For months, people chanted, “We want change! End the war in Iraq, bring the troops home! Bush is a baby killer.” Now that the man they elected is in power all of those rantings and ravings are over, gone, swept under the carpet.

Yet…. Its still just business in Washington as normal. When Bush asked for funds to support our troops there were long drawn out arguments, press covering every second of it etc. Now that Obama is going to step up the war and increase troop levels… Silence.  I am not saying Bush was any different/better/worse than Obama.  Im just saying that nothing has changed other than what the media tries to portray and make into a story.

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer – Fri Apr 10, 7:30 am ET

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama wants Congress to act quickly on his $83.4 billion request for U.S. military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, an appeal that’s disappointing the most liberal, anti-war wing of his party.

But with the president promising to remove all combat troops from Iraq by the end of August 2010, his Democratic allies in control of Congress are sure to pass his request without the type of tortuous battle that characterized their dealings with former President George W. Bush.

Obama’s request Thursday, which included money to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, would push the cost of the two wars to almost $1 trillion since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the Congressional Research Service. The additional money would cover operations into the fall.

“Nearly 95 percent of these funds will be used to support our men and women in uniform as they help the people of Iraq to take responsibility for their own future — and work to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan,” Obama wrote Thursday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Obama also requested $350 million in new Pentagon funding for counternarcotics and other security activities along the U.S.-Mexico border, with another $400 million in counterinsurgency aid to Pakistan.

In a statement, Pelosi said Congress would carefully review Obama’s request and “engage in a dialogue with the administration on appropriate benchmarks to measure the success of our investments.”

Last June, Congress approved $66 billion in advance 2009 funding for military operations; all told, the Pentagon would receive $142 billion in war funding for the 2009 budget year ending Sept. 30.

The request is likely to win easy passage despite frustration among some liberals over the pace of troop withdrawals and Obama’s plans for a large residual force of up to 50,000 troops — about one-third of the force now in Iraq — who will train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and personnel, and conduct anti-terror operations.

It also would finance Obama’s initiative to boost U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan to more than 60,000 from the current 38,000. And it would provide $2.2 billion to accelerate the Pentagon’s plans to increase the overall size of the U.S. military, including a 547,400-person active-duty Army.

“This funding will do two things: It will prolong our occupation of Iraq through at least the end of 2011, and it will deepen and expand our military presence in Afghanistan indefinitely,” said anti-war Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif.

House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio predicted Republicans would overwhelmingly support the request, provided that congressional Democrats don’t seek to “micromanage” the war by adding a timeline or other restrictions on the ability of military officials to carry on the fight.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, said, “The reality is the alternative to the supplemental is a sudden and precipitous withdrawal of the United States from both places, and I don’t know anybody who thinks that’s a good idea.” He said, “The reality is it would put everything we have achieved in Iraq at tremendous risk, and I believe it would greatly endanger our troops.”

Obama was a harsh critic of the Iraq war as a presidential candidate, a stance that attracted support from the Democratic Party’s liberal base and helped him secure his party’s nomination. He opposed an infusion of war funding in 2007 after Bush used a veto to force Congress to remove a withdrawal timeline from the $99 billion measure.

But he supported a war funding bill last year that also included about $25 billion for domestic programs. Obama also voted for war funding in 2006, before he announced his candidacy for president.

The request includes $75.8 billion for the military and more than $7 billion in foreign aid.

Obama also warned lawmakers not to succumb to the temptation to use the must-pass war funding bill as a vehicle for other spending. And he said they should act quickly on the request.

“I also urge the Congress to focus on the needs of our troops and our national security, and not to use the supplemental to pursue unnecessary spending,” Obama wrote. “I want the Congress to send me a focused bill and to do so quickly.”

His new request would push the war and diplomatic money approved for 2009 to about $150 billion. The totals were $171 billion for 2007 and $188 billion for 2008, the year Bush increased the tempo of military operations in a generally successful effort to quell the Iraq insurgency.

