Big Dogs Weblog

Obama Winning is a Consequence of Bad Judgment

Feb 22, 2008 Military, Political

In the debate Barack Obama made a statement that might lend credence to Hillary’s new mantra about being ready to be Commander in Chief. Obama told a story that is rather nuanced. Yes it has elements of truth but some items are half truths designed to say George Bush is a bad Commander in Chief. Ask the troops who they would rather have in charge Mr. Obama, the answer would not be you.

OBAMA: You know, I’ve heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon — supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.

And as a consequence, they didn’t have enough ammunition, they didn’t have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.

This whole statement was open to a lot of criticism because Captains do not lead platoons and platoons do not get split across two theaters. Additionally, our troops sometimes do not get all that they need but this is not because the president is not supplying them, it is because Congress fails to provide for them. They hold the purse strings. Humvees have been in short supply throughout the war.

Turns out the Captain was a Lieutenant at the time and that they had trouble getting items related to grenade launchers and .50 cal machine guns and only in training (though we might never really know if this is true because he remains anonymous). Obama made it sound as if they could not get supplies and that they had to get Taliban weapons in order to fight. Soldiers have always scrounged for equipment on the battlefield and if they capture weapons there is no reason not to use them. However, that is a far cry from saying they needed to get the enemy’s weapons in order to fight.

Obama acts like it is easier for our troops to use AKs and get ammunition for them than it is to get ammunition for our own weapons. Where does he think we would get ammo for those weapons, from Taliban supply? I would also like to know how, if we don’t get ammunition, we were able to get these AKs that we are using. Did we walk up and ask for them? If we are using their weapons there is a good chance that we took them in battle so we had to have ammo to do that. As for our ammunition, it becomes scarce on missions but the supply of it from the logistical system has not been much of a problem.

The last thing Obama said was that; “it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief. That was a consequence of bad judgment.” As stated Mr. Obama, the Commander in Chief does not equip the men and women of the armed forces. They are equipped by the Congress who votes for budgets that send them ammunition, uniforms, Humvees, and any number of other items needed to prosecute the war. The President signs those when they get to his desk. I would like to know how it is that you think George Bush failed to properly equip our soldiers…

…when you voted against the war funding bill that would have supplied them. Matter of fact, both Obama and Clinton voted against it (“Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hilary Clinton (N.Y.) were among the 14 who opposed the bill”). What makes them think they are qualified to be Commander in Chief when they are incapable of taking care of the troops? It is easy for Mr. Obama to say that this Commander in Chief did not properly equip the troops but the reality is, both Democratic candidates were the ones who failed to provide for the men and women of the armed forces. The president does not provide for the troops, the Congress does and these two have failed miserably in that regard.

Barack Obama is leading in the delegate count and Hillary is desperate to win Texas and Ohio. She is touting credentials that would make her a better Commander in Chief than him. They both failed to provide funding for the troops but want us to believe that they would be the best to lead them. As for Obama, his statement was very misleading and many of the people watching that debate had no idea that he had stretched the truth in order to portray something that was not quite true so that he could slam President Bush. It is interesting that Obama slams Clinton for being part of the old establishment and then he tells a story that had Bill Clinton deception in it.

It all depends upon what the meaning of is, is.

Picking Obama or Clinton to lead our troops would be a consequence of bad judgment. Neither has ever served in the military and it shows.

On a side note, a bunch of the Obamamaniacs follow him like he is a cult leader. They chant for him and think he is wonderful. They want us to accept him as a great man who can lead and they want us to ignore his use of drugs and alcohol in his youth. They tell us that does not matter after they spent all that time telling us that George Bush was not fit to lead because of his drug and alcohol use in his youth…

As for being qualified to be Commander in Chief, John McCain has more qualifications in that department than both of these two combined.

Others:
Flopping Aces | Cop the Truth | The Jawa Report | Hot Air | Hot Air (2) | Datatroll | The Political Inquirer | The American Pundit | A Blog for All

Tags: debate, exaggerations, Hillary, no military experience, Obama, stretching the truth

Chelsea, Get A Real Job and Pay More Taxes

Feb 20, 2008 Political

Monica Lewinsky’s boyfriend’s wife said that hedge fund managers aren’t doing real work during a round table discussion. This must come as a shock to Chelsea Clinton who works for a hedge fund where I am sure she feels she works pretty hard. It is amazing that Hillary Clinton would tell people she has been a mother longer than a politician after the suggestion she was pimping out her daughter and then say her daughter does not do real work. This is another example of how Hillary will say and do anything, including pimping out and insulting her own daughter, to get elected.

Hillary was trying to pander for votes by telling people that Wall Street investment managers who make 50 million dollars on actually pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than do people who make 50 thousand a year. This is a patent lie. If we take a 50k income and assume married filing joint with 2 children and the taxes paid are about $3,073 or 6%. This assumes no itemized deductions.

A person who makes 10 million dollars¹ (one fifth the amount she cited in her remarks) with the same assumptions pays $3,466,874 or 34.67% in taxes. We can assume that the 50 million dollar earner will stay at the 35% range and pay significantly more in total dollars. Of course these folks might not get their income in dollars. They might get it in stock in which case there is no disposable income and they have to pay taxes on the dividends. Even with itemized deductions there is no way the millionaire pays less in percentage than the 50k a year worker. Given that the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will probably kick in it is unlikely that the millionaire will have many itemized deductions.

