This chart is compliments of Irish
     His website is full of humor, Page 5 girls....not always NSFW.  A great site.


Firearms Best Powerpoint 1

Former Obama supporter interviews her 2008 self

  I saw this at Patriots Corner     It was a tongue in cheek video but it is very well done.   I actually laughed my behind off.   The video is very creative and well done and worth a look.

Are polls skewed toward Democrats?

I saw this on Weekly standard.   We conservatives have always known that the polls are tilted to the left.  The pollsters tend to ask their own kind......leftist collectivist idealist, ete,ete.  It is a factor of human nature that one tends to associate with ones own kind...and the pollsters tend to bear this out.

This article is compliments of the Weekly Standard

A topic that inevitably receives a lot of focus during election season is the partisan spread of the major media polls. Conservatives regularly complain that the polls are tilted against their side, and thus favor the Democrats.

They have a point.

To be sure, we can conclude that without accusing any pollster of malfeasance. In this essay, Mark Blumenthal of the Huffington Post correctly notes that the problem gets down to using registered voter polls. These tend to oversample Democrats.  The argument in support of them is that, while a likely voter screen would draw a larger Republican sample, it would create more variability as pollsters would be guessing unduly at the final party turnout.

That is a fair point in some respects, although there is a cost associated with either choice. Using registered voter polls might cut down on variability, but they also create statistical bias. That is, the polls tend to oversample Democrats in a systematic fashion. And because partisan support is so strong – with 90 percent of Republicans supporting GOP candidates and 90 percent of Democrats supporting Democratic candidates – you regularly see the Democratic candidates’ margins overstated in polls of registered voters.

Let’s see if we can quantify this a little bit. To begin, we need to know the historical partisan tendencies of the electorate. For that, we can turn to the exit polls going back to 1972.

As we can see, the GOP position suffered enormously because of the Watergate scandal in 1974. Republican identification among voters plummeted 10 points, not to rebound fully until Ronald Reagan basically rebranded the party in 1984.

Ever since then, we have seen both parties pull a relatively constant range of support. This actually pushes back against Blumenthal’s point that there is an undue amount of guesswork in terms of modeling the electorate. In fact, for five elections in a row – from 1984 to 2004 – the GOP fell within a very narrow, 5-point band between 34 percent and 39 percent. Meanwhile, the Democratic band was even narrower, from 37 percent to 40 percent.

Of course, 2008 seems to have broken the pattern. But what was really happening that cycle? The conventional wisdom among proponents of the “emerging Democratic majority” thesis is that this was the general election when the demographic power of the Democratic party was finally realized. But in fact we see the Democratic party still falling in that narrow range of 37-40 percent. The real drop-off comes with the GOP, and the “independent” category was the greatest beneficiary. What I suspect happened is that many marginal Republicans stopped identifying themselves as such in 2008, and instead called themselves independents. This argument is supported by the fact that Barack Obama only won the independent vote in 2008 by 8 points, which compares quite negatively to the 18-point blowout among independents that Democrats scored in 2008. This suggests that a lot of true Republicans were “hiding” in that category four years ago.

Thus, I do not see a substantial shift in the partisan balance within the electorate in 2008, at least not on net. Certainly, Barack Obama attracted a much larger number of the non-white public to the polls (especially African Americans), and he also drew a larger share of this vote than prior Democrats. But these gains were countered by significant declines in Democratic support among whites. Obama lost the white vote by 12 points; while in 1996 (an equally good year for Democrats) Bill Clinton lost it by just 3 points.

I also do not see much reason to alter substantially our expectations in terms of partisan turnout – certainly not in a cycle where most polls suggest an enthusiasm gap that favors the Republican party. The quarter-century trend (1984 through 2008) has seen an average Democratic turnout edge of 3 points, 39 percent Democratic to 36 percent Republican. I’d expect something roughly similar this time around.

This gives us a basis to compare the recent polls of registered voters. How do they stack up to this historical trend of D+3?

    

The clear answer is: they skew Democratic. In fact, every recent registered voter poll with party spreads I could identify had a Democratic advantage that exceeded the quarter-century trend. And the average of all these polls together is 35 percent Democratic to 29.5 percent Republican, or D +5.5

Importantly, these polls show Obama with an average lead over Mitt Romney of 3.5 points. But if they have a 2.5-point Democratic oversample, then what we are really talking about is perhaps a 1-point Obama lead.

