Hmmm

Here's an interesting article.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121141264811412395.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Government Interference & the Future

It's interesting to note how Democrat agendas are many reasons why economy isn't as strong as it usually is; however Bush gets the blame. It's simply government intervention. Let's look at the Community Reinvesment Act implemented (by Democrats) in the 70's and a different version in the 1990's. These acts reinforced how more minorities (blacks & hispanics) must be given loans regardless of their credit situations; this was done due to the injustices the government laid upon them (racial redlining in the 50's). The government stated that if banks don't lend to a certain quota, then the banks would suffer. Thus, subprime loans were created. Now add in the fact that Greenspan had interest rates low, people participated in more mortgage fraud than ever before. Then, these I-banks invested heavily in these subprime loans (MBS-mortgage backed securities), this whole thing exploded last year. Yea, Greenspan had low interest rates as well, and he can be blamed for that; however, if this act wasn't there, would there be this problem? Nope.

Let's look at another problem we have in our society: oil. 4.19 in my town. There are a bunch of environmental nuts who constantly file lawsuits whenever oil companies want to drill and refine oil on American land. We don't have to depend on these oil sheikhs, but these liberal nut jobs are preventing this crap from going. It gets even better. Hilary wants to "fight the oil companies." How? She proposes lawsuits against OPEC and introducing a windfall tax. Fighting them will simply raise the prices (OPEC won't do shit, and windfall taxes will simply raise prices). Barack wants to raise the corporate tax rate, and wants to raise taxes on oil prices. What does this mean? Less investment by the oil companies, less supply, and higher prices.

People don't seem to realize that Indians and & Chinese peeps are throwing their bikes, and using their auto rikshaws & Tata cars more than ever. More demand=higher prices. Simple as that.

Yea, we can add Bush's excessive spending that has led to a deficit, which has weakened the dollar.

I wonder how long it takes the public to catch on to this. Dems will screw it up, and next thing you know, the Republicans will be back.

Cubs Notes

-Geovany Soto, catcher of the Cubs, has been doing a phenomenal job in his first full year. He's hitting .328 with 8 homers and 30 RBI's & it's only mid-May. I haven't seen a catcher as explosive as him since Mike Piazza's Dodger days in the 90's. The only problem with catchers is how long they last; their career lasts for about 15 years, but they only do well for about 10 years. Over the past 20 years (especially during the Steroids Era), I haven't seen that many productive catchers. Some come to mind; Mike Lieberthal had a few good years with the Phillies, Todd Hundley had some good years in the 90's before his injury (last time I checked he's living in Glenview and has been arrested for a DWI), and PUdge Rodriquez had some excellent years (but he's linked to roids). The point is even though catchers had access to roids in the late 80's, and the 90's, the catchers shelf live remains the same as it was in the past. Yogi Berra and Johnny Bench both struggled toward the latter parts of their career, and the same should be true of Soto in the future. If Soto continues to hit the way he does, he should be converted to a first baseman once D. Lee retires (assuming Soto remains with the Cubbies).

- Dempster has been pitching great as of late. There is one concern for me. This guy was a reliever last year, and he's now a starter. Last two games he has thrown 118 pitches and 115 pitches. That seems a little high. For a guy who has had Tommy JOhn surgery, and for a guy who hasn't been a starting pitcher (on a full time basis) for five years. Dempster's pitch count must be lower in order to avoid any arm problems in the future. I remember Prior and Wood used to have ridiculous pitch counts in '03, which led to their subsequent arm ailments (I remember one game Woodie threw 140+ pitches!). However, Piniella isn't as crazy as Dusty Baker, and everything should be fine (as long as Dempster doesn't constantly have a high pitch count).

Containing Iran

Obama seems to think that talking to our enemies seems to be the right thing to do. This former member of the Reagan administration doesn't think so.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/FrankJGaffneyJr/2008/04/14/tyrannys_enabler

So if Obama does become President, and ends up talking to Iran, what will this accomplish? Maybe at best reduced tensions in Iraq. I remember when Pelosi went to Syria last year, nothing really happened. The same will probably occur if Obama goes to visit Iran next year. However, the big question remains what the hell to do with Iran. Iran, a Shiite nation (10% shiite population in the Mideast), is slowly taking control of the Mideast. These guys want to get a nuke, and this will lead to an arms race in the Mideast. Just imagine if maniac Islamic fascists get control of the nukes. So what's the best way to handle this. Isolate Iran. Companies have to start disinvesting their assets in Iran, and force Iran to change policy. The UN is placing sanctions on Iran, and soon if countries stop doing business with these fanatics, Iran will become bankrupt. Soon, they'll be forced to change for the good, and liberate their people. In the 1980's, the U.S. did the same thing with South Africa (they supported apartheid back then), and a few years later, South Africa changed its apartheid policy (since it was economically distressed following this course of action). Reagan did a similar thing to beat the Soviets in the 80's. By outspending the Bolsheviks in military spending (the SIDS, the Star Wars iniative), Russia was bankrupt, and the Cold War was over. Following this course of action will allow a pro-American (most Iranians are younger than 30 & view America positively) regime change within Iran. The economy of Iran is horrid (15% unemployment) for the simple fact of only depending on oil, and not following a free market economy. Too bad Obama won't follow this course of action.

