In the wake of the Democratic National Convention, much has been made about comparing President Obama to former President Clinton. Why Clinton has allowed his name to be diminished by standing next to Obama is beyond me, there is much proof that Obama has failed, and by his own standards has been “incomplete” when it comes to his job. Is this a veiled attempt to say, “Give me one more chance; let me have another fresh start?” Or is it the truth? Well, if the Dems want to call on the ghosts of President’s past, then the Republicans should squarely point at the analysis of apples to apples. Well, sort of, remember there are many families of apples, so let’s say a golden delicious (Ronald Reagan) and a pink lady (Barack Obama), sweet but tart.
Before I get to that though, when is it appropriate to call a spade a spade? Let’s look at a quote by noted Keynesian “socialist” economics expert Paul Krugman for the answer. By most accounts the new Democratic theme or message is, no one President, who faced a crisis such as this, could have brought the country back in this span; therefore Obama deserves more time. However, let’s look at a Krugman quote that criticized the Reagan policies.
The secret of the long climb after 1982 was the economic plunge that preceded it. By the end of 1982 the recession in U.S. economy was deeply depressed, with the worst unemployment rate since the Great Depression. So there was plenty of room to grow before the economy returned to anything like full employment.)
This quote was pulled from a Wikipedia article trying to be objective about Reagan’s presidency, but obviously leaned more toward discrediting all the credit Reagan gets for his two terms. By the way, Obama did inherit some bad news and economic pressures, but let’s look at what Reagan inherited and turned around in about 3 years and eventually leading to a 49-1 state landslide re-election. Here is an article that points out that Reagan faced a similar or more dire economy in 1981. Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/18/the-experiment/print/.
• Double digit inflation: From a high of 13.5% in 1980 to 6.2% by 1982, and 3.2% by 1983.
• Skyrocketing gas prices, yet for Obama the reverse 2008: $1.79, this week: $3.59 and that’s from a struggling economy where demand has to be lower than in 2008 when the economy was stronger than it is today.
• Nearly double digit unemployment: although it increased in Reagan’s first 2 years from 7.2% in 1980 to 9.7% in 1982, by 1984 the rate had dropped to 7.5%, and as low as 5.8% in 1988. Obama did inherit unemployment of 7.3% at the end of 2008 which nearly reached double digits by 2010; the rate is still 8.3% which is 1.0% higher than what he inherited. Economists say the unemployment rate looks to remain at or above 8% through 2013, so what does that say about the President’s jobs policy?
• There are more, but this is good enough to prove my point.
For a more in depth comparison between Reagan versus Obama, you can also refer to this article written by Harvard economics professor Robert Barro: www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/barro/files/11_0808_AAA_WSJ.pdf
Here is a quick analysis from noted economist Stephen Moore who stated, "No act in the last quarter century had a more profound impact on the U.S. economy of the eighties and nineties than the Reagan tax cut of 1981." He claims that Reagan's tax cuts, combined with an emphasis on federal monetary policy, deregulation, and expansion of free trade created a sustained economic expansion creating America's greatest sustained wave of prosperity ever. He also claims that the American economy grew by more than a third in size, producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth. Consumer and investor confidence soared. Cutting federal income taxes, cutting the U.S. government spending budget, cutting useless programs, scaling down the government work force, maintaining low interest rates, and keeping a watchful inflation hedge on the monetary supply was Ronald Reagan's formula for a successful economic turnaround.”
Hmm, I don’t see the economy growing or having the potential to grow under this President. Any growth is the natural determination and drive of private companies and “survival” mode. Other than the auto bailout and so called stimulus, name one Obama policy that helped to create 4.5 million private sector jobs? Good luck finding one. Recent polls have indicated overwhelmingly that people do not feel we are moving in the right direction, so what is a second Obama term going to offer?
In his first two years, Obama and the Democrats took advantage of their majority to pass their social agenda and to put those topics out front; all the while allowing the economy, which I strongly feel they took for granted, to meander and underperform. Their attempts to correct the foreclosure miasma was limited and targeted too narrowly. Their social agenda, to some may seem justified and necessary, was things like Obamacare, the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the attempt to close Guantanamo, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair pay act, and LGBT issues. Don’t get me wrong, some of these are noteworthy causes and issues, but to put these at the top of the priorities list is somewhat suspicious given the nature of our economy at that (and still this) time.
Back in 2010, Ivan G. Seidenberg, chief executive of Verizon Communications, said that Democrats in Washington are pursuing tax increases, policy changes and regulatory actions that together threaten to dampen economic growth and "harm our ability . . . to grow private-sector jobs in the U.S." He went on to add, "In our judgment, we have reached a point where the negative effects of these policies are simply too significant to ignore," Seidenberg said in a lunchtime speech to the Economic Club of Washington. "By reaching into virtually every sector of economic life, government is injecting uncertainty into the marketplace and making it harder to raise capital and create new businesses." Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/22/AR2010062205279.html.
Does that not sum up the malaise and insipid economy these last few years? Although the President speaks of the private sector, his policies seem to constrict the private sector’s ability to expand. One big question, why?
Here is an other article from the San Francisco Chronicle as well: http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Intel-CEO-Blasts-Obama-Administration-Says-2535346.php.
One more reinforcement: http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/obama-voter-and-speech-writer-mort-zuckerman-claims-obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina/.
Finally, what is this paying their “fair share” deal? Who are they talking about? The poor don’t pay taxes, so they surely don’t mean them. The 47 million on food stamps, surely not them, the 23 million out of work, surely not them, the millions of students who are tens of thousands in debt, surely not them, the retired, surely not them. Illegal (cause that’s what they are) immigrants, surely not them. If not them, then who? If the top 5% pay more than 50% of federal taxes, then who are they talking about? And who said that everyone had to be equal? If so then there would be no truck drivers, janitors, mechanics, everyone would wear a suit and tie, or do they want the suit and tie to now drive a truck or ask if you want ketchup with your waffle fries? Not real sure I get their point, and has anyone from the big media asked them this question? Doubt it.
Don’t get me wrong, the Republicans are not the end all to be all, nor do they have all the answers, and trust me, should they wield the majority again, we should hold them completely accountable. But they are significantly more realistic than the idealistic Democrats. The last time I checked we live in reality, not an alternate universe of idealism. And it is true the gap between rich and poor is greater these days. I don’t have an answer for that situation other than to say that every country has poor people; there are classes within every society which begs the whole question of the “fair share” theme being pushed by the DNC. I wrote an article called The 5% Solution: How the Top 10% Can Do More, just check my archive of articles.
One thing seems to be clear, our economic problems seem to be structural, and to deal with the new challenges of the 21st century economy, which party at this point seems most credible or capable of righting the economic ship? That question begs the answer on November 6th.
As for this article, it is not intended for Republicans who are for ABO (anybody but Obama) or hard core Democrats who would vote for a six legged kangaroo if it was a democrat. No, this article is designed for those still straddling the fence on who is the better choice. I put it simply. It’s not about are you better off now than you were four years ago. I ask, do you like the policies of Obama, one that is more government centered, thereby creating less wealth and more dependency, or one that offers opportunity and potential. Even though the left will claim the rich are richer and the poor are poorer, that is all relative. The poor are not as poor as the poor in the 60’s or 70’s and that’s a fact. The poorest in America is ten times wealthier than the wealthiest in third world countries. Much of politics and conditions in America are relative, but one thing is not and that is a party’s agenda. There are stark differences that have emerged given the social networking and information available in the 21st century. There is the idea of America hanging in the balance.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Monday, July 23, 2012
An Open Letter to the Republican Party
This coming November the Republicans may have a real opportunity to have what they haven’t had since the early 2000’s, all three branches. Even though the Senate appears unlikely, we have seen from prior elections, most notably 2010, voter angst can be very significant and can quickly change the dynamics of politics.
Conversely, the same could be said for the Democrats, that’s how crazy this election cycle may be. Is there a chance the Democrats could overturn the House and Obama be reelected? Maybe, but with such a poor economy it’s hard to believe the American people would be willing to put the entire cart back in the hands of one party. My sense is that when you want to try and change what’s happening to the team, i.e. the country, you fire the head coach, and right now that’s Barack Obama.
With that said, let’s return to the purpose for which this letter is being written. Again, I always try to do my research not just toss out opinions based on the ideas of my own desires or realities, but here are some numbers the Republicans need reminding of.
From 1995-2006 the Republicans held the majority in Congress. True Bill Clinton was President until 2000, and with that arrangement things went pretty well, but when W took over the Republicans were in full control once again until 2006. The only exception was the Senate from 2001-2003 where it was 50-50. Also, in 2010 the Republicans reclaimed the House with an impressive election season for the ages, but it really wasn’t so much about the Republicans as it was about the Democrats.
What do these numbers say? To me, as a voter I look at the party in power and the Republicans did not perform to their platform under George W. Bush. Pardon the inference on my fellow sailors, but Republicans opened up the check book and spent like drunken sailors. You deserve what you got in 2006, and it wasn’t all about BUSH. I have looked at length at his record and I see a man who foresaw the Fannie Mae crisis, but even his own party (and plenty of Democrats like Schumer, Dodd, and Frank) made serius miscalculations. Bush's biggest problem was that he trusted Congress too much, a major mistake. Yet despite that the Republicans stand on the verge of controlling all three branches once again. Don’t blow it if that opportunity presents itself! If the idea of Republicans controlling all three branches holds true, the American public may not be so forgiving if the Republicans, who are basically begging for full control, do not turn a lot of what ails us around. Here are a few suggestions for the Republicans should this happen.
1. If the Republicans are fortunate enough to win all three branches, and even if they do not recapture the Senate, please do not gloat. Do not engage in rhetoric like the President used when he told John McCain, “We won, you lost.” It should have been, America won, let’s get to work. There is no need to puff out your chest, shake your plume and prance around like the proud rooster. If the American people provide you with an opportunity to do what’s right, get us back on track, and fulfill promises, then do all you can to get that done.
2. Don’t be so intransigent about raising taxes on the top 10%. I have submitted an article called the 5% Solution. You can go to my article archive section. A modest increase of their taxes is not going to have the extreme wealthy suddenly no longer providing campaign funds, or threatening to not hire people. The information bears out. The gap between the top 10% and the bottom 50% is rather stark. I applaud wealth, but there is no denying there are two America’s.
3. Do not be afraid to engage the Democrats on a variety of economic issues. The Republicans have to be willing to say they want to do what’s in the best interest of the United States, rather than adhere to party ideals. They have to be willing to show bipartisanship. Both parties have good ideas and should be given due credit for our sustained prosperity at this point. For one party to claim otherwise is foolhardy and untrue.
4. Have a counter plan, a real and tangible plan to the Obama Health Care. You cannot simply say that you are going to repeal every piece of it. I am sure there are some good things in there. Be open minded and not so adversarial. If you are going to offer the Patient’s Choice Act, then it needs more media coverage and CBO scrutiny.
5. Like a household budget, sometimes the couple has to get creative. The Republicans cannot simply say they are going to cut every entitlement program out there. There are lots of cuts that need to be made no doubt, but get creative. If small businesses can be provided with incentives to hire then revenue will begin to increase and people will be able to find more job opportunities. If corporate tax rates are reduced, let there be an explicit understanding those tax breaks should be parlayed into (better or introduced) worker dividends, or bringing jobs back to the U.S.
6. Energy: Republicans cannot just be the party of fossil fuels. Yes, Republicans have had an all of the above position, but it’s not resonating. We can’t laugh at Obama’s attempt with Solyndra. Regardless of how that unfolds, people see that as, at least he’s trying. If the Republicans are beholden to fossil fuels, then the reputation they bear will simply continue.
7. Examine the environmental record. There are inroads to be made there as well. Republicans cannot just shrug off “whacko” environmentalists. Republicans have to show they support our National Parks, are sensitive to environmental issues, that man has some responsibility and role for what’s going on with regard to climate.
Finally, it’s all hands on deck. The Republican Party must be willing to sacrifice some of its platform in order to help us out of a mess created by both you and the Democrats. Again, to not accept any responsibility is dishonest. You can repair the damage that is associated with all the spending done since 2002. Get your House in order, think of America first and you can’t go wrong there. We’re not as dumb as some politicians may think. Scott Walker is living proof that you can challenge the system and the voters will figure it out.
Washington cannot continue to be gridlock central. America is hurting and quite frankly, pissed off. There is no denying there are two paths we (citizens) must consider for our future come this November and both parties are in hot pursuit. My guess is that if the Republicans put forth a practical-common sense agenda that works for most Americans, rather than being perceived as the party that caters to the wealthy and “white man,” then perhaps, just perhaps more people will listen. Good luck.
Conversely, the same could be said for the Democrats, that’s how crazy this election cycle may be. Is there a chance the Democrats could overturn the House and Obama be reelected? Maybe, but with such a poor economy it’s hard to believe the American people would be willing to put the entire cart back in the hands of one party. My sense is that when you want to try and change what’s happening to the team, i.e. the country, you fire the head coach, and right now that’s Barack Obama.
With that said, let’s return to the purpose for which this letter is being written. Again, I always try to do my research not just toss out opinions based on the ideas of my own desires or realities, but here are some numbers the Republicans need reminding of.
From 1995-2006 the Republicans held the majority in Congress. True Bill Clinton was President until 2000, and with that arrangement things went pretty well, but when W took over the Republicans were in full control once again until 2006. The only exception was the Senate from 2001-2003 where it was 50-50. Also, in 2010 the Republicans reclaimed the House with an impressive election season for the ages, but it really wasn’t so much about the Republicans as it was about the Democrats.
What do these numbers say? To me, as a voter I look at the party in power and the Republicans did not perform to their platform under George W. Bush. Pardon the inference on my fellow sailors, but Republicans opened up the check book and spent like drunken sailors. You deserve what you got in 2006, and it wasn’t all about BUSH. I have looked at length at his record and I see a man who foresaw the Fannie Mae crisis, but even his own party (and plenty of Democrats like Schumer, Dodd, and Frank) made serius miscalculations. Bush's biggest problem was that he trusted Congress too much, a major mistake. Yet despite that the Republicans stand on the verge of controlling all three branches once again. Don’t blow it if that opportunity presents itself! If the idea of Republicans controlling all three branches holds true, the American public may not be so forgiving if the Republicans, who are basically begging for full control, do not turn a lot of what ails us around. Here are a few suggestions for the Republicans should this happen.
1. If the Republicans are fortunate enough to win all three branches, and even if they do not recapture the Senate, please do not gloat. Do not engage in rhetoric like the President used when he told John McCain, “We won, you lost.” It should have been, America won, let’s get to work. There is no need to puff out your chest, shake your plume and prance around like the proud rooster. If the American people provide you with an opportunity to do what’s right, get us back on track, and fulfill promises, then do all you can to get that done.
2. Don’t be so intransigent about raising taxes on the top 10%. I have submitted an article called the 5% Solution. You can go to my article archive section. A modest increase of their taxes is not going to have the extreme wealthy suddenly no longer providing campaign funds, or threatening to not hire people. The information bears out. The gap between the top 10% and the bottom 50% is rather stark. I applaud wealth, but there is no denying there are two America’s.
3. Do not be afraid to engage the Democrats on a variety of economic issues. The Republicans have to be willing to say they want to do what’s in the best interest of the United States, rather than adhere to party ideals. They have to be willing to show bipartisanship. Both parties have good ideas and should be given due credit for our sustained prosperity at this point. For one party to claim otherwise is foolhardy and untrue.
4. Have a counter plan, a real and tangible plan to the Obama Health Care. You cannot simply say that you are going to repeal every piece of it. I am sure there are some good things in there. Be open minded and not so adversarial. If you are going to offer the Patient’s Choice Act, then it needs more media coverage and CBO scrutiny.
5. Like a household budget, sometimes the couple has to get creative. The Republicans cannot simply say they are going to cut every entitlement program out there. There are lots of cuts that need to be made no doubt, but get creative. If small businesses can be provided with incentives to hire then revenue will begin to increase and people will be able to find more job opportunities. If corporate tax rates are reduced, let there be an explicit understanding those tax breaks should be parlayed into (better or introduced) worker dividends, or bringing jobs back to the U.S.
6. Energy: Republicans cannot just be the party of fossil fuels. Yes, Republicans have had an all of the above position, but it’s not resonating. We can’t laugh at Obama’s attempt with Solyndra. Regardless of how that unfolds, people see that as, at least he’s trying. If the Republicans are beholden to fossil fuels, then the reputation they bear will simply continue.
7. Examine the environmental record. There are inroads to be made there as well. Republicans cannot just shrug off “whacko” environmentalists. Republicans have to show they support our National Parks, are sensitive to environmental issues, that man has some responsibility and role for what’s going on with regard to climate.
Finally, it’s all hands on deck. The Republican Party must be willing to sacrifice some of its platform in order to help us out of a mess created by both you and the Democrats. Again, to not accept any responsibility is dishonest. You can repair the damage that is associated with all the spending done since 2002. Get your House in order, think of America first and you can’t go wrong there. We’re not as dumb as some politicians may think. Scott Walker is living proof that you can challenge the system and the voters will figure it out.
Washington cannot continue to be gridlock central. America is hurting and quite frankly, pissed off. There is no denying there are two paths we (citizens) must consider for our future come this November and both parties are in hot pursuit. My guess is that if the Republicans put forth a practical-common sense agenda that works for most Americans, rather than being perceived as the party that caters to the wealthy and “white man,” then perhaps, just perhaps more people will listen. Good luck.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
The Five Percent Solution: How the Top 10 Percent Can Do More
There is no doubt that the Democrats have the emotional issue of taxes on their side. They trumpet phrases like “moral obligation,” and “fair share” when it comes to discussing taxes. I am sure most Americans would say it’s okay to tax the wealthiest more than they are already taxed in this country, because after all, they have more than everybody else. But it’s not their money, so it’s easy to say, “Yeah, take more of that guy’s money.” I am not here to argue the moral component of taxes. I can say without a doubt this discussion is very, very complex and has many moving parts, dynamics, and aspects to it. What I don’t like is how the Democrats have ginned up the middle and lower class folks and have now created the “One Percent versus the 99 Percent.” Heck, you would think the one percent is in a war with the rest of us. Again, I am not here to go tit for tat when it comes to who should pay what. The system is what it is and until the system is changed, all of this is pure blather.
Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of issues this country has to deal with, but I am not here to go bullet by bullet to talk about the many issues plaguing our country, and the amazing thing is, if you ask a liberal what plagues us they will have a completely different view than a conservative, and so I say, can there be a middle road? To liberals conservatives are stone age thinkers that cling to guns and religion, and to a conservative, liberals live in a fantasyland that is somewhat far-fetched or detached from reality, hence never the twain shall meet, or can we?
I have done a lot of research on this topic and before I continue let me say, I am not an economist, lawyer, tax expert, etc, but what I am is a common man who tries to stay in tune with all things social and political. I am certainly open to both sides, which is to say I seek the truth. My first concern is for America not a particular party. Do I agree with one more than the other, certainly, but I try to come at it from an independent viewpoint.
Taxes are always good political theater because taxes can be tremendously complex and confusing, and in some ways seems designed that way in order to create wedge issues for voters. One thing I cannot understand is that many politicians will talk about simplifying the tax code but nothing really gets done about it. Besides, a simpler tax code would put many lawyers, accountants, and much of the IRS out of business, and we can’t have that now can we?
Facts first, politicians love to use statistics or data, and oftentimes skew the statistics or data to fit their agenda; we know both sides do this. If you Google, Yahoo, or whatever, you can find a lot of material related to taxes and articles that lean left and right. There are so many different types of taxes it gets confusing if you are not a tax expert or accountant. That is why politicians play with those figures, percentages, etc. Again, I try to research the information that is more objective and draw conclusions from there. From my research, I discovered that both the Democrats and Republicans are right.
Below are a few articles that may help you better understand who pays what when it comes to taxes. I encourage you to read these articles. Some of them are long and that is why I can’t put all of them on here, but it will certainly be worth your time. I have several issues with some of the articles, but for the most part understand the data.
Here is a link:
Another:
Here is another link:
Hang in there:
And one final one: that basically reinforces this information because as one great English teacher told his students, don’t rely on just one source. I can’t recall who that English teacher was.
So, welcome back after reading all that material. After reading all the information I cannot say whether I understand more, or am further confused. What I take from that is the whole tax, income equality, widening gap, etc is part data part perception. Someone making $100,000 in California is not the same as someone making $100,000 in Mississippi. There certainly is a lot to absorb.
I was going to include a lot of my own interpretation, opinion, and insight as to the merits of the articles, but three or four pages later you would be clicking on to another site, but I did want to say that some of the data you looked at was not about comparing apples to apples. For instance, in the Who Rules America article, you should have seen a chart that indicated the U.S. was 93rd out of 134 countries in terms of income equality; however, if you look at the top tier, countries like Sweden with its population around 9.4 million, Norway with 4.9 million can be much more easily managed, and the gap reduced moreso than a country with 300 million plus such as America. If you notice, Brazil was 125th with 200 million people. Only Germany with 81 million and placing 10th is a good example, and they are doing well (I looked over several sites relative to the German tax system. It’s rough, but like Germans, very efficient), perhaps we should look at them more closely and not Sweden or even Australia with just over 22 million. Anyhow, as I said, sometimes the data is slanted to fit the agenda of that researcher. I think a true measure must be examined on a more local basis. Again, income equality is very localized. Three states considered to have the worst income equality are: New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, and three with the least income inequality are: Utah, Alaska, and Wyoming. Source: Be that as it may, we need to address our problems here, so let’s get to it.
To reiterate, the Democrats feel that the richest should pay more in taxes with good reason, and the Republicans say that increasing taxes on the wealthy would affect small businesses and could possibly damage an already fragile economy. Therefore, the Democrats claim the Republicans are intransigent to higher taxes on the wealthy, meanwhile conservatives claim Democrats have never seen a tax they didn’t like. America is torn. They seem to be okay with taxing “millionaires” more, but they are tired of tax dollars being squandered, a dichotomy no doubt.
To me, both sides are right, so here is a proposal for something that might appeal to all sides, it’s what I call the 5% Solution.
The 5% Solution is an opportunity for the top 10% of the nation’s wealthiest to give back to America. The Supreme Court recently weighed in on the health care debate and made their decision, but now the question looms as to whether the individual mandate is a penalty or a tax, the 5% solution could be construed the same. I’m not sure if I just cornered myself there but just go with it.
Rather than raising taxes on the top 10%, the offer would be that they can take 5% of their total earned income, not just their adjusted gross income (AGI) and contribute that 5% to various non-profit entities with the caveat they have no ties to the non-profit organization other than to say they support its mission.
As an example, let’s say Joe America has a total earned income of five million dollars for 2011. He would take $250,000 and donate/contribute as part of the 5% Solution to whatever organizations he wants to. When he files his taxes, on a separate form we’ll conveniently call the 5% Form, he delineates all the names of the organizations he donated to. In turn, all those organizations who received money will, in accordance with federal guidelines on contribution reporting, report all financial and any other “gift” support.
Now, there may be certain laws for states, but regardless, if a non-profit organization has applied for and received tax-exempt status from the IRS, they will be required to file annual information returns with the IRS (IRS Form 990) just like for profit organizations. Any organization not reporting full disclosure, or that pays too much for “administrative costs” will be severely fined or have their exempt status revoked. I call this –excuse my language – the no bullshit solution. It has to be on the up and up.
This would be a simple law, in fact, most likely a one page law, how about that?
The other caveat would be the 5% Solution would not be tax deductible; the contribution is good will. If those wealthy individuals have their charities or organizations that they contribute to, they may do so, but separate of this 5%. With emphasis, the 5% Solution is all about giving back to a country that paved the way for their wealth. They would be seen as noble, charitable, and kind-hearted.
Now, there are those who will say, you can’t force the wealthy to dole out 5% of their income if it’s not a tax. So, call it a tax, call it whatever you want. Congress has the authority to levy taxes. If they don’t like the term 5% Solution, then call it the 5% American Investment Tax, whatever works.
Then each year after submitting their taxes, and with all the various businesses/charities/organizations and so on filing their paperwork, the IRS would simply go through a cross checking process to verify the contributions and the
receiver(s) of those contributions. I truly believe this is a win/win for America.
Some may argue, Scott just add 5% to their taxes for they can afford it. So they can’t buy a new yacht this year, boo hoo. I understand, but tell the yacht builder who employs many people. Again, we’re trying to win both sides of the aisle. You raise their taxes by 5% and suddenly federal programs begin to expand, or new programs are created. That is the distrust of the American people with government, squandering their dollars. This 5% Solution cuts out the middle man, the government. Also, if the wealthy see this as an opportunity to be viewed as more philanthropic everybody wins. They, in effect, are giving back, and wouldn’t everybody feel good about that? An incredible amount of money (possibly 10’s of millions) would go to worthy organizations each year, and perhaps the federal government would be able to reduce certain programs because of private funding taking over where federal spending existed.
Final point, I see the disparity of income in America, it’s fairly dramatic, but I do not believe in punishing prosperity. Any average Joe who suddenly becomes a 10% earner would certainly understand a new dynamic. Also, I believe that you cannot manufacture or create prosperity. As bad as this may sound someone has to be the janitor, the bus driver, the cook, and in my case, the teacher. I knew when I got into teaching that I wasn’t going to make that top 10% bracket, not for lack of trying, I’m still spinning the grindstone, but I chose my profession and understand my station in life. I have no qualms about people getting wealthy, that is the American way. The 5% Solution simply offers the wealthy an alternative to being taxed by government that is often seen as irresponsible with the taxpayer’s money. Let’s put the responsibility of distribution on those wealthy individuals who will look at the 5% Solution as a win/win situation for America. The idea of goodwill has always been a hallmark of America’s reputation, something that our founding faith instilled in us. The 5% Solution is a bridge, one that is certainly attainable and most likely bipartisan, and God knows, we could use some of that right now. God bless folks!
Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of issues this country has to deal with, but I am not here to go bullet by bullet to talk about the many issues plaguing our country, and the amazing thing is, if you ask a liberal what plagues us they will have a completely different view than a conservative, and so I say, can there be a middle road? To liberals conservatives are stone age thinkers that cling to guns and religion, and to a conservative, liberals live in a fantasyland that is somewhat far-fetched or detached from reality, hence never the twain shall meet, or can we?
I have done a lot of research on this topic and before I continue let me say, I am not an economist, lawyer, tax expert, etc, but what I am is a common man who tries to stay in tune with all things social and political. I am certainly open to both sides, which is to say I seek the truth. My first concern is for America not a particular party. Do I agree with one more than the other, certainly, but I try to come at it from an independent viewpoint.
Taxes are always good political theater because taxes can be tremendously complex and confusing, and in some ways seems designed that way in order to create wedge issues for voters. One thing I cannot understand is that many politicians will talk about simplifying the tax code but nothing really gets done about it. Besides, a simpler tax code would put many lawyers, accountants, and much of the IRS out of business, and we can’t have that now can we?
Facts first, politicians love to use statistics or data, and oftentimes skew the statistics or data to fit their agenda; we know both sides do this. If you Google, Yahoo, or whatever, you can find a lot of material related to taxes and articles that lean left and right. There are so many different types of taxes it gets confusing if you are not a tax expert or accountant. That is why politicians play with those figures, percentages, etc. Again, I try to research the information that is more objective and draw conclusions from there. From my research, I discovered that both the Democrats and Republicans are right.
Below are a few articles that may help you better understand who pays what when it comes to taxes. I encourage you to read these articles. Some of them are long and that is why I can’t put all of them on here, but it will certainly be worth your time. I have several issues with some of the articles, but for the most part understand the data.
Here is a link:
Another:
Here is another link:
Hang in there:
And one final one: that basically reinforces this information because as one great English teacher told his students, don’t rely on just one source. I can’t recall who that English teacher was.
So, welcome back after reading all that material. After reading all the information I cannot say whether I understand more, or am further confused. What I take from that is the whole tax, income equality, widening gap, etc is part data part perception. Someone making $100,000 in California is not the same as someone making $100,000 in Mississippi. There certainly is a lot to absorb.
I was going to include a lot of my own interpretation, opinion, and insight as to the merits of the articles, but three or four pages later you would be clicking on to another site, but I did want to say that some of the data you looked at was not about comparing apples to apples. For instance, in the Who Rules America article, you should have seen a chart that indicated the U.S. was 93rd out of 134 countries in terms of income equality; however, if you look at the top tier, countries like Sweden with its population around 9.4 million, Norway with 4.9 million can be much more easily managed, and the gap reduced moreso than a country with 300 million plus such as America. If you notice, Brazil was 125th with 200 million people. Only Germany with 81 million and placing 10th is a good example, and they are doing well (I looked over several sites relative to the German tax system. It’s rough, but like Germans, very efficient), perhaps we should look at them more closely and not Sweden or even Australia with just over 22 million. Anyhow, as I said, sometimes the data is slanted to fit the agenda of that researcher. I think a true measure must be examined on a more local basis. Again, income equality is very localized. Three states considered to have the worst income equality are: New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, and three with the least income inequality are: Utah, Alaska, and Wyoming. Source: Be that as it may, we need to address our problems here, so let’s get to it.
To reiterate, the Democrats feel that the richest should pay more in taxes with good reason, and the Republicans say that increasing taxes on the wealthy would affect small businesses and could possibly damage an already fragile economy. Therefore, the Democrats claim the Republicans are intransigent to higher taxes on the wealthy, meanwhile conservatives claim Democrats have never seen a tax they didn’t like. America is torn. They seem to be okay with taxing “millionaires” more, but they are tired of tax dollars being squandered, a dichotomy no doubt.
To me, both sides are right, so here is a proposal for something that might appeal to all sides, it’s what I call the 5% Solution.
The 5% Solution is an opportunity for the top 10% of the nation’s wealthiest to give back to America. The Supreme Court recently weighed in on the health care debate and made their decision, but now the question looms as to whether the individual mandate is a penalty or a tax, the 5% solution could be construed the same. I’m not sure if I just cornered myself there but just go with it.
Rather than raising taxes on the top 10%, the offer would be that they can take 5% of their total earned income, not just their adjusted gross income (AGI) and contribute that 5% to various non-profit entities with the caveat they have no ties to the non-profit organization other than to say they support its mission.
As an example, let’s say Joe America has a total earned income of five million dollars for 2011. He would take $250,000 and donate/contribute as part of the 5% Solution to whatever organizations he wants to. When he files his taxes, on a separate form we’ll conveniently call the 5% Form, he delineates all the names of the organizations he donated to. In turn, all those organizations who received money will, in accordance with federal guidelines on contribution reporting, report all financial and any other “gift” support.
Now, there may be certain laws for states, but regardless, if a non-profit organization has applied for and received tax-exempt status from the IRS, they will be required to file annual information returns with the IRS (IRS Form 990) just like for profit organizations. Any organization not reporting full disclosure, or that pays too much for “administrative costs” will be severely fined or have their exempt status revoked. I call this –excuse my language – the no bullshit solution. It has to be on the up and up.
This would be a simple law, in fact, most likely a one page law, how about that?
The other caveat would be the 5% Solution would not be tax deductible; the contribution is good will. If those wealthy individuals have their charities or organizations that they contribute to, they may do so, but separate of this 5%. With emphasis, the 5% Solution is all about giving back to a country that paved the way for their wealth. They would be seen as noble, charitable, and kind-hearted.
Now, there are those who will say, you can’t force the wealthy to dole out 5% of their income if it’s not a tax. So, call it a tax, call it whatever you want. Congress has the authority to levy taxes. If they don’t like the term 5% Solution, then call it the 5% American Investment Tax, whatever works.
Then each year after submitting their taxes, and with all the various businesses/charities/organizations and so on filing their paperwork, the IRS would simply go through a cross checking process to verify the contributions and the
receiver(s) of those contributions. I truly believe this is a win/win for America.
Some may argue, Scott just add 5% to their taxes for they can afford it. So they can’t buy a new yacht this year, boo hoo. I understand, but tell the yacht builder who employs many people. Again, we’re trying to win both sides of the aisle. You raise their taxes by 5% and suddenly federal programs begin to expand, or new programs are created. That is the distrust of the American people with government, squandering their dollars. This 5% Solution cuts out the middle man, the government. Also, if the wealthy see this as an opportunity to be viewed as more philanthropic everybody wins. They, in effect, are giving back, and wouldn’t everybody feel good about that? An incredible amount of money (possibly 10’s of millions) would go to worthy organizations each year, and perhaps the federal government would be able to reduce certain programs because of private funding taking over where federal spending existed.
Final point, I see the disparity of income in America, it’s fairly dramatic, but I do not believe in punishing prosperity. Any average Joe who suddenly becomes a 10% earner would certainly understand a new dynamic. Also, I believe that you cannot manufacture or create prosperity. As bad as this may sound someone has to be the janitor, the bus driver, the cook, and in my case, the teacher. I knew when I got into teaching that I wasn’t going to make that top 10% bracket, not for lack of trying, I’m still spinning the grindstone, but I chose my profession and understand my station in life. I have no qualms about people getting wealthy, that is the American way. The 5% Solution simply offers the wealthy an alternative to being taxed by government that is often seen as irresponsible with the taxpayer’s money. Let’s put the responsibility of distribution on those wealthy individuals who will look at the 5% Solution as a win/win situation for America. The idea of goodwill has always been a hallmark of America’s reputation, something that our founding faith instilled in us. The 5% Solution is a bridge, one that is certainly attainable and most likely bipartisan, and God knows, we could use some of that right now. God bless folks!
Sunday, April 29, 2012
2012 NFL Mock Comparison...Me vs. Them
Perhaps it sounds a little self-serving and perhaps so, but the last time I interviewed for a job the principal wanted to see my resume. It was a record of responsibilities, accomplishments, goals, etc. Ergo, the reason for this article posting is to showcase that I, with hardy research, common sense, deductive reasoning and a host of other blessings, was able to put together a comprehensive NFL mock draft for Rounds One and Two.
In the beginning I was not looking to compete with anyone. I was merely putting together what I thought was a reasonable draft board. Of course I looked at many mock drafts, who doesn't, but I saw many mocks that just looked to be a mish-mosh of the top 50 players and that was it. Or, I noticed that some who attempted to mock only understood the teams from within the division their team dwells within. As for me, I was looking at the Vikings, my team. We had an abysmal year; one to forget for sure, and I mocked the Vikings all seven rounds, but my point here is, I wanted to challenge myself and here were the final results.
As I mentioned in my FB page, I awarded each candidate 1 point for a direct player hit and .5 for a position hit, but it had to be the exact position. It's not as if I gave credit to someone who had a defensive end (DE) as their choice, but the team chose a defensive tackle (DT).
The challengers were as follows:
Mike Mayock, NFL Network, who has a sturdy reputation in terms of evaluating talent, etc.
Charles Davis, NFL Network, a well respected colleague of Mayock's and former player.
Mel Kiper, JR, a mainstay within the ESPN monopoly.
Todd McShay, another ESPN spokesperson who came on to the scene more as an antagonist to Kiper than anything else.
Peter King of Sports Illustrated, a very well respected sports journalist. I give Peter great credit because he covers most sports; whereas the names mentioned above cover football only.
Matt Miller, a featured columnist and top gun for Bleacher Report. Matt also covers a variety of sports, but he knows his football.
Nolan Nawrocki of Pro Football Weekly, a very well respected arm of the NFL journalism spectrum.
WalterFootball.com, a compilation site that is a tremendous source for research and the home to much of my information.
Last note before I get to this. I consulted a variety of websites for my research. NFL.com, CBSSports.com, ESPN.com, Walterfootball.com, Draftek.com, Footballsfuture.com, and newnfldraft.com
Okay, to the scoring, here are the results for Round One
Mike Mayock: Mike had 5 direct player hits and 10 position hits for a total of 10 points.