Incidentally, this puts these polls much more in line with the Rasmussen poll, which has consistently found a toss-up race. Right now, Rasmussen – a poll of likely voters – sees an R+1.4 advantage in party identification. That is entirely defensible, in my opinion, given the weakness in the economy.

    

A final point: Presidential job approval polls are usually reported among all adults, aged 18 or over. These tend to have an even larger skew toward the Democrats than registered voter polls. For instance, the CBS News / New York Times poll had a D+6 spread among registered voters, but a D+7 spread among all adults. This means that the job approval numbers are probably overstating Obama’s position by an even larger margin. So, the CBS News / New York Times poll had Obama’s net approval at -2, suggesting that among the electorate it’s perhaps around -6. I’d link this back to my consistent argument that presidents rarely win a share of the electorate larger than their job approval to justify my sustained bearishness on Obama’s reelection prospects. I suspect that the Rasmussen poll on job approval is closest to the electorate’s true feelings, and that regularly shows a net disapproval around -5 points, a very bad position for any incumbent.

Here’s my bottom line. It is very difficult to model the turnout for a presidential election this far away from November. There are a lot of tough choices that pollsters must make, and it is not fair to single any pollster out for the decisions it ultimately goes with. Nevertheless, we can and should still be smart consumers of political polling. We need to keep the historical spread between the two sides in mind, and be cautious of polls that show a relatively wide Democratic advantage over the GOP. They are probably underestimating the GOP's electoral strength. 

Jay Cost is a staff writer for THE WEEKLY STANDARD and the author of Spoiled Rotten: How the Politics of Patronage Corrupted the Once Noble Democratic Party and Now Threatens the American Republic, available now wherever books are sold

Contacting your Senators

There is a lot of pressure on vacillating senators to ratify the UN ARMS treaty especially after Aurora.  I know who my senators are here in GA.   A bit of history, according to our federalist history the senators were selected by the state governors to represent the states interest in D.C on the Potomac. The passage of the 17th amendment made it a direct election results rather than being appointed. 

    This from Wikipedia:
The United States Senate is the upper house of the bicameral legislature of the United States, and together with the United States House of Representatives comprises the United States Congress. The composition and powers of the Senate are established in Article One of the U.S. Constitution.^[1] Each U.S. state is represented by two senators, regardless of population. Senators serve staggered six-year terms. The chamber of the United States Senate is located in the north wing of the Capitol, in Washington, D.C., the national capital. The House of Representatives convenes in the south wing of the same building.
The Senate has several exclusive powers not granted to the House, including consenting to treaties as a precondition to their ratification and consenting or confirming appointments of Cabinet secretaries, federal judges, other federal executive officials, military officers, regulatory officials, ambassadors, and other federal uniformed officers,^[2][3] as well as trial of federal officials impeached by the House. The Senate is both a more deliberative^[4] and more prestigious^[5][6][7] body than the House of Representatives, due to its longer terms, smaller size, and statewide constituencies, which historically led to a more collegial and less partisan atmosphere.^[8] The Senate is sometimes called the "world's greatest deliberative body."<sup>[9][10][11][12]

     This website  tells people who their representatives are.Here  
    Look for your state in the index.

      There are some pointers when writing your congresscritter...Be polite, Be respectful...Don't call them "dumbasses or Marxist sympathisers" or a myriad of names   Be polite, be factual and be brief.  a 1 page letter....Yes I said letter...  I remember a formula a while back.  1 letter equals 100 emails and 1 email equals 100 phone calls.    They pay more attention to what you have to say if you go through the hassle of writing it, or typing it, stuffing the envelope and dropping it into the mailbox.  When I write them, I always type it or use a computer printer, be respectful and keep it brief, an introduction, a main point and a conclusion.   Remember to use proper punctuation and spelling.  Having a letter with misspellings and poor grammar will lessen the impact of what you say. Always include your name(real) and your address.</sup>


       

Contacting Senators

By E-mail

All questions and comments regarding public policy issues, legislation, or requests for personal assistance should be directed to the Senators from your State. Some Senators have e-mail addresses while others post comment forms on their web sites. When sending e-mail to your Senator, please include your return postal mailing address. Please be aware that as a matter of professional courtesy, many Senators will acknowledge, but not respond to, a message from another Senator's constituent.

By Postal Mail

You can direct postal correspondence to your Senator or to other U.S.Senate offices at the following address:

For correspondence to U.S. Senators:

Office of Senator (Name)
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

For correspondence to Senate Committees:

(Name of Committee)
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

By Telephone

Alternatively, you may phone the United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121. A switchboard operator will connect you directly with the Senate office you request.

