Welcome To Walmart

My wife went up to Walmart last night to try to purchase a 60 inch flat screen 1080 Vizio TV that was on sale.  The price was a mere $699.00 which is a steal.  The sale for this viewing monster was listed in their flier as 10:00pm Thanksgiving night.  After dinner, her and her sister got their game faces on and hit the road at about 7:00pm.  They arrived at Walmart around 7:20pm and headed inside.  When they got there, they were told that you had to get a ticket for the TV and by the way, there aren't any left.  They only had 15 of those TV's in stock.  WHAT!  WHAT!  ARE YOU FREAKIN' KIDDING ME!  There are no flipping tickets left for the mere 15 TV's and it's only 7:30pm.  The sale was supposed to start at 10:00pm and there were no tickets left!  This is a joke!  If the sale was supposed to start at 10, then why were they handing out the tickets earlier?  What time did they start handing them out and why didn't the sales flier say anything?  What the hell is going on here?

Let me tell you what's going on here.  My guess is that the employees themselves either took the tickets or gave them out to friends or relatives earlier in the day.  Walmart has been bending over the public and jamming deceptive sales ads up their wazoos for years.  You see the great price on a selected item but fail to read the microscopic print down at the bottom of the front page that says while supplies last.  Instead of bringing in a truck load, they filter in about 10 to 15 pieces in the hopes that you will get skunked and then move on to a higher priced item.  To Walmart I say F*#k You you filthy parasites.  I am sick and tired of this kind of crap.  I was so ticked off when I heard this that I emailed Walmart's Corporate Offices to let them know what I thought.  I will keep you all posted on the results.   

No Free Meters Parking

Wilkes-Barre's Mayor Tom Leighton announced this week that the downtown will not have free parking during the holiday season.  Every year Wilkes-Barre puts away the ticket pads and allows people to park for free along the metered streets.  Instead the city will keep parking status quo with people getting whacked with tickets within seconds of the meters running out of money.  “Parking enforcement is necessary to increase turnover of spaces which is what drives economic opportunity for downtown merchants,” Administrative Coordinator Drew McLaughlin said. “The easy availability of parking is crucial to a productive holiday shopping season. Turnover of spaces generally decreases when meter fees are waived for an extended period of time.”  Mayor Leighton had said in previous years the program was an advantage to attract shoppers to the city during the busy holiday season.
The free parking continued each year to Jan. 2 with meter parking free from noon to 8 a.m. each day.
Leighton made the decision in the middle of the city’s financial struggle when layoffs are looming and real estate taxes could rise as much as 30 mills to cover an estimated $2 million revenue shortfall.  In addition, the City Council was handed and ordinance that would increase the cost of meter parking from $0.75 to $1.00 per hour.

So, what do the business owners and shoppers think?  John (Chump) Chaump, president of the Downtown Wilkes-Barre Business Association, said people will still shop in the downtown even though the free parking program is halted.  “I think people shop downtown because of the stores,” Chaump said. “However, I still believe the free parking was a plus.”  Chaump said the city told him some people/businesses actually complained about the free parking.  What the hell is this ass clown talking about?  What stores?  I bet you cannot name one good store to shop in!  I also want to know which businesses were complaining.  It must have been the tattoo parlor's and pawn shops.  The only reason a business would complain is because a Wilkes or Kings student may have parked in front of their soon to be doomed store.  Cut the students a break.     

Let me just say this, "These people are idiots"!  Wilkes-Barre is a ghost town after dark with only the Square Rats scurrying around the streets looking for a morsel of crack.  By taking away the free parking, you are plunging another dagger of despair into the hearts of the few business that are left.  Let's face it, Wilkes-Barre is in deep financial poopy and they are going to whack the people once again by taking away the free parking biscuit.  Why the hell would anybody want to shop in downtown Wilkes-Barre?  You can park at the Mall for free.  You can park at Target and Walmart for free.  Hell, you can park for free almost everywhere but Wilkes-Barre.  The mayor has taken away the fountain, the New Years Eve fireworks and now the free holiday parking.  He might as well rip down the Christmas tree to save on power.     
 