Why Aggressive Tactics Are Needed

Torture is morally wrong. However, let's look at the principle of lesser evils. If you torture individuals (Tenet, the ex-CIA guy, believes it works 70-80% of the time), you prevent future terrorist attacks from occurring. You prevent attacks, and then you save lives. It work with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who wanted to bomb the Sears Tower, and I work next to it right now). Let's also analzye history. In 1979, there was the Shah of Iran (pro-American), and Jimmy Carter was all about human rights. Yes, the Shah was evil, and it was morally wrong to have this guy in. However, Carter encouraged Khomeini to enter (and kicked out Shah), and as a result, Iran is all radicalized with Shiite surrogates killing innocent civilians in Iraq, Lebanon, and other places. Aggressive tactics work; wiretapping prevented those Pakistani Brits from using their IPODS to blow up Americans two years back. Yes, these tactics may be morally wrong, but at the same time, America needs to protect itself and civilans around the world. Iraq may have been wrong to invade, but Bush is right about aggressive tactics. Plus, look at any Arab torture cell, and it's worse off than here. I mean, a girl gets lashed in Saudi Arabia for being with another man (it wasn't her fault...which happened earlier year). And people don't get upset at that, as we do at Bush? You get lashed if you drink beer and get caught in UAE or other Muslim countries (because of Sharia law). Human rights violations in UAE against Indians & Pakistani's. But no one complains about that?

Andrew McCarthy from National Review on our torture cellsIt is also among the most humane, complete with halal meals, a bursting library, lush recreation facilities, communal prayer breaks and even white-gloved U.S. soldiers - Muslims only, please - delivering to each detainee a Koran (U.S. government-issued, even though the inmates believe it commands them to kill Americans)."

Oil Companies

Congress has been proposing a Windfall Tax (More Tax on Oil Profits), and Clinton & Obama have been trying to go after "these oil companies" via taxing. Obama has claimed that he's going to tax companies that have their headquarter overseas, but do majority of their businesses here. Clinton wants to go after those "capitalistic pig oil companies" by placing more taxes on them as well. Let's see. If you tax the oil companies & other behemoth corporations more, what will these corporations do? The CEO, who always has his ass on the line, will simply do what's good for him and the company. (1) After these increased taxes, he will lay people off. (2) Higher taxes will cause less investment in exploration & efficiency, which thus, in turn will raise prices (less supply= higher prices at the pump). Plus, the people they're trying to help will be screwed even more. It's interesting to note how these guys don't mention the facts why oil prices are going up: (1) weakening dollar (due to the low interest rates and deficit), (2) India & China beginning to buy more oil, (3) Iraq War, (4) the failure to dig up for more oil reserves (which McCain is at fault as well). Its simply economics, which the public doesn't understand.

Obama and McCain's Tax Plans

While Obama has been running a great campaign, I am troubled by his tax policies. Obama is for tax for the middle class, and his raising taxes on the rich (due to his big government proposals). That seems all right. However, what troubles me is his plan on capital gains & the corporate tax rate. His plan would be to raise the capital gains rate from 15% to the mid 20's. McCain, on the other hand, wants to keep at the 15%. Obama's explanation is even more startling.

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

The debate goes on with this

MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what’s happening on Wall Street and how business is going.

If Obama wants to make things more fair, wouldn't it be wise to lower cap. rates. More revenue would go to the government, and as a result, it could fund his big government programs (programs that never work...look at what happened to LBJ in the 60's and the current Bush). Plus, a lower cap. rate, the more investment, and more ROR (rate of return on the investment). Thus, wages go up, and more people are hired.

What else is disturbing is how he says that there will be great economic growth (if he's elected) if the federal corporate tax rates stay the same at 35% (not to mention the state corporate tax rates...here in Illinois it's 7.3%). So if you own a business in Illinois, and making an allright income (at least $75,000), you're taxed at a staggering 43%!! McCain's plan looks great with a reduction of the tax rate from 35% to 25%. This will add economic growth, and allow the U.S. to get out of this economic mess we currently are facing. The more you tax, the less people are hired, and the less wages go up. So the people Obama will try to help out, will ultimately be shafted.

It's interesting how many libertarians are switching to the left this year, especially when we have these bogus economic proposals by Obama.