   ^{This is Georgia's   :}

Georgia Governor

Republican

Nathan Deal GA Governor

Georgia Senators

Republican

Clarence Chambliss GA Senator

Republican

Johnny Isakson GA Senator

Georgia Representatives

Democrat

John Barrow GA Representative

Democrat

Sanford Bishop Jr. GA Representative

Republican

Paul Broun GA Representative

Republican

Phil Gingrey GA Representative

Republican

Tom Graves GA Representative

Democrat

Hank Johnson Jr. GA Representative

Republican

Jack Kingston GA Representative

Democrat

John Lewis GA Representative

Republican

Tom Price GA Representative

Democrat

David Scott GA Representative

Republican

James Scott GA Representative

Republican

Lynn Westmoreland GA Representative

Republican

Rob Woodall GA Representative

 

Monday Music...

I got on the computer early enough to get some monday music.   After a bit of a hiatus, I bring back Monday Music

Colorado Shooting

I waited several days to formulate an opinion on the tragedy that had transpired in Colorado.  What didn't surprise me at all were the calls for immediate gun control laws by the same group of people.  Brady group, Mayor Bloomburg and the other assorted leftist groups.  I swear that the lefties have no morals and no integrity.  They started dancing on the still warm blood of the victims pushing their pet agenda.  I will give President Obama credit( for the first time) by not immediately pushing the same agenda, he asked for the flags to be at half mast and for us to pray for Aurora Colorado.  That is it.  He is adopting a wait and see attitude.  Politically it would be the kiss of death for him to push the agenda.  Mitt Romney has said the same thing. 
     I have noticed also that the mainstream press was salivating at the thought of connecting this loon to the Tea Party.  They jumped before checking their facts.  Nothing like having the facts get in the way of their agenda and they wonder why the old school media is discounted and not trusted.  They used to report the news...now they try to spin it to support their agenda.

 Something that was mentioned by Old NFO and many others is the fact that these are "gun free" zones...a gun free zone is a place where law abiding people cannot carry a weapon or violate the law.  Remember the key word here "Law abiding".  Criminals are by definition already lawbreakers, so see a gun-free zone will not affect them in the least.  "Gun Free" zones are victim disarmament zones where the law abiding are unarmed and the criminal has free rein.  Gun free zones are usually placed by companies that are what is called " risk adverse"   basically they don"t want to be sued by a bunch of bottom feeding lawyers.  So they put of this sign saying no guns so they can say" see, they broke the law...we are not libel.   This is the work of another democrat constituency.....lawyers.
     I also think that it is ironic that this happened to take place the week before Hillery is supposed to sign this U.N gun treaty.  I being a suspicious cynical bastard wonders if this is by design.   Also you notice that the liberals in Hollywood, that preach against the 2nd amendment insist on the first amendment being sacrosant so they can put out there more and more demented crap.  I have commented more and once that the rest of the world think that Hollywood is "us" America and i think that it is ironic that the values on Hollywood don't reflect most of America....Remember we are the bitter clingers that cling to our guns and religion because we will not accept the socialist utopia that our betters want to impose on us because they are soo much more educated than we are and they know what is best for us.
     I also want to state, what the 2nd amendment is.....it is our protection against a tyrannical government.  As long as we are armed, they cannot enslave us.  Armed citizens or unarmed peasants....they choice is ours.

My Bed Space....

This cartoon is humorous but accurate.  To all guys that have spouses..this will be accurate...

5 cars we can"t get here in the States.

 Here are some cars that we will not see here in the U.S.  I would like to see the international Ranger by Ford here since I like Rangers and I like Fords.  But when my Ranger finally dies( 300,000 miles+) and going strong, but I do admit...the hamsters are getting tired in the 4 cylinder 2.3 liter.  

MORE AT CNNMONEY.COM

• » Why the engine is here to stay
• » Family cars: Not sexy, but selling
• » Mercedes vs. BMW: Big fight over small cars

Thanks to changing tastes, these stylish cars, trucks and vans won't be for sale in the U.S. any time soon.

Alfa Romeo Giulietta

The sharp-looking Alfa-Romeo Guilietta is the right size for Europe's narrow roads. Vehicle occupants also tend to be, well, narrower in Europe than in the U.S.