Charles Davis: Charles had 6 direct hits and 6 position hits for a total of 9 points.
Mel Kiper, Jr: Mel had 8 direct hits and 8 position hits for a total of 12 points.
Todd McShay: McShay had 6 direct hits and 7 position hits for a total of 9.5 points.
Peter King: Mr. King had 6 direct player hits and 7 position hits for a total of 9.5 points.
Matt Miller: Matt had 6 direct hits and 7 position hits for a total of 9.5 points.
Nolan Nawrocki: Nolan had 5 direct player hits and 8 position hits for a total of 9 points.
Walterfootball.com: They had 6 direct player hits and 7 position hits for a total of 9.5 points.
Me: Scott had 7 direct hits and 9 position hits for a total of 11.5 points.
Four of my direct hits were what most analysts had, so it was almost a given that each person would have those, but it was beyond those obvious picks where things got a little dicey. I am proud to call these as direct player hits.
Andrew Luck, Robert Girffin III, Trent Richardson, Matt Kalil, Fletcher Cox (Eagles), Dre Kirkpatrick (Bengals),
and David Wilson (Giants). I am probably most proud of the last one because of all the numerous mocks I saw, there was only one other who had the Giants taking a RB.
I hit the following teams for position, not necessarily exact player. Jacksonville, Kansas City, Cincinnati's second of their first round pick, Cleveland's second of their first round. I had them drafting Tannehill, who really should have dropped there, but instead the Dolphins drafted Tannehill and the Browns drafted Brandon Weeden, QB, Oklahoma State.
I also hit on Denver with a DT, Green Bay, Baltimore, and one of the Patriots picks.
Finally, I was stubborn about the Miami pick. I was in denial that Tannehill would go that high, but it will be interesting to see how the kid works out for them. I am rooting for him.
So, Bottom Line, with a little research, common sense, and reasonable thinking, you might surprise yourself with what you can and/or are capable of doing. I appreciate you getting to this point, thanks.
In the beginning I was not looking to compete with anyone. I was merely putting together what I thought was a reasonable draft board. Of course I looked at many mock drafts, who doesn't, but I saw many mocks that just looked to be a mish-mosh of the top 50 players and that was it. Or, I noticed that some who attempted to mock only understood the teams from within the division their team dwells within. As for me, I was looking at the Vikings, my team. We had an abysmal year; one to forget for sure, and I mocked the Vikings all seven rounds, but my point here is, I wanted to challenge myself and here were the final results.
As I mentioned in my FB page, I awarded each candidate 1 point for a direct player hit and .5 for a position hit, but it had to be the exact position. It's not as if I gave credit to someone who had a defensive end (DE) as their choice, but the team chose a defensive tackle (DT).
The challengers were as follows:
Mike Mayock, NFL Network, who has a sturdy reputation in terms of evaluating talent, etc.
Charles Davis, NFL Network, a well respected colleague of Mayock's and former player.
Mel Kiper, JR, a mainstay within the ESPN monopoly.
Todd McShay, another ESPN spokesperson who came on to the scene more as an antagonist to Kiper than anything else.
Peter King of Sports Illustrated, a very well respected sports journalist. I give Peter great credit because he covers most sports; whereas the names mentioned above cover football only.
Matt Miller, a featured columnist and top gun for Bleacher Report. Matt also covers a variety of sports, but he knows his football.
Nolan Nawrocki of Pro Football Weekly, a very well respected arm of the NFL journalism spectrum.
WalterFootball.com, a compilation site that is a tremendous source for research and the home to much of my information.
Last note before I get to this. I consulted a variety of websites for my research. NFL.com, CBSSports.com, ESPN.com, Walterfootball.com, Draftek.com, Footballsfuture.com, and newnfldraft.com
Okay, to the scoring, here are the results for Round One
Mike Mayock: Mike had 5 direct player hits and 10 position hits for a total of 10 points.
Charles Davis: Charles had 6 direct hits and 6 position hits for a total of 9 points.
Mel Kiper, Jr: Mel had 8 direct hits and 8 position hits for a total of 12 points.
Todd McShay: McShay had 6 direct hits and 7 position hits for a total of 9.5 points.
Peter King: Mr. King had 6 direct player hits and 7 position hits for a total of 9.5 points.
Matt Miller: Matt had 6 direct hits and 7 position hits for a total of 9.5 points.
Nolan Nawrocki: Nolan had 5 direct player hits and 8 position hits for a total of 9 points.
Walterfootball.com: They had 6 direct player hits and 7 position hits for a total of 9.5 points.
Me: Scott had 7 direct hits and 9 position hits for a total of 11.5 points.
Four of my direct hits were what most analysts had, so it was almost a given that each person would have those, but it was beyond those obvious picks where things got a little dicey. I am proud to call these as direct player hits.
Andrew Luck, Robert Girffin III, Trent Richardson, Matt Kalil, Fletcher Cox (Eagles), Dre Kirkpatrick (Bengals),
and David Wilson (Giants). I am probably most proud of the last one because of all the numerous mocks I saw, there was only one other who had the Giants taking a RB.
I hit the following teams for position, not necessarily exact player. Jacksonville, Kansas City, Cincinnati's second of their first round pick, Cleveland's second of their first round. I had them drafting Tannehill, who really should have dropped there, but instead the Dolphins drafted Tannehill and the Browns drafted Brandon Weeden, QB, Oklahoma State.
I also hit on Denver with a DT, Green Bay, Baltimore, and one of the Patriots picks.
Finally, I was stubborn about the Miami pick. I was in denial that Tannehill would go that high, but it will be interesting to see how the kid works out for them. I am rooting for him.
So, Bottom Line, with a little research, common sense, and reasonable thinking, you might surprise yourself with what you can and/or are capable of doing. I appreciate you getting to this point, thanks.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
2012 NFL Draft: Round Two: V1.0
St. Louis Rams – Kendall Reyes, DT, Connecticut
The Rams got their featured receiver in Round One and now they look to shore up a hole in the middle of their defense.
Indianapolis Colts – Coby Fleener, TE, Stanford
Why not?
Minnesota Vikings – Stephen Hill, WR, Georgia Tech
By getting their left tackle for the next decade, the Vikings target a WR for Christian Ponder.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers – Lamar Miller, RB, Miami
After missing out on Trent Richardson, the Bucs get a pretty doggone good running back in Miller.
Cleveland Browns – Muhammed Sanu, WR, Rutgers
Why draft Brandon Weeden here when he’s older than Colt McCoy, and if it doesn’t pay off the problems for Cleveland are magnified. Give McCoy a legitimate target and one more year. If the Browns wind up 4-12, they will have a shot at one of the top three QB’s next year.
Jacksonville Jaguars – Keleche Osemele, G, Iowa State
After selecting a featured receiver such as Floyd, Mularkey gets Gabbert some protection with Osemele.
St. Louis Rams – (from Washington) – Zach Brown, OLB, UNC
Fisher gets to work on that defense.
Carolina Panthers – Alshon Jeffrey, WR, South Carolina
Keepin’ it Carolina style, Newton gets big target for Red Zone.
Buffalo Bills – Jayron Hosley, CB, Virginia Tech
The Bills need to work on the back end of their defense seemed to play very poorly headed toward the end of the year. The receiver class is deep, so the Bills may go WR here, but Hosley is a talented DB who may not even be here at this spot.
Miami Dolphins – Amili Silatolu, G, Midwestern State
Silatolu is climbing the charts and the Dolphins look to beef up the middle of their offensive line. Brandon Weeden is a possibility here, but again, I think the Dolphins should wait on next year, or maybe consider Kirk Cousins in Round Three.
Seattle Seahawks – Chandler Jones, DE, Syracuse
The Seahawks need depth on the defensive line. Chris Clemons had 11 sacks, but the rest are average. The middle is strong and signing Hawthorne needs to get done.
Kansas City Chiefs – Zebrie Sanders, T, Florida State
The Chiefs need some help along the line specifically guard. Sanders would be better served inside as he seems to struggle with speed rushers.
Dallas Cowboys – Lavonte David, LB, Nebraska
The Cowboys stick with defense as Anthony Spencer may be over-rated.
Philadelphia – Bobby Wagner, OLB, Utah State
Philadelphia follows the Cowboys with defense and why not, each team had disappointing defenses last year.
New York Jets – David Wilson, RB, Virginia Tech
The Jets so called ground and pound has looked more like mush and push. Shonn Greene is not a 3-down back and Joe McKnight is not the answer.
New England (from Oakland) – Shea McClellin, OLB, Boise State
Belichick has four picks in Rounds One and Two, surely he is going to experiment with one of them; that is the genius of Bill Belichick.
Side note: Is there any team the Raiders have not at least given one draft choice to in the last few years? Just curious.
San Diego Chargers – Dwayne Allen, TE, Clemson
Antonio Gates has had injury issues the last few years, so Allen adds a nice alternative and eventual replacement for a wonderful career by Gates.
Chicago Bears – Mychal Kendricks, LB, California
It almost sounds sacrilegious to say that Brian Urlacher has seen his better years, but unless he finds the Fountain of Youth, he is going to keep getting older and more banged up. Kendricks would be a good player to mentor.
Philadelphia (from Arizona) – Tommy Streeter, WR, Miami
Reid looks for the tall receiver to offset Maclin and Jackson’s diminutive stature.
Tennessee Titans – Reuben Randle, WR, LSU
After seeing the Eagles take Streeter, the Titans waste no time in turning in the card for steady and reliable receiver in Randle.
Cincinnati Bengals – Brian Quick, WR, Appalachian State
With the loss of Andre Caldwell and the impending legal issues of the human gymnast Jerome Simpson, this could be a likely area to go WR.
Detroit Lions – Bruce Irvin, OLB, West Virginia
This might be a bit of a reach, but the Lions need help on the outside at the second level. Irvin’s got speed, but will need to work on overall game knowledge.
Atlanta Falcons – Josh Robinson, CB, UCF
The Falcons defensive backfield needs upgrading and at this point the Falcons go for BPA.
Pittsburgh Steelers – Jared Crick, DE, Nebraska
Constant motor, relentless, tenacious, Steeler constructed, enough said.
Denver Broncos – Bobbie Massie, T, Mississippi
Getting protection and help for Manning is a priority and Massie is a good start.
Houston Texans – Mitchell Scwartz, T, California
The Texans have some uncertainty along the right side and Schwartz is a solid pass blocker but will need to work on the run blocking. Look for Texans to look at TE in the coming rounds.
Green Bay – Jamell Fleming, CB, Oklahoma
The Packers defense needs an upgrade on the back end. With the selection of Upshaw in Round One, the retooling continues.
Baltimore Ravens – Brandon Brooks, G, Miami (Ohio)
A lot of people do not know that much about Brandon Brooks because he plays in the MAC. Brooks is huge at 6’6” 345, but his weight could become an issue. However, the Ravens were able to motivate Bryant McKinnie, so they should be able to work with Brooks. The Ravens line is aging and needs help now, especially with the departure of Grubbs who saw the Ravens SB window closing.
San Francisco 49ers – Alfonzo Dennard, CB, Nebraska
The 49ers were very impressive on defense last year and they upgrade their back end with Dennard.
New England Patriots – Marvin Jones, WR, California
Jones’ draft stock has been on the rise and the Patriots could look to upgrade their receiver position. There are only so many times you can call on Deion Branch at this point.
New York Giants – Tank Carder, MLB, TCU
The Giants MLB position was a weakness last year, mostly due to injury, but they still need to upgrade this area and Carder has been impressive in workouts and his game film is every bit as impressive also.
Well, there you have it. As always, your constructive comments are welcome.
I know there are players that you will take exception with, and you will undoubtedly say, “What about so and so,” and “No way he drops this far.” That’s cool, just know that trying to evaluate and place matching talent with team needs is a tall task and sometimes guys will get passed over. Thanks for checking out my predictions.
The Rams got their featured receiver in Round One and now they look to shore up a hole in the middle of their defense.
Indianapolis Colts – Coby Fleener, TE, Stanford
Why not?
Minnesota Vikings – Stephen Hill, WR, Georgia Tech
By getting their left tackle for the next decade, the Vikings target a WR for Christian Ponder.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers – Lamar Miller, RB, Miami
After missing out on Trent Richardson, the Bucs get a pretty doggone good running back in Miller.
Cleveland Browns – Muhammed Sanu, WR, Rutgers
Why draft Brandon Weeden here when he’s older than Colt McCoy, and if it doesn’t pay off the problems for Cleveland are magnified. Give McCoy a legitimate target and one more year. If the Browns wind up 4-12, they will have a shot at one of the top three QB’s next year.
Jacksonville Jaguars – Keleche Osemele, G, Iowa State
After selecting a featured receiver such as Floyd, Mularkey gets Gabbert some protection with Osemele.
St. Louis Rams – (from Washington) – Zach Brown, OLB, UNC
Fisher gets to work on that defense.
Carolina Panthers – Alshon Jeffrey, WR, South Carolina
Keepin’ it Carolina style, Newton gets big target for Red Zone.
Buffalo Bills – Jayron Hosley, CB, Virginia Tech
The Bills need to work on the back end of their defense seemed to play very poorly headed toward the end of the year. The receiver class is deep, so the Bills may go WR here, but Hosley is a talented DB who may not even be here at this spot.
Miami Dolphins – Amili Silatolu, G, Midwestern State
Silatolu is climbing the charts and the Dolphins look to beef up the middle of their offensive line. Brandon Weeden is a possibility here, but again, I think the Dolphins should wait on next year, or maybe consider Kirk Cousins in Round Three.
Seattle Seahawks – Chandler Jones, DE, Syracuse
The Seahawks need depth on the defensive line. Chris Clemons had 11 sacks, but the rest are average. The middle is strong and signing Hawthorne needs to get done.
Kansas City Chiefs – Zebrie Sanders, T, Florida State
The Chiefs need some help along the line specifically guard. Sanders would be better served inside as he seems to struggle with speed rushers.
Dallas Cowboys – Lavonte David, LB, Nebraska
The Cowboys stick with defense as Anthony Spencer may be over-rated.
Philadelphia – Bobby Wagner, OLB, Utah State
Philadelphia follows the Cowboys with defense and why not, each team had disappointing defenses last year.
New York Jets – David Wilson, RB, Virginia Tech
The Jets so called ground and pound has looked more like mush and push. Shonn Greene is not a 3-down back and Joe McKnight is not the answer.
New England (from Oakland) – Shea McClellin, OLB, Boise State
Belichick has four picks in Rounds One and Two, surely he is going to experiment with one of them; that is the genius of Bill Belichick.
Side note: Is there any team the Raiders have not at least given one draft choice to in the last few years? Just curious.
San Diego Chargers – Dwayne Allen, TE, Clemson
Antonio Gates has had injury issues the last few years, so Allen adds a nice alternative and eventual replacement for a wonderful career by Gates.
Chicago Bears – Mychal Kendricks, LB, California
It almost sounds sacrilegious to say that Brian Urlacher has seen his better years, but unless he finds the Fountain of Youth, he is going to keep getting older and more banged up. Kendricks would be a good player to mentor.
Philadelphia (from Arizona) – Tommy Streeter, WR, Miami
Reid looks for the tall receiver to offset Maclin and Jackson’s diminutive stature.
Tennessee Titans – Reuben Randle, WR, LSU
After seeing the Eagles take Streeter, the Titans waste no time in turning in the card for steady and reliable receiver in Randle.
Cincinnati Bengals – Brian Quick, WR, Appalachian State
With the loss of Andre Caldwell and the impending legal issues of the human gymnast Jerome Simpson, this could be a likely area to go WR.
Detroit Lions – Bruce Irvin, OLB, West Virginia
This might be a bit of a reach, but the Lions need help on the outside at the second level. Irvin’s got speed, but will need to work on overall game knowledge.
Atlanta Falcons – Josh Robinson, CB, UCF
The Falcons defensive backfield needs upgrading and at this point the Falcons go for BPA.
Pittsburgh Steelers – Jared Crick, DE, Nebraska
Constant motor, relentless, tenacious, Steeler constructed, enough said.
Denver Broncos – Bobbie Massie, T, Mississippi
Getting protection and help for Manning is a priority and Massie is a good start.
Houston Texans – Mitchell Scwartz, T, California
The Texans have some uncertainty along the right side and Schwartz is a solid pass blocker but will need to work on the run blocking. Look for Texans to look at TE in the coming rounds.
Green Bay – Jamell Fleming, CB, Oklahoma
The Packers defense needs an upgrade on the back end. With the selection of Upshaw in Round One, the retooling continues.
Baltimore Ravens – Brandon Brooks, G, Miami (Ohio)
A lot of people do not know that much about Brandon Brooks because he plays in the MAC. Brooks is huge at 6’6” 345, but his weight could become an issue. However, the Ravens were able to motivate Bryant McKinnie, so they should be able to work with Brooks. The Ravens line is aging and needs help now, especially with the departure of Grubbs who saw the Ravens SB window closing.
San Francisco 49ers – Alfonzo Dennard, CB, Nebraska
The 49ers were very impressive on defense last year and they upgrade their back end with Dennard.
New England Patriots – Marvin Jones, WR, California
Jones’ draft stock has been on the rise and the Patriots could look to upgrade their receiver position. There are only so many times you can call on Deion Branch at this point.
New York Giants – Tank Carder, MLB, TCU
The Giants MLB position was a weakness last year, mostly due to injury, but they still need to upgrade this area and Carder has been impressive in workouts and his game film is every bit as impressive also.
Well, there you have it. As always, your constructive comments are welcome.
I know there are players that you will take exception with, and you will undoubtedly say, “What about so and so,” and “No way he drops this far.” That’s cool, just know that trying to evaluate and place matching talent with team needs is a tall task and sometimes guys will get passed over. Thanks for checking out my predictions.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
2012 NFL Draft: Round One: V1.0
NOTE: This mock was written on April 4, 2012. The updated version can be found on Bleacher Report at: This mock is designed to look at Rounds One and Two only. I admire anyone who mocks an entire draft.