The Death Of The Twinkie

It is a sad day in snackdom.  It was announced today that Hostess, the makers of the famous Twinkie, Ding Dong and Wonder Bread has filed a motion in Bankruptcy Court to close their doors and sell off all their assets.  The unionized workers at 33 plants across the nation walked off their jobs and started picket lines due to disagreements on medical costs and pension cuts.  Hostess filed for bankruptcy for the second time siting increasing pension and medical costs for it's 18,000 workers.  The company, founded in 1930, is fighting battles beyond labor costs, however. Competition is increasing in the snack market, while Americans are increasingly conscious about healthful eating. Hostess also makes Dolly Madison, Drake's and Nature's Pride snacks.  There you go, I knew all of this healthy eating crap would eventually end in disaster.  No wonder our economy is in the Ding Dong.  Before you know it Tasty Cake and Coke will go belly up.

In reality, the big reason Hostess is shutting the doors is due to the insane thinking of the unions.  There are several unions such as The Teamsters, The Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union.  No wonder they are in deep trouble.  If one union wasn't enough, there are at least three tugging on the financial coat tails of this once profitable company.  Wedrick Hollingsworth, business agent for Local 372-B of the bakers union, said union members took wage and benefit concessions four years ago and are unwilling to accept further wage cuts and reductions in health and pension benefits sought by the company. "It's just too much for these employees to accept. We gave concessions four years ago."  John Smith, a wrapper operator at the plant who has worked for Hostess for 22 years, said he's at peace with his decision to join the strikers. "You have to take a stand for what you believe in. They gave us a take-it-or-leave-it deal. We can't take the financial abuse."  Hollingsworth, warmly dressed in coveralls and a hooded sweatshirt, said union members would man the picket line outside the plant round-the-clock. Workers erected a tent and were burning wood fires in two grills to help stay warm.

What always baffles me is that these idiotic unions think that by going on strike and forming 24 hour picket lines they can change the mind of a company like this so they can get exactly what they want.  No dice Devil Dog!  Instead of making a few more concessions, these pin heads would rather lose their jobs in a bad economy where jobs are scarce.  They would rather latch onto the teat of the system to collect unemployment for 2 years plus than to go back to work and take a small financial hit.  Great way to think you morons.  The union workers will follow their leaders to the ranks of unemployment like a heard of Lemmings to the cliff.  Do Lemmings actually travel in a heard or is it a pack or a pod or a gaggle?  The bottom line here is the Hostess Company cannot stay in business without it's workers making a few more concessions.  Since the unions are unwilling to budge, the company will close it's doors and the Twinkie will become a thing of the past.  The Smithsonian staff is now looking for one to put into their museum.  The once famous Wonder Bread will no longer be the bread of choice when people storm the shelves before a snow falls.  No more Ding Dongs because of the union Ding Dongs.  As of today, Twinkie The Kid will be riding off into the sunset. 


         

The Black Friday Sham

I was watching the Notre Dame and Boston College game last night when a slew of Christmas commercials hit the TV screen.  My first reaction was ARE YOU FREAKIN' KIDDING ME!  Christmas commercials already?  It's still two weeks or so away from Thanksgiving.  I screamed to my wife, "It seems that every year the Christmas ads come earlier and earlier".  Most stores have simply skipped over Halloween and Thanksgiving and have gone right into Christmas.  In fact, this year most of the stores are selling items at Black Friday prices days before Black Friday.  Sears is running it's Black Friday deals 5 days before the big retail day and Walmart is starting their sales at 8:00pm the night before.  What the hell is going on here?  Even the online stores are jumping the gun.  Nomorerack is currently running a pre Black Friday sale.  Cmon, a pre Black Friday sale.  Before you know it there will be a post Black Friday sale.  Who said they could change the Black Friday rules?  Hell, they might as well have a half way to Black Friday sale in May.  Before you know it, it will be Black Friday every day.  As usual, the tradition of shoppers running a muck and fighting over discounted sales items will become a thing of the past.  Who will ever forget the Cabbage Patch Doll riot in 1983 at Zayre's Department Store in Wilkes-Barre.  That one made national headlines.  AHHHH the good old days of store workers using baseball bats to ward off crazed shoppers.  Now it's no more charging the doors, no more fist fights and no more arrests.  The quest for more money has taken all of the fun out of Black Friday.  The most exciting shopping day of the year has become nothing but a retail sham.

