Capitalism is the Dominant force in the U.S.A.

Why Barack Obama Cannot Re-Make America

The American system of free enterprise is designed for people to make money. Those that are smartest find every way to earn money, as long as it is legal, no matter who it hurts.

Bain Capital is an asset management and financial services company that provides venture money for new and struggling companies. Like any privately held company it is in business to earn the highest possible return for its investors. There are many other companies like Bain Capital. The Blackstone Group and the Carlyle Group to name just another two. Sam Zell, a wealthy real estate investor in Chicago, bought the Tribune Company without investing a single dime of his own money (thanks to some ingenious financing) but the company is now bankrupt (you thought he bought it to prop up that company?).

The system has always functioned that way. The founding of the nation was all about free enterprise. Those leaders in Philadelphia were mostly rich men who objected to taxation by the crown. They invented the expression “taxation without representation” to rally the general public. The best example is John Hancock. Before the American Revolution, Hancock was one of the wealthiest men in the Thirteen Colonies, having inherited a profitable shipping business from his uncle. John Adams was a well to do lawyer living in the Boston area. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were both wealthy land owners in Virginia.

If you do not agree with this form of economics you will have to live elsewhere. You will not be successful in changing 200 plus years of a system that has built the wealthiest nation in the world.

Alternative countries that you ought to consider are Italy, France, Germany, Canada, UK, Australia, and New Zealand. You might notice that many of these countries are part of the British Commonwealth that Americans hated in 1776. They do have capitalism but also make a greater effort at providing more social programs.

The choice is yours. Just stop complaining about our system. It is what it is!

“The time for change has come.”

Those are Barack Obama’s words in a clip from a speech that Chris Matthews plays in the introduction to his weekend program on NBC. As we all know there has been no change. Grid lock has come since the GOP won control of the House of Representatives.

Guests on Matthews’ show this past Saturday all agreed that while the president is well liked the public has grown weary of the words that have not brought a renewed economy. John Heilemann, one of the members of that panel said, “Mitt Romney is never going to be likable” but acknowledged that the public might overlook that likability to see the economy in a recovery mode. No one on the panel disagreed. This is a panel of well respected Obama supporters.

Just last night Bill Clinton was in a NYC fund raiser for Obama. He pointed out that the austerity of Europe, that is Romney’s plan, has resulted in even higher unemployment than we are experiencing in the United States. However, today’s win of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker sent the message that Americans are not buying the Democratic Party arguments.

The argument that things could be worse just doesn’t cut it for most
Americans. Desparate Americans want results. Obama has not provided what Americans want.

A new president is on the horizon. The race is Romney’s to lose.

GDP and Unemployment Performing Poorly – Welcome President Romney

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the United States expanded 1.9 percent in the first quarter of 2012 over the previous quarter. That is a revision from a preliminary 2.2% estimate. Historically, from 1947 until 2012, the United States GDP Growth Rate averaged 3.3 Percent reaching an all time high of 17.2 Percent in March of 1950 and a record low of -10.4 Percent in March of 1958.

During the great recession GDP fell to -8.9%.

At the present time the economy appears to be back sliding.

Can the government really impact the growth of the economy? Most of us seem to believe the answer is yes. Barack Obama will be blamed for the situation.

Unless Mr. Obama can convince a majority that things will be worse if Romney is elected he will be a one term president.

Political Party In Power Makes No Difference

It was the late 1960s. I really didn’t start paying attention to politics until I joined the Beverly Hills Young Democrats. I didn’t join because of a party loyalty. I joined because it was a singles group with lots of attractive young women. Despite my wish to stay non-partisan that club did impact my views on a host of subjects.

In all the ensuing years from LBJ to Barack Obama the one thing that has been consistent is the promises by the candidates that things would be better for Americans if they won the office. The reality is that nothing did get better. The cost of living went sky-high from those early days, most women had to go back to work after having children to sustain their life style, and the rich became ever more wealthy. Even worse, factory jobs were sent overseas making the fight for the remaining decent jobs even harder.

So why should I care who is elected in November? We have two wealthy people who will be protecting the system we have. Ross Perot was correct when he predicted “the sucking sound” of lost jobs if NAFTA becomes law. Today most of the products you buy were made elsewhere. Today when you call for service from some of America’s biggest companies you find yourself speaking to someone in India, the Philippines, or elsewhere in the Far East.