Timeout! Hold on just a second here. Are you kidding me? Lets Nationalize banks? What? Hello Hugo Chavez, do you have any more room in your country so I can ship some congressmen and senators your way? Read the following article about how people are wanting this to happen. Why cant we just let bad business die and learn from our mistakes. If anyone thinks the GOVERNMENT can run a bank better than the private sector they need some serious help. Look at how great any government entity is run and tell me your really want to put a bunch of clowns in charge of the banking system. The government imposed lending regulations is what caused the economic meltdown. Lets slap their hand, put them back in their place and move along.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20090218/pl_ynews/ynews_pl246

A touchy word has entered the public debate about the future of America’s economy. It’s a word that would shock the nation in normal times, but as even Republicans begin to whisper it, temporary “nationalization” of troubled banks is increasingly seen as our last best hope for fixing our financial system.

Simply put: Nationalizing ailing banks means the government would tell bank execs to take a hike, and then oversee taxpayer dollars as they course through the banking sector’s veins. When all is well, perhaps after selling assets and operations to new private investors, the government then steps back and lets a newly regulated bank sector float on its way.

Arguments for bold government action range from the passionate (Michael Hirsh of Newsweek) to the elegant (Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times). In any case, the number of economists and columnists calling for an aggressive takeover of our “zombie banks” is growing.

This week, respected economists Nouriel Roubini and Matthew Richardson laid it all out in a Washington Post op-ed:

“The U.S. banking system is close to being insolvent, and unless we want to become like Japan in the 1990s — or the United States in the 1930s — the only way to save it is to nationalize it….Nationalization is the only option that would permit us to solve the problem of toxic assets in an orderly fashion and finally allow lending to resume. Of course, the economy would still stink, but the death spiral we are in would end.

One could ignore this pessimistic view if Roubini hadn’t been consistently correct in his predictions for our worsening economy. Roubini, or “Dr. Doom,” as some have called him, is one of the few who saw the housing meltdown coming and who actually voiced his concerns years before it happened.

In a recent interview with Bill Moyers, Simon Johnson, a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, argues that many of the executives and members of the banking lobby need to be fired or flushed out, though he stops just short of explicitly calling it nationalization.

Another former IMF economist, however, does not. Ken Rogoff, a Harvard professor who was at the IMF with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, thinks government receivership of insolvent banks is becoming our only option. In a roundtable discussion on “PBS NewsHour,” Rogoff predicted Geithner and his aides will come to the same conclusion once they “stress test” more Wall Street balance sheets.

Nobel-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman was one of the first to note that Geithner’s new financial rescue plan does not rule out nationalization. Krugman points to Geithner’s “stress tests” as a possible first step in the temporary government takeover of crumbling banks:

“Will those public-private partnerships end up being a covert way to bail out bankers at taxpayers’ expense? Or will the required “stress test” act as a back-door route to temporary bank nationalization (the solution favored by a growing number of economists, myself included)? Nobody knows.”

Krugman notes in a following column just how quickly the idea of nationalization is picking up steam, even among conservatives:

“There’s hope that the bank rescue will eventually turn into something stronger. It has been interesting to watch the idea of temporary bank nationalization move from the fringe to mainstream acceptance, with even Republicans like Senator Lindsey Graham conceding that it may be necessary.”

On “This Week” on ABC, Graham argued for nationalization, while Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer glowingly endorsed Geithner’s seemingly less-than-aggressive rescue plan.

Meawhile, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” senior White House adviser David Axelrod was asked if nationalization was off the table. Axelrod said it was not, indicating the Obama administration will do whatever it takes to right the nation’s financial ship.

However, President Obama has publicly indicated he is against nationalization, for now. When asked about Sweden and how it temporarily nationalized its banks in the early 1990s, saving its economy from an extended slump, Obama noted that Sweden is a different kettle of fish, a rather smaller and socialist one to be exact.

When ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) about nationalization on “This Week,” she said she wasn’t quite ready to take that route herself. But she also pointed to the national semantics surrounding the question as the first key hurdle to clear:

“Well, George, as you know, the word “nationalization” scares the hell out of people. And so the debate has been opened up now, and that’s good. Let’s talk about it.”

- Thomas Kelley

I sent the following message to Senators, Hatch, Bennett and Congressman Chaffetz today. Please speak out or your voice will not be heard.

Please vote AGAINST any new bailouts. Our country is in a natural economic cycle that was set off by irresponsible people making poor decisions. Sometimes people need to reap what they sow or a lesson is never learned. Increasing government debt and spending at this time will only slow the pain temporarily. After a short period of time a deluge of inflation and increased economic strife will come back to haunt us if we continue on the path of irresponsibility. There is plenty of blame to go around, but you can make the right decisions now to help stop the bleeding. Please vote down any budget increases, any bailout or stimulus policy, any new government jobs etc. If a citizen ran a business in this country like the government is running he or she would be in jail by now. Lets clean up our act, pay the consequences and move forward to rebuild our great nation.

Regards,

James Grierson

Today I had the privilage of watching the 44th person take the oath of President of the United States.  This is a great day for our nation because it shows that we as a people have the power to elect our representatives.  I was thinking to myself how it is interesting that our country has federal holidays for things like celebrating our independence and presidents day etc.  However, we do not have a holiday on one of the most important days of the year – the day we vote.  The day we excercise the freedom that we are built upon.

Last night I sat with my family and we discussed the new President and our country.  My children know I was not a supporter of Barak Obama during the elections.  However, as we discussed last night, I let them know that it is our duty to support our president, to care for him and to pray for him.  That he can have the wisdom and ability to lead our nation and direct us from harms way.

America voted for change and wanted a new direction.  With change comes pain somewhere and will affect someone in a negative way.  I hope all Americans are prepared for and understand that great sacrifices will be required by many if not all in order to preserve our freedoms.

It is finally here.  Today is the general election for President of the United States.  It is also a day in which many important officials will be elected locally.

I went first thing this morning to place my vote.  As I sat there at the polling station I really struggled for a minute.  My concience was heavy and I had a VERY difficult time selecting a candidate for President of the United States.  None of the candidates on the ballot represented my views and feelings on government.  After a minute or two of staring at the names I had already researched and pondered about for weeks/months I finally selected the candidate that “best” represented me.

As I left the polling station I had to fight against the tears that were trying to force their way out.  I have voted numerous times in my life.  During each vote I have had a strong conviction about whom we should elect to govern us.  This year I kept asking myself – “Is this the best America has to offer?  Are these candidates for President the brightest minds, the strongest leaders and the greatest representatives we have?”    Wow…

When listening to the debates and watching videos of politicians talking about business owners etc. today I came accross a video of Barak Obama stating that his tax plan would only increase taxes on corporations from 36% to 39%.  At first glance I thought, heck that isn’t so bad.  But then it hit me…. WHAT THE CRAP?!?!?!  A business owner has to pay 39% taxes? This has nothing to do with Barak Obama or his political stance, I am upset about the amount of taxation going on here.  40%?!?!?!?!  How could that be fair for ANYONE.  If I was paying 40% taxes (which by the way when you add up all the taxes I pay for the year with all the taxes that are imposed to me additionally such as gasoline tax, sales tax, taxes on imported goods, environental taxes etc. I probably do pay close to that) I would be outraged.  Why should a business owner be any different.