With that said, this approach will analyze straight up picks, no trades up or back. Although, I firmly believe there are several teams looking to trade their picks. At first I thought the Vikings might try to trade back, but when the Rams traded, the Vikings were pretty much sitting in the cat bird’s seat to draft Matt Kalil. Oops, gave one away already; not that it was any surprise though.
I think the Browns (already notified the media, including the Russians), Dolphins, Seahawks, Cowboys, Jets, and of course, the Patriots may be willing to deal. However, let’s look at Rounds One and Two pick for pick with brief analysis for each pick.
Indianapolis Colts – RG III, err I mean, Andrew Luck, QB, Stanford
Colts pull the surprise of the draft….Just kidding, Andrew Luck is 99.95% a Colt, although the arguments have been made for both players. In my estimation either guy would be a great pick, it just depends on the type of offense you want to run in Indy.
Washington Redskins – RG III, QB, Baylor
Now this is the real pick and every reason the Redskins gave up the Department of Justice to get it. Again, all joking aside, RG III is a dynamic player who will remind Redskins fans why chasing Michael Vick around the last two years was worth it. They will now have a younger, more astute version of MV. Sky is the limit for this quality kid.
Minnesota Vikings – Matt Kalil, T, USC
I think this is the first time that I have seen where the top three players are universal across most mock drafts. The contrarians have the Vikings drafting Claiborne, nice try or smoke screen.
If the Vikings pass on Kalil there will be riots in the Twin Cities. Although let me say, it would not be surprising to see the Vikings trade down with Bucs so the Bucs can draft Trent Richardson, and the Browns will be left at the altar once again.
Cleveland Browns – Trent Richardson, RB, Alabama
This might be a little high for Richardson, but the Browns, short of a trade back have little choice. Justin Blackmon is also a possibility, but Holmgren knows what division he is in and a strong running game is paramount in this division. Richardson gives them that power, explosiveness and speed to git’r done.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers – Morris Claiborne, CB, LSU
Things could get a little interesting here as well. The Bucs went buck wild in free agency. I think they spent way too much for Eric Wright, and even with that they select Claiborne who is a quality shut down type with great speed and quickness. He’s smooth and at times looks effortless. Barber is 100-yrs old, so Claiborne makes total sense here.
St. Louis Rams – Justin Blackmon, WR, Oklahoma State
The Rams breathe a sigh of relief to know that Blackmon is available; the trade pays off in a big way. Blackmon possesses all the necessary tools to be the featured receiver in an offense that lacks punch and reminiscences of the greatest show on turf.
Jacksonville Jaguars – Michael Floyd, WR, Notre Dame
The Jaguars are in a unique position, but also that no man’s land. I always feel that from pick No.7 to pick No. 13 is a tough area to pick. Are you reaching for player, or do you just look at best athlete at position? It’s always tough.
I harken back to the Vikings. In 2007 at No. 7 they chose Adrian Peterson even though they had Chester Taylor. Last year they are at No. 12 and pick Christian Ponder, of whom some said was a reach. So you never know how this is going to play out.
Some have the Jags drafting for defense, but their offense struggled way too much last year, and I see Mularkey getting help for his embattled quarterback; therefore, they add another receiver to go with Laurent Robinson because neither of the other Jaguar receivers are feature receivers. Floyd can be that guy.
Miami Dolphins – Melvin Ingraham, DE/OLB, South Carolina
I seriously believe the Dolphins will try and trade this spot because to draft Tannehill at No. 8 is a big stretch. I like Tannehill, but I saw him more as a late first early second round pick. If they could trade down four or five spots then the selection of Tannehill would not be seen as that bad of a reach because the team at least got another two or more picks from the trade.
I don’t give a crap what Todd McShay says, Miami should not feel desperate because they lost out on Manning and Flynn because there is a silver lining to all of this, next year’s quarterback crop is supposed to be deeper than this year and the Dolphins might be at or around where they are this year and could have its pick of quarterback. I don’t want to say throw away the season, but Moore has shown to be capable and the Dolphins cannot force the issue and push the panic button. It always comes back to haunt you. Tannehill has 19 starts. He needs time. If they rush him in, it could be disastrous.
With that said, Ingraham adds a nice complement to Cameron Wake and the Dolphins defense is at least able to keep the teams in games. Most scouts believe that Ingraham is a more consistent player than Coples, although Coples can look incredible at times.
Carolina Panthers – Dontari Poe, DT, Memphis
The Panthers are in a good position because there are several players sitting there relative to their team needs, but with Floyd and Blackmon off the board, there is no other receiver rated to go this high. They could look to Riley Reiff, but there is a greater need.
Some may see this as a reach but the Panthers really need to address their woeful run stop game. The Panthers gave up nearly 131 yards per game. Poe is a big body with great athleticism reminiscent of Haloti Ngata.
Buffalo Bills – Riley Reiff, T, Iowa
Buffalo has several areas of immediate need, but protecting their new million dollar quarterback is paramount, and with the signings of Derek Anderson, DE and Mario Williams, DE/OLB, they can turn their attention to the offensive line.
According to the Bills depth chart the only player listed at LT is Chris Hairston. Reiff is considered one tier below Kalil, but that may not be a bad thing.
Kansas City Chiefs – Michael Brockers, DT, LSU
The Chiefs could consider David DeCastro, G, Stanford, but their need is greater at Tackle, so the Chiefs could make that trade with the Dolphins and then select Reiff, T, Iowa and the Dolphins may go with Tannehill here, but that is all speculation.
Straight up, the Chiefs gave up 132 YPG in rush defense and Brockers would be a solid pick to slide in to the middle to shore up an eye sore.
Seattle Seahawks – David DeCastro, G, Stanford
By signing Matt Flynn, the Seahawks now have to shore up an offensive line that lost Robert Gallery, DeCastro is a nice consolation prize.
The Seahawks could also look to go with Luke Kuechly, OLB, Boston College, or Quinton Coples, DE, UNC, but the primary need is O-Line.
Arizona Cardinals – Jonathan Martin, T, Stanford
This was a tough one because the Cardinals would have liked to have seen Reiff drop here, but again, teams drafting ahead of the Cardinals look for needs and LT is coveted and Kalil and Reiff are the top two.
The Cardinals do not have a pick in Round Two so they have got to get the guy they need, but again, there is a market here to trade down and the Cardinals could very well do that. A team that really likes Devon Still or Fletcher Cox, or even Luke Kuechly could pull a trade here.
With that said, and no trade, the Cardinals draft Martin who is a big man who did very well protecting Andrew Luck. Plus, he keeps the mascot name of Cardinal, too easy.
Don’t rule out Dre Kirkpatrick, CB, Alabama, but this may be a little too high for him.
Dallas Cowboys – Quinton Coples, DE, UNC
Jerry Jones is steaming over the fact that DeCastro is not there, and since they signed Dan Conner they lose out on Kuechly and Courtney Upshaw. Jones wants to trade down, but since his asking price is equivalent to the purchase of a small pacific island they select Coples.
Other than Ware the Cowboys have difficulty getting to the quarterback and with the Giants and Manning, the Eagles with Vick and most likely RG III with the Redskins, pressure on the QB is paramount.
Philadelphia Eagles – Fletcher Cox, DT, Mississippi State
With the acquisition of DeMeco Ryans, it is unlikely they will look at Luke Kuechly or Courtney Upshaw. The Eagles can look to fill the middle up front with Cox.
There is a possibility the Eagles could look at Devon Still if the Cowboys grab Cox, and wouldn’t Jerry Jones love to rub Reid’s rhubarb.
Cincinnati Bengals – Cordy Glenn, G, Georgia
Cincinnati made great strides last year, and although they still have several need areas, one is the guard position and Glenn is a powerful run blocker. They could go for Kirkpatrick here and hope that Glenn is available at 21, but with the Chargers at 18, the Bears at 19, and the Titans at 20 who are also looking to shore up their interior line, this is a smart pick.
San Diego Chargers – Whitney Mercilus, DE, Illinois
The Chargers could grab Kevin Zeitler, G, Wisconsin, but he is projected more as a Round Two selection. Mercilus can be merciless when it comes to the quarterback. Besides, this is a need area for the Chargers as their defense last year only came up with 32 sacks and Antwan Barnes had 11 of those. Plus, if they lose Luis Castillo, that makes this pick even more important.
Another possibility if Courtney Upshaw, OLB, Alabama, but his stock seems to have dropped lately. Plus, they signed Jarrett Johnson.
Chicago Bears – Kevin Zeitler, G, Wisconsin
This may seem to be a bit of a reach given Zeitler’s grade was as a second round selection, but the other top guards are gone and with the acquisition of Brandon Marshall, the Bears will not see WR as an initial need, although they may look at that in Round Two given Johnnie Knox’s situation.
The Bears need interior help, and even though Zeitler follows Carimi as Badgers to the Bears, it is about necessity and making Jay Cutler some more security.
Tennessee Titans – Nick Perry, DE, USC
In looking at who the Titans may like at this position, I found that some of the picks they may desire are gone while others may be a reach at this point. I do not think Perry is a reach. On several boards he was rated anywhere from 15-25 and is ranked No. 3 for DE’s.
I don’t think there is any doubt that Coach Munchak wants to have a dominant offensive and defensive line and to work outward from there. Perry fits in nicely with Munchak’s rebuilding of the defensive line.
Cincinnati Bengals – Dre Kirkpatrick, CB, Alabama
This pick makes perfect sense for the Bengals. After shoring up their interior line to help Andy Dalton, now they can focus on an area of weakness on the defense.
Kirkpatrick is probably the top rated DB coming out of the draft next to Claiborne. He will make Bengals fans very happy. There’s champagne being poured in Cincinnati as they begin to build a team that will overtake the AFC North.
Cleveland Browns – Ryan Tannehill, QB, Texas A&M
The Browns wanted RG III no doubt, but there is no reason to believe they will just draft another QB just to draft a QB, but… Tannehill is a quality QB who many feel may start over Colt McCoy. Yes, Tannehill could go earlier, but most teams are pretty secure in who their starters are. One could argue the Browns don’t have to push the panic button and could draft a WR here to further bolster McCoy’s chances.
If they draft a WR here in this spot and with Richardson, yet the Browns still look flat on offense, then the lack of offense can be pointed at McCoy, but if they draft these weapons and McCoy advances his play then they would have chosen wisely.
My take is too much pressure forces the Browns to take Tannehill here. And honestly, this is about the area of Round One where Tannehill’s name begins to surface.
Detroit Lions – Janoris Jenkins, DB, Northern Alabama
The Lions are sporting high fives as Jenkins drops into their lap. There is an argument that Jenkins may turn out to be the best of the DB bunch, but there is also a risk and the reason he drops to this point.
The Lions defense gets a significant upgrade at a position that was torched last year.
Pittsburgh Steelers – Devon Still, NT, Penn State
At this point in Round One, the Steelers stand in that area where best player available (BPA) comes into play. They really have three need areas, OL, DL, CB.
Of the three position areas, Still or Jerel Worthy are rated higher than the next highest players at OL and DB. I went with DL because age has become a factor for this stout group and with Still they get a powerful guy who can work behind Casey Hampton, or alongside him.
Denver Broncos – Stephon Gilmore, CB, South Carolina
The Broncos seemed to have addressed areas of need on offense, especially with Manning, although I am still upset with how they dealt with Tebow.
Gilmore is a player who can come in right away and play. He’s a smart, savvy player who has really helped his draft stock. Although I thought Gilmore was more of an early Round Two player, there is a need for certain players and sometimes you have to do what you need to do and since the Broncos need CB or S, this one makes the most sense.
Houston Texans – Kendall Wright, WR, Baylor
Again, another tough one, but there are two schools of thought here, one, Andre Johnson needs help. He has had an adequate support cast, but Wright gives them an added dimension.
I almost went with Stephen Hill here, but Hill and Johnson are mirror receiver types and Wright gives the Texans that Desean Jackson type of receiver. If you thought the Texans offense was potent last year, wait until you see this one explode on defenses.
New England Patriots (from New Orleans) – Jerel Worthy – DT, Michigan State
The obvious is obvious, the Patriots need some serious help on defense and the best place to start is in the middle and losing Mark Anderson didn’t help. The signing of Fanene just seemed to be more of a tit for tat type of transaction.
There is a chance the Patriots could go DB or S here but they have another choice in Round One unless Belichick decides to bundle and move up, or stand pat and draft BPA.
Worthy helps a front line that had more rotations than a pole dancer.
Green Bay – Courtney Upshaw, OLB, Alabama
The Packers were in a similar position last year as the Patriots, but the Packers problem was they ran into a Giants defense that was playing better than any defense in the playoffs. Ergo, the Pack were sent packing and their defense was too much of a liability.
Upshaw gives them a credible threat on the end to book end with Matthews. My only concern is that Upshaw’s draft stock has dropped, but on balance, Upshaw’s body of work makes him a late first round pick, so this seems about right.
Baltimore Ravens – Dont’a Hightower, ILB, Alabama
Back to back Tide players go here, but more out of necessity than just being Crimson Tide players. Ray Lewis has been a phenomenal player, but there will be a time to replace the ageless wonder.
Hightower is a nasty player who would relish learning from one of the game’s best. However, if the Steelers happen to grab Hightower, the Ravens may look at Mike Adams, T, Ohio State, or Peter Konz, C, Wisconsin.
San Francisco 49ers – Peter Konz, C, Wisconsin
With the signings of Randy Moss and Mario Manningham, it would appear the 49ers are not going to select a WR here because there are two other areas of need as well, OL and CB.
The 49ers interior line needs help and Konz is the best value at this point. With the loss of Snyder and Goodwin will be 34, either C or G needs to be addressed. Had one of the top CB’s dropped that position could have been addressed, but for the Niners, addressing the line seems paramount at this time.
New England Patriots – Mark Barron, SS, Alabama
This is prime time Belichick time. You have to know those little Gerbel wheels are running feverishly through Coach Belichick’s mind. I would not be surprised to see him trade out this pick to accumulate more for this year or next.
The Patriots could also look to Andre Branch, DE, Clemson to combine with Worthy which would certainly make a lot of sense as well.
New York Giants – Mike Adams, T, Ohio State
Hang on, hang on New York fans before you go putting my address on twitter hear me out. Most scouts feel the two primary needs for the Giants are OL and MLB. I know Fleener looks like the attractive choice, but with the signing of Bennett, that gives me pause to have Fleener going at this point.
With that said, Adams gives them a big son-of-a-gun of a tackle. He is a solid run blocker with a mean streak, but needs work in the pass protection game. Also, he would most likely be better suited at RT until he learns more about the LT position if they want to project him for that spot.
This is a solid pick. As for the MLB position, I just don’t see another MLB outside of Kuechly and Hightower worth taking this high.
Well, that does it for Round One, stay tuned for Round Two
With that said, this approach will analyze straight up picks, no trades up or back. Although, I firmly believe there are several teams looking to trade their picks. At first I thought the Vikings might try to trade back, but when the Rams traded, the Vikings were pretty much sitting in the cat bird’s seat to draft Matt Kalil. Oops, gave one away already; not that it was any surprise though.
I think the Browns (already notified the media, including the Russians), Dolphins, Seahawks, Cowboys, Jets, and of course, the Patriots may be willing to deal. However, let’s look at Rounds One and Two pick for pick with brief analysis for each pick.
Indianapolis Colts – RG III, err I mean, Andrew Luck, QB, Stanford
Colts pull the surprise of the draft….Just kidding, Andrew Luck is 99.95% a Colt, although the arguments have been made for both players. In my estimation either guy would be a great pick, it just depends on the type of offense you want to run in Indy.
Washington Redskins – RG III, QB, Baylor
Now this is the real pick and every reason the Redskins gave up the Department of Justice to get it. Again, all joking aside, RG III is a dynamic player who will remind Redskins fans why chasing Michael Vick around the last two years was worth it. They will now have a younger, more astute version of MV. Sky is the limit for this quality kid.
Minnesota Vikings – Matt Kalil, T, USC
I think this is the first time that I have seen where the top three players are universal across most mock drafts. The contrarians have the Vikings drafting Claiborne, nice try or smoke screen.
If the Vikings pass on Kalil there will be riots in the Twin Cities. Although let me say, it would not be surprising to see the Vikings trade down with Bucs so the Bucs can draft Trent Richardson, and the Browns will be left at the altar once again.
Cleveland Browns – Trent Richardson, RB, Alabama
This might be a little high for Richardson, but the Browns, short of a trade back have little choice. Justin Blackmon is also a possibility, but Holmgren knows what division he is in and a strong running game is paramount in this division. Richardson gives them that power, explosiveness and speed to git’r done.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers – Morris Claiborne, CB, LSU
Things could get a little interesting here as well. The Bucs went buck wild in free agency. I think they spent way too much for Eric Wright, and even with that they select Claiborne who is a quality shut down type with great speed and quickness. He’s smooth and at times looks effortless. Barber is 100-yrs old, so Claiborne makes total sense here.
St. Louis Rams – Justin Blackmon, WR, Oklahoma State
The Rams breathe a sigh of relief to know that Blackmon is available; the trade pays off in a big way. Blackmon possesses all the necessary tools to be the featured receiver in an offense that lacks punch and reminiscences of the greatest show on turf.
Jacksonville Jaguars – Michael Floyd, WR, Notre Dame
The Jaguars are in a unique position, but also that no man’s land. I always feel that from pick No.7 to pick No. 13 is a tough area to pick. Are you reaching for player, or do you just look at best athlete at position? It’s always tough.
I harken back to the Vikings. In 2007 at No. 7 they chose Adrian Peterson even though they had Chester Taylor. Last year they are at No. 12 and pick Christian Ponder, of whom some said was a reach. So you never know how this is going to play out.