I don’t hear either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama saying he has a plan to return those “ordinary jobs” to America. No, they simply tell us how they will make things better using generalities about how bad the opponent is and how that opponent will only make things worse.

So whether it’s Barack Obama or Mitt Romney who wins, nothing will really change.

Social Issues Will Now Be Consequential in the Presidential Race!

My theory!

Social Issues are not the really consequential topics in the presidential race! However, President Obama and his re-election team see this as an opportunity to distract attention from the dismal condition of the economy and his health care program.

A May 12 Associated Press article is titled “Gay marriage, abortion back in campaign spotlight“. The first paragraph reads, “Abortion and gay marriage. For years, they’ve been lumped together as the paramount wedge issues of U.S. politics — hot-button topics in the vortex of sexuality, personal freedom and public policy.”

Vice President Joe Biden appearing on Meet the Press this past Sunday said he had no problem with two people of the same sex marrying. That brought a substantial response from the news media but no remarks from the Republican Party. The White House appeared to try to evade the issue even as the commentators quoted the president’s earlier statement that his views on gay and lesbian marriage were evolving.

Everyone thinks VP Biden is just a fool who can’t keep his mouth shut. That is his reputation. The president’s re-election committee is counting on you believing that. So he appears on MTP this past Sunday and has the media mouths going.

What you do not realize is that the Obama team has accomplished a diversion. Defending the president’s economic program is impossible. They realized they needed to change the topic. They have succeeded. Obama’s ability to argue the social issues is his strong suite.

Romney’s strength is business and the economy. The Republican Party wants to talk about social issues. Obama wants to change the subject and the Republicans are giving him a gift. The AP reports “Republicans controlling the House are pressing for cuts to food stamps, health care and pensions for federal workers as an alternative to an automatic 10 percent cut to the military next year.” It’s a perfect diversion.

Jobs or Political Party – What’s Your Priority?

“Huge trade deficits cost millions of jobs, lower wages and place a massive debt burden on future generations.” –Brad Sherman, United States Congressman

Democratic Party member are not unified in many ways. The question of abortion rights is simply the most well known issue. Gay marriage rights is also another party dividing issue. However, in this era of job growth, job creation ought to be the focus. It isn’t.

In my own new California 30^th district, redistricting has resulted in two long time Democratic congressman vying for the same seat. Howard Berman versus Brad Sherman. On most issues they agree. Sherman has taken positions that have been contrary to Democratic Party leadership. He opposed TARP as it was initially proposed and, I believe, only voted in favor of the final bill when he saw the stock market decline. Sherman has also taken an unusual view of free trade agreements. He opposes them.

Brad Sherman opposes NAFTA and CAFTA because they are shipping our jobs overseas. “For too long the United States has been exporting jobs rather than products.” The latest free trade agreements are with Columbia and South Korea. His take is supportable when you look at the American trade deficit. It’s has been at or near the highest level since 2004. The amount has been in excess of $800 Billion Dollars. This is a number supplied by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

His concern for jobs is justified. It’s not just the high unemployment rate. The employment to population ratio of Americans age 16-54 has barely begun to recover from levels last seen in 1983. That number was 68.5% in April of this year. This is a BLS statistic. Meanwhile Berman is a supporter of free trade agreements.

I have not heard or read any positions taken by Republicans on the issue of free trade. It should be a deciding factor when voting for a congressman or the president.

Barack Obama’s Failed Recovery

It seems the president’s likeability has remained high even though his success leading the country leaves a lot to be desired. The number one issue facing him at his inauguration was the growing number of unemployed Americans.

It is accurate to say that the continuing increase in the number of unemployed has been stopped. The worst of the unemployment crises has passed. However, the number of unemployed Americans has remained basically unchanged. The apparent improved unemployment picture is the result of people giving up in searching for a job. Those giving up aren’t counted. It takes 150,000 new jobs a month to keep up with our growing population. (The number of new jobs added in April was a horribly disappointing 115,000.) Once you deduct that leveling number of 150,000 you see that real job growth has been small.

The one significant exception to this situation is the re-employment of people in the manufacture of automobiles.

Every country has something to sell to its own people and the rest of the world. The United States has one major export, agricultural products. Brazil has five. Oil, iron ore, soybeans, coffee, and steel. Brazil now holds 45% of the world’s steel production.

Meanwhile the U.S.A.has a $15 trillion economy but only has $1.5 trillion in exports. Worse we import $2.4 trillion in goods.

