Teamster’s Union mafia boss, Jimmy Hoffa warmed up the crowd for Pres Obama on Labor Day, calling the Tea Party and Republicans a few choice expletive deletives.

When Pres Obama spoke, he noted that his upcoming speech on jobs was very important, and we should not to a “right wing nut, or a left wing nut.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/vp/44405764#44405764

Do you think he was speaking of Jimmy Hoffa, when he mentioned left wing nut?

And why have someone so radical warm up a crowd for you, unless you are in bed with them?  Hoffa is as radical as Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Van Jones, or Weather Underground activists that Pres Obama has been known to associate with. If you associate with left or right wing nuts a lot, does that make you one, too?

I like Pres Obama. Honestly I do.  But I do not think he’s presidential material. Maureen Dowd in the NYTimes, seems to agree:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/dowd-one-and-done.html?_r=1&ref=maureendowd

New Testament Gospel Doctrine lesson 36 on Paul’s epistle to Romans is now at my blog.  I discuss the background of the letter, as well as the entire letter as a process to exaltation, beginning with faith and grace, moving onto baptism, as well as justification and sanctification.

Read it there, comment here.

http://joelsmonastery.blogspot.com/2011/09/new-testament-gospel-doctrine-lesson-36.html

“Progressive” instead of “liberal”, “federal family” instead of “government”.  Libya engagement is not a war.  Are we entering into the realm of Newspeak?

Not a new issue, as we’ve all seen terms change before to enhance the image of government.  But isn’t it creepy that it now seems to be an automatic thing for government to just change titles or concepts, just as in Orwell’s 1984 it was nothing to be at war with one nation one week, and be their friend fighting the previous week’s ally?

Recently, Congress claimed to be “cutting spending” when they were really just cutting back on the amount of extra debt they wanted to spend.  So, if the budget was $100 and they wanted to spend $150, they claimed they would cut $25 and save us from going deeper into debt.  Isn’t this NewSpeak, as well?

FEMA’s Family http://www.palmbeachpost.com/storm/femas-use-of-term-federal-family-for-government-1808751.html

Newspeak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

What forms of Newspeak do you see coming from government or political candidates?  And does it concern you?

You’ll note in these posts on things to cut, I do not take any prisoners.  There is enough waste and abuse (not to mention fraud) going around on all sides to make a big difference.

It is time to end corporate welfare.  I’m not saying the federal government should end R&D on important things such as renewable energy or space exploration.  I am talking about money given to companies for a wide range of reasons.

The stimulus package basically ended up being a bail out of large corporations. We bailed out giant banks, while leaving tens of thousands of people in foreclosure.  Recently, the Fed gave Bank of America and other banks $1.2 Trillion dollars to keep them afloat.  Guess how much all the foreclosures in the United States amount to?  Yep!  $1.2 Trillion.

Instead of directly bailing out banks, then giving Quantative Easings 1, 2, (and stay tuned for part 3), we could have paid off the failed mortgages, kept people in their homes, the money would have flowed back to the banks, and we would have prevented spending trillions more.

We need to allow businesses to succeed or fail on their own merits.  Had we not instituted many protections for the “too big to fail” banks and corporations, they would have been more careful in their loans and investments, and the crash may not have occurred in the first place.  That said, since we are spending vast sums to prop them up that provides temporary stimulus in only a few areas, it takes money and incentive away from other markets and businesses. We cause an overall stagnation, which now many economists are seeing leading to a double dip recession.  Had we propped up the American people, but allowed companies to fail, we probably would not now be going into a second recession.

Next, when Congress establishes tax loop holes for big corporations, it means it is not a fair or balanced market.  Either remove all taxes from corporations (since they push taxes down to the consumer anyway), or remove the loop holes so all pay the same amount.

Third, the moneys being spent are going to certain groups, while others are negatively impacted.  While overall unemployment is at 9.1%, unemployment for blacks is over 16%, and double that in some areas.  Spending tons of money on banks and large corporations does not help the average black person to get a job.

We spend three times as much on corporate welfare as on welfare for the poor (about $167 B vs $51B in 2002).  Dozens of corporations pay no taxes at all, and some receive billions back in tax credits due to the loopholes now in place.

If we eliminated all loopholes and established a flatter tax rate, we could save $150 billion a year, or $1.5 Trillion over a decade!  Or if we completely eliminated Corporate taxes and directly taxed the American people (as corporations just pass the tax down to us anyway), products would be cheaper to buy, and we would still save $150 billion a year.

Thoughts?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/08/22/fed-lent-1-2-trillion-to-banks.html?om_rid=D35lbT&om_mid=_BOUkqeB8cz-Uuh

http://www.ombwatch.org/node/341

For the first half of our nation’s existence, our military primarily focused on true homeland security.  The Monroe Doctrine established that the USA would focus on concerns in the western hemisphere, while allowing Europe to deal with Europe, Asia with Asia, etc.  Such an attitude saved us from being involved in many fruitless wars in other nations.

After problems in Lebanon went bad, Pres Reagan pulled our troops out and sat down with Casper Weinberger and Colin Powell, and came up with the Weinberger Doctrine. This meant we would not go into any conflict unless there was a clear US interest, clear entrance and exit strategies, etc.  It was a common sense system that lasted until Bill Clinton sent us into Serbia/Croatia.

During WW I and II, we found that sometimes we are brought into others’ wars. Occasionally this seemed inevitable or necessary.  And sometimes we must protect our allies.  However, our entrance into wars always had unintended consequences: Woodrow Wilson divvied up Europe in such a way that we had to return many times to “fix” the problem, such as in the 1990s with Serbia/Croatia.  Entering into Vietnam with advisers turned into all out war and then spread into other countries, destabilizing them, as well.  Because of our entrance into that war, we enabled Pol Pot to gain power, and then slaughter 1.5 million of his own people.  Desert Storm led to escalation of terrorism and issues in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc.

Currently we have over 700 bases overseas.  Some are very big Cold War era facilities (such as in Europe), while others are just ammo depots that are almost never used, or are maintained by local contractors.  We can save $10-20 billion annually by closing 1/2 of these sites.  That is $100-200 billion over a decade.

Next, we return to the Monroe and Weinberger Doctrines and pull our troops out of active engagements throughout the world: Aghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc.  We would save at least $200 billion a year, or about $2 Trillion in the next decade.  And this means we avoid new conflicts that are not in our interest.  It doesn’t do us any good to leave Afghanistan if we then go directly into Iraq, Syria, or who knows where else.

We become the beacon of liberty again. A city on the hill, as Pres Reagan saw us. We show all others the way to freedom by our example, not by force.  As George Washington hoped, we become friends with all, entangling alliances with none.