Some have the Jags drafting for defense, but their offense struggled way too much last year, and I see Mularkey getting help for his embattled quarterback; therefore, they add another receiver to go with Laurent Robinson because neither of the other Jaguar receivers are feature receivers. Floyd can be that guy.
Miami Dolphins – Melvin Ingraham, DE/OLB, South Carolina
I seriously believe the Dolphins will try and trade this spot because to draft Tannehill at No. 8 is a big stretch. I like Tannehill, but I saw him more as a late first early second round pick. If they could trade down four or five spots then the selection of Tannehill would not be seen as that bad of a reach because the team at least got another two or more picks from the trade.
I don’t give a crap what Todd McShay says, Miami should not feel desperate because they lost out on Manning and Flynn because there is a silver lining to all of this, next year’s quarterback crop is supposed to be deeper than this year and the Dolphins might be at or around where they are this year and could have its pick of quarterback. I don’t want to say throw away the season, but Moore has shown to be capable and the Dolphins cannot force the issue and push the panic button. It always comes back to haunt you. Tannehill has 19 starts. He needs time. If they rush him in, it could be disastrous.
With that said, Ingraham adds a nice complement to Cameron Wake and the Dolphins defense is at least able to keep the teams in games. Most scouts believe that Ingraham is a more consistent player than Coples, although Coples can look incredible at times.
Carolina Panthers – Dontari Poe, DT, Memphis
The Panthers are in a good position because there are several players sitting there relative to their team needs, but with Floyd and Blackmon off the board, there is no other receiver rated to go this high. They could look to Riley Reiff, but there is a greater need.
Some may see this as a reach but the Panthers really need to address their woeful run stop game. The Panthers gave up nearly 131 yards per game. Poe is a big body with great athleticism reminiscent of Haloti Ngata.
Buffalo Bills – Riley Reiff, T, Iowa
Buffalo has several areas of immediate need, but protecting their new million dollar quarterback is paramount, and with the signings of Derek Anderson, DE and Mario Williams, DE/OLB, they can turn their attention to the offensive line.
According to the Bills depth chart the only player listed at LT is Chris Hairston. Reiff is considered one tier below Kalil, but that may not be a bad thing.
Kansas City Chiefs – Michael Brockers, DT, LSU
The Chiefs could consider David DeCastro, G, Stanford, but their need is greater at Tackle, so the Chiefs could make that trade with the Dolphins and then select Reiff, T, Iowa and the Dolphins may go with Tannehill here, but that is all speculation.
Straight up, the Chiefs gave up 132 YPG in rush defense and Brockers would be a solid pick to slide in to the middle to shore up an eye sore.
Seattle Seahawks – David DeCastro, G, Stanford
By signing Matt Flynn, the Seahawks now have to shore up an offensive line that lost Robert Gallery, DeCastro is a nice consolation prize.
The Seahawks could also look to go with Luke Kuechly, OLB, Boston College, or Quinton Coples, DE, UNC, but the primary need is O-Line.
Arizona Cardinals – Jonathan Martin, T, Stanford
This was a tough one because the Cardinals would have liked to have seen Reiff drop here, but again, teams drafting ahead of the Cardinals look for needs and LT is coveted and Kalil and Reiff are the top two.
The Cardinals do not have a pick in Round Two so they have got to get the guy they need, but again, there is a market here to trade down and the Cardinals could very well do that. A team that really likes Devon Still or Fletcher Cox, or even Luke Kuechly could pull a trade here.
With that said, and no trade, the Cardinals draft Martin who is a big man who did very well protecting Andrew Luck. Plus, he keeps the mascot name of Cardinal, too easy.
Don’t rule out Dre Kirkpatrick, CB, Alabama, but this may be a little too high for him.
Dallas Cowboys – Quinton Coples, DE, UNC
Jerry Jones is steaming over the fact that DeCastro is not there, and since they signed Dan Conner they lose out on Kuechly and Courtney Upshaw. Jones wants to trade down, but since his asking price is equivalent to the purchase of a small pacific island they select Coples.
Other than Ware the Cowboys have difficulty getting to the quarterback and with the Giants and Manning, the Eagles with Vick and most likely RG III with the Redskins, pressure on the QB is paramount.
Philadelphia Eagles – Fletcher Cox, DT, Mississippi State
With the acquisition of DeMeco Ryans, it is unlikely they will look at Luke Kuechly or Courtney Upshaw. The Eagles can look to fill the middle up front with Cox.
There is a possibility the Eagles could look at Devon Still if the Cowboys grab Cox, and wouldn’t Jerry Jones love to rub Reid’s rhubarb.
Cincinnati Bengals – Cordy Glenn, G, Georgia
Cincinnati made great strides last year, and although they still have several need areas, one is the guard position and Glenn is a powerful run blocker. They could go for Kirkpatrick here and hope that Glenn is available at 21, but with the Chargers at 18, the Bears at 19, and the Titans at 20 who are also looking to shore up their interior line, this is a smart pick.
San Diego Chargers – Whitney Mercilus, DE, Illinois
The Chargers could grab Kevin Zeitler, G, Wisconsin, but he is projected more as a Round Two selection. Mercilus can be merciless when it comes to the quarterback. Besides, this is a need area for the Chargers as their defense last year only came up with 32 sacks and Antwan Barnes had 11 of those. Plus, if they lose Luis Castillo, that makes this pick even more important.
Another possibility if Courtney Upshaw, OLB, Alabama, but his stock seems to have dropped lately. Plus, they signed Jarrett Johnson.
Chicago Bears – Kevin Zeitler, G, Wisconsin
This may seem to be a bit of a reach given Zeitler’s grade was as a second round selection, but the other top guards are gone and with the acquisition of Brandon Marshall, the Bears will not see WR as an initial need, although they may look at that in Round Two given Johnnie Knox’s situation.
The Bears need interior help, and even though Zeitler follows Carimi as Badgers to the Bears, it is about necessity and making Jay Cutler some more security.
Tennessee Titans – Nick Perry, DE, USC
In looking at who the Titans may like at this position, I found that some of the picks they may desire are gone while others may be a reach at this point. I do not think Perry is a reach. On several boards he was rated anywhere from 15-25 and is ranked No. 3 for DE’s.
I don’t think there is any doubt that Coach Munchak wants to have a dominant offensive and defensive line and to work outward from there. Perry fits in nicely with Munchak’s rebuilding of the defensive line.
Cincinnati Bengals – Dre Kirkpatrick, CB, Alabama
This pick makes perfect sense for the Bengals. After shoring up their interior line to help Andy Dalton, now they can focus on an area of weakness on the defense.
Kirkpatrick is probably the top rated DB coming out of the draft next to Claiborne. He will make Bengals fans very happy. There’s champagne being poured in Cincinnati as they begin to build a team that will overtake the AFC North.
Cleveland Browns – Ryan Tannehill, QB, Texas A&M
The Browns wanted RG III no doubt, but there is no reason to believe they will just draft another QB just to draft a QB, but… Tannehill is a quality QB who many feel may start over Colt McCoy. Yes, Tannehill could go earlier, but most teams are pretty secure in who their starters are. One could argue the Browns don’t have to push the panic button and could draft a WR here to further bolster McCoy’s chances.
If they draft a WR here in this spot and with Richardson, yet the Browns still look flat on offense, then the lack of offense can be pointed at McCoy, but if they draft these weapons and McCoy advances his play then they would have chosen wisely.
My take is too much pressure forces the Browns to take Tannehill here. And honestly, this is about the area of Round One where Tannehill’s name begins to surface.
Detroit Lions – Janoris Jenkins, DB, Northern Alabama
The Lions are sporting high fives as Jenkins drops into their lap. There is an argument that Jenkins may turn out to be the best of the DB bunch, but there is also a risk and the reason he drops to this point.
The Lions defense gets a significant upgrade at a position that was torched last year.
Pittsburgh Steelers – Devon Still, NT, Penn State
At this point in Round One, the Steelers stand in that area where best player available (BPA) comes into play. They really have three need areas, OL, DL, CB.
Of the three position areas, Still or Jerel Worthy are rated higher than the next highest players at OL and DB. I went with DL because age has become a factor for this stout group and with Still they get a powerful guy who can work behind Casey Hampton, or alongside him.
Denver Broncos – Stephon Gilmore, CB, South Carolina
The Broncos seemed to have addressed areas of need on offense, especially with Manning, although I am still upset with how they dealt with Tebow.
Gilmore is a player who can come in right away and play. He’s a smart, savvy player who has really helped his draft stock. Although I thought Gilmore was more of an early Round Two player, there is a need for certain players and sometimes you have to do what you need to do and since the Broncos need CB or S, this one makes the most sense.
Houston Texans – Kendall Wright, WR, Baylor
Again, another tough one, but there are two schools of thought here, one, Andre Johnson needs help. He has had an adequate support cast, but Wright gives them an added dimension.
I almost went with Stephen Hill here, but Hill and Johnson are mirror receiver types and Wright gives the Texans that Desean Jackson type of receiver. If you thought the Texans offense was potent last year, wait until you see this one explode on defenses.
New England Patriots (from New Orleans) – Jerel Worthy – DT, Michigan State
The obvious is obvious, the Patriots need some serious help on defense and the best place to start is in the middle and losing Mark Anderson didn’t help. The signing of Fanene just seemed to be more of a tit for tat type of transaction.
There is a chance the Patriots could go DB or S here but they have another choice in Round One unless Belichick decides to bundle and move up, or stand pat and draft BPA.
Worthy helps a front line that had more rotations than a pole dancer.
Green Bay – Courtney Upshaw, OLB, Alabama
The Packers were in a similar position last year as the Patriots, but the Packers problem was they ran into a Giants defense that was playing better than any defense in the playoffs. Ergo, the Pack were sent packing and their defense was too much of a liability.
Upshaw gives them a credible threat on the end to book end with Matthews. My only concern is that Upshaw’s draft stock has dropped, but on balance, Upshaw’s body of work makes him a late first round pick, so this seems about right.
Baltimore Ravens – Dont’a Hightower, ILB, Alabama
Back to back Tide players go here, but more out of necessity than just being Crimson Tide players. Ray Lewis has been a phenomenal player, but there will be a time to replace the ageless wonder.
Hightower is a nasty player who would relish learning from one of the game’s best. However, if the Steelers happen to grab Hightower, the Ravens may look at Mike Adams, T, Ohio State, or Peter Konz, C, Wisconsin.
San Francisco 49ers – Peter Konz, C, Wisconsin
With the signings of Randy Moss and Mario Manningham, it would appear the 49ers are not going to select a WR here because there are two other areas of need as well, OL and CB.
The 49ers interior line needs help and Konz is the best value at this point. With the loss of Snyder and Goodwin will be 34, either C or G needs to be addressed. Had one of the top CB’s dropped that position could have been addressed, but for the Niners, addressing the line seems paramount at this time.
New England Patriots – Mark Barron, SS, Alabama
This is prime time Belichick time. You have to know those little Gerbel wheels are running feverishly through Coach Belichick’s mind. I would not be surprised to see him trade out this pick to accumulate more for this year or next.
The Patriots could also look to Andre Branch, DE, Clemson to combine with Worthy which would certainly make a lot of sense as well.
New York Giants – Mike Adams, T, Ohio State
Hang on, hang on New York fans before you go putting my address on twitter hear me out. Most scouts feel the two primary needs for the Giants are OL and MLB. I know Fleener looks like the attractive choice, but with the signing of Bennett, that gives me pause to have Fleener going at this point.
With that said, Adams gives them a big son-of-a-gun of a tackle. He is a solid run blocker with a mean streak, but needs work in the pass protection game. Also, he would most likely be better suited at RT until he learns more about the LT position if they want to project him for that spot.
This is a solid pick. As for the MLB position, I just don’t see another MLB outside of Kuechly and Hightower worth taking this high.
Well, that does it for Round One, stay tuned for Round Two
Friday, March 30, 2012
The Obama Presidency in Perspective
Any text in italics is mine, otherwise the remainder is from a supposed article/blog/comment post that occurred in 2010.
A "deadly" article regarding Obama, at the Wall Street Journal, which today is the most widely circulated newspaper in America . - by Eddie Sessions:
Although this article was not written by someone named Eddie Sessions, it doesn’t matter. It is an eye-opening, thought provoking look into President Obama’s ascension to the most powerful position in the world. I would add that FOX news has been roundly criticized on many fronts in terms of trying to understand and vet the real Barack Obama. For simply trying to find out who the man is, they have been excoriated for it. Do you not find it peculiar that segments of this man’s past is as mysterious as William Shakespeare? Will someone 200 years from now say, Barack Obama? He never existed. He was a fictitious character derived by a sensational public that yearned for a President such as this. Enjoy the read. I have removed the last two paragraphs because I do not engage in inflammatory rhetoric. I did not appreciate it when President George W. Bush was called certain names, and I will not resort to similar action. I have added some comments along the way.
"I have this theory about Barack Obama. I think he's led a kind of make-believe life in which money was provided and doors were opened because at some point early on somebody or some group took a look at this tall, good looking, half-white, half-black, young man with an exotic African/Muslim name and concluded he could be guided toward a life in politics where his facile speaking skills could even put him in the White House.”
My comments regarding Obama’s 2004 Illinois Senate campaign: “State Senator Barack Obama won the Democratic primary, as Jack Ryan won the Republican primary, but three months later Ryan announced his withdrawal from the race — four days after the Chicago Tribune persuaded a California court to release child custody records. Six weeks later, the Illinois Republican State Central Committee chose former Diplomat Alan Keyes to replace Ryan as the Republican candidate.” Obama won going away. For a more in depth analysis as to the launch of Obama’s career, go to: http://uspolitics.about.com/od/senators/a/barack_obama.htm.
“In a very real way, he has been a young man in a very big hurry. Who else do you know who has written two memoirs before the age of 45? "Dreams of My Father" was published in 1995 when he was only 34 years old. The "Audacity of Hope" followed in 2006. If indeed, he did write them himself. There are some who think that his mentor and close friend, Bill Ayers, a man who calls himself a "communist with a small 'c'" was the real author.
His political skills consisted of rarely voting on anything that might be deemed controversial. He went from a legislator in the Illinois legislature to the Senator from that state because he had the good fortune of having Mayor Daley's formidable political machine at his disposal.
He was in the U.S. Senate so briefly that his bid for the presidency was either an act of astonishing self-confidence or part of some greater game plan that had been determined before he first stepped foot in the Capital. How, many must wonder, was he selected to be a 2004 keynote speaker at the Democrat convention that nominated John Kerry when virtually no one had ever even heard of him before?
He outmaneuvered Hillary Clinton in primaries. He took Iowa by storm. A charming young man, an anomaly in the state with a very small black population, he oozed "cool" in a place where agriculture was the antithesis of cool. He dazzled the locals. And he had an army of volunteers drawn to a charisma that hid any real substance.
And then he had the great good fortune of having the Republicans select one of the most inept candidates for the presidency since Bob Dole. And then John McCain did something crazy. He picked Sarah Palin, an unknown female governor from the very distant state of Alaska. It was a ticket that was reminiscent of 1984's Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro and they went down to defeat.
The mainstream political media fell in love with him. It was a schoolgirl crush with febrile commentators like Chris Mathews swooning then and now over the man. The venom directed against McCain and, in particular, Palin, was extraordinary.
Now, nearly a full year [article written in 2010] into his first term, all of those gilded years leading up to the White House have left him unprepared to be President. Left to his own instincts, he has a talent for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. It swiftly became a joke that he could not deliver even the briefest of statements without the ever-present Tele-Prompters.
Far worse, however, is his capacity to want to "wish away" some terrible realities, not the least of which is the Islamist intention to destroy America and enslave the West. Any student of history knows how swiftly Islam initially spread. It knocked on the doors of Europe, having gained a foothold in Spain ..
The great crowds that greeted him at home or on his campaign "world tour" were no substitute for having even the slightest grasp of history and the reality of a world filled with really bad people with really bad intentions.
Oddly and perhaps even inevitably, his political experience, a cakewalk, has positioned him to destroy the Democrat Party's hold on power in Congress because in the end it was never about the Party. It was always about his [content removed] ideology, learned at an early age from family, mentors, college professors, and extreme leftist friends and colleagues.
Obama is a man who could deliver a snap judgment about a Boston police officer who arrested an "obstreperous" Harvard professor-friend, but would warn Americans against "jumping to conclusions" about a mass murderer at Fort Hood who shouted "Allah Akbar."
The absurdity of that was lost on no one. He has since compounded this by calling the Christmas bomber "an isolated extremist" only to have to admit a day or two later that he was part of an al Qaeda plot.
He is a man who could strive to close down our detention facility at Guantanamo even though those released were known to have returned to the battlefield against America. He could even instruct his Attorney General to afford the perpetrator of 9/11 a civil trial when no one else would ever even consider such an obscenity. And he is a man who could wait three days before having anything to say about the perpetrator of yet another terrorist attack on Americans and then have to elaborate on his remarks the following day because his first statement was so lame.
The pattern repeats itself. He either blames any problem on the Bush administration or he naively seeks to wish away the truth.
Knock, knock. Anyone home? Anyone there? Barack Obama exists only as the sock puppet of his handlers, of the people who have maneuvered and manufactured this [removed content] individual's life.”
My final comments: Articles, such as the one you read above do not inflame me or anger me to the point of incoherent random shouts of vitriol, on the contrary, articles like these give me pause to consider what is going on here? Disturbing information, policies, and/or philosophy that is not of a republic nature, make me concerned for the greatest country on this planet. One that is changing in a profound way that I do not believe is the right way. So my response is to try and make reasonable people more aware of the situation, and that is why I posted this today. I feel that the gentleman who posted this article was very articulate, created some thought provoking questions, and who is concerned for this country as well. There were points of dramatic overkill, but on balance, he articulated his belief in a very reasonable manner.
Now a sliver of defense for President Obama. I understand some of the debt associated with the Obama Administration as being legitimate debt. We had and continue to have very serious issues, and sometimes you need to counter the fallout with some cash/reform/deeper regulations, etc. And, sometimes certain debt is good debt. However, I do believe that there have been opportunities where the President could have gotten us out of this quicker, and now he continues to ask for our patience.