So for a vehicle like this to really succeed in the U.S. it would need to be a bit wider and roomier and, Also, hatchback cars like the Guilietta just aren't very popular in the U.S. so it would need a seperate a trunk. That would also mean making it longer.

Fiat's partner, Chrysler Group, did just that and is selling a version of this car, called the Dodge Dart, in American showrooms. We'll know soon how successful that transformation was with American audiences.

Holden Ute SS

Big auto companies always dream of the elusive "global car." They could save big money by building one version of a car that they can sell all over the world with only trifling changes. And sometimes it happens -- as with Ford's new Focus compact car and Escape SUV.

But more often the peculiarities of certain markets mean that, to compete there you've got to cater to the local tastes.

Take Australia, for instance, which is like the "Land that Time Forgot" for cars. Thanks to relatively mild weather, many popular models there seem like updated versions of rear-wheel-drive cars we've hardly seen in the U.S. since the '70s.

Case in point, the Ute SS from GM's Holden division. Look familiar? Squint and you'll see a Chevrolet El Camino, the old car-with-a-truck-bed last sold in the 1980s.

There was some thought given to selling the Ute in the U.S. as a Pontiac, but that idea died along with the Pontiac division.

Ford Ranger

The Ford Ranger compact pick-up just recently went out of production here in the United States. New, more fuel-efficient versions of the full-sized Ford F-150 have made the old Ranger unnecessary, Ford spokespeople say.

But the Ranger name lives on overseas on a fun-looking truck bigger than the Ranger we knew here but not quite as big as the F-150.

It's ideally suited to foreign markets, says Ford, where roads -- and whatever passes for roads -- are narrower than here. It can also be sold with small fuel-efficient diesel engines that, because of strict U.S. air quality standards, couldn't economically be marketed here.

Chevrolet TrailBlazer

You can still see plenty of TrailBlazer's driving around on American roads, but these old-school truck-based SUVs haven't been sold here since the 2009 model year. Americans have moved on to car-based crossover SUVs like the Chevy Traverse.

But there are still places where roads are rough and people want the ruggedness of a truck frame. So GM unveiled a new version of the TrailBlazer at the Dubai Motor Show last year. While the TrailBlazer looks nicer than the bulbous Traverse, there are no plans to bring this thirstier vehicle back to the states.

Toyota Alphard

Toyota sells a very good minivan here in the United States called the Sienna. Back home in Japan, Toyota sells this very funky looking number with the unfortunate -- to American ears -- name of Alphard. (It sounds like something third-graders would call each other right before a fist fight.)

While it looks cooler than the Sienna, it's also slightly smaller, which would make it less competitive among America's very un-mini minivans.

Toyota also makes a youth-oriented version with more aggressive styling called the Vellfire.

That's right... As in "Van" and "Hellfire." That may be more minivan coolness than Americans are prepared for

2016....The Movie

I saw this movie trailer...

it is the movie 2016

It is a decision on the direction we will go as a people and as a society

2016....

Our Fearless leader.....

Gotta campaign to get the braid dead dolts to vote for me again and stir up my base since I have pissed everybody else off.

Obama had created something........

A reminder of what Socialism is.......

The problem is that the tipping point may have been reached, when almost 50% of Americans don"t have any skin in the game and all they want is the free Obamamoney
   Like our favorite Obama Supporter...Peggy Joseph

"Obama will pay my Gas and Mortgage"

Camping modern style....

I and my son went to Webelo resident camp so he can earn some activity pins on his road to the Arrow of Light.  I took my Droid and my KindleFire.  I was able to use my phone to create a hot spot to piggyback my kindlefire.  I was able to surf around but I wasn't able to post.  That is why I had this break on posting and activities.

  This is my son practicing some of the knots that are a requirement for his outdoorsman pin.

    We spend 5 days in the woods at Camp Thunder.  It is a good Boy Scout Base that can handle Webelo and Cub Scout also.  My son also learned many other things including "Readyman" or first aid and Geology.  Also more outdoorsman or camping in the outdoors.  Also Leave no trace and conservation.   He also learned a new weapon system....  

  Pellet Rifles......This is his first exposure to it. He has fired Arrows, BB's, 22's and my AR-15:)  He did well at it.  the principles of good marksmanship applies to all.

Obama Executive Orders....?

Makes me wonder if this is the great October surprise that has been alluded to?

Do Obama's Executive Orders Reveal A Pattern?

