Political Fable Tales

Politically weakened but refusing to bend, President Barack Obama insisted Wednesday that Bush-era tax cuts be cut off for the wealthiest Americans, joining battle with Republicans — and some fellow Democrats — just two months before bruising midterm elections.

Singling out House GOP leader John Boehner in his home state, Obama delivered a searing attack on Republicans for advocating "the same philosophy that led to this mess in the first place: cut more taxes for millionaires and cut more rules for corporations."

Like any slick lawyer President Barack Obama boldly proclaims, "The buck stops here!" But, whenever his policies are criticized, he acts as if the buck stopped with George W. Bush.

The smooth talking party line that we are likely to be hearing from now until the November elections is that Obama "inherited" the big federal budget deficits and that he has to "clean up the mess" left in the economy by the Republicans. This may convince those who want to be convinced, but it will not stand up under scrutiny.

No President of the United States can create either a budget deficit or a budget surplus. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives and all taxes are voted into law by Congress.

Democrats controlled both houses of Congress before Barack Obama became president. The deficit he inherited was created by the Congressional Democrats, including himself, Senator Barack Obama, and who did totally nothing to oppose the runaway spending. He was one of the biggest of the big spenders.

The last time the federal government had a budget surplus Bill Clinton was president, so it was called "the Clinton surplus." But Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, where all spending bills originate, for the first time in 40 years. It was also the first budget surplus in more than a quarter of a century.

BREAKING NEWS - DeLay trial to stay in Travis County

A judge has denied former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's request to have his money laundering trial moved from Austin.

Tom DeLay Goes to Trial

Former U.S. House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay (R) of Texas, is scheduled to stand trial in Austin, Texas. The charge states he illegally sent $190,000 in corporate money through the Republican National Committee to help elect GOP Texas legislative candidates in 2002.

DeLay is asking the court for a change of venue, from Austin to his home County where he served as Congressman. The former congressman said, "I doubt I can get a fair trial here in Travis County. I think I'm more hated in Travis County than any other politician." He called Austin the "last bastion of liberalism" in the Republican-leaning state. Mr. DeLay's request raises serious issues if the court honors his request for a change of venue to a place where jurors will be more favorable to him on political grounds.

These are tough questions in a society that revolves around political warfare between the two major Parties, and friends and associates are chosen or rejected by many on the basis of what Party they belong to or sympathize with. Isn't justice supposed to be blind to such issues? Whether or not it is supposed to be, he clearly believes justice is not blind to politics and wants to take advantage of that.

The ex-congressman request assumes that Americans in Austin and his home County are prejudiced along political lines and he cannot, therefore get a fair trial in Austin, and can received favored treatment in his conservative home county, Fort Bend, North of Houston. Is DeLay's assumption correct? And if so, what does that say about America, and its people, and its judicial and justice systems?

Most people would agree that a murderer's or rapist's politics would have no meaning to a jury hearing the facts of the defendant's case in most places in America. Why should it be different in a case of money laundering for Tom DeLay? Is there a threshold of severity of the crime that has to be reached before politics no longer becomes a factor?

If a judge should take such considerations into account, then what is to stop a judge from allowing their own politics to determine just where DeLay is to be tried? Is that just? Judges routinely instruct the jury that their decision is to be based exclusively on the facts of the case presented to them. Don't judges have the same responsibility in determining where the case is to be tried? Should politics even enter into the decision of a judge as to where the case should be tried?

There is nothing perfect about America's judicial and justice system, but, it is the best system ever devised, even with its warts and flaws. If in a judge's opinion, a defendant will not likely receive a fair and impartial decision by the jurors in one location, that judge has an obligation to consider another place where that defendant can be more assured of a fair and impartial decision by the jurors.

I don’t believe his request is not to be tried where he is likely to receive a fair and impartial decision. His request is to be tried where he is likely to receive a biased and politically prejudiced decision in his favor; his home County where voters overwhelming elected him, again and again. Like many politicians, this ex-congressman is not concerned with fairness or justice. He is concerned with twisting events to his own personal advantage and saving his skin. He does not seek fairness in his trial as sought by the founding principles of our nation. He seeks partiality and bias from our justice system, in his favor.

Clogged Pipes

The big problem with rapidly increasing government spending is that it cannot be done. Think of it like a plumber fixing a plumbing problem in your house. The poor guy can only push so much through the pipes. The system is essentially wasteful. Smart folks have been trying to make government less wasteful for centuries and the current American system is actually very good in relation to past or world standards. But friction is inherent in any government system because we have empowered our representatives to make rules. Change take time and people respond to changing conditions in unexpected ways. The fundamental failure of much of congress ignores drive and time lags. And to think they really think they can manage the closely manage the economy. That is why government’s job is to create the conditions that allow the people to make choices that create prosperity, and why it is not the government’s job to manage prosperity. If you ask the government to do it for you, it has to go through the sausage making and what comes out is not always what you think you asked for.

Save up to 70% on Brand Name Electronics

Did I say Gridlock?

For 6 months after Iraqis had a successful election, Americans have watched as ordinary Iraqis waited and waited with increasing anguish because the leaders they voted for can’t get together to form a government. And America’s knowledgeable whiz kids discuss this situation with alarm. This is baffling. U.S. has been in an economic situation that is worse than gridlock for a lot more than 6 months and the experts don’t seem to care.

Practically everyone agrees this is a good thing. If only the Shiite and the Sunni leaders would stop thinking only of themselves and get together to work with each other to build their country, it would be great for Iraq and for us.

Just wonderful! How come we don't follow this same logic in the U.S.? Under the present dysfunctional congressional system that is worse than any gridlock I have ever seen, has produced less in 2 years  – since the times of FDR.

Refurbished HP Computers at affordable price! at CompuVest.com.

Senator Barbara Boxer: in her own words

This woman is such a pathetic, insular, self-important, unthinking politician.. This is why we are having these kinds of unending problems, now. This type of pompous fool who cares more about her title than the American people; who thinks it's cute to disrespect the military which risks their necks for our freedoms everyday. Boxer MUST be booted out this election. And sometimes, a politician can't seem to recognize when it is better to apologize for a remark, and simply stop digging a deeper hole. See, for example, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) during a debate earlier this week.

Krugman: Let congress pass another 800 billion stimulus package

Guys, Stimulus did not fail it helped keep the economy afloat for the past two years. Now that money has run out, and everything is falling back into the pit it was in. I don't think there is any other solution other than to do another bailout. Yes, the bottom will fall out eventually, but it’s so far gone now that we can't fix it. So all we can do is last as long as possible. The next bailout might last us another 2 years. Either way, the economy is doomed it’s just a matter of when. They played with the numbers for the last two years? And manipulated the stock market and did all sorts of tricks with the FED to make believe in a “recovery” when it is absolute bullshit from the start. And yes the bailouts did too fail, and miserably failed…