I understand the push for health care, but not to the extent with which the President wants to take us. In fairness, for his plan to work it would take 100% of the people to be in, but the cost is far beyond our comprehension. So I understand the essence of humanitarianism that exists within him, but the realities of the costs cannot be discounted, and yet I fear money or debt are not priorities to the “grand plan.”
Also, I want to hold the Republicans greatly responsible here as well. For too long they went against the very thing they like to run for office, limited spending, lower taxes, etc. The Republicans have let us down in so many ways. Their exorbitant spending in the second Bush term was nothing short of political treason; which is another reason why I am giving up my Republican membership and going Independent. I belong to no one. I belong to the Republic of Reighard.
To finish this point, I am not going to nit-pick here, there’s too much to discuss. Suffice to say, the big ideas the President sets forth alarm me. It’s not because he is black. I don’t care if he’s Hispanic, Asian, Navajo, or whatever. Our country’s identity is now being exercised in the public square and the world is watching. What will our country look like with four more years of Obama? To profoundly change our country, of which he denies and is the songbird of every deceitful act, into a country that is sorely divided between cultures/classes/race is not the path we were on.
There is no doubt that three years in we are beginning to see a pattern with this President.
The recent events of the tragic Trayvon Martin murder have once again shown us the deep divide that comes, not from the Right, but the left and those who wish to exacerbate a horrible tragedy for their own public agenda; shame on them. I spoke of how the national media is complicit and/or the masterminds in the social and cultural destruction of America and the fruit of that poisonous tree is bearing fruit and has been for the last 20 years. The country seems to be so divided now because many have been awakened by this underhanded and surreptitious game plan. And, since we (growing segment of Americans) have had enough we are trying to play on the common sense of the good people of this country, and we will win.
The Democrats and the Obama Administration are not dumb. Why not create a division of the so called “haves” and “have-nots”? It’s worked so well in the past, to create a mob mentality. Let’s inflame the voters, get them mad, insert race, or create a division relative to religion/freedom of individual rights. Hopefully you all are beginning to see more clearly now because a lot of this nation got blindsided by a poetic speaking, slick/hip man who exuded the idea that I am every man. I am the Old Spice guy, the GQ man, the Jet exec, or even the Axe dude. I am everyone and everything.
In 2008, about 46% of the people recognized that Obama was not the real deal and that the caution flags should fly high, but that wasn’t enough, 54% saw it otherwise. Even my fellow Catholics fell prey to the honey tongued Obama. The margin of victory was similar to how the Catholics voted as well 54-46. I hope the Catholics remember how he turned his back on them here recently at the slightest chance. Do you think he would do it again? Another interesting note is how the President seems to be alienating the Israeli’s as well. Nothing like alienating two large voting blocks, the Jews and Catholics, yep he definitely seems to know how to unite people.
What we need now is for the majority of the country to say, “You know what, been there done that. It’s time to get back to the basics, the reality of what and who we are.” It’s time to bench the No. 1 draft choice quarterback who has been a virtual bust and go with some real experience. The Republican candidate that receives the nomination may not be a “Manchurian Candidate” or the perfect candidate, but he will be infinitely better than the current occupant.
A "deadly" article regarding Obama, at the Wall Street Journal, which today is the most widely circulated newspaper in America . - by Eddie Sessions:
Although this article was not written by someone named Eddie Sessions, it doesn’t matter. It is an eye-opening, thought provoking look into President Obama’s ascension to the most powerful position in the world. I would add that FOX news has been roundly criticized on many fronts in terms of trying to understand and vet the real Barack Obama. For simply trying to find out who the man is, they have been excoriated for it. Do you not find it peculiar that segments of this man’s past is as mysterious as William Shakespeare? Will someone 200 years from now say, Barack Obama? He never existed. He was a fictitious character derived by a sensational public that yearned for a President such as this. Enjoy the read. I have removed the last two paragraphs because I do not engage in inflammatory rhetoric. I did not appreciate it when President George W. Bush was called certain names, and I will not resort to similar action. I have added some comments along the way.
"I have this theory about Barack Obama. I think he's led a kind of make-believe life in which money was provided and doors were opened because at some point early on somebody or some group took a look at this tall, good looking, half-white, half-black, young man with an exotic African/Muslim name and concluded he could be guided toward a life in politics where his facile speaking skills could even put him in the White House.”
My comments regarding Obama’s 2004 Illinois Senate campaign: “State Senator Barack Obama won the Democratic primary, as Jack Ryan won the Republican primary, but three months later Ryan announced his withdrawal from the race — four days after the Chicago Tribune persuaded a California court to release child custody records. Six weeks later, the Illinois Republican State Central Committee chose former Diplomat Alan Keyes to replace Ryan as the Republican candidate.” Obama won going away. For a more in depth analysis as to the launch of Obama’s career, go to: http://uspolitics.about.com/od/senators/a/barack_obama.htm.
“In a very real way, he has been a young man in a very big hurry. Who else do you know who has written two memoirs before the age of 45? "Dreams of My Father" was published in 1995 when he was only 34 years old. The "Audacity of Hope" followed in 2006. If indeed, he did write them himself. There are some who think that his mentor and close friend, Bill Ayers, a man who calls himself a "communist with a small 'c'" was the real author.
His political skills consisted of rarely voting on anything that might be deemed controversial. He went from a legislator in the Illinois legislature to the Senator from that state because he had the good fortune of having Mayor Daley's formidable political machine at his disposal.
He was in the U.S. Senate so briefly that his bid for the presidency was either an act of astonishing self-confidence or part of some greater game plan that had been determined before he first stepped foot in the Capital. How, many must wonder, was he selected to be a 2004 keynote speaker at the Democrat convention that nominated John Kerry when virtually no one had ever even heard of him before?
He outmaneuvered Hillary Clinton in primaries. He took Iowa by storm. A charming young man, an anomaly in the state with a very small black population, he oozed "cool" in a place where agriculture was the antithesis of cool. He dazzled the locals. And he had an army of volunteers drawn to a charisma that hid any real substance.
And then he had the great good fortune of having the Republicans select one of the most inept candidates for the presidency since Bob Dole. And then John McCain did something crazy. He picked Sarah Palin, an unknown female governor from the very distant state of Alaska. It was a ticket that was reminiscent of 1984's Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro and they went down to defeat.
The mainstream political media fell in love with him. It was a schoolgirl crush with febrile commentators like Chris Mathews swooning then and now over the man. The venom directed against McCain and, in particular, Palin, was extraordinary.
Now, nearly a full year [article written in 2010] into his first term, all of those gilded years leading up to the White House have left him unprepared to be President. Left to his own instincts, he has a talent for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. It swiftly became a joke that he could not deliver even the briefest of statements without the ever-present Tele-Prompters.
Far worse, however, is his capacity to want to "wish away" some terrible realities, not the least of which is the Islamist intention to destroy America and enslave the West. Any student of history knows how swiftly Islam initially spread. It knocked on the doors of Europe, having gained a foothold in Spain ..
The great crowds that greeted him at home or on his campaign "world tour" were no substitute for having even the slightest grasp of history and the reality of a world filled with really bad people with really bad intentions.
Oddly and perhaps even inevitably, his political experience, a cakewalk, has positioned him to destroy the Democrat Party's hold on power in Congress because in the end it was never about the Party. It was always about his [content removed] ideology, learned at an early age from family, mentors, college professors, and extreme leftist friends and colleagues.
Obama is a man who could deliver a snap judgment about a Boston police officer who arrested an "obstreperous" Harvard professor-friend, but would warn Americans against "jumping to conclusions" about a mass murderer at Fort Hood who shouted "Allah Akbar."
The absurdity of that was lost on no one. He has since compounded this by calling the Christmas bomber "an isolated extremist" only to have to admit a day or two later that he was part of an al Qaeda plot.
He is a man who could strive to close down our detention facility at Guantanamo even though those released were known to have returned to the battlefield against America. He could even instruct his Attorney General to afford the perpetrator of 9/11 a civil trial when no one else would ever even consider such an obscenity. And he is a man who could wait three days before having anything to say about the perpetrator of yet another terrorist attack on Americans and then have to elaborate on his remarks the following day because his first statement was so lame.
The pattern repeats itself. He either blames any problem on the Bush administration or he naively seeks to wish away the truth.
Knock, knock. Anyone home? Anyone there? Barack Obama exists only as the sock puppet of his handlers, of the people who have maneuvered and manufactured this [removed content] individual's life.”
My final comments: Articles, such as the one you read above do not inflame me or anger me to the point of incoherent random shouts of vitriol, on the contrary, articles like these give me pause to consider what is going on here? Disturbing information, policies, and/or philosophy that is not of a republic nature, make me concerned for the greatest country on this planet. One that is changing in a profound way that I do not believe is the right way. So my response is to try and make reasonable people more aware of the situation, and that is why I posted this today. I feel that the gentleman who posted this article was very articulate, created some thought provoking questions, and who is concerned for this country as well. There were points of dramatic overkill, but on balance, he articulated his belief in a very reasonable manner.
Now a sliver of defense for President Obama. I understand some of the debt associated with the Obama Administration as being legitimate debt. We had and continue to have very serious issues, and sometimes you need to counter the fallout with some cash/reform/deeper regulations, etc. And, sometimes certain debt is good debt. However, I do believe that there have been opportunities where the President could have gotten us out of this quicker, and now he continues to ask for our patience.
I understand the push for health care, but not to the extent with which the President wants to take us. In fairness, for his plan to work it would take 100% of the people to be in, but the cost is far beyond our comprehension. So I understand the essence of humanitarianism that exists within him, but the realities of the costs cannot be discounted, and yet I fear money or debt are not priorities to the “grand plan.”
Also, I want to hold the Republicans greatly responsible here as well. For too long they went against the very thing they like to run for office, limited spending, lower taxes, etc. The Republicans have let us down in so many ways. Their exorbitant spending in the second Bush term was nothing short of political treason; which is another reason why I am giving up my Republican membership and going Independent. I belong to no one. I belong to the Republic of Reighard.
To finish this point, I am not going to nit-pick here, there’s too much to discuss. Suffice to say, the big ideas the President sets forth alarm me. It’s not because he is black. I don’t care if he’s Hispanic, Asian, Navajo, or whatever. Our country’s identity is now being exercised in the public square and the world is watching. What will our country look like with four more years of Obama? To profoundly change our country, of which he denies and is the songbird of every deceitful act, into a country that is sorely divided between cultures/classes/race is not the path we were on.
There is no doubt that three years in we are beginning to see a pattern with this President.
The recent events of the tragic Trayvon Martin murder have once again shown us the deep divide that comes, not from the Right, but the left and those who wish to exacerbate a horrible tragedy for their own public agenda; shame on them. I spoke of how the national media is complicit and/or the masterminds in the social and cultural destruction of America and the fruit of that poisonous tree is bearing fruit and has been for the last 20 years. The country seems to be so divided now because many have been awakened by this underhanded and surreptitious game plan. And, since we (growing segment of Americans) have had enough we are trying to play on the common sense of the good people of this country, and we will win.
The Democrats and the Obama Administration are not dumb. Why not create a division of the so called “haves” and “have-nots”? It’s worked so well in the past, to create a mob mentality. Let’s inflame the voters, get them mad, insert race, or create a division relative to religion/freedom of individual rights. Hopefully you all are beginning to see more clearly now because a lot of this nation got blindsided by a poetic speaking, slick/hip man who exuded the idea that I am every man. I am the Old Spice guy, the GQ man, the Jet exec, or even the Axe dude. I am everyone and everything.
In 2008, about 46% of the people recognized that Obama was not the real deal and that the caution flags should fly high, but that wasn’t enough, 54% saw it otherwise. Even my fellow Catholics fell prey to the honey tongued Obama. The margin of victory was similar to how the Catholics voted as well 54-46. I hope the Catholics remember how he turned his back on them here recently at the slightest chance. Do you think he would do it again? Another interesting note is how the President seems to be alienating the Israeli’s as well. Nothing like alienating two large voting blocks, the Jews and Catholics, yep he definitely seems to know how to unite people.
What we need now is for the majority of the country to say, “You know what, been there done that. It’s time to get back to the basics, the reality of what and who we are.” It’s time to bench the No. 1 draft choice quarterback who has been a virtual bust and go with some real experience. The Republican candidate that receives the nomination may not be a “Manchurian Candidate” or the perfect candidate, but he will be infinitely better than the current occupant.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
How the National Media is Failing America
For those of you who watch TV news programming, you are one of the shrinking few in America who rely on TV news. In this digital age, more and more people are relying on alternative forms for their news.
Most of us are getting our news online with our computers, via Smart phones, or tablets, etc. And, as an English teacher I can appreciate this because it means that people are reading. Also, you can target your news better by selecting what you want to read; that could be a good or bad thing if you have a limited lens for which you wish to see the world.
Most of us have been there, we sign in to our homepage, which oftentimes is a news feed site and there they are, catchy headlines that beg us to click and go. But this article is not about consumers getting most of their news online it’s about the irresponsibility of the national news stations that, in many ways, are failing America. This is not directed at CNN, FOX, or even MSNBC, albeit a surrogate of NBC. No, this is geared more toward the big three with NBC taking center stage this week.
I deliberately focused my attention this week on NBC’s Today show. It is important to cover the No. 1 morning show on national TV. Plus, many Americans are busily getting ready for work while the Today show carries on in the background as they move about.
Here is what I learned. It is Thursday and I have basically seen enough to give me a good idea as to what they want the viewer to take away from their programming.
Here are a few topics discussed this week:
Trayvon Martin – yes an appropriate topic, but to the degree they are covering it makes me suspicious.
The millionaire in WPB on DUI and vehicular homicide
The Royal Family – yet ironically their (NBC) agenda seems to be anti-American wealthy, but it’s okay to flaunt the exploits of a monarchy that has exploited, enslaved, created wars, etc.
The murders in Toulouse, France
The campaign – who’s making gaffes this week, or Romney a shaky front runner? Etc.
The President’s energy tour
Hollywood pregnancies
Christie Brinkley's custody battle
Former Desperate Housewife Nicollete Sheridan's wrongful termination lawsuit
Brief mention of rising gas prices with cursory mention that “there isn’t a whole lot that can be done right now” reinforcements
A few feel good stories
Here are a few stories that seem to be absent from NBC’s agenda:
The ongoing slaughter in Syria
A debt that is going to cripple our nation
Focusing on an unfortunate murder in Florida when the top five cities: St. Louis, Camden, NJ, Detroit, Flint, MI, and Oakland, CA are posting more than 300 murders per year. How many of those killed were unarmed?
How rising gas prices are affecting grocery prices, running the kids to their activities, or businesses having to readjust prices due to energy costs?
Why President Obama’s Union waiver that gives 500,000 union workers exemptions from Obamacare?
The incessant corruption within Labor itself?
Why there is a double standard when it comes to disparaging/critical statements made toward women?
Being intellectually dishonest about the contraception issue.
I don't expect NBC's Today show to browbeat us with heavy topics from the time they come on the air until the end of the show, but during their peak time 7-7:30, it's been an interesting week in how they cover the various topics and at what times. There are more instances where the national media is just not doing its due diligence for the American people, and they wonder why we have resorted to alternative sources for our news?
I find it unfortunate that an industry we should trust has fallen prey to partisanship and cleverly disguises it through deflective propaganda. I am not afraid to state that the national media in many instances has been complicit in the current cultural and social dynamics going on, and not in a good way. Oh sure, sometimes they throw the "real" dog bone out there for us to gnaw on, but many times they deflect and direct, and for that shame on them. Juan Williams is right, we have lost the ability to have an intelligent debate anymore. We get into name calling, mockery, and derogatorily denigrate and attempt to annhilate those who disagree. Both sides shout "double standard" and "hypocrisy" and in the meantime our nation suffers, and the national media is complicit because they have decided to choose sides rather than be the true arbiter of the civil debates we should be having.
I support both the Tea Party and the Wall Street Protesters, but the media excoriates one while propping up another. Why, because the one suits their agenda over the other, and so immediately this creates a divide rather than a topic of civil discussion that is serious to many Americans. I just find it apalling. Let FOX and MSNBC battle over the right and left, but surely the big three should remain neutral and impartial, or at least that is what we would like for them to be, but clearly they are not. Shameful!
I am planning on a series of articles relating to these topics, plus a few others. They all have the beginning title The Invisible Earthquake: Series. I hope you check them out.
Most of us are getting our news online with our computers, via Smart phones, or tablets, etc. And, as an English teacher I can appreciate this because it means that people are reading. Also, you can target your news better by selecting what you want to read; that could be a good or bad thing if you have a limited lens for which you wish to see the world.
Most of us have been there, we sign in to our homepage, which oftentimes is a news feed site and there they are, catchy headlines that beg us to click and go. But this article is not about consumers getting most of their news online it’s about the irresponsibility of the national news stations that, in many ways, are failing America. This is not directed at CNN, FOX, or even MSNBC, albeit a surrogate of NBC. No, this is geared more toward the big three with NBC taking center stage this week.
I deliberately focused my attention this week on NBC’s Today show. It is important to cover the No. 1 morning show on national TV. Plus, many Americans are busily getting ready for work while the Today show carries on in the background as they move about.
Here is what I learned. It is Thursday and I have basically seen enough to give me a good idea as to what they want the viewer to take away from their programming.
Here are a few topics discussed this week:
Trayvon Martin – yes an appropriate topic, but to the degree they are covering it makes me suspicious.
The millionaire in WPB on DUI and vehicular homicide
The Royal Family – yet ironically their (NBC) agenda seems to be anti-American wealthy, but it’s okay to flaunt the exploits of a monarchy that has exploited, enslaved, created wars, etc.
The murders in Toulouse, France
The campaign – who’s making gaffes this week, or Romney a shaky front runner? Etc.
