john

NO MORE HELP! Liberal Fiscal Policies Coming Home To Roost.

I, Mr.L, subscribe to the Newt Gingrich philosophy regarding the bailout plan. That is, simply, I think it sucks. The main reason that I'm against this bill is because there's no proof that the billions will actually solve the problem. A friend of mine recently reminded me of the old saying which applies to this economic problem at hand.

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help"

The punch line to that is, if anyone says that to you, run and don't walk from them.

Help? It's a four letter word.  It is how we got here. The "I gotta help" mentality of liberalism. Jimmy Carter and the Community Reinvestment Act. Bill Clinton and the so called Clinton "changes" in his administration in 1995 which advocated for subprime loans. Liberals like Barack Obama who worked for law firms Miner, Barnhill & Galland who were hell-bent for leather trying to get minorities in homes. These firms "helped" by suing the banks with discrimination charges if they didn't lend money to unqualified black or Hispanic buyers.  You know, the mentality of giving them the home due to the color of their skin and not the color green in their wallets!

The same liberals, Obama, Pelosi, Boxer, Frank, Reid, who wanted to CUT AND RUN in Iraq are now trying to CUT AND RUN from their own irresponsibly horrid ideologies and economic policies. They want to CUT AND RUN from the blame and pawn it off on Bush, Republicans and Wall Street Tycoons. Now, I'm not saying that the Wall Street money honeys and daddies don't deserve the blame, but what about the ordinary irresponsible average asshole? They are not immune from being corrupt. They are just as much to blame for running the country's economy into the ground. They did so by taking bad loans, buying "McMansions", not understanding the terms of loans, having bad credit and then, for some close to 1 million illegal immigrants, literally walked away from their responsibilities and went back to "their country".

None of them are mentioning the average citizen. They keep saying "rich bankers", "wall street tycoons" etc. They're actually advocating for more bad lending practices and offering MORE HELP to distressed homeowners.

Do you personally know anyone who has been forclosed on? I don't. Not only do I not know anyone but, I don't know ANYONE who knows anyone who has.

It's liberals & even Bush who are using fear and leaving behind reason by bascially claiming that, if this bill doesn't pass, the four horsemen of the apocalypse ride up on America. According to them, business won't be able to make payroll, people won't be able to buy cars and home prices will drop. Bullshit!

I would think that actions could be taken to help small business owners make their payroll if need be. I think most will agree with me when I say that home prices NEED to come down. Currently, in the suburbs of New York, a two bedroom co-apt or condo in an good area goes for roughly a cool 300k. That's absurd. And a homeowner can't come and cry to me that they want to sell and "can't get what they want for it" . There's a owner on my block who bought his 2 family house in 1970 for 50k and wants 800k for it. Wake up! The days of "flipping" are over.

And what about liberals like Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi who, all of a sudden, care about the automotive industry and whether or not you can buy a car? I would think that liberal greenies wouldn't give a crap whether or not the auto industry could go under. After all, that would mean less cars on the road would help global warming, right?

What exactly did people do before credit when they wanted to buy a car or a house? They had to save money. Put their own money into the deal. You know, something called a down payment. It might be that Americans will have to be introduced to an old concept that they don't quite like and that is, fiscal conservatism. You want a car? Well, you're going to have to save for it. If you can't make a down payment, well, you're going to have to buy a shabanger instead of a Lexus and fix that baby up until you can buy a better car.

It's clear that fiscal liberalism has run a muck. Fiscal conservatism will save the nation. It's going to take time. But just like this crisis began took over ten years to come to a head, it will take that long to fix it. No quick fixes. No easy solutions.

No more help.

http://mrltavern.podomatic.com

 

 

 

What a Night!

Last night, both the Democrat and Republican nominees for President of the United States, Barack Obama and John McCain, met face-to-face in a debate forum for the very first time. Both appeared energetic and prepared to engage in this rhetorical battle in front of thousands who were there and millions watching at home.

Both of these two met and exceeded expectations set forth by their respective campaigns. For Barack Obama, long term, this might be where the good news for him ends.

I say “long term” because of the raw transcript of the debate. There were a number of instances where Obama looked as if he was trying to be all things to all people. There were also moments where he showed his youth and inexperience in other areas.

First, when the moderator Jim Lehrer asked the candidates about scaling back the federal budget as to what each of the candidates would do as president, Obama never mentioned one area where he would freeze or reduce spending. Instead, he mentioned his support for increased funding for early childhood education. All told, the combination of the Paulson bailout plan combined with Obama’s four-year spending proposals would add an additional $1.5 trillion to the federal budget alone. He needed to show where his cuts were going to be, but he showed an instance where he was going to increase spending.

Meanwhile, McCain gave areas where he would reduce spending starting with his least favorite items on the budget, earmarks. Next, McCain went to eliminating the ethanol subsidies and by tighting the screws on defense contracts so that defense spending is more efficient.