Coming up:  The Top 5 Christmas Toys That Caused Bloodshed.  

Drunk Elephants

When I saw the headline, "Drunk Elephants Ransack Indian Town" I had to immediately go to the story to see what happened.  It appears that in a small town in India, of course it's India a heard of 50 Asian elephants got a whiff of some booze and headed to a nearby store for a snort.  The thirsty pachyderms broke into the store, quite easily I may add and downed 100 litres of an Indian booze called Muhua.  Don't ask me how to say it....MUHUA.  Maybe the owner of your local quick mart can help you with this one.  Anyway, after downing the sauce, they were still thirsty and wanted more.  The elephants then ripped through the entire town looking for Muhua, like a drug addict rummaging for a clean needle.  They trampled crops and knocked down buildings in their pursuit for the elusive elixir.  One man recalled that they broke through the front of his house and found a small stash of the stuff that he had stored away.  After ransacking just about everything in site, the villagers finally steered them away and back into the jungle.  Police spokesman Asish Samanat said the animals have developed a taste for the alcohol because of their close vicinity to humans. And just like man, when these gentle giants get drunk they become "aggressive and unreasonable."

This is not the first time elephants have gone "Ape" over booze.  In 2002, a herd of drunken elephants trampled 6 people to death after they broke into a supply of homemade rice beer.  They had actually been looking for food when they stumbled across something better.  "They smashed huts and plundered granaries and broke open casks to drink rice beer. The herd then went berserk killing six people," a forestry official told AFP news agency.  In 2007, 40 wild elephants went on a bender of rice beer after they entered a village in search of food.  Six of them went berserk, uprooted a utility pole and were electrocuted.  In 2010, seventy elephants got drunk on rice beer and went on a 4 day rampage killing 3 people and flattening dozens of homes.  It was reported that after the rampage, the elephants were seen sleeping off their bender.

As funny as this is, the sad fact is that the elephant versus people population is becoming a problem.  In every case, the elephants were looking for nothing more than some food.  The rapidly rising population of India is pushing these majestic creatures to the brink of starvation.  As the people spread out, the land available for the elephants becomes less and less.  They are being pushed to the brink and they are not going to stand for it.  When a herd of 2 ton elephants decides to go looking for a meal, get the hell out of the way and let them eat.  It is like a group of 300 pound plus guys storming the Chinese buffet.  The bottom line her is the elephants are being pushed to the brink of extinction.  They are large and they are intelligent. They can coexist with man if we are smart enough to do so.  One thing man needs to remember, when the herd comes a knockin', the town will be a rockin'.           

Already Talking Bush

The 2012 Presidential Election has just come to an end and the "so called" experts are already looking ahead to 2016.  These presidential pundits have come up with a list of potential Democratic and Republican candidates who may make a run for the White House.  WHAT!  WHAT!  ARE YOU FREAKIN' KIDDING ME!  We just got this horrible, mud slinging election over with and now you want to start looking 4 years down the road.  Anyway, the experts have come up with what they call the "Buzz Candidates" who right now are the front runners for their respective parties.

Democrats:  The front runner for the democrats is Hillary Clinton.  Hills, who got my vote in the democratic primary back in 2008 and has said that she will resign her position as Secretary of State if Barack Obama won a second term.  He did and I believe she will. Her sure-footed performance as the U.S.’s top diplomat, combined with her husband’s unstinting efforts on President Obama’s behalf, have made the Clinton's the un­disputed titans of the party.  Make no mistake here, Hillary Clinton is one hard nosed intelligent individual who in my opinion would make a great President.  Time Magazine reported that, "From Wellesley superstar to Watergate staffer, corporate lawyer to First Lady, Senator to Secretary of State, Clinton has raised redemption and reinvention to an art form".  She has all of the experience and the tools to become a great leader.