The President’s energy tour
Hollywood pregnancies
Christie Brinkley's custody battle
Former Desperate Housewife Nicollete Sheridan's wrongful termination lawsuit
Brief mention of rising gas prices with cursory mention that “there isn’t a whole lot that can be done right now” reinforcements
A few feel good stories
Here are a few stories that seem to be absent from NBC’s agenda:
The ongoing slaughter in Syria
A debt that is going to cripple our nation
Focusing on an unfortunate murder in Florida when the top five cities: St. Louis, Camden, NJ, Detroit, Flint, MI, and Oakland, CA are posting more than 300 murders per year. How many of those killed were unarmed?
How rising gas prices are affecting grocery prices, running the kids to their activities, or businesses having to readjust prices due to energy costs?
Why President Obama’s Union waiver that gives 500,000 union workers exemptions from Obamacare?
The incessant corruption within Labor itself?
Why there is a double standard when it comes to disparaging/critical statements made toward women?
Being intellectually dishonest about the contraception issue.
I don't expect NBC's Today show to browbeat us with heavy topics from the time they come on the air until the end of the show, but during their peak time 7-7:30, it's been an interesting week in how they cover the various topics and at what times. There are more instances where the national media is just not doing its due diligence for the American people, and they wonder why we have resorted to alternative sources for our news?
I find it unfortunate that an industry we should trust has fallen prey to partisanship and cleverly disguises it through deflective propaganda. I am not afraid to state that the national media in many instances has been complicit in the current cultural and social dynamics going on, and not in a good way. Oh sure, sometimes they throw the "real" dog bone out there for us to gnaw on, but many times they deflect and direct, and for that shame on them. Juan Williams is right, we have lost the ability to have an intelligent debate anymore. We get into name calling, mockery, and derogatorily denigrate and attempt to annhilate those who disagree. Both sides shout "double standard" and "hypocrisy" and in the meantime our nation suffers, and the national media is complicit because they have decided to choose sides rather than be the true arbiter of the civil debates we should be having.
I support both the Tea Party and the Wall Street Protesters, but the media excoriates one while propping up another. Why, because the one suits their agenda over the other, and so immediately this creates a divide rather than a topic of civil discussion that is serious to many Americans. I just find it apalling. Let FOX and MSNBC battle over the right and left, but surely the big three should remain neutral and impartial, or at least that is what we would like for them to be, but clearly they are not. Shameful!
I am planning on a series of articles relating to these topics, plus a few others. They all have the beginning title The Invisible Earthquake: Series. I hope you check them out.
Friday, March 16, 2012
The Lost Decade: Born From 1960-1970, Part II
This is a continuation of the article published yesterday.
If you were born from 1943-1954, your full retirement eligibility kicks in at 66-yrs old. If you were born in 1960, full retirement benefits kick in at 67-yrs old. So, you will be eligible for social security at age 67, and that would occur in 2027.
Of course, you can get benefits as early as age 62, but your benefits are far less than what you would get at 67, or you could wait until your 70 and enjoy greater benefits.
Now, here’s the real rub, if you make a certain amount in social security, those benefits may be taxed. That’s right, taxed. Nearly one-third of retirees pay taxes on their social security income. Ah, what a racket!
Also, if you are fortunate to work with a company, organization, agency that has its own separate pension plan, then you could enjoy a less stressful retirement. I am speaking to many teachers in this article, and although we have a separate retirement pension, we are seeing that some of those benefits are now being manipulated and massaged.
For those born in 1970, your benefits at 67 will kick in 2037, a year after the experts predict that only 77-percent of benefits will be able to be matched. What does that mean? Either benefits will be significantly reduced or people will be taxed beyond comprehension.
Again, I am a simple man, so I try to boil complex things down to as simple a solution/result/explanation as possible.
SS is a pay as you go system. Retirees right now rely on the current work force to pay their benefits. In 1950 there were 5 people working for every person retired, and because of that payroll taxes were 2% (1% employee, 1% employer). Today, there are 2 workers for every retiree and payroll taxes are 15.30% (7.65% employee, 7.65% employer). The President’s recent payroll “tax holiday” reduces payroll taxes by 2%, of which about 105 Billion was lost in SS revenue. More on that was chronicled in Part I of this article.
As of this time there is a surplus in the social security system due to the fact that in times past the Federal Govt. was able to convert those surpluses into, get this, Federal Bonds, so in essence borrowing from itself to pay itself. Sounds like fuzzy math to me.
So what does this mean to those born from 1960-1970? According to most experts, the Baby Boomers are going to completely exhaust the system. There is so much focus on them right now that the generation that follows them will not get the attention they need or deserve, and who will most likely have to endure some of the deepest cuts or have to endure a defunct system that cannot support them? That’s right the decade beginning with those born in 1960.
The information below indicates such.
The Problem
• Social Security is an "unfunded" income transfer scheme—the benefits paid out to retirees are financed by taxing the current income of working people.
• It is not a "funded" approach, where an individual's taxes would be invested, and the proceeds used to provide their retirement benefits (like an IRA or a 401k).
• This system worked for decades because there were many workers and few beneficiaries—16 to 1 when the program started.
• Because of declining birth rates and increased life expectancy, there are now only 3 workers for each beneficiary, and soon there will be only 2. The system will not be able to support itself with so few workers to pay for so many beneficiaries.
• According to the best estimates, the Social Security system will go into the red in 2017—just over a decade from now. Here is an even more alarming statistic. According to this article, written in 2007, and I apologize for not having the source, I read about 10 separate articles from a variety of websites. The system is already beginning to be in the red. It has accelerated in terms of losses, and especially with the slow recovery the revenues just aren’t there, and yet the President pushed the payroll “tax holiday” anyway.
• In 2041, less than 25 years later, it will be completely out of money.
• If we continue under the current system, the only way to address this problem is to either cut Social Security benefits or raise payroll taxes. But even these will only put off the problem, not solve it.
The problem is not just one that can be pushed down the field for another day. There are two systems looming very large and do not seem to have any foreseeable solution: health care and social security. In 2010, health care and social security consumed 40% of the total federal budget, not too bad, right? Also, defense consumed another 20%. Safety net programs and interest on the debt were another 20%. However, it’s what the future holds that concerns me most. Again, I admire the President for his idea to have everyone covered, but by 2025, and that is just over a decade from now, social security and health care will consume more than 70% of the total budget. Think about that for a second. Imagine your budget and that two items consume more than 70% of your household budget, and maybe for some it is, like a house and a car. You have 30% for the rest. And to further obligate the government just sounds counter-intuitive to me.
We have education, infrastructure, defense, commerce, trying to pay down the debt or default, etc. and only 30% to work it in to the total budget. If this does not frighten anyone under 50 you need a refresher course on “That scares the sh** out of me.”
In 1984 there was a similar problem with social security, but then Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, came up with the idea to save social security by creating the so called, “lock box” that is sometimes used as a political football. But in today’s political environment, I am appalled at the lack of foresight by so many politicians who only care about the next election rather than the next 20/30/40 years. But you know what, why should we be surprised? We have so many Americans who can’t even see past next week, or their next paycheck. I believe there are so many people who are unaware and one day will be subject to being told what to do, how to do it, and when to do it; which contrasts with a young generation that seems to have its own idea about doing whatever they want, wherever they want, and however they want. Oh, the irony is not lost on us reasonable people, I assure you.
Look, The Bottom Line is that neither party can run from this. They can’t just “hope” that the economy bounces back and our country becomes a beacon for unprecedented economic growth. You know what I see as a growing problem? The Administration and many on the Liberal Left love to target the rich man, or at least the one that doesn’t agree with them, so what I think we are seeing is that guy on Wall Street is going into defensive mode. He sees what’s going on and is looking to protect his family. It’s a natural defense mechanism. Once someone knows that someone is after them what do they do? They hunker down. They begin to protect and hoard. If a financial Armageddon is on the horizon, how could anyone blame someone for trying to protect their interests?
I encourage you to read the following information posted by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), scroll down to The Budget Outlook and prepare to be awakened. And even the CBO has to readjust their numbers. What they projected as an annual deficit for 2012 of 1.11 trillion has been readjusted to 1.12 trillion. That doesn’t sound like a lot, but most of you understand how things can increase exponentially, and that would be very dangerous for our financial health.
Lastly, the Bush tax cuts, which have been roundly criticized as adding to our debt, and yes, they may have had some impact on it, but if they are so bad why did President Obama have to move forward with yet another round of tax cuts? If the President meant what he said, then he should have discontinued the Bush tax cuts and that added debt would have discontinued, but he saw that he couldn’t and even had to go so far as to provide yet another round of tax cuts.
The Bottom Line?
The federal government spends way too much money. Their priorities have gotten us so far down the railroad track that any brake system will inevitably cause whiplash, and no party wants that to happen, so we continue down the track with no brakes, or very little brakes, and if we don’t get a grip on “reality” and stop thinking that money can just be printed or mysteriously wiped away with an eraser, those people are sadly mistaken. Try that number with your lenders and see how far you get.
Politicians need to think more seriously about the financial future of this country instead of pointing fingers at one’s faith as being too radical, or whether the contraception argument is more about women’s rights or religious rights (can’t we all agree that it’s both and just move the heck on?) or the class warfare issue (which is dirty politics), or pie in the sky hopes and dreams, let’s be realistic and get this country back on a strong financial track; one that was (not is) admired and emulated world wide.
If something is not done by the next administration then our 2020 financial crisis will make Greece’s default look like a pimple on the ass of the Jolly Green Giant.
I want to be more optimistic, trust me I do, but when I see a debt that almost seems insurmountable, a lackluster energy plan (BTW, President Bush introduced a comprehensive energy plan in 2004, which was highly criticized, is now the resulting in the drilling on private land), a seemingly insolvent social security system, a Medicare/health care monster (people living longer and that by 2020 an estimated 70% of male and females will be considered obese) potentially breaking the bank on the horizon it’s hard to shout from the mountaintop. As a 48-year old man who has almost 20 years to retirement, I do not see a rainbow, but more of a storm.
Many of my liberal friends call me several things, one being that I live in a bubble, or that I am just plain wrong. Well, if being reasonable, practical, realistic, honest, and personally responsible is living in a bubble, I’ll take it. And, as always, GBA.
If you were born from 1943-1954, your full retirement eligibility kicks in at 66-yrs old. If you were born in 1960, full retirement benefits kick in at 67-yrs old. So, you will be eligible for social security at age 67, and that would occur in 2027.
Of course, you can get benefits as early as age 62, but your benefits are far less than what you would get at 67, or you could wait until your 70 and enjoy greater benefits.
Now, here’s the real rub, if you make a certain amount in social security, those benefits may be taxed. That’s right, taxed. Nearly one-third of retirees pay taxes on their social security income. Ah, what a racket!
Also, if you are fortunate to work with a company, organization, agency that has its own separate pension plan, then you could enjoy a less stressful retirement. I am speaking to many teachers in this article, and although we have a separate retirement pension, we are seeing that some of those benefits are now being manipulated and massaged.
For those born in 1970, your benefits at 67 will kick in 2037, a year after the experts predict that only 77-percent of benefits will be able to be matched. What does that mean? Either benefits will be significantly reduced or people will be taxed beyond comprehension.
Again, I am a simple man, so I try to boil complex things down to as simple a solution/result/explanation as possible.
SS is a pay as you go system. Retirees right now rely on the current work force to pay their benefits. In 1950 there were 5 people working for every person retired, and because of that payroll taxes were 2% (1% employee, 1% employer). Today, there are 2 workers for every retiree and payroll taxes are 15.30% (7.65% employee, 7.65% employer). The President’s recent payroll “tax holiday” reduces payroll taxes by 2%, of which about 105 Billion was lost in SS revenue. More on that was chronicled in Part I of this article.
As of this time there is a surplus in the social security system due to the fact that in times past the Federal Govt. was able to convert those surpluses into, get this, Federal Bonds, so in essence borrowing from itself to pay itself. Sounds like fuzzy math to me.
So what does this mean to those born from 1960-1970? According to most experts, the Baby Boomers are going to completely exhaust the system. There is so much focus on them right now that the generation that follows them will not get the attention they need or deserve, and who will most likely have to endure some of the deepest cuts or have to endure a defunct system that cannot support them? That’s right the decade beginning with those born in 1960.
The information below indicates such.
The Problem
• Social Security is an "unfunded" income transfer scheme—the benefits paid out to retirees are financed by taxing the current income of working people.
• It is not a "funded" approach, where an individual's taxes would be invested, and the proceeds used to provide their retirement benefits (like an IRA or a 401k).
• This system worked for decades because there were many workers and few beneficiaries—16 to 1 when the program started.
• Because of declining birth rates and increased life expectancy, there are now only 3 workers for each beneficiary, and soon there will be only 2. The system will not be able to support itself with so few workers to pay for so many beneficiaries.
• According to the best estimates, the Social Security system will go into the red in 2017—just over a decade from now. Here is an even more alarming statistic. According to this article, written in 2007, and I apologize for not having the source, I read about 10 separate articles from a variety of websites. The system is already beginning to be in the red. It has accelerated in terms of losses, and especially with the slow recovery the revenues just aren’t there, and yet the President pushed the payroll “tax holiday” anyway.
• In 2041, less than 25 years later, it will be completely out of money.
• If we continue under the current system, the only way to address this problem is to either cut Social Security benefits or raise payroll taxes. But even these will only put off the problem, not solve it.
The problem is not just one that can be pushed down the field for another day. There are two systems looming very large and do not seem to have any foreseeable solution: health care and social security. In 2010, health care and social security consumed 40% of the total federal budget, not too bad, right? Also, defense consumed another 20%. Safety net programs and interest on the debt were another 20%. However, it’s what the future holds that concerns me most. Again, I admire the President for his idea to have everyone covered, but by 2025, and that is just over a decade from now, social security and health care will consume more than 70% of the total budget. Think about that for a second. Imagine your budget and that two items consume more than 70% of your household budget, and maybe for some it is, like a house and a car. You have 30% for the rest. And to further obligate the government just sounds counter-intuitive to me.
We have education, infrastructure, defense, commerce, trying to pay down the debt or default, etc. and only 30% to work it in to the total budget. If this does not frighten anyone under 50 you need a refresher course on “That scares the sh** out of me.”
In 1984 there was a similar problem with social security, but then Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, came up with the idea to save social security by creating the so called, “lock box” that is sometimes used as a political football. But in today’s political environment, I am appalled at the lack of foresight by so many politicians who only care about the next election rather than the next 20/30/40 years. But you know what, why should we be surprised? We have so many Americans who can’t even see past next week, or their next paycheck. I believe there are so many people who are unaware and one day will be subject to being told what to do, how to do it, and when to do it; which contrasts with a young generation that seems to have its own idea about doing whatever they want, wherever they want, and however they want. Oh, the irony is not lost on us reasonable people, I assure you.
Look, The Bottom Line is that neither party can run from this. They can’t just “hope” that the economy bounces back and our country becomes a beacon for unprecedented economic growth. You know what I see as a growing problem? The Administration and many on the Liberal Left love to target the rich man, or at least the one that doesn’t agree with them, so what I think we are seeing is that guy on Wall Street is going into defensive mode. He sees what’s going on and is looking to protect his family. It’s a natural defense mechanism. Once someone knows that someone is after them what do they do? They hunker down. They begin to protect and hoard. If a financial Armageddon is on the horizon, how could anyone blame someone for trying to protect their interests?
I encourage you to read the following information posted by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), scroll down to The Budget Outlook and prepare to be awakened. And even the CBO has to readjust their numbers. What they projected as an annual deficit for 2012 of 1.11 trillion has been readjusted to 1.12 trillion. That doesn’t sound like a lot, but most of you understand how things can increase exponentially, and that would be very dangerous for our financial health.
Lastly, the Bush tax cuts, which have been roundly criticized as adding to our debt, and yes, they may have had some impact on it, but if they are so bad why did President Obama have to move forward with yet another round of tax cuts? If the President meant what he said, then he should have discontinued the Bush tax cuts and that added debt would have discontinued, but he saw that he couldn’t and even had to go so far as to provide yet another round of tax cuts.
The Bottom Line?
The federal government spends way too much money. Their priorities have gotten us so far down the railroad track that any brake system will inevitably cause whiplash, and no party wants that to happen, so we continue down the track with no brakes, or very little brakes, and if we don’t get a grip on “reality” and stop thinking that money can just be printed or mysteriously wiped away with an eraser, those people are sadly mistaken. Try that number with your lenders and see how far you get.
Politicians need to think more seriously about the financial future of this country instead of pointing fingers at one’s faith as being too radical, or whether the contraception argument is more about women’s rights or religious rights (can’t we all agree that it’s both and just move the heck on?) or the class warfare issue (which is dirty politics), or pie in the sky hopes and dreams, let’s be realistic and get this country back on a strong financial track; one that was (not is) admired and emulated world wide.
If something is not done by the next administration then our 2020 financial crisis will make Greece’s default look like a pimple on the ass of the Jolly Green Giant.
I want to be more optimistic, trust me I do, but when I see a debt that almost seems insurmountable, a lackluster energy plan (BTW, President Bush introduced a comprehensive energy plan in 2004, which was highly criticized, is now the resulting in the drilling on private land), a seemingly insolvent social security system, a Medicare/health care monster (people living longer and that by 2020 an estimated 70% of male and females will be considered obese) potentially breaking the bank on the horizon it’s hard to shout from the mountaintop. As a 48-year old man who has almost 20 years to retirement, I do not see a rainbow, but more of a storm.
Many of my liberal friends call me several things, one being that I live in a bubble, or that I am just plain wrong. Well, if being reasonable, practical, realistic, honest, and personally responsible is living in a bubble, I’ll take it. And, as always, GBA.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
The Lost Decade: Born from 1960-1970, Part I
Ironically, and completely unintended, I post this blog on the Ides of March; a time known as the assassination of Julius Caesar and synonymous with a "time of foreboding."