By Warren Beatty

President Barack Hussein "kill list" Obama has offered over 900 Executive Orders (EO), and he is not even through his first term.  He is creating a wonderland of government controls covering everything imaginable, including a list of "Emergency Powers" and martial law EOs.  And while Obama is busy issuing EOs to control everything inside the US, he has been issuing EOs to force us to submit to international regulations instead of our US Constitution.
And comments by North Carolina governor Beverly Perdue and former OMB director Peter Orszag only contribute to this pattern.
Is it now time to start connecting the dots?  Obama signed EO 13603 on March 22, 2012.  Then he signed EO 13617 on June 25, 2012, declaring a national emergency.  Then he signed EO 13618 on July 6, 2012.
In EO 13603, entitled, "National Defense Resources Preparedness," Obama says (among other things) that [we must]:

be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;

Obama has the power, through this EO, to "nationalize" (not seize) private assets in order to protect national interests.  Further, the EO effectively states that he can:
1.   "identify" requirements for emergencies
2.   "assess" the capability of the country's industrial and technological base
3.   "be prepared" to ensure the availability of critical resources in time of national threat
4.   "improve the efficiency" of the industrial base to support national defense
5.   "foster cooperation" between commercial and defense sectors
There are pundits that suggest that by signing  EO 13603, Obama has given himself power to declare martial law and suspend elections.
The main problem with EO 13603 is that the words/phrases in quotes can be interpreted in many ways, including ways that favor Obama and Democrats.  Wait, we can have our Supreme Court decide what they mean.  But that won't work since we know four of them to be Democrat hacks, and one justice can be influenced by the MSM.
In EO 13617, entitled "Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted From Nuclear Weapons," Obama says (among other things)that"

the risk of nuclear proliferation created by the accumulation of a large volume of weapons-usable fissile material in the territory of the Russian Federation continues to constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.

Obama, by signing this EO, actually declared a national emergency.  I guess that President Theodore Roosevelt's famous saying, "Speak softly and carry a big stick," can't apply in this case because we don't want to offend the Russians by having them honor treaties they signed (the "HEU" Agreement).  But what's more important is that Obama can now "justify" any action he wants to take by citing EO 13617 since it declares a national emergency.
Then, in EO 13618, entitled, "Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions," Obama states (among other things) that:

The Federal Government must have the ability to communicate at all times and under all circumstances to carry out its most critical and time sensitive missions. ...  Such communications must be possible under all circumstances to ensure national security, effectively manage emergencies, and improve national resilience.

Obama cites "national security" in this EO.  I guess Obama sees ANY excuse for declaring a national security emergency will appear better than taking over the nation's communications assets by force
Want more examples of what Obama is doing?

• EO 10990 allows the Government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
• EO 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.
• EO 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision
• EO 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
• EO 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
• EO 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate and establish new locations for populations.
• EO 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities.

Are we beginning to see a pattern here?  We're being prepared  for a national emergency.  Then there's taking control.  I personally think that what Obama is doing goes way beyond being prepared.
North Carolina governor Beverly Perdue (Democrat), on September 28, 2011, suggested that perhaps elections should be suspended for two years by canceling, until the economy recovers, the 2012 elections. After that remark got the reception it deserved, Pardue's staff tried to pass it off as a joke.
Former White House director of the Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag, who, on September 14, 2011, in a The New Republic article entitled "Too Much of a Good Thing: Why we need less democracy," said that we are that we are hampered by too much democracy, that the constitutional system (not really a democracy) is too slow to react, and the deliberations and negotiations are simply too cumbersome. Orszag suggests that the constitutional rules of limiting government offers impediments to autocratic, dictatorial actions, and are just too great.
That North Carolina governor Perdue would even joke (if it was a joke) about canceling an election is frightening enough, but that Orszag, a former official in Obama's administration, believes that doing away with the US Constitution is a viable solution should cause every AT reader to quake.
I'm never comfortable with laws that give the government broad reaching powers in the event of a "national emergency," especially when there is no clear, set, unchangeable definition of what actually constitutes a "national emergency."
Circumvention of the US Constitution by any means possible is the ultimate goal of Democrats and the Obama administration because the 2012 election is shaping up to be a repeat of the 2010 election.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but these three latest EOs and previous EOs Obama signed, coupled with Perdue's and Orszag's comments, suggest that something besides coincidence is going on.
Dr. Beatty earned a Ph.D. in quantitative management and statistics from Florida State University.  He was a (very conservative) professor of quantitative management specializing in using statistics to assist/support decision making. He has been a consultant to many small businesses and is now retired.  Dr. Beatty is a veteran who served in the U.S. Army for 22 years.  He blogs at: rwno.limewebs.com.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/do_obamas_executive_orders_reveal_a_pattern.html#ixzz21BfR7yhS

The lesson of the Auto bailout.