Republicans:  On the Republican side, your not going to believe who the front runner is.  Whatever you are guessing, it is probably wrong.  The experts say that Jeb Bush is the current "Buzz Candidate" for 2016.  Now I never thought I would say this, but I can't handle any more Bush.  Are we talking about politics here....HEY!  If you remember, Jeb Bush was the Governor of Florida when his slack jawed brother George W. Bush stole the election from Al Gore.  How can we forget the hanging chads and dimple chads?  The Repo's see good ole' Jeb as a solid candidate for two reasons.  One, he is a Bush.  Two, because his wife is from Mexico and the Republicans desperately need to make headway with the Latino voters.

There you have it.  The current front runners for the 2016 Presidential election.  There are many other possibilities for 2016 such as Democrats Joe Biden, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.  For the Republicans we need to keep an eye on Condoleezza Rice, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Florida Senator Marco Rubio.  of course, my candidate for 2016 is the former Minnesota Governor, former Navy Seal and former WWF Champion Jesse "The Body" Ventura.       

    

Election 2012 - A Must Read Before You Vote

In yesterdays R2G, I said that I would not endorse a candidate for President because I thought the media should in no way try to sway voters.  This morning I got up early, jumped on the laptop and came across this story published by The Huffington Post.  I thought you should have this information before you go to vote today.  In 2004, Bain Capital, a company that Mitt Romney invested in evaded paying $102,000,000 in taxes by using a financial loophole in the Netherlands.  The Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant and the website Follow The Money claim that by routing it's investments in a Irish Pharmaceutical Company Warner Chilcott through the Netherlands it was able to dodge dividends and capital gains taxes.  In 2009, 4 years after investing in Warner Chilcott, Bain moved the company's seat from Bermuda to the Netherlands to evade possible stricter tax laws on the island.  Then two years ago, Bain registered its interest in Warner Chilcott with the private Dutch company Alter Domus, which provides administrative services for multinational corporations and investment funds. If a Dutch company owns more than five percent of the shares in another company, then that other company is exempt from paying taxes on all capital gains.  Through exemptions like that and a host of other complicated tax treaties, the Netherlands offers huge tax breaks to companies like Bain, which is reported to have evaded 80 million euros or $102 million in dividend taxes by running through the Netherlands.  This is a well known move in the investment world and it even has a name.  It's the old "Double Irish With A Dutch Sandwich."

So how does Mitt tie into all of this?  Follow The Money explained that Mitt Romney had left Bain in 1999 to run the Olympics in Salt Lake City, but his retirement package allowed him to participate in Bain deals and thus share in the profits. (It's also not clear that he did, in fact leave.  Back in July the Huff Post reported that Mitt Romney's repeated claim that he played no part in executive decision-making related to Bain Capital after 1999 is false, according to Romney's own testimony in June 2002, in which he admitted to sitting on the board of the LifeLike Co., a doll maker that was a Bain investment during the period.  Just to be clear here, Romney himself didn't avoid $80 million in Irish dividend withholding taxes, but a Bain fund he invests in did. The Bain fund also avoided an unknown amount (probably tens of millions) of Irish capital gains tax. Romney did receive $2,1 million in dividends from the fund in 2010/2011 and $5,5 million in capital gains. 

So to sum it all up in a bank roll,  Mitt Romney is profiting from a company that dodges the U.S. tax laws.  PERIOD!  I have to say, it would be hard for me to vote for a person who pulls and end around play to avoid paying taxes.  Hell, I can't do it!  You can't do it!  My grandmother didn't do it!  This guy knows that Bain is evading taxation by moving to the Netherlands but he still invests his money there.  No wonder the rich keep getting richer and us poor slobs keep getting taxed out the ying yang.  This kind of stuff really sets my hair on fire.  I can't believe that this clown has enough guts to actually run for President and that the people of this country are dumb enough to vote for him.  He is nothing but a crook.  I am going to go back on my thoughts about the media not endorsing a candidate and I am now endorsing Barack Obama for President of the United States.   
 