Thanks to the ever growing number of free trade agreements most of the things we buy were manufactured in another country. The auto industry and agricultural products are the only major industries that have not been entirely exported. Here in Southern California Costco now has a variety of fruits and vegetables imported from Latin America.

Not only are there no plans to change this situation, but Obama has signed free trade agreements with Columbia and South Korea.

Retraining programs for the unemployed? To do what?

You notice that Barack Obama never talks about the unemployed. No wonder, his “hope and change” have brought hope there is enough food stamps to buy next week’s food and his change never happened at all unless adding to the federal debt is counted as change.

As bad a Mitt Romney may be is he as bad as four more years of Obama? Isn’t it time for a change? Democrats and independents hold your nose.

Mitt Romney Does Not Understand American Life

If you grew up in a poor neighborhood that is the environment you understand. Likewise if you grew up in a neighborhood of the well to do that is also the world you understand. I grew up in a very middle class neighborhood and my perceptions are based upon that environment. I never missed meal and I never went without shoes in that 1250 square foot three bedroom home.

The Associated Press reports: “Mitt Romney says he learns about what it’s like to struggle in a difficult economy by sitting down to chat with regular people. But the Republican presidential candidate doesn’t want anybody to see it — and his campaign won’t say who he meets with or when the meetings occur.”

“Before I begin an event like this, I typically am able to sit down with a few people on an off-the-record kinda basis,” Romney said as he delivered his standard campaign speech Friday in Pittsburgh.

Mitt Romney’s annual yearly income is over $20 million. He has off shore accounts to minimize his income tax. I doubt anyone reading this column has any accounts outside the United States(Unless you live outside the United States). The Census Bureau says the median household income in the USA from 2006-2010 was $51,914. Arithmetic Median Definition: Median is the middle value of the given numbers or distribution in their ascending order.

Mitt Romney can hear about the issues of the average American for the rest of his life but he has never had to say “we can’t afford that” or heard your spouse asking if there is enough in the budget to pay for some new curtains or new shoes this month.

Yesterday’s issue for me was getting the lights turned on after an electrical malfunction. The initial price to do the job right was over $4,000. The final cost just to get the lights working was $352. Mr. Romney would have done the $4,000 job.

Mr. Romney’s problem is that he really doesn’t have to face the life of a typical American citizen. There is no way he can understand. Isn’t he lucky?

Obama and Romney: Where they stand on the issues

The Associated Press offered a detailed and lengthy run down of where Obama and Romney stand on the issues that we all to consider in the next election. Following is a summary. You can read the detail at http://my.earthlink.net/article/pol?guid=20120430/fe9b4c4c-15ca-43a7-9a4d-2605576b3e73

ABORTION and BIRTH CONTROL:

Obama: Supports abortion rights.

Romney: Opposes abortion rights.

DEBT:

Obama: Federal spending is estimated at 23.5 percent of gross domestic product this year, up from about 20 percent in previous administration, and is forecast to decline to 21.8 percent by 2016. Calls for tackling the debt with a mix of spending cuts and revenue increases. Central to Obama’s plan is to let Bush-era tax cuts expire for couples making more than $250,000. Debt reduction is based upon a stepped 10 year plan.

Romney: Would cap federal spending at 20 percent of gross domestic product by end of first term. Proposes broad but largely unspecified cuts in federal spending. Among the few details: 10 percent cut in federal workforce, elimination of $1.6 billion in Amtrak subsidies and cuts of $600 million in support for the arts and broadcasting.

ECONOMY:

Obama: Continued implementation of Wall Street and auto industry bailouts begun under George W. Bush. Proposes tax breaks for U.S. manufacturers producing domestically or repatriating jobs from abroad, and tax penalties for U.S. companies outsourcing jobs. Won approval of South Korea, Panama and Colombia free-trade pacts begun under previous administration, completing the biggest round of trade liberalization since the North American Free Trade Agreement and other pacts of that era.

Romney: Lower taxes, less regulation, balanced budget, more trade deals to spur growth. Replace jobless benefits with unemployment savings accounts. Proposes repeal of the (Dodd-Frank) law toughening financial-industry regulations after the meltdown in that sector. Proposes repeal of the (Sarbanes-Oxley) law tightening accounting regulations in response to corporate scandals, and replacing it with less onerous rules to ease the accountability burden on smaller businesses.

