I’m sure if you look at different news sites and blogs, you’ve seen this article on WSJ.com about Obama’s economic plans  It’s an opinion piece to be sure, but one grounded in hard numbers, stated positions, and history.

I’ve had this discussion before with friends and family that truly believe those who make money “can afford” to always give more to those that don’t.  I mean really…does it make sense to raise taxes on the people that pay the majority of them by a whopping 30%?  Really?  I guess because they can “afford” to pay more, it’s fair to take close to 70% of their income from them for the greater good.

It’s a sad fact that most people live at the level they earn…no matter how much they earn.  How many people that people think can “afford to pay more” have lost their homes or filed for bankruptcy because they were living just at or above their means?  A lot.  Stars.  Tax accountants.  Pilots.  Parents with kids in college.  It just doesn’t matter.  People are hurting.  No matter what they earn or what business they are in.

I don’t know about you…but if I was looking at only bringing in a third of what I make after taxes, I would strongly consider severely decreasing my income so I could keep more of what I make.  It might not be as big of a number, but at least I wouldn’t feel like I was working for everyone but myself.

So….what do you think?  How much can these people “afford” to pay in taxes?  Does almost 70% sound fair or reasonable to you?  Well, maybe it does.  But to me, it sounds like grand theft for the purpose of political gain.

I’m sure it’s just me though.  I am at a loss for words, except to say….really?

You know…about what McCain wanted to say in what should be equal space in the New York Times in response to Obama’s op ed article. Here’s a link. I have no doubt that the Times will never publish it or give McCain equal space because it does not interest their readers and is not in line with their view of the world. But there it is in case you want to see both candidates’ view of Iraq, and not just Obama’s. Here’s my favorite part:

…the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City — actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

Progress is good. The only bad part is the actual progress is hardly ever talked about by the main stream media.

To be fair, here is a link to Obama’s previous piece in the Times. It’s always good to find out what both candidates have to say before we have to vote. At least, that’s what I think. I especially like the part where he says:

Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been.

Wow. Just wow. I think I remember something about Bin Laden’s no. 2 actually saying that it was on a video released some time in the past few years. Oh well…..it might not be now but at one time the enemy thought it was which is why we had the surge to get them out. Said surge appears to be working if you look at the facts.

So there you have it. Both sides. For your review. Even if the Times was not willing to post both sides, at least I (and probably others) am/are. I’ve read both pieces. I encourage you to do the same.

I’ve posted previously here on the hard facts that tax increases always mean less tax revenues and lost jobs, whereas lower taxes mean growth in the economy, jobs and tax revenues. These are facts put out by the government accounting office. You can read my previous post on this here (the source article is linked to and its sources are listed within the article).

I know it feels like I’m beating a dead horse, and truly I am not angry at those that are still convinced, even given these facts, that we must increase taxes on our most successful businesses that employ the majority of our workers. So I’ve been doing more research on the subject. Today I ran across some quotes from JFK about lowering taxes. Yes – he lowered taxes during an economic time similar to ours. Here is what he said:

It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference

Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.

John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

The Bay of Pigs aside, having read this I can truly understand why he had the majority of the country behind him and why he was so popular as President. He really was a very smart guy who recognized the facts and acted to improve our domestic circumstances for the good of everyone.

Don’t be shocked…but if we had a democrat with some national security experience who also understood economics the way Kennedy did…I MIGHT be persuaded to at least consider voting for him. MIGHT.

Oh – you can see the full article with Kennedy’s quotes here on World Net Daily.

I know this chart will not be seen as “the truth” by some, but the Washington Post is a pretty reputable source.  You can read the full article here.  I don’t know about you, but I always like to see side by side comparisons of the candidates’ different plans and policy positions.

Okay, so we’re back from our trip up north. I saw my nieces and nephews, sisters, aunts and uncles, cousins, mom and step dad. I got to see my newest nephew be baptized live and in person…by a really cool Nigerian priest. Seriously, the guy represented all that is good in a priest from his calm, comforting demeanor to how patient he was with the toddlers at the service to how carefully he treated the babies. A very, very nice man. We also spent time at the lake where The Boy and the spouse caught a mess of fish which we fried up and ate. Yummy.