Election 2012 - Top 10 Issues

We are one day away from the Presidential election and the R2G would like to take a look at the Top 10 topics and how the candidates stack up.  You may think that this is a long read, but it is worth your time if you are serious about this election.  Take your time to digest the facts on how the Presidential candidates stand on the 10 Hot Topics concerning the future of our great nation.  When you are done digesting all of this information, make your decision very carefully.  The future of our nation depends on you casting your vote.  As you will see, the R2G will not endorse a candidate because I think it is wrong for any kind of media to try to sway voters in their choices.  The only thing I ask is that you take some time to consider your vote, and cast your ballot based on the facts and not the dirty politics that has been played by many candidates. 

1. ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

ROMNEY: Supports opening the Atlantic and Pacific outer continental shelves to drilling, as well as Western lands, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore Alaska. Wants to reduce obstacles to coal, natural gas and nuclear energy development, and accelerate drilling permits in areas where exploration has already been approved for developers with good safety records. Says green power has yet to become viable and the causes of climate change are unknown.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/01/4456551/obama-vs-romney-where-they-stand.html#storylink=cpy

OBAMA: Ordered temporary moratorium on deep-water drilling after the massive BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico but has pushed for more oil and gas drilling overall. Achieved historic increases in fuel economy standards that will save money at the pump while raising the cost of new vehicles. Achieved first-ever regulations on heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming and on toxic mercury pollution from power plants. Spent heavily on green energy and has embraced nuclear power as a clean source. Failed to persuade a Democratic Congress to pass limits he promised on carbon emissions.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/01/4456551/obama-vs-romney-where-they-stand.html#storylink=cpy

2. GUN CONTROL
 
ROMNEY: Opposes stricter gun control laws. Suggested after the Colorado theater shooting that he favors tougher enforcement of existing gun laws. As Massachusetts governor, vowed in 2002 to protect the state's "tough gun laws," and in 2004 signed a Massachusetts ban on assault weapons.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/01/4456551/obama-vs-romney-where-they-stand.html#storylink=cpy

 
OBAMA: Has not pushed for stricter gun laws as president. Signed laws letting people carry concealed weapons in national parks and in checked bags on Amtrak trains. Favors "robust steps, within existing law" to address gun issues, White House says. Voices support for renewed ban on assault-type weapons but has not tried to get that done. Previously backed stronger gun controls.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/01/4456551/obama-vs-romney-where-they-stand.html#storylink=cpy

3. EDUCATION

ROMNEY: Supported federal accountability standards of No Child Left Behind law. Has said the student testing, charter-school incentives and teacher evaluation standards of Obama's "Race to the Top" competition "make sense" although the federal government should have less control of education. Says increases in federal student aid encourage tuition to go up, too. Wants to see private lenders return to the federal student loan program.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/01/4456551/obama-vs-romney-where-they-stand.html#storylink=cpy

OBAMA: Has approved waivers freeing states from the most onerous requirements of the Bush-era No Child Left Behind law. "Race to the Top" grant competition has rewarded winning states with billions of dollars for pursuing education policies Obama supports. Won approval from Congress for a $10,000 college tax credit over four years and increases in Pell Grants and other financial aid.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/01/4456551/obama-vs-romney-where-they-stand.html#storylink=cpy

4. GAY RIGHTS

ROMNEY: Opposes legal recognition of same-sex marriage and says it should be banned with a constitutional amendment, not left to states. "Marriage is not an activity that goes on within the walls of a state." Also opposes civil unions "if they are identical to marriage other than by name," but says states should be left to decide what rights and benefits should be allowed under those unions. Says certain domestic partnership benefits —largely unspecified — as well as hospital visitation rights are appropriate but "others are not." Says he would not seek to restore the ban on openly gay military members.

OBAMA: Supports legal recognition of same-sex marriage, a matter decided by states. Opposed that recognition in 2008 presidential campaign, and in 2004 Senate campaign, while supporting the extension of legal rights and benefits to same-sex couples in civil unions. Achieved repeal of the military ban on openly gay members. Has not achieved repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages and affirms the right of states to refuse to recognize such marriages. Administration has ceased defending the law in court but it remains on the books.