I have stated many times and it says on my profile that I am a former Ford Motor company employee so I have an interest in the industry.  I accepted the buyout when Ford closed my Taurus plant here in Atlanta.  I don't hate Ford Motor for what happened, Ford was in trouble and was trying to turn around.  I got a generous severance package and I am still a vested employee which means that  I will get a pension(small one) when I retire.  Ford mortgaged themselves to the hilt to finance their turn around.  It was basically " go for broke" either change or become a footnote in history. Ford unlike GM and Chrysler refused the government buyout.   Ford was successful, they have profitable cars and trucks and are doing well and is respected in automotive circles.  GM and Chrysler far less so.  GM is accused of "cooking the books"  or flooding the lines and dealership lots with cars that they cannot sell.  This is a repeat of the notorious "Car bank" that Chrysler was best known for in the late 70's, a car bank is the number of cars that are over 90 days old that are sitting around with no buyer.  This is bad business practice that inflate the numbers in the short term (like elections) but like cholesterol will clog up the arteries.  There is a lawsuit in new york on this issue.   I still own stock in Ford and I am glad that I do.  I still drive Fords and will continue to do so.

What do companies get when they act responsibly? Government-subsidized competition. On July 5 in the swing state of Ohio, President Obama treated voters to his campaign-2012 synopsis of the 2009 auto industry bailout: "When the American auto industry was on the brink of collapse and more than one million jobs were on the line, Governor Romney said we should just let Detroit go bankrupt." His message was clear: The Obama administration’s 2009 decision to bail out the auto industry allegedly saved it from the fate it would have suffered had Romney’s approach—bankruptcy—won the day. The map below, adapted from the Ohio affiliate of the U.S. Census Bureau, shows automobile assembly plants in the Midwest and South, and helps to illustrate the “industry” in question. Red indicates companies rescued by the bailout; green indicates companies that didn’t participate in the bailout. Also in his speech, Obama noted that top-down economics doesn’t work, and that risk-taking, hard work, and taking responsibility should be rewarded. The irony in that was easy to miss: The bailout was the government version of top-down economics, and the companies that had responsibly prepared themselves for surviving a downturn were not rewarded, they were penalized. Although the campaign rhetoric may be effective with some of Ohio’s voters, anyone familiar with more than just the headlines of the 2009 auto bailout would know that it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, for several reasons: • The choice in 2008-2009 was not bankruptcy versus no bankruptcy; instead, the choice was between precedent-driven bankruptcy and White House-driven bankruptcy—rule-of-law versus rule-of-czar. • The taxpayer bailout was not applied to the “American auto industry”—instead, it was applied only to the two failed companies, GM and Chrysler, bypassing companies that had been sufficiently prepared for the downturn, including Ford, Honda of America, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, and others. • Orderly, rule-of-law bankruptcy might have led to continuing operations under restructuring for GM or Chrysler, in which case many auto-making jobs would have remained in Michigan. • Alternatively, orderly bankruptcy might have led to a shutdown of GM or Chrysler and an open auction of assets—probably to surviving companies—in which case car buyers would have shifted to surviving companies’ products and auto-making jobs would have migrated to those same survivors. (When a grocery store closes, its customers don’t stop shopping, they take their business elsewhere; car buyers behave in the same way.) • The notion that the White House should intervene with a specially designed bankruptcy process, thereby sidestepping rule-of-law bankruptcy, originated in the Bush White House in 2008, not in the Obama White House in 2009. A more honest name for the program would therefore be the “Bush-Obama Bankruptcy/Bailout” for Detroit’s two failed auto companies. • Ironically, top-down economics was the de facto remedy applied to “save” GM and Chrysler—but in this case “top-down” was the government-knows-best notion that political wisdom, trickling down to displace a century of evolved bankruptcy case law, was supposedly a superior alternative for the two failed companies. Top-down economics, the politicians’ version of  “intelligent design,” directly rewarded GM and Chrysler with special-interest life support—instead of indirectly rewarding their surviving competitors with new customers and the necessary additional workers. • For the record, the only thing that “saves” any company, not just auto companies, is a sufficient number of buying customers—not the government, not union bosses, and not incompetent management. It’s a truth that all but two of the American-based auto companies understood sufficiently to withstand the 2008 downturn without help from the taxpayers. As of the 2008-2009 crisis, American workers in companies such as Ford, Honda of America, and Toyota had won the marketplace battle against GM and Chrysler for survival during hard times. They had planned successfully for a “rainy day,” proving their competiveness in the auto market. Unfortunately, however, they couldn't compete against the politicians in power, the rule-of-czar bankruptcy process, or intelligent design economics. When government wisdom, not consumer choice, decided which companies deserved to be kept alive and which types of cars consumers should decide to buy, it was the two failed companies that were rewarded; perversely, hard work and acting responsibly was not. What the responsible companies got was government-subsidized competition. A more intellectually honest synopsis for Ohio’s voters would be something like the following: When GM and Chrysler failed, Governor Romney’s approach would have been a rule-of-law bankruptcy process, followed by consumer-driven selection of the pecking order for American-based car companies. Instead, both the Bush and Obama administrations favored White House-directed bankruptcy, followed by life support for the two failed companies.  That begs a question: How many jobs in Ohio and elsewhere would the car-buying public have awarded to the responsible companies if Romney’s preferred approach had been the policy? Unfortunately, we'll never know. The unemployed who would have had new auto-making jobs don't even know who they are and therefore have zero political clout. That's a fatal disadvantage against the politically connected crony capitalists and union bosses who are skilled at employing intelligent design economics to protect themselves. It’s also standing in the way of a new Golden Era for the U.S. economy; in the July 6 Wall Street Journal, Michael S. Malone summarized the problem in his article, “The Sources of the Next American Boom”: Getting there won't be easy, as we are currently governed by leaders who want to manage our complex and dynamic economy from the top down, to tame entrepreneurs with regulation, to tax the productive and, ultimately, to pick the next generation of winners. That's never worked well and it isn't working today. Not only will we never know the number of auto-industry jobs that would have migrated to Ohio and the Sun Belt, we’ll never know the answer to a final hypothetical question: Instead of spending taxpayers’ money to bail out two irresponsible car companies, might it have been better to invest it in a useful infrastructure project such as wider highways leading away from failed companies and towards the more responsible ones in Ohio and points south? We shouldn’t expect an answer to that question anytime soon, let alone during campaign season. Steve Conover retired recently from a 35-year career in corporate America. He has a BS in engineering, an MBA in finance, and a PhD in political economy. His website is www.optimist123.com.

