyone who knows the facts it was obvious he failed to provide appropriate answers.  

To Biden's credit he did show off his knowledge on overseas issues such as Syria and Afghanistan and seemed like a tough yet reasonable kind of guy you want guiding the military.  

Fact Checking Obama's Claims

Many liberal papers have claimed Romney is a dishonest flip flopper.  So how does Obama compare?  Is he the moral honest leader we have been searching for all these years?  Here is what my research has dug up on Obama's claims.  Much of this comes from the Washington Post and CNN -my favorite reads.

Obama's Claim: He has ‘a balanced plan to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade
Does Obama really have a budget plan to reduce deficit by 4 trillion over 10 years? No serious accounting agrees with his accounting.
Obama's plan to cut 3.8 Trillion only works if the ratio of spending cuts to tax increase is 1 to 1-according to the left leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.  According to the Congressional budget office his plans would reduce the deficit by 3.5 trillion but indicates that the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product would rise during that time from 73% to 76%.  1 Trillion of these savings are already guaranteed to go into effect no matter who takes office.
Obama is also counting on saving 848 billion in money we currently spend on foreign wars that we are borrowing money from china for. By projecting war expenses far into the future he can claim on saving money that was never intended to be spent.  Saying that this will be money saved for our budget is like  borrowing $50,000 dollars a year for school and then claiming that you will have an extra 500,000 to spend over the next decade once you graduate. Every fact checking group has stated that this economic plan relies heavily on budget gimmickry. 

Obama's Campaign has claimed that Romney would give millionaires another tax break and raise taxes on middle-class families by up to $2,000 a year.
Did Romney really promise tax breaks for the wealthy?
Romney hasn’t specified how he’d pay for marginal tax cuts he says he’d give all Americans. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center concluded that he would have to close tax loopholes that benefit the middle class to do so he would have to raise taxes on the middle class.  However Romney has claimed that any taxes increases he makes would be revenue neutral and as he has been foggy on his tax plan.  This idea that he benefits millionaires and tax increases on the middle class is all subject to how math wonks try and make the math work.  For a detailed analyse on Romney's statements about keeping taxes down while reducing deficit please see the link below. Hint (Romney's plan requires a lot more people getting back to work quickly in order to "Expand the Base"- more people making money means more government revenue).  Lots of liberals don't see how he can get people back to work quickly so they ignore his expand the base idea altogether.  In my mind this means they have already accepted that our economy cannot recover anytime soon.  Perhaps this is true, but who wants to admit defeat?- Liberals I guess?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/27/wonkblogs-comprehensive-guide-to-the-debate-over-romneys-tax-plan/?print=1

On Energy:
US reliance on foreign oil is falling.  This is a true statement but our dependence has been steadily dropping since 2005, so this isn't really something Obama can take credit for.
Obama also claimed to have doubled green energy.  Solar and wind have doubled but the other green energy initiatives have barely increased at all.  Experts say green energy has only increased by about 25%.  Maybe we are getting too nit picky but ya got to keep them politicians honest.

On Medicare:
Obama claims to save 716 Billion over the next ten years by forcing health care providers to cover more of the costs.  Romney correctly questions whether these cuts are sustainable and cites reviews that many hospitals will stop providing medicaid and medicare health care services. In addition these savings that he is claiming will extend the medicare program an additional 8 years does not account for the fact that he is already planning on using these savings for Obamacare.  Not sure how he plans on spending every dollar twice but I would sure like to know how to double my income like that.
The Obama health care law will also increase medicare payroll tax by $318 billion over ten years which means we are all going to be paying more in taxes, however only a 3rd of the money is going to medicare, the rest goes to general revenues.  The scariest part of the unified budge idea is that money collected for Social Security and Medicare can be used for whatever federal spending bill is due first even if it is not related to health care.  I don't see how Obamacare will keep medicare solvent for even the near future.
During the debate Obama tried to take credit for Health care premium increases from increasing quickly, however most of his health care law has not been implemented yet although they have been saving money for it for the last 3 years.  It is hard to claim that costs savings are influenced before changes to law have even occurred.

Obama said during the debate that Romney fails to do the math.  That taxes are simple math.  Obama's own math seems very fuzzy at times.  If Romney's plans are vague consider what he said during the debate.  He has several ideas but he has to "sit down with Democrats before giving a detailed plan".  A Bipartisan tax code?  It's about time if he can actually pull it off.  Tonight is a debate between the 2 VP's.  Can't wait to see what they have in store!

Kid Rock gets political

Today Kid Rock voices support for the republican ticket stating he wishes Obama had done a better job.  He also applauded the first debate saying he enjoyed the lack of media bias, attack ads and no teleprompters.  Stated he enjoyed it so much he intends to throw a keg party for the next debate.

Many have thrown mud on the debate saying it was boring and worth ignoring.  Personally I was riveted to my seat and while it is true that both candidates ignored the mediator, he did get a good jab in once.  Upon Romney suggesting they continue the current discussion he came back with "how Bout let's not".  Lol i guess you had to see it.  Both candidates looked stunned and didn't know how to reply.  Obama spoke 4 min. Longer then Romney during the debate but actually said less then Romney as most of his talking points seemed vague and unclear.  Romney had him on the defensive most of the night trying to explain how his policies had benefited America and failing the majority of the time.  Romney's economic plans seemed to contradict much of what liberals have been saying that his plans would favor only the wealthy and it appears Romney was a new man no longer burdened by the restrictive policies of the tea party.  Fact checkers have said they both said things that were untrue during the debate but more on that later.

Introduction

Why ignore is a moniker I started using to chat on various websites about politics.  I was fed up with how many ideas, thoughts and events that it seemed the general public was ignoring or uniformed on.  I hope that some will find my thoughts and research of interest.  I prefer to post here so my friends on Facebook don't feel I'm spamming them with information.  Facebook apparently is meant for poetry and daily life events and was not intended for heavier matters, or so I have been told.  I love to research politics and tech for the most part, however my interest can be captured by almost anything so if you would like to know more about a subject just ask, chances are I am interested in it as well and would be happy to research it for you.  Subjects can range from anything from dinosaur finds and drilling to the earths mantle to finance, politics and tech. 

Politically I lean conservative but I have never yet voted for a Republican president.  First thing they teach in humanities courses is that everyone has bias based on environment and upbringing.  I try to balance this by reviewing papers that lean liberal and avoid listening to news that weighs to heavily conservative.  I like to see the view from both sides of the fence but in the end I always go back to conservative values as I believe in a strong national defence and smaller government.  I enjoy Obama's idea of rebuilding bridges with the Muslim world but sometimes I feel he has failed miserably on this front.  As Obama himself recently said any decision a president makes has a 30-40% chance of not working, but as president you have to support it whole-heartedly giving the nation full confidence that it will work.  I think Obama is a decent man who tries to do the right thing.  It is easy to be critical of a president's actions but in the end we have to keep in mind that from the creation of the constitution the USA has been the greatest social experiment in the worlds history.  America can endure a lot, but we don't just desire to survive we want to thrive.  Obama said it and he couldn't be more right.  What America has to decide each election is which candidate is more likely to help America thrive. Now many  people feel that our responsibility is to help the world thrive as well and how do we best do that.  We have 2 parties with 2 different visions on how to go about these subjects.  I hope that my comments will help anyone interested in deciding what they want and which candidate delivers what they want.  In the end we all want what is fair, but we have different ideas on what "Fair" means.  Hope you enjoy reading my thoughts.