5. HEALTH CARE

ROMNEY: Promises to work for repeal of the law modeled largely after his universal health care achievement in Massachusetts because he says states, not Washington, should drive policy on the uninsured. Proposes to guarantee that people who are "continuously covered" for a certain period be protected against losing insurance if they get sick, leave their job and need another policy. Would expand individual tax-advantaged medical savings accounts and let savings be used for insurance premiums as well as personal medical costs. 

OBAMA: Achieved landmark overhaul putting U.S. on path to universal coverage now that Supreme Court has upheld the law's mandate for almost everyone to obtain insurance. Under the law, insurers will be banned from denying coverage to people with pre-existing illness, tax credits will subsidize premiums, people without work-based insurance will have access to new markets, small business gets help for offering insurance and Medicaid will expand.

6. SOCIAL SECURITY

 ROMNEY: Protect the status quo for people 55 and over but, for the next generation of retirees, raise the retirement age for full benefits by one or two years and reduce inflation increases in benefits for wealthier recipients.

OBAMA: Has not proposed a comprehensive plan to address Social Security's long-term financial problems. In 2011, proposed a new measure of inflation that would reduce annual increases in Social Security benefits. The proposal would reduce the long-term financing shortfall by about 25 percent, according to the Social Security actuaries.

7. TAXES

ROMNEY: Keep Bush-era tax cuts for all incomes and drop all tax rates further, by 20 percent, bringing the top rate, for example, down to 28 percent from 35 percent and the lowest rate to 8 percent instead of 10 percent. Curtail deductions, credits and exemptions for the wealthiest. End Alternative Minimum Tax for individuals, eliminate capital gains tax for families making below $200,000 and cut corporate tax to 25 percent from 35 percent. Does not specify which tax breaks or programs he would curtail to help cover costs.

OBAMA: Wants to raise taxes on the wealthy and ensure they pay 30 percent of their income at minimum. Supports extending Bush-era tax cuts for everyone making under $200,000, or $250,000 for couples. But in 2010, agreed to a two-year extension of the lower rates for all. Wants to let the top two tax rates go back up 3 to 4 percentage points to 39.6 percent and 36 percent, and raise rates on capital gains and dividends for the wealthy. Health care law provides for tax on highest-value health insurance plans. Together with Congress, built a first-term record of significant tax cuts, some temporary.

8. War And The Military

  ROMNEY: Proposes increase in military spending. Endorses 2014 end to U.S. combat in Afghanistan. Would increase strength of armed forces, including number of troops and warships, adding almost $100 billion to the Pentagon budget in 2016. In addition, criticized congressional Republicans for negotiating a deficit-cutting deal with the White House that will mean automatic and massive cuts in Pentagon spending next year if federal budget deal is not reached in time. 

OBAMA: Ended the Iraq war, increased U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan then began drawing down the force with a plan to have all out by the end of 2014. Approved U.S. air power in NATO-led campaign that helped Libyan opposition topple government. Major cuts coming in the size of the Army and Marine Corps as part of agreement with congressional Republicans to cut military spending over a decade.

9. TERRORISM

ROMNEY: No constitutional rights for foreign terrorism suspects. In 2007, refused to rule out use of water boarding to interrogate terrorist suspects. In 2011, his campaign said he does not consider water boarding to be torture. 

 OBAMA: Approved the raid that found and killed Osama bin Laden, set policy that U.S. would no longer use harsh interrogation techniques, a practice that had essentially ended late in George W. Bush's presidency. Largely carried forward Bush's key anti-terrorism policies, including detention of suspects at Guantanamo Bay despite promise to close the prison. Expanded use of unmanned drone strikes against terrorist targets in Pakistan and Yemen. The deadly attack by militants on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in September raised questions that persist about the quality of U.S. intelligence and about why requests for added security there were denied before the assault.

10. IMMIGRATION

ROMNEY: Favors U.S.-Mexico border fence, opposes education benefits to illegal immigrants. Opposes offering legal status to illegal immigrants who attend college, but would do so for those who serve in the armed forces. Would establish a national immigration-status verification system for employers and punish them if they hire non-citizens who do not prove their authorized status. Would end visa caps for spouses and minor children of legal immigrants. Would honor work permits for immigrants who benefit from Obama's new policy but not accept new applicants under the program, and promises to put in place a comprehensive immigration plan before those permits expire.