Hillary told a lie because she knows there are many people who will believe this crap. It is classic class warfare and it is shameful. Additionally, Hillary Clinton is a millionaire and has refused to release her income tax reports. Is this because she has found a way to pay far less in taxes than most (percentage wise)? Is she citing herself as the proof of her claim? If Hillary is paying less in taxes than she thinks she should be why does she not send money to the treasury? As I pointed out before, they take donations.

Hillary is not the only Democrat to play this game and she will not be the last. They all talk about tax cuts for the rich as if there is such thing as tax cuts for the poor. The bottom 40% of wage earners pay absolutely no taxes so how could their taxes possibly be cut at all. The tax cuts affected all people who pay taxes and since the top 25% of wage earners pay 84% of the taxes in this country, they are going to be the ones who benefit from a tax cut (notice that even the bottom 50% of earners get a 0.5% benefit from tax cuts even though they pay less than 4% of the nation’s income taxes). It is very simple but the masses do not seem to understand this and politicians like Hillary are more than happy to exploit the ignorance.

How do tax cuts benefit those who pay no taxes? There is more income for those who do and they are the class that creates jobs. Additionally, those who pay no taxes benefit from government services used. These folks use a far greater amount of those services than they pay for (since they are not paying taxes) and the tax payers use far fewer of those services. Everyone is eligible for the same government benefits regardless of what they paid.

In reality though, the tax payers are not entitled to as much even though they pay more. Wealthy people who retire cannot draw Social Security because their retirement income is too high, however they still pay Social Security all their working lives. If Social Security were privatized a great number of the working class would actually retire with a decent amount of money and not have to rely on the government to survive. Of course, the government does not want this because they need to control people to retain power.

Liberals realize this and this is why they engage in class warfare. They like to pretend they are just like the rest of us but like most politicians from either party, they are wealthy. None of them understand how it is to actually work for a living and the feeling of living paycheck to paycheck. The real dirty little secret is that all these folks who want to tax the rich work real hard to pay as little as they can to the IRS.

Chelsea must really feel good knowing that her mother thinks she does not have a real job. Maybe the fact that mommy dearest sent her to Hawaii to campaign took a bit of the sting out of the slap but it had to hurt nonetheless.

It would be interesting to see how many hedge fund managers donated money to Hillary. It would be even more interesting if they asked for it back.

Sources:
National Taxpayer’s Union
Tax Foundation

¹The tax calculator I used only allows an income up to 10 million dollars to be entered. It must not have been designed for hedge fund managers or members of Congress.

Tags: amt, chelsea clinton, hedge fund, Hillary, pandering, real work, taxes

What Changed Hillary?

Feb 19, 2008 General

This picture came off the web and it is reported to be a picture of Hillary when she was a young lady. Probably back when she was preparing to go to college and before she became a Democrat.

The picture picture below features the many faces of Hillary as we know her now:

What changed her from an attractive young lady into an old crumpled, mean, nasty lady who picks her nose in public?

In one word, LIBERALISM.

Mothers and fathers take note and do not raise your daughters as liberals or they will suffer the same fate!

Tags: Hillary, liberal, young picture

Hillary’s Speech; The Substance of Socialism

Feb 14, 2008 Political

Hillary Clinton has done another campaign makeover and the new theme of the day is the power of speeches over the power of solutions. Bill and Hillary were both out today reading from the same memo where they are attacking Obama hard with this rhetoric; Do you want someone who delivers speeches or someone who delivers solutions. Of course, the question is asked in a speech and there is not a hell of a lot of solution to be found in the past of either candidate. Let us look at Hillary’s idea of solution:

• “We’ll take on the oil companies and harness their record profits to create millions of clean energy jobs — high-wage jobs you can raise a family on. I’ll end their special tax breaks and give them a choice: invest some of your profits in alternative energy, or we’ll do it for you. People have been paying through the roof at the pump, and it’s time the companies paid their fair share.”
• “We’ll take on the credit card companies so that you and your families aren’t drowning in debt. Here in Ohio, payday lenders are actually taking Social Security checks from our elderly. That’s outrageous. I’ve proposed real consumer protections against abusive interest rates…”
• “We’ll take on the insurance companies and tell them they can no longer discriminate against the sickest people who need care the most. They spend more than $50 billion a year trying to figure out how not to cover people. Well, I’m going to save them a fortune and a whole lot of time, because here’s the new policy: No more discrimination period…”
• “And I’ll go after drug companies and insurance companies that are overcharging consumers and the government — it’s time to end their profiteering at our expense”
• “We’ll take on Wall Street and tell them: you’re going to finally pay your fair share in taxes. Because it’s outrageous that a teacher making $50,000 pays a higher tax rate than some Wall Street investment managers making $50 million…”
• “We’ll take on the student loan companies and tell them no more ripping off our sons and daughters. I’m proposing a Student Borrower Bill of Rights — no more deceptive advertising and outrageous fees…”

Notice the common theme here. Hillary and big government are going to take over all these businesses and people and tell them how they have to conduct themselves, how much profit they can make and how much they may charge for their services. Hillary is trying to have a government takeover of all these areas so that she can have her hands in everything you do. She is not smart enough to run an effective campaign but she is smart enough to decide for you and for companies.