EDUCATION:

Obama: Has approved waivers freeing states from the most onerous requirements of the Bush-era No Child Left Behind law with their agreement to improve how they prepare and evaluate students. “Race to the Top” competition has rewarded winning states with billions of dollars for pursuing education policies Obama supports. Won approval for a college tax credit worth up to $10,000 over four years and more money for Pell grants for low-income college students. Wants Congress to agree to reduce federal aid to colleges that go too far in raising tuition.

Romney: Supported the federal accountability standards of No Child Left Behind law. In 2007, said he was wrong earlier in career when he wanted the Education Department shut because he came to see the value of the federal government in “holding down the interests of the teachers’ unions” and putting kids and parents first. Has said the student testing, charter-school incentives and teacher evaluation standards of Obama’s “Race to the Top” competition “make sense” although the federal government should have less control of education.

ENERGY and ENVIRONMENT

Obama: Proposes Congress give oil market regulators more power to control price manipulation by speculators and stiffer fines for doing so. Failed to persuade a Democratic Congress to pass limits he promised on carbon emissions. Shelved plan to toughen health standards on lung-damaging smog. Rejected Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada but supports fast-track approval of a segment of it. Proposes ending subsidies to oil industry but has failed to persuade Congress to do so.

Romney: Supports opening the Atlantic and Pacific outer continental shelves to drilling, as well as Western lands, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore Alaska; and supports exploitation of shale oil deposits. Wants to reduce obstacles to coal, natural gas and nuclear energy development, and accelerate drilling permits in areas where exploration has already been approved for developers with good safety records.

GAY RIGHTS:

Obama: Once opposed federal recognition of same-sex marriage, later said his views were “evolving” and has not taken a position on that since.

Romney: Favors constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

HEALTH CARE:

Obama: Achieved landmark legislation and if the Supreme Court upholds the heath care law and its mandate for almost everyone to obtain insurance.

Romney: Promises to work for the repeal of the federal health care law.

IMMIGRATION:

Obama: Failed to deliver on a promised immigration overhaul. . Says he is still committed to it.

Romney: Favors U.S.-Mexico border fence, opposes education benefits to illegal immigrants. Opposes offering legal status to illegal immigrants who attend college, but would do so for those who serve in the armed forces. Proposes more visas for holders of advanced degrees in math, science and engineering who have U.S. job offers, and would award permanent residency to foreign students who graduate from U.S. schools with a degree in those fields.

SOCIAL SECURITY:

Obama: Has not proposed a comprehensive plan to address Social Security’s long-term financial problems.

Romney: Protect the status quo for people 55 and over but, for the next generations of retirees, raise the retirement age for full benefits by one or two years and reduce inflation increases in benefits for wealthier recipients.

TAXES:

Obama: Wants to raise taxes on the wealthy and ensure they pay 30 percent of their income at minimum. Supports extending Bush-era tax cuts for everyone making under $200,000, or $250,000 for couples.

Romney: Drop all tax rates by 20 percent, bringing the top rate, for example, down to 28 percent from 35 percent and the lowest rate to 8 percent instead of 10 percent. Curtail deductions, credits and exemptions for the wealthiest. End Alternative Minimum Tax for individuals, eliminate capital gains tax for families making below $200,000 and cut corporate tax to 25 percent from 35 percent.

TERRORISM:

Obama: Largely carried forward Bush’s key anti-terrorism policies, including detention of suspects at Guantanamo Bay despite promise to close the prison. Also has continued with military commissions instead of civilian courts for detainees and invocation of state secrets privilege in court. Expanded use of unmanned drone strikes against terrorist targets in Pakistan and Yemen.

Romney: No constitutional rights for foreign terrorism suspects. He does not consider waterboarding to be torture.

WAR:

Obama: Declined to repeat the Libya air power commitment for Syrian opposition. Opposes a near-term military strike on Iran, either by the U.S. or by Israel, to sabotage nuclear facilities that could be misused to produce a nuclear weapon. Says the U.S. will never tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran but negotiation and pressure through sanctions are the right way to prevent that outcome. Reserves the right to one day conclude that only a military strike can stop Iran from getting the bomb.

Romney: Has not specified the troop numbers behind his pledge to ensure the “force level necessary to secure our gains and complete our mission successfully” in Afghanistan. Would increase strength of armed forces, including number of troops andwarships, adding almost $100 billion to the Pentagon budget in 2016.