Anyway, this was the second trip we took with the new Pilot vs. packing, standing in long security lines, and hopefully waiting for seats in crowded airports. I’ve been thinking about this a lot, so here are some pros and cons to consider when deciding whether you should drive or fly:

Driving: You leave on your own schedule

Flying: You sure as hell had better not be late or they will give your seat away…no exceptions.

Driving: You can pack whatever you want in the BIG bottles, in big-ass suitcases and nobody will complain but your spouse who has to figure out how to fit your bags into the car.

Flying: One small carry-on and one small bag which are both searched thoroughly by a power hungry TSA person and are lugged everywhere by you since baggage handlers tend to “misplace” checked bags.

Driving: These days, gas costs a LOT of money. Even in the Pilot which gets good mileage for an SUV.

Flying: There is a fuel surcharge, but it nowhere near matches the cost of filling your tank three times a day.

Driving: You get to sit in your own car, drinking your own beverage of choice, stopping to eat and for bio-breaks wherever and whenever you prefer, and you get your OWN pillow and blanket-free of charge. Plus, you get to watch your own movies and play your own games on your own computer…for free. Oh, and make phone calls. On your cell. As many as you want provided you can stand the dirty looks from the spouse who is trying to listen to his music.

Flying: You get to sit next to a huge guy that invades all your space and insists on putting the arm rest up so he can lean into you, he smells bad, he burps, he has gas, and he snores. You’re lucky to get a coke and you probably won’t get even a pretzel or a peanut unless you’re willing to pay through the nose for a pretty bad sammich. Just when you have to “go”, they turn on the fasten seat belt sign and allow nobody to go to the privy for the duration of the flight. No phone calls, unless you want to pay through the nose. In-flight entertainmnet? Well…maybe they’ll run some commercials and cut sit-coms….maybe some movies on longer flights you can see if you’re lucky enough to have a seat where it’s visible or an individual unit that works. But don’t count on seeing the whole flick….chances are there will be weather or too many announcements thrown in there to finish any one movie and still be able to hear/see it. And the food? Well, we all know the deal there. Even the first class stuff really isn’t that great.

Driving: No annoying people to deal with (except at the restaurants where you can at least get your own table). No screamning kids (except your own). And nobody kicking your seat or leaning back so they knock your drink and food into your lap.

Flying: All the bad things about other people in the mix listed above.

Driving: It takes a long-ass time to get anywhere!

Flying: It doesn’t take that long….but is it worth the hassle? I have to say sometimes it is if it’s the only way to get somewhere when I need or want to, but overall it’s a PITA.

All in all, even with the additional time, after these last two trips I have to say I prefer driving because I get to have all my stuff with me, make my own choices, and wear sweats until I get there (no I’m not comfortable on the plane in sweats…it’s like wearing PJ’s….I’m casual but not THAT casual).

What say you? Driving or flying? These days, which to you prefer?

That Iraq didn’t have any WMD capability.  At least, that’s what we heard when we turned on our nightly news.  I did see a story on cable that said Iraq had, in fact, been working to acquire nukes.  But I guess having tons of yellow cake, a core ingredient for nukes…does not count.  Or does it?

…The removal of 550 metric tons of “yellowcake” — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam’s nuclear legacy. 

U.S. and Iraqi forces have guarded the 23,000-acre (9,300-hectare) site — surrounded by huge sand berms — following a wave of looting after Saddam’s fall that included villagers toting away yellowcake storage barrels for use as drinking water cisterns.…….Earlier this year, the military withdrew four devices for controlled radiation exposure from the former nuclear complex. The lead-enclosed irradiation units, used to decontaminate food and other items, contain elements of high radioactivity that could potentially be used in a weapon…. 

It’s always good to have all the facts before we talk about what/who was and wasn’t in Iraq before we went in with force to remove its leader who was not complying with U.N. resolutions.

Anyway…it’s good the yellow cake made its way to Canada safely, where it can be used for peaceful purposes.  Score another one for the good guys.