Obama supporters might be fast to point out that he will eliminate $10 billion a month ($480 billion over four years) by ending the war in Iraq and eliminating the Bush tax cuts for those making $250,000 or more a year. For the 48 months that he would be president which would not even come close to covering the costs for his spending proposals, tax cut for the bottom 95% of wage earners, covering a projected $600 billion deficit in his first budget, and the Paulson bailout plan. Sacrifices will have to be made and they might most likely start with the proposed tax cut (a la Bill Clinton).

The second mistake by Obama was a reversal of his position on so-called dirty energy. John McCain has made the construction of 45 new nuclear power plants to provide energy and combat climate change along with support for clean coal and offshore drilling parts of his energy plan along with renewable energy, flex-fuel vehicles, and better fuel economy.

Prior to last night, Obama had previously expressed his desire to tax coal, natural gas, and place a windfall profits tax on the oil companies which even he admits would not produce another drop of oil. However, last night Obama got in to the mode of being all things to all people by advocating his support for drilling, clean coal technology, and nuclear energy. The Sierra Club cannot be happy about this.

Third, Obama was clearly on the defensive about unconditional negotiations with Iranian President Mahmoud “Adolph, Jr.” Ahmadinejad. A major mistake made here was the citation of former Secretary of State and McCain’s friend and advisor Dr. Henry Kissinger. Obama cited Kissinger as one of five former Secretaries of State who had advocated Presidential-level talks with Iran. The five include both of Bill Clinton’s (Warren Christopher and Madeline Albright) and James Baker, who served under Bush-41. McCain had said that Kissinger was not one of the five though Obama insisted he was. 

After the debate last night, Kissinger said the following: “Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level.  My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.” Oops!

Fourth, there was a moment in the debate where John McCain and Barack Obama were comparing the bracelets they received from mothers who had lost their sons in Operation Iraqi Freedom. McCain gave the name of the soldier who was on his bracelet instantly without having to look. The same cannot be said of Obama who had to look at his to get the name. It might have been better for Obama to have not mentioned the name if it required him to take a look.

However, the biggest missteps by Senator Obama went under the radar because they were sprinkled throughout the debate. In all, there were eight instances where Obama expressed his agreement with Senator McCain. Within minutes, McCain’s campaign released a web ad (potentially a television ad in the future) showing where Obama agreed with McCain on responsibility and accountability, the earmarks process, and that business taxes are high. More could be made against Obama on the issues of spending cuts, the success of the troop surge strategy in Iraq, and that the world cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran.

Writing in the National Review, Byron York stated a prediction: “The next time McCain and Obama meet in debate, on October 7 in Nashville, start a drinking game in which you take a big swig every time Obama says, ‘John is absolutely right.’ I’ll bet you get to the end of the debate without ever lifting a glass.”

In all, Senator McCain won this round despite the curtailing of national security issues (the original topic of the debate) for three questions on economic issues. The night was largely on McCain’s turf thanks to national security, talks about government spending more than anything else, and the aforementioned missteps of Senator Obama. However, for McCain, thanks to Obama’s energy and exceeding expectations, the win was not by as wide a margin as some anticipated.

Michael Savage needs to take a chill pill on Palin

 Michael Savage needs to take a chill pill.

I’m breaking up with Michael Savage and it’s over a woman.
 
I believe it’s necessary for me to write about this to show others how passionate and confident I am about Sarah Palin.
 
I will tell you more about how I really feel about Sarah Palin in my next show Mr.L’s Tavern 20, that will air this September the 10th, 9:30pm Est on CHIMPSY RADIO and re-airing specially for 9/11/2008. All the hosts on Chimpsy Radio will broadcast new shows in observance of 9/11.
 
 
I’ve been listening to Michael Savage for years now. I don’t agree with him on everything but I do on most things.  I’ve defended him when he was fighting CAIR and even defended him when he was lynched for his autism comments.
 
Savage published a new book on Monday of last week and I ordered two of them immediately. By the following Monday, I demanded a refund and a stop order.
 
Why did I do this? Why do I feel this way?
 
I thought his commentary on Sarah Palin went over the line. It was something that I would expect at Daily Kos and not his show or website. The rumors that have surrounded Palin have been just that and probably created by organizations like MoveOn.org and Media Matters who have single-handedly tried to ruin Savage’s career.
 
So far he’s devoted two shows with harsh criticism of this fine and accomplished woman based on a hypothetical.  That’s right, Michael Savage has sided with the “mid-stream media” (as he has dubbed them) by using hyperbole to push the notion that McCain will drop dead in his first days in office.  Pretty ridiculous. Pretty cheap.
 
And if that happened, Palin could turn around and pick an elder statesmen for her Vice President.  After all, isn’t that what Barack Obama has done already?
 
Also, we are voting for the top of the ticket are we not?
 
Savage’s comments about Palin were also extremely insulting. Every time that he’s referred to her it’s been as “this woman” or that her only experience was “pushing a sled”. When in fact, she’s not just “this woman” she’s a governor. 
 