OBAMA: Issued directive in June that immigrants brought illegally to the United States as children be exempted from deportation and granted work permits if they apply. Took the temporary step after failing to deliver on promised immigration overhaul, with the defeat of legislation that would have created a path to citizenship for young illegal immigrants enrolled in college or enlisted in the armed forces. Says he is still committed to it. Government has deported a record number of illegal immigrants under Obama.



There you have it!  A comprehensive look at the Top 10 topics concerning tomorrow's Presidential Election.  Make sure you head to the polls tomorrow to cast your vote.  Your vote counts.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/01/4456551/obama-vs-romney-where-they-stand.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/01/4456551/obama-vs-romney-where-they-stand.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/01/4456551/obama-vs-romney-where-they-stand.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/01/4456551/obama-vs-romney-where-they-stand.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/01/4456551/obama-vs-romney-where-they-stand.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/01/4456551/obama-vs-romney-where-they-stand.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/01/4456551/obama-vs-romney-where-they-stand.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/01/4456551/obama-vs-romney-where-they-stand.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/01/4456551/obama-vs-romney-where-they-stand.html#storylink=cpy

 
 

Election 2012 - Are We Better Off (Part 3)

The 2012 Presidential Election is now only 3 days away and Americans are going to make a very important decision regarding the path that our nation takes.  The choices are between current President Barack Obama and the challenger Mitt Romney.  In our last two Gripes, I talked about Federal Debt and Unemployment, two hot button topics for this election.  I determined that we were at a stalemate when it comes to unemployment versus 4 years ago and worse off in federal debt.  Today I would like to talk about another hot topic and that is Federal Spending.  Way back in 1792, the U.S. Government started to track Federal Spending.  The President at that time was the father of our nation, George Washington.  During that year, the government spent $5.1 million dollars which was a boat load of dough for that time period.  Like me, you are now wondering what the heck did they spend all this money on?  The money was spent on National Defense ($1.2 million) and Other Things ($3.9 million).  Yes, it was listed as other things.  Since that time, America's Federal Spending has risen every decade.  Here is what our Federal Spending looked like for the past decades.

1900 = $629 million            1940 = $20.4 billion             1980 = $940.2 billion
1910 = $2.7 billion              1950 = $70.3 billion             1990 = $2.1 trillion
1920 = $11.3 billion            1960 = $151.2 billion           2000 = $3.2 trillion
1930 = $11.9 billion            1970 = $321.8 billion

As you can see, the Federal Spending has risen exponentially in every decade since the 1930's.  The largest jumps came between 1970 and 1980 when Spending jumped an astronomical $618.4 billion dollars and 1980 and 1990 when it skyrocketed $1.159 trillion.  The Presidents between 1970 and 1990 were Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George Bush.  Four Republicans and a lone  Democrat ran the White House for those decades.  Read into it what you may? 

Now that you have a history on our National Spending, lets answer the question of are we better off now than four years ago?  In 2008 when George W. Bush left office, the National Spending was at $5.3 trillion.  That was an increase of $2.1 trillion over his 8 terrible years in office.  The vast majority of this increased spending was due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Currently, our Federal Spending is on track to hit $6.3 trillion under the Obama Administration.  That is an increase of about $1.0 trillion over the past 4 years.  It appears that President Obama has not increased or decreased Federal Spending over his first term in office.  He has maintained the trend of about a $1.0 trillion for every 4 years since the 1980's.  So are we better off now than we were 4 years ago?  The Answer is yes and no.  We have not increased the ratio of spending, but we have not decreased it either.  It appears that like the Federal Deficit, Federal Spending rises every 4 years no matter who is in office.  That tells me that whoever the President is, they have no control what-so-ever on Federal Spending.  It also appears that when candidates talk about how they are going to cut Federal Spending, they are blowing smoke up our rear ends since they have no control of this growing monster.        .