So until I find a way to raise campaign dollars to afford to post more often, I have a day job helping to raise my little sister who will be one a month from now. Let me tell you, she is a walking handful getting into everything. She especially loves to get into my water. And because I am a good big sister I never ever bite her. Mostly I follow her around sniffing her diaper. I can't help it.
So back to politics and the Republican race for the nomination. Much has happened since my last post. Perry apparently had a chance and has been blowing it over and over since. Herman Cain actually appeared to have a chance and then blew it enough to drop out. I don't know one way or the other if those women are lying or not. But as a dog, I would never have a friendship that my family didn't know about. And I am instantly best friends with everyone I meet. I want to meet you all!!!!
So the replacement to Cain at this point seems to be Newt. Does he have too much baggage or is his baggage enough in the past that people don't care anymore? For sure Romney and Perry are going to try and remind you all of it as if they have no skeletons to be found. I have no idea but if they have any someone somewhere will find them and pull them out.
Does Perry have a chance still? I tend to think his latest add campaign was not genius. People will see it as a shot at gay people rather than what I think he was trying to portray that the rights of Christians are being picked away at. I admit, it took me a second or third listen to hear that. I don't think many people are hearing it that way. I originally heard it as 'it's a shame gay people can now serve openly in the military.' It comes across as that is what he believes at first so much so that most people won't bother to give it a second or third chance. That is why I think this ad is the nail in his coffin because even though they aren't paying to play it everywhere, people everywhere are hearing it.
Romney....I don't even know what to say about him. Since he won't support the fair tax, I don't like him. Not sure about the health care plan in Massachusetts either. I've heard/read conflicting opinions about success vs. disaster. I don't live there so I don't know how it's working for everyone and for the state budget. I will admit it was definitely interesting 4 years ago. Here's what bothers me about him. I have heard traditionally 'liberal supporting' people say they would be ok with Romney. So that makes me think he's going to be politics as usual. I don't know. I suppose he could surprise me. I hope, given that he looks like a shoo in at this point.
You still think these guys are better than me??? Seriously?!?! Who's more loyal to humans than a dog??? No one I tell you.....NO ONE!!!! Now spread the word.
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Sunday, June 26, 2011
The 2012 Republican Candidates
So what do you think of the Republican candidates so far? They are in no particular order:
Newt Gingrich - Campaign over before it began
Ron Paul - Unrefined libertarian with clueless supporters. Though I personally agree with most of what he says.
Herman Cain - Too logical to win. Again agree with most of what he says and if I weren't running, he might be my man.
Michele Bachmann - Ok we get it, you fostered and birthed lots and lots of children. But I don't cast my vote based on that.
Tim Pawlenty - Yawn...
Mitt Romney - hmmm how's he going to live down Romney care that's not unlike Obama care except a proven failure. Though I much prefer a business man for president.
Rick Santorum - No opinion one way or the other which means I neither like nor dislike him and therefore he would have to make more of an impression on America to win.
John Huntsman - Again don't know enough about him one way or another to have an opinion about him yet.
There are also list of others that have either declared or still exploring that include a bunch of unknowns by me or have no chances including Jimmy McMillian of "The Rent is too Damn High" party. How that makes him a republican is beyond me. Unless it's by default since there's no room elsewhere. I thought starting his own party was not a bad idea though. We need another viable party. It's just not going to have that name if you ask me.
The only person that's really caught my attention so far is Herman Cain, the guy I think is not electable. So perhaps I should change my campaign slogan to "...because electable humans can't be trusted." What do you think about that?
Does anyone on the above list make you want to get out and vote? Might I add if there is one person up there that tickles your fancy, you must vote in the primary to get to vote for them at least once. If you get your way, you'll get to vote twice for the same person.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
How's That Stimulus Working Out For You?
In case you haven't been paying attention to anything outside of Michael Jackson, USA Today reported yesterday that states aren't using funds as intended. Here's the link to the article.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-07-stimulus_N.htm
"The report says that as of mid-June, states had received about $29 billion of the estimated $49 billion in stimulus funding they are scheduled to get before the federal budget year ends Sept. 30. More than 90% of the money given to the states so far is for Medicaid and a fund meant to prop up states' budgets for schools and other basic services such as public safety."
The report they are referring to is from the Government Accountability Office which has been tasked with tracking and monitoring the funds. Their report came out today according to the link I was sent. (I'm a nerd and am signed up on their e-mail list for updates). Here's the link if you're interested in the report.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09829.pdf
And for the appendices or appendixes as they put it. Any grammar experts out there? Is the dog or the government correct?
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09830sp.pdf
For the purposes of this report 16 states and the District of Columbia are being required to report their spending of the stimulus money they receive. My state Texas is one of them. You can find the rest in one of those links if you care.