I would also like to point out that, as far as this election goes, Savage has been wrong most of the time. He said Barack Obama would never get this far. He predicted that Obama would pick Hillary as his running mate to create a juggernaut ticket. Didn’t happen. Finally, last summer he declared McCain was washed up and finished. Nope.
 
What was funniest to me was when he began to run down the list of others McCain should’ve picked. Kay Bailey Hutchinson was one. Four months ago, I heard him devote 40 mins to trashing Hutchinson and called her a Rhino over some bill that she helped pass. Next, was his so called favorite Mitt Romney. Funny, I didn’t hear him say a peep about Mitt Romney when John McCain was still deciding.  
 
Palin is a true conservative. For two years now, Savage has been blowing out his vocal chords about getting a true conservative to run with McCain. So now you’ve got one. So shut your mouth. 
 
Also, Palin IS energy. As Savage once said, “the GOP/conservative party is like a dying cancer patient.” If that’s true, Sarah Palin is the chemo it desperately needed.
 
Savage has stated that we need “strong experienced leaders” for these troubled times to stand up to strong men like Putin who hunt Tiger and Bear in the wild. I will say it again, at the TOP of the GOP ticket stands a strong and more experienced McCain than the top of the left ticket with Obama.
 
I think Palin would somehow impress Putin. I think he would see her as a strong woman who’s not afraid to take off the pant suit and strap on the gun and, possibly, go hunt with him.
 
I’ll probably still listen Savage. I will defend continue his right to speak his peace. But enough is enough.

 

ALL ABOUT EVE....ahem....HILLARY & REAL UNITY

 

Photobucket

 

 
So I watched the witch, Hillary Clinton, give her speech last night. To her credit, she was the only speaker to breathe some life into this God awful convention.  It's not just me, a conservative, who thinks so. The American people, liberal or conservative, do as well. Ratings for this week's coverage on ALL the networks have been abysmal.
 
 
I'm a movie buff and watching Slick Hilly last night, I couldn't help think of the 1950 film with Bettie Davis called "All About Eve". It's been a couple of years since I last saw it, so I went to Wikipedia to refresh my memory. I realized that, if you took the characters of Margo Channing (Bette Davis) and Eve Harrington (Anne Baxter), replaced them with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, you see that life is really imitating art in this campaign.
 
So I did. Here's the switch:
Hillary Clinton is one of the biggest politicians in America. But despite her unmatched success, she is beginning to show her age. After a speech one night on the campaign trail, she encounters a young man named Barack Obama. He claims to be her biggest admirers from Chicago, but gradually, Obama shows that he is a scheming and duplicitous man who plans to take from Hillary everything she holds dear: her colleagues, voters and her political career and fame. Obama becomes a political star and is presented with the party's nomination.
I've obviously tailored other aspects of the plot description and if you want to see the real plot line just plug it into Wikipedia or just watch the movie. I suggest doing the latter if you have the time because they don't make movies like that anymore. 
 
Last night, while party unity flowed from one side of Hilly's mouth, this was coming out of Billy's:
"Suppose you're a voter, and you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?"  He's also said he will not attend Obama's speech on Thursday.
 
 
Sounds like some jilted mofos. I'd like to channel the great Bette Davis when she said, "Fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy night." Or, for Obama and the DNC, a bumpy couple of months.  It is clear, not from her miele-mouthed speech about health care and women's rights, but from the supporters in the audience who demonstrated to Obama and Howard Dean that, once again, they've made a grave mistake. Because, as a God fearing conservative and registered Republican, the one thing I feared more than God was Obama picking Hillary Clinton as his running mate.
 
 
All this talk about party unity from Hillary or the Lib-Dims is bullshit. It's clear that WE, the Republicans and conservatives, are the only ones who understand unity. Most of us didn't want John McCain as our nominee and fought against him, but now it is he and it is WE who understand the common goal that we are fighting for here. WE, the conservative republicans, understand the danger of an Obama presidency and refuse a man with no experience and with ties to terrorists and WE WILL GLADLY take a man with a robust resume who served his country.
 
 
No matter who John McCain picks as his VP this week, at least his will not be chosen for him by Russia. That's right. It is clear to me that Obama choose Biden because of the problems in Georgia (as I write this, Russians are threatening to roll into Poland) and Obama's obvious lack of foreign policy experience. However, his camp is wrong again. While Sloppy Joe has been a so called "expert" on foreign affairs by the MSN, in reality, he's often been wrong on most of his foreign policy decisions.
 
 
And so what if McCain picks Mitt Romney? Who cares? So what if they had a tumultuous campaign against each other? At least Romney, or any other Republican candidates for that matter, never, EVER said that John McCain wasn't ready to lead and unfit for command. Biden has of Obama. Hillary stated it as well.
 
 
If John McCain was watching Hillary last night, as I'm sure he was, he will have a tough decision to either stick with the person who he's had his mind on all this time or, pick a female wild card to tap into the menopause vote. 
 
 
If he does, it's clear to me that it will be "cha ching" for Yoda in November. 
 
 
We'll have to wait and see.
 
Mr.L

 

Syndicate content