Former Navy Seal forms PAC to Assist Rommney

I remember when Bush reported to the nation that we had captured Saddam Hussein.  The prevalent word in his speed was "we".  When Obungler reported the death of OBL, the word used mostly was "I".

Ryan Zinke in his Navy days. (Photo: IraqVetsForCongress.com)

Today, Ryan Zinke, an ex-Navy SEAL and Montana State Senator, announced the launch of Special Operations for America, a political action committee dedicated to “the election of Mitt Romney and like-minded candidates.” “Navy SEAL’s, Special Operations Personnel and Veteran’s across America have been outraged since Barack Obama conveniently took credit for killing Osama Bin Laden for political gain,” a statement announcing the launch of SOFA said. “The active duty military has no voice as they are forbidden to publicly engage in the political campaign process and it is career suicide for senior military leaders to speak out against the President.”
Mr. Zinke, who has frequently slammed the president’s handling of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, reiterated his criticisms of the operation.
“The President has failed and he is jeopardizing the safety of our troops, their families and our National security for political gain. Obama has exposed the identity of special operations units, leaked classified information, and limited the rules of engagement of forces on the ground,” said Mr. Zinke. “For those who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, it is a call of duty to take back America from a Commander-in-Chief that is incapable of understanding the sacrifices that have been made for the values that have made America great.”
Mr. Zinke has served in the Montana State Senate since 2009. According to Afghanistan and Iraq Veterans for Congress, a political action committee dedicated to electing Republican vets, Mr. Zinke was a member of SEAL Team Six, the elite unit that killed Bin Laden, from 1990 until 1993 and from 1996 until 1999. He held several titles including Task Force Commander. In 2004, In 2004, was named “Deputy and acting Commander, Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force-Arabian Peninsula in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM” in that capacity he “led a force of over 3500 Special Operations personnel in Iraq in the conduct of 360 combat patrols, 48 Direct Action missions, and hundreds of sensitive operations” and “was responsible for killing or capturing 72 known enemy insurgents and terrorists.”