From the report link above page 3 of the pdf. "Overall, states reported using Recovery Act funds to stabilize state budgets and to cope with fiscal stresses. The funds helped them maintain staffing for existing programs and minimize or avoid tax increases as well as reductions in services."
p. 14 or 8 if you look on the numbering on the report;"From October 2007 to May 2009, overall Medicaid enrollment in the 16 states and the District increased by 7 percent. In addition, each of the states and the District experienced an enrollment increase during this period, with the highest number of programs experiencing an increase of 5 percent to 10 percent. However, the percentage increase in enrollment varied widely ranging from just under 3 percent in California to nearly 20 percent in Colorado." Figure 3 on the next page shows the increases state by state.
Are the increased Medicaid rolls really all that surprising with the unemployment rate rising and standing nationally at just shy of 10%?
Is it at all possible that those of us that wanted the government to do nothing and let the recession take its course were right? Doing something seems to have increased and perhaps prolonged the recession. This was a bipartisan effort to screw us all over. Do you still think it was a good idea? Do you think the government should do more?
This is not an original idea, Neal Boortz poses these questions all of the time on his radio show, but what would happen if instead of the government spending on programs and "federal aid," they declared some sort of tax holiday for the masses for several months? Meaning everyone of us would take home our full paycheck (minus our contributions to retirement and/or 401ks). That's several hundred dollars a month extra that people would take home and have to spend, pay of debt, and save. What if instead of trying to hunt and search American money in Swiss bank accounts or other foreign countries in an effort to penalize the American owners of this money, they declared amnesty for all Americans to bring their money back penalty and tax free? They could then start investing that money in their local communities in the form of new businesses, spending, donations, or sitting in American banks rather than sitting in foreign banks.
Do any of these things make any kind of sense to anyone? Or are we as a society trying to legislate "fairness" by taking from those who work hard for their money and giving to those who may not work as hard. Is that really fair? What happened to fair meaning everyone having the same opportunity to work hard and succeed in this country?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-07-stimulus_N.htm
"The report says that as of mid-June, states had received about $29 billion of the estimated $49 billion in stimulus funding they are scheduled to get before the federal budget year ends Sept. 30. More than 90% of the money given to the states so far is for Medicaid and a fund meant to prop up states' budgets for schools and other basic services such as public safety."
The report they are referring to is from the Government Accountability Office which has been tasked with tracking and monitoring the funds. Their report came out today according to the link I was sent. (I'm a nerd and am signed up on their e-mail list for updates). Here's the link if you're interested in the report.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09829.pdf
And for the appendices or appendixes as they put it. Any grammar experts out there? Is the dog or the government correct?
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09830sp.pdf
For the purposes of this report 16 states and the District of Columbia are being required to report their spending of the stimulus money they receive. My state Texas is one of them. You can find the rest in one of those links if you care.
From the report link above page 3 of the pdf. "Overall, states reported using Recovery Act funds to stabilize state budgets and to cope with fiscal stresses. The funds helped them maintain staffing for existing programs and minimize or avoid tax increases as well as reductions in services."
p. 14 or 8 if you look on the numbering on the report;"From October 2007 to May 2009, overall Medicaid enrollment in the 16 states and the District increased by 7 percent. In addition, each of the states and the District experienced an enrollment increase during this period, with the highest number of programs experiencing an increase of 5 percent to 10 percent. However, the percentage increase in enrollment varied widely ranging from just under 3 percent in California to nearly 20 percent in Colorado." Figure 3 on the next page shows the increases state by state.
Are the increased Medicaid rolls really all that surprising with the unemployment rate rising and standing nationally at just shy of 10%?
Is it at all possible that those of us that wanted the government to do nothing and let the recession take its course were right? Doing something seems to have increased and perhaps prolonged the recession. This was a bipartisan effort to screw us all over. Do you still think it was a good idea? Do you think the government should do more?
This is not an original idea, Neal Boortz poses these questions all of the time on his radio show, but what would happen if instead of the government spending on programs and "federal aid," they declared some sort of tax holiday for the masses for several months? Meaning everyone of us would take home our full paycheck (minus our contributions to retirement and/or 401ks). That's several hundred dollars a month extra that people would take home and have to spend, pay of debt, and save. What if instead of trying to hunt and search American money in Swiss bank accounts or other foreign countries in an effort to penalize the American owners of this money, they declared amnesty for all Americans to bring their money back penalty and tax free? They could then start investing that money in their local communities in the form of new businesses, spending, donations, or sitting in American banks rather than sitting in foreign banks.
Do any of these things make any kind of sense to anyone? Or are we as a society trying to legislate "fairness" by taking from those who work hard for their money and giving to those who may not work as hard. Is that really fair? What happened to fair meaning everyone having the same opportunity to work hard and succeed in this country?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