Oil companies make a great deal of profit in raw dollars but their profit margin is about 11%. There are many companies with higher profit margins that Hillary will leave alone because she cannot sensationalize without the big dollar figures. The major oil companies do not receive the tax breaks she is talking about. The tax breaks were given to smaller oil companies in Texas and Louisiana by their elected officials to help them compete. The oil companies spend millions of dollars in programs around the world and they make little profit on gasoline. Oil is a global commodity and the price is decided globally. Also, taxes comprise a big part of the cost of gasoline and even with those taxes we pay less than most other countries.

People who get themselves in trouble with credit cards have no one to blame but themselves. If they sign up for a card and keep accumulating debt on it then it will take forever to pay it off. It is not the government’s job to step in and fix this problem. This involves personal responsibility. If you can’t afford it, don’t buy it. If you are too stupid to figure that out then don’t get a credit card.

School loans are the same way. If there are illegal practices then they should be taken care of but the fact is some people take on a great deal of debt they cannot handle to go to college. The government does not belong in this business and it is once again a matter of personal responsibility. If you are too stupid to enter into a contract that you can reasonably afford then you are probably too stupid to be in college in the first place. You should get a job doing the work that most Americans will not do and send the ILLEGALS home.

It costs drug companies a fortune to develop new drugs and it costs them even more money each time an ambulance chasing lawyer sues them because 0.01% of all people who used a drug had a reaction. Drug companies may only keep a patent for a limited period of time and then it can go generic so they have to capture their expenses in a short period of time which means the drugs will cost more money. I always shook my head at patients who said they could not afford their $90 a month medication but who told me they smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day ($180 a month). It is a matter of priorities. Also, some drug companies have programs where they give drugs to people who cannot afford them so there are ways to get them. Older generics work fine and cost less. We also need to take into consideration the amount of money the companies spend to get drugs approved by the FDA. That is a lengthy process and it costs time and money. Do people want to remove this safeguard?

Health insurance companies have many problems and there are things that could be done better. If we want health care to be affordable get government out of the business. States require health care companies to provide a wide array of services before they can offer their plans for sale. This drives the cost up. There are also many doctors who practice defensive medicine in that they order a number of unnecessary tests to cover their rear ends so that someone does not get sick and hire an ambulance chaser like John Edwards to sue the hell out of the them. This drives health care costs up. I have written about how health care deliver can be better and some of it involves personal responsibility and less government involvement.

Interestingly, Hillary is striking hard at the very companies that she has accepted money from in the past. She is promising to take money from companies that employ middle class workers and whenever companies have less money they have fewer workers. Her plans will not save money and will drive the cost of services up while increasing unemployment. She is pandering to everyone, everywhere in order to make promises she cannot possibly keep.

She had her head handed to her in eight straight primaries and there is no mathematical way she can win this nomination. It is going to go to the convention. She knows she cannot win but she is putting out lies and false promises in order to gain support in the big states to narrow the delegate deficit. She wants the brokered convention to pick her and she is trying to put out her liberal bonafides. She is the candidate of solutions, not speeches.

Just listen to her speeches and she will tell you so…

Source:
The Politico

Tags: empty suit, Hillary, lies, Obama, socialism, substance

Obama Beat the Momma

Feb 10, 2008 Political

Hillary Clinton spent quite a bit of energy on the “pimping out” remark made by David Shuster of PMS NBC. She did not spend much effort on the states that had primaries or caucuses yesterday and it showed in the voting that took place. Obama swept the states that voted and he won some of them quite handily bringing his delegate total much closer to hers (though there is not one source that agrees on the exact totals). Perhaps Hillary wrote off the states or maybe she did not have enough money to compete in them. Whatever the reason, she lost them handily.

Hillary is looking forward to the states of Texas and Ohio while trying to keep her eye on DC, Maryland and Virginia. The latest polls show Obama up by 16-18 in MD and VA so Clinton could lose more delegates on Tuesday. DC will more than likely go to Obama given the large black population in that District.

If Obama continues in this fashion Hillary might be surprised in Texas and Ohio. It would appear she needs to spend more time being a candidate. She said she was a mother first and she might end up being a mother watching from home on election night in November if she does not get back in gear.

Each Obama win makes it more difficult for Super Delegates to commit to Clinton in districts won by Obama. If the delegates fail to mirror the wishes of their constituents the convention might be chaotic and many voters might decide to vote against the people who represent them or against their party in the national election.

Howard Dean is hoping that the convention will not be brokered. He might be screaming again before this is all over.

On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee won two states in his effort to thwart John McCain. Huckabee’s strong showing indicates that conservatives are not happy with McCain and that he will have a fight ahead. Though he has a commanding lead, there are plenty of states to go.

Source:
Breitbart

Tags: delegate totals, Hillary, money problems, Obama