"Why Obama Shouldn't be Reelected"

Compliments of Bill Whittle

Tax information....

Monday Map: Percentage of Federal Income Tax Revenue from Filers Making Over $200,000

July 16, 2012

By: 

Nick Kasprak

Today's Monday Map looks at the percentage of federal income tax revenue from each state that is paid by filers with incomes over $200,000. Such filers make up a small percent of the population but pay a high percent of total tax revenue. Given that President Obama proposes to let the Bush tax cuts expire for single filers earning over this threshold (and for married filers earning over $250,000) this map gives an idea of the states that would be most affected.

Click on the map to enlarge it.
View previous Monday Maps here.

If you found this material useful, please consider making a donation to the Tax Foundation.Donate

Intro to Tax Policy Blog

The Tax Policy Blog is the official weblog of the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization that has monitored tax policy at the federal, state and local levels since 1937. Our economists welcome your feedback. If you would like to send an e-mail to the author of a blog post, please click on that person's name to locate his or her e-mail address or visit our staff page here.
RSS

Donate

Join the Tax Foundation's fight for sound tax policy Go

Monthly Archive

Disclaimer

All views expressed on the Tax Foundation’s Tax Policy Blog are those of the individual authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Tax Foundation, its Board of Directors, or its financial contributors. The Tax Foundation makes no representation concerning the views expressed, and does not guarantee the source, originality, accuracy, completeness or reliability of any statement, information, data, finding, interpretation, advice, opinion, or view presented.

Gas Station errors and debit cards.

  This is why I try to pay "cash" for purchases.  That is the bad thing about "Debit" cards, your financial institution has access to your account and you have to try to prove them wrong.

     

Feel like gas prices are making a dent in your budget? Imagine how Ray Crockett felt when he received a bill for nearly $85,000 after filling his gas tank.

Nashville's News Channel 5 reports that Crockett charged about $30 in gas from a local station to his Citibank debit card last week during a seemingly routine fill-up.

"I stopped here because they had the cheapest gas at the time," Crockett told the station. But that's not what his bank statement showed. "$84,522.54 to be exact," Crockett said.

Crockett says he made the discovery when he attempted to use the card to buy lunch, and the card was denied. When he checked his balance, his statement claimed he was more than $84,000 overdrawn.

"That can't be right," Crockett said of his initial reaction. "It is crazy."

Regular unleaded fuel at the Mapco station runs $3.05 per gallon. That means Crockett would have had to purchase about 27,712 gallons of gas to justify the outstanding charge.

Ray Crockett's almost $85,000 gasoline bill (NewsChannel5.com)

Even crazier is that Crockett was caught between a rock and a hard place when the bank claimed it had made a payment to the gas station for the full amount. But the gas station says it never received a payment from Citibank.

And it appears that Crockett may not be alone. Nikki Johnson, another customer at the same gas station, put $22.47 on her credit card for coffee and gas. Simple enough, right? Johnson checked her bank statement to find she had been charged $58,278.35 for the transaction.

Crockett was left out of financial resources, except for a $100 gift card that the Mapco gas station gave him to help him get by until the issue was resolved.

When News Channel 5 asked Citibank why it had locked Crockett out of his account and refused to cancel the purchase, an employee simply told Channel 5, "Because this is his account."

Crockett wasn't even able to access his weekly paycheck, which was directly deposited into the $84,000-overdrawn account.

However, the story has finally taken a turn in Crockett's favor. After the station's investigation, Citibank has reportedly unlocked Crockett's checking account and issued the following statement:

"Due to a[n] input error at the merchant, a charge was erroneously billed to [the customer's] account," the statement reads. "Citi has credited [the customer's] account and his card is available for use. We apologize for any inconvenience this caused and are putting processes in place to ensure that this does not happen in the future."

Obama and the "recovery"

Lately, we’ve been hearing a lot about “the recovery” and lot of arguing over who’s to blame for its supposed slowdown. But before we got too bogged down in who’s responsible for retarding economic growth, maybe we should first look at the data.

Without one word of explanation, Harvard University econ professor Greg Mankiw posted the following graph to his blog:

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

As you can see, the shaded area indicates the recession and everything to the right of that is the so-called “recovery.”

Huh.

So, was this what the White House meant when it said we’re moving in the right direction or should we just not read too much into the data?

Media Guide for the AR 15 series of rifles.