The consumer advocate of "CHANGE" is running for president again.

2-24-2008

Mention the name Ralph Nader, and some of Al Gore’s old supporters hairs stand on end. Some political pundits have said that it was Ralph Nader that cost Al Gore the Presidential Election in 2000. Of course that is a whopper of a tale. If Al Gore had won his home state of Tennessee, he would have been President regardless of Nader or hanging chads in Florida. Well the political urban legend is back again for another run for the White House, and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are not pleased. If Barack Obama does get the nomination, Nader will definitely be a major torn in his side. Nader will put Obama’s tagline of “change” to the ultimate test no doubt. Unlike Barack Obama, Ralph Nader isn’t a Washington insider. Barack has been a United States Senator for three years now. Many of the top Democrat special interest groups have contributed heavily to his campaign. On top of that, Barack Obama has been endorsed my most of the old guard Democrats who have been in Washington for thirty years to forty years or more. Some of those names are Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Joe Bidden, and Chuck Schummer etc. Nader can come out and say in essence to Obama, “How can you talk about change when you are apart of the problem in Washington”? What can Obama say in response? The answer is nothing. Ralph Nader can literally expose Barack Obama as nothing more then an empty suit Washington insider. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a lot of pressure put on Nader by top Democrats to exit the race. It’s no secret that Obama and Hillary were thinking prior to today that whoever received the Democrat nomination would have a cakewalk going against John McCain. Amazing how twenty-four hours can change things. I believe a lot of Barack’s younger voters were at one time Ron Paul supporters. Ralph Nader has always had an appeal among white young liberal student types. These types of voters have no loyalty to political party, and they will vote accordingly to the candidate that best represents their views. It will be interesting to see how much support Nader gathers in the days, weeks and months ahead at Obama’s expense.

Barrack Obama's economic plan in review Part 1

2-19-2007

Its so apparent Barrack Obama doesn’t have a clue on how the economy works. Like the old saying goes “It’s the economy stupid”. To Obama’s supporters why should that matter? They know as much about the inner workings of the economy then Barrack Obama does, that would be little to none and far between. Last week Obama said that as president “he would spend $210 billion to create jobs in construction and environmental industries.” If anyone looks at his ultra thin resume, you will notice that Barrack has no executive experience in the corporate sector. He never created one job in his life. In his “economic plan” the investment would be over 10 years as part of two programs. The larger is $150 billion to create 5 million so-called "green collar" jobs to develop more environmentally friendly energy sources. Sixty billion dollars would go to a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to rebuild highways, bridges, airports and other public projects. Obama estimated that would generate nearly 2 million jobs, many of them in the construction industry that's been hit by the housing crisis”. Barrack may have graduated from Harvard but clearly he never majored in Business, Economics or Finance. I’ll rip in to Barrack’s proposal a little bit more in a minute, because this is something people need to see and understand. When Obama was asked how he would pay for his plan, he said
“It will come from ending the Iraq war, cutting tax breaks for corporations, taxing carbon pollution and raising taxes on high income earners.” Now it's time for the fun part.

The dismantling of Barrack Obama's "economic" plan Part 2

2-19-2008

Let’s begin. The tax cuts for the rich spew doesn’t cut it. It may work with Obama's legions of blind sheep, but I actually understand the economy and can see right through his socialist script. The Iraq war is being funded by deficit spending. In other words, it’s debt spending. If the military operations in Iraq were over tomorrow, the money diverted for Obama's economic plan would still come from BORROWED MONEY, which will still be tacked on to the national debt. Liberal politicians always talk about how they can fund so many feel good social programs if the Bush tax cuts were repealed. The fact of the matter is that tax receipts to the federal government has increased not decreased ever years since the taxes cuts took effect six years ago. The problem with our country incurring debt and deficits isn’t due to the “tax cuts to the rich” or the war. It’s a spending problem not a revenue problem. Of course why expect “The magic upstart” or his cult following to understand that. Barrack foolishly blamed Bush for the current housing downturn cycle. In his plan, I’ve noticed that the only way he knows how to fund those construction jobs is by using the federal government in the role of a massive employer. Should that surprise anyone? He is an ultra socialist. As for creating green collar jobs, what exactly is a “green collar” job anyways? I’ve heard of white and blue-collar jobs. That’s just great. Obama is going to try to help create an industry with no possibility of profitability, oddly enough that sounds familiar somehow. Oh yeah, how did that dot-com tech bubble economy turn out? Imagine having the choice of two people driving a three thousand pound car at high speed towards a brick wall. The first person is an inexpierenced mad woman named Hillary Clinton and the second driver is just as inexperienced named Barrack Obama. Choose your poison. Either one is going to crash the car into the wall. Now substitute the car for the Presidency of the United States. Once again we have a choice of two poisons for our country with no cure in sight.