The following essay is broken down into two parts because it is very important and there is a lot of information to put out. The first part of the article addresses the current “tax holiday” and some historical perspective and referencing regarding social security, which the media often overlooks when it does not meet their agenda or narrative. This bleeds into my overall theme of the title The Lost Decade: Born from 1960-1970. it is my view that this particular decade of babies will be affected by the Baby Boomers that will dominate the retirement landscape very soon and the Gen Xers that followed will rely heavily on Millenials and Gen Zers for their retirement, but I digress.
As most of you are aware we are now in the second year of a “tax holiday” that was only supposed to last one year, but since the economy has been so slow to recover – I wonder why – the “tax holiday” was extended for another year.
Side note: We were hit on 9.11.2001, one of the worst economic attacks on this nation. We had to reconfigure our whole security structure in the United States. Companies, businesses, states, our Federal government all had to be reconfigured to meet current and future physical security threats. States’ revenues plummeted due to fears and lack of travel/tourism, and to all the costs incurred by security spending either in technology or manpower. Not to mention, we had that little squabble in Afghanistan that we were dealing with, but by 2003 we were back on our feet kicking ass once again.
This current so called economic disaster began in 2008, admittedly by both parties. A different dynamic choked the economy, and one I felt was improperly dealt with. It is now 2012 and there is no real end on the horizon for this economy to bounce back as robust as it was from 2003-2007. Experts still do not know if we have bottomed out on the real estate bubble. My point is, the government tried to infuse hundreds of billions of dollars to save us from deeper depression. We bailed out companies on the verge of collapse, then there was the stimulus, TARP (Bush’s greatest mistake) and yet we are still mired in a sluggish recovery. The administration levied some of the harshest regulations on ALL banks that they could not loan money. What man in their right mind would do such a thing, knowing it would stifle growth and/or recovery? Add insult to misery, our debt has only worsened and threatens the very future of our financial solvency, power, and influence, yet the man gets a virtual pass. I don’t get it.
What should have been done, and I am a simple man folks, is that the government should have immediately enacted business tax cuts, because after all, small businesses are not Wall Street, they’re Main Street remember, the one’s so many politicians love to tout. Also, the government could have made a deal with the banks to immediately reduce mortgage rates for every homeowner, not just those about to slide to “under water” status. I have argued this point since 2009. Yes, that would have placed a temporary burden on banks accounting sheets, but the government could have guaranteed a recoup, if not total pay out recovery for the banks burdens. Look what they did for the heavy handed auto industry. Hmm? Which, by the way, how many small dealerships did we see go out of business during this process? A lot.
The Liberals seem to care more about social engineering than they do about our financial influence around the world. As a weird analogy, steroids will only get you so far, and this administration’s policies seem to hinge on then candidate Obama’s motto: Hope and Change. If we pump (steroids) the economy will bounce back quickly, but again the short sightedness of this administration surely knows you cannot manipulate a naturally occurring event. Hence, the “natural” economy thus far has fiercely rejected the notion it can be manipulated, but with businesses “naturally” being proactive and entrepreneurial, the economy is beginning to “naturally” rebound, which Obama is “Hoping” for. Did I use enough quotation marks there to drive home my point? This is a whole other argument so I will stop there.
Back to the social security/”tax holiday” issue: In a December 15, 2011 New York Times article, Disagreement Over Payroll Tax Cut’s Impact on Social Security, Jackie Calmes states,
Social Security is essentially a pay-as-you-go system, with payroll taxes from workers flowing back out to retirees, survivors and the disabled. Last year, before the tax cut, the system for the first time since 1983 collected less in taxes than it paid out to 55 million beneficiaries — $49 billion less.
The program’s operating deficits will grow as more of the 78 million baby boomers become eligible. But trust fund reserves built up over years of annual surpluses will not run out until 2036, when tax revenues will cover three-quarters of benefits, trustees project.
55 million retirees to a high of 78 million is surely a worrisome figure.
To the naked eye this sounds okay, and the liberals are so happy to provide this “tax holiday” to the middle and lower class. This is a temporary band-aid to a deep wound that will be social security in about 20 years, but there is a segment of Congress that does not worry about that because you can always tax the rich and create that revenue. Now that’s real vision there. The facts state there are less workers kicking into the social security fund these days and therefore revenues will be significantly reduced over the next two decades. And these happy go lucky liberals want to create a more dependent society? Where is all the money going to come from? It’s a double edge sword. If there are less workers and you are creating more government dependency, who in the world is going to pay for all of this? The picture is getting clearer isn’t it? However, and cleverly disguised, this puts the Republicans in a tricky situation. If they disagree with the tax holiday they will be seen as being against the middle class, meanwhile opposing taxes for the upper class, they will be seen as anti-middle/lower class. You see the plan? I knew you would.
The article goes on to say that, “Sixty-one liberals in the House, nearly one-third of the Democrats there, wrote to Mr. Obama in July to say they were “gravely concerned that yet another, unacceptable cut to Social Security’s revenue stream appears to be on the table.”
Six years ago, Democrats successfully derailed President George W. Bush’s plan to partially privatize Social Security by letting workers divert 2 percentage points of their payroll taxes to personal retirement accounts.
Charles Blahous, Mr. Bush’s adviser on the issue, recently wrote that the payroll tax cut and the extension that Mr. Obama initially proposed would reduce revenues to Social Security more over two years than Mr. Bush’s plan would have over its first decade. The Bush plan, however, also would have reduced workers’ future benefits commensurate with the taxes they diverted to personal accounts — a feature that helped defeat the proposal.
First of all, read the last sentence again… Why would it matter if future benefits were reduced if people were able to invest and perhaps gain greater interest and/or money for those personal accounts? It’s a personal risk, and clearly up to the individual. The Democrats were basically saying we don’t trust you to make your own decision. I don’t want to make this discussion about tax cuts, and I am no financial wizard, but here is what that long quote tells me. The payroll tax was at 6.2%, meaning both employer and employee paid that amount. If you have ever owned a business, you know that paying quarterly employee taxes is required. When you get your paycheck there is a standard payroll deduction of 6.2%, and that comes out of your paycheck and the employer also pays 6.2% for each employee, so in essence the government gets two taxes for one individual. The current payroll tax cut is a benefit for both the employee and employer in that we are now paying a 4% payroll tax. However, what that creates is a void in revenue being set aside for social security.
Liberals will argue that this “tax holiday” which has now been extended to 2 years, would not really affect social security in the long run, but to rob social security of more than 100 billion dollars in the first year, and most likely the second year, you cannot tell me that does not create some issues in the overall scheme of things. Do the math, 200 plus billion added to the current revenue gaining a modest interest over a twenty year period is not significant?
Critics felt that President Bush’s social security plan of diverting 2% to individual savings accounts would rob social security of those potential revenues. What the Democrats didn’t like was that perhaps that same 2% being touted by the Left for the “tax holiday” did not want to let go of that 2% in the system creating a greater interest earnings and yet they argue that the current tax holiday will not significantly impact social security revenues. Hmm?
Okay, here’s the bottom line, if young people were able to take that 2% and divert it to a personal savings, 401, IRA, whatever, they would be able to create an avenue of building a nest egg separate of social security. The media cleverly clouded the issue by saying that what if those investments go bad and people start to lose money? It’s a good question, but the argument for long term investment is and has been good/healthy/robust, and that is why it’s called personal savings account, meaning personal responsibility and care. Conversely, this “tax holiday” does not get replaced and most people are probably bringing in an additional $30-40 a month. That is being offset by higher gas prices, grocery prices, etc. Again, critics would argue, well at least they are able to continue to buy gas or groceries. If we had created an energy plan when President Bush wanted to, maybe we wouldn’t be at the whims of this crazy market and hostage to foreign oil, or reduced domestic production.
In another article, How Payroll Tax Cut Affects Social Security’s Future, by David Welna of National Public Radio (NPR). Note the two articles I pulled this information were not from FOX news or the Wall Street Journal, but the New York Times and NPR, not exactly conservative bastions.
This particular article pointed out three facts. One: “Last year, for the first time in its 75-year history, SS took in less money than it paid out.” Two: This year, [2011] the first baby boomers reached retirement age and began collecting SS benefits. And Three: The payroll tax holiday that Congress approved a year ago reduced SS revenues by $105 billion.” This year roughly the same amount is predicted. So, that is more than 200 billion dollars not going toward SS.
I am not making this up, and do we even want to start talking about the debt? The article continued to point out that, “Obama showed no sign of being troubled by those facts at a White House press briefing by saying, ‘It will help families pay their bills, it will spur spending, it will spur hiring, and it’s the right thing to do.’”
This is a long term solvency issue, not just some hiccup along the way. I am not surprised by the President’s reaction, and the part about spurring hiring? Last year was the first year for this “tax holiday” and the unemployment rates were showing some positive signs, so let's see if they are falling as a result of this plan, or if it's just America being America with its capitalist structure that oftentimes dwells in the land of "survival" and will, at all costs, do what it can to survive.
We’re just burning facts here folks, burning the heck out of facts.
This brings to a close Part One; Part Two will deal more with how this affects the Lost Decade overall. I hope you click in to find out more.
The following essay is broken down into two parts because it is very important and there is a lot of information to put out. The first part of the article addresses the current “tax holiday” and some historical perspective and referencing regarding social security, which the media often overlooks when it does not meet their agenda or narrative. This bleeds into my overall theme of the title The Lost Decade: Born from 1960-1970. it is my view that this particular decade of babies will be affected by the Baby Boomers that will dominate the retirement landscape very soon and the Gen Xers that followed will rely heavily on Millenials and Gen Zers for their retirement, but I digress.
As most of you are aware we are now in the second year of a “tax holiday” that was only supposed to last one year, but since the economy has been so slow to recover – I wonder why – the “tax holiday” was extended for another year.
Side note: We were hit on 9.11.2001, one of the worst economic attacks on this nation. We had to reconfigure our whole security structure in the United States. Companies, businesses, states, our Federal government all had to be reconfigured to meet current and future physical security threats. States’ revenues plummeted due to fears and lack of travel/tourism, and to all the costs incurred by security spending either in technology or manpower. Not to mention, we had that little squabble in Afghanistan that we were dealing with, but by 2003 we were back on our feet kicking ass once again.
This current so called economic disaster began in 2008, admittedly by both parties. A different dynamic choked the economy, and one I felt was improperly dealt with. It is now 2012 and there is no real end on the horizon for this economy to bounce back as robust as it was from 2003-2007. Experts still do not know if we have bottomed out on the real estate bubble. My point is, the government tried to infuse hundreds of billions of dollars to save us from deeper depression. We bailed out companies on the verge of collapse, then there was the stimulus, TARP (Bush’s greatest mistake) and yet we are still mired in a sluggish recovery. The administration levied some of the harshest regulations on ALL banks that they could not loan money. What man in their right mind would do such a thing, knowing it would stifle growth and/or recovery? Add insult to misery, our debt has only worsened and threatens the very future of our financial solvency, power, and influence, yet the man gets a virtual pass. I don’t get it.
What should have been done, and I am a simple man folks, is that the government should have immediately enacted business tax cuts, because after all, small businesses are not Wall Street, they’re Main Street remember, the one’s so many politicians love to tout. Also, the government could have made a deal with the banks to immediately reduce mortgage rates for every homeowner, not just those about to slide to “under water” status. I have argued this point since 2009. Yes, that would have placed a temporary burden on banks accounting sheets, but the government could have guaranteed a recoup, if not total pay out recovery for the banks burdens. Look what they did for the heavy handed auto industry. Hmm? Which, by the way, how many small dealerships did we see go out of business during this process? A lot.
The Liberals seem to care more about social engineering than they do about our financial influence around the world. As a weird analogy, steroids will only get you so far, and this administration’s policies seem to hinge on then candidate Obama’s motto: Hope and Change. If we pump (steroids) the economy will bounce back quickly, but again the short sightedness of this administration surely knows you cannot manipulate a naturally occurring event. Hence, the “natural” economy thus far has fiercely rejected the notion it can be manipulated, but with businesses “naturally” being proactive and entrepreneurial, the economy is beginning to “naturally” rebound, which Obama is “Hoping” for. Did I use enough quotation marks there to drive home my point? This is a whole other argument so I will stop there.
Back to the social security/”tax holiday” issue: In a December 15, 2011 New York Times article, Disagreement Over Payroll Tax Cut’s Impact on Social Security, Jackie Calmes states,
Social Security is essentially a pay-as-you-go system, with payroll taxes from workers flowing back out to retirees, survivors and the disabled. Last year, before the tax cut, the system for the first time since 1983 collected less in taxes than it paid out to 55 million beneficiaries — $49 billion less.
The program’s operating deficits will grow as more of the 78 million baby boomers become eligible. But trust fund reserves built up over years of annual surpluses will not run out until 2036, when tax revenues will cover three-quarters of benefits, trustees project.
55 million retirees to a high of 78 million is surely a worrisome figure.
To the naked eye this sounds okay, and the liberals are so happy to provide this “tax holiday” to the middle and lower class. This is a temporary band-aid to a deep wound that will be social security in about 20 years, but there is a segment of Congress that does not worry about that because you can always tax the rich and create that revenue. Now that’s real vision there. The facts state there are less workers kicking into the social security fund these days and therefore revenues will be significantly reduced over the next two decades. And these happy go lucky liberals want to create a more dependent society? Where is all the money going to come from? It’s a double edge sword. If there are less workers and you are creating more government dependency, who in the world is going to pay for all of this? The picture is getting clearer isn’t it? However, and cleverly disguised, this puts the Republicans in a tricky situation. If they disagree with the tax holiday they will be seen as being against the middle class, meanwhile opposing taxes for the upper class, they will be seen as anti-middle/lower class. You see the plan? I knew you would.
The article goes on to say that, “Sixty-one liberals in the House, nearly one-third of the Democrats there, wrote to Mr. Obama in July to say they were “gravely concerned that yet another, unacceptable cut to Social Security’s revenue stream appears to be on the table.”
Six years ago, Democrats successfully derailed President George W. Bush’s plan to partially privatize Social Security by letting workers divert 2 percentage points of their payroll taxes to personal retirement accounts.
Charles Blahous, Mr. Bush’s adviser on the issue, recently wrote that the payroll tax cut and the extension that Mr. Obama initially proposed would reduce revenues to Social Security more over two years than Mr. Bush’s plan would have over its first decade. The Bush plan, however, also would have reduced workers’ future benefits commensurate with the taxes they diverted to personal accounts — a feature that helped defeat the proposal.
First of all, read the last sentence again… Why would it matter if future benefits were reduced if people were able to invest and perhaps gain greater interest and/or money for those personal accounts? It’s a personal risk, and clearly up to the individual. The Democrats were basically saying we don’t trust you to make your own decision. I don’t want to make this discussion about tax cuts, and I am no financial wizard, but here is what that long quote tells me. The payroll tax was at 6.2%, meaning both employer and employee paid that amount. If you have ever owned a business, you know that paying quarterly employee taxes is required. When you get your paycheck there is a standard payroll deduction of 6.2%, and that comes out of your paycheck and the employer also pays 6.2% for each employee, so in essence the government gets two taxes for one individual. The current payroll tax cut is a benefit for both the employee and employer in that we are now paying a 4% payroll tax. However, what that creates is a void in revenue being set aside for social security.
Liberals will argue that this “tax holiday” which has now been extended to 2 years, would not really affect social security in the long run, but to rob social security of more than 100 billion dollars in the first year, and most likely the second year, you cannot tell me that does not create some issues in the overall scheme of things. Do the math, 200 plus billion added to the current revenue gaining a modest interest over a twenty year period is not significant?
Critics felt that President Bush’s social security plan of diverting 2% to individual savings accounts would rob social security of those potential revenues. What the Democrats didn’t like was that perhaps that same 2% being touted by the Left for the “tax holiday” did not want to let go of that 2% in the system creating a greater interest earnings and yet they argue that the current tax holiday will not significantly impact social security revenues. Hmm?
Okay, here’s the bottom line, if young people were able to take that 2% and divert it to a personal savings, 401, IRA, whatever, they would be able to create an avenue of building a nest egg separate of social security. The media cleverly clouded the issue by saying that what if those investments go bad and people start to lose money? It’s a good question, but the argument for long term investment is and has been good/healthy/robust, and that is why it’s called personal savings account, meaning personal responsibility and care. Conversely, this “tax holiday” does not get replaced and most people are probably bringing in an additional $30-40 a month. That is being offset by higher gas prices, grocery prices, etc. Again, critics would argue, well at least they are able to continue to buy gas or groceries. If we had created an energy plan when President Bush wanted to, maybe we wouldn’t be at the whims of this crazy market and hostage to foreign oil, or reduced domestic production.
In another article, How Payroll Tax Cut Affects Social Security’s Future, by David Welna of National Public Radio (NPR). Note the two articles I pulled this information were not from FOX news or the Wall Street Journal, but the New York Times and NPR, not exactly conservative bastions.
This particular article pointed out three facts. One: “Last year, for the first time in its 75-year history, SS took in less money than it paid out.” Two: This year, [2011] the first baby boomers reached retirement age and began collecting SS benefits. And Three: The payroll tax holiday that Congress approved a year ago reduced SS revenues by $105 billion.” This year roughly the same amount is predicted. So, that is more than 200 billion dollars not going toward SS.
I am not making this up, and do we even want to start talking about the debt? The article continued to point out that, “Obama showed no sign of being troubled by those facts at a White House press briefing by saying, ‘It will help families pay their bills, it will spur spending, it will spur hiring, and it’s the right thing to do.’”
This is a long term solvency issue, not just some hiccup along the way. I am not surprised by the President’s reaction, and the part about spurring hiring? Last year was the first year for this “tax holiday” and the unemployment rates were showing some positive signs, so let's see if they are falling as a result of this plan, or if it's just America being America with its capitalist structure that oftentimes dwells in the land of "survival" and will, at all costs, do what it can to survive.
We’re just burning facts here folks, burning the heck out of facts.
This brings to a close Part One; Part Two will deal more with how this affects the Lost Decade overall. I hope you click in to find out more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)