I have owned my own business before (when I was 12 I washed cars for people and made $6 a car) but since I was 12 and made less than the minimum tax level for the year I was not required to pay anything.  (I think I made about $500 that summer/year).  Not only does the business have to pay its corporate taxes, but the business owner then has to pay taxes when he/she is paid.  That is double taxation and in a bad way.  If I was to own my business today with the taxes as high as they are I would have to think twice about a number of things.  What is my incentive to:

a. start a new company

b. grow my company

c. make a good profit for my company

Thinking from my business background and education (business minor in college at BYU) I thought to myself, business owners only have a few options available when it comes to an exit strategy – sell, go public, etc.  Well, if taxes are 36% or any large number, I would try to make sure my business NEVER made a profit.  How would I do that?  I would reinvest EVERYTHING I could into the business i.e. advertising, marketing programs, sales incentives etc. to make the business grow.  That way I would pay no taxes.  My payoff would come not every year with massive taxation each year, but I would get my big payday one time when I sold the company.  Then I would get hit with a one time massive taxation and invest all of my funds into bonds and other VERY low tax liability investments – here is a quote from Bonds and Taxes – How to Benefit from Tax-Free Income – By Ken Little, about.com:

“Municipal Bonds – Municipals or munis are free of federal income tax and if you buy them in the state where you live, are free of state and local taxes. These are sometimes called “triple free.”

I for one beleive that high taxation offers less incentive for people to start new businesses and is a poor economic policy to promote growth, jobs and the spirit of entreprenurism in the US.  Anyway, this is a bit of a rant, but please think about it.  If you wanted to start your own business and 40% of your profit was taxed would you feel happy about it?  I am tired of working for 4 months of the year just to pay my taxes.  I would much rather work a few months less each year and spend more time with my family.

The bailout is simply a bad policy that is a political stunt to try and help in the upcoming elections.  Is it really a good policy to take bad debt from an institution and tack it on to the debt of each American?  Sure this bandaid may help the economy stabalize a month or two faster (its about to get worse before it gets better, dont expect huge gains this year in the market, housing prices etc.).
The fact of the matter is by bailing out the economy today, all we have done is increased the amount of fake money in circulation which will compound the underlying problems with our monetary policy.  If you want to be truly free we have to cut spending by our government (and get rid of a large amount of it), lower taxes (we will have lots of extra money when we get rid of it) and focus on the future of America.  A bandaid today when we need a heart transplant really wont get us that far in the long run.  We need to make major changes.

All I can say is this… Can I play a 5 minute clip from an old cartoon I used to watch?  Is anyone out therelistening?

Click on the link below to watch:

CLICK HERE TO WATCH – Is congress allowed to watch cartoons?

To the Honorable Chris Cannon:

I am very disturbed by the fact that our government is about to bail out the financial sector of our country.  When companies fail, it is due to taking risks, making bad decisions and poor management.  As a tax payer and a true American patriot, I do not feel it is our responsibility to pay for these large corporations mistakes.

I understand that not bailing out these corporations would cause financial problems for the country, but in all fairness, this country is in a bad spot whether or not we do this.  I would rather see the criminals that run these companies go to jail and a few years of hardship rather than postpone and compound the problem for years to come.

The reality is that our US dollar currency is worth less than the paper it is printed on.  We are trillions of dollars in debt (by the way if I ran my company like the government does, I would be in jail – interesting thought) and eventually we will have to pay it back.  Rather than postpone the problem until you are out of office, please try to do the RIGHT and HONORABLE thing for our country.  Please vote NO for any type of government bailout that will inevitably make our country and our currency worth less.

Regards,

James Grierson
www.grierson2020.com

I also sent this same letter to Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennet my two US senators.  To write your state representatives, please go to:

Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Congress Representative: https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml

Recently I have been wondering if members of our government understand who they are and what their roles are.  A few major issues have come to mind recently:

Why is congress involved with Baseball and steroid use?  Is this not a legal issue of whether or not the use of steroids is against the law?  Do we as tax payers not fund a legal system that should be able to figure this out nice and quick?  Why am I paying tax dollars for this sort of stuff.

Is it not the job of the government to control our money?  Why do we have a central bank, a federal reserve and numerous other organizations that are not official government entities controlling the supply of money in our country?  Isnt it a bit strange that we have to work for 4 months in this country to pay our taxes before we even start to make money for ourselves?