In a little under 181 days, Americans will head to the voting booths to decide who will be president for the next four years. The committed Left and Democrats will vote for Barack Obama. The committed Right and Republicans, though not all not at all Conservatives, will vote for Mitt Romney.

Stuck in the middle will be the independents, liberal Republicans, and conservative Democrats. These are the people Obama and Romney will be fighting over to secure the White House. The campaign will be brutal, it will be hard fought and each man will try to sell his vision of America to the voters he needs. It is this last part, “a vision of America,” that will really be at the heart of the 2012 presidential election.

Within a 200-year span, America has become the most powerful and successful country in the history of the world. It did not accomplish this because its citizens are smarter; they are not. America accomplished this because its system of governance, the framework of capitalism and the idea of freedom for every individual in regards to their purpose in life.

These things allowed the people of America to capitalize on the huge amount of resources at America’s disposal. It has not always been pretty, but the U.S. is still the best country for an ambitious, poor person to live.

In November of 2012, we will, for the first time since the founding of this country, decide whether that will remain the case. The country has reached a tipping point. The President has increased the debt so high, so fast that we are a short distance from financial collapse.

Many in the country want more entitlements, more spending, more benefits, in two or three years Supreme Court Justice Kennedy will retire, leaving open a slot that could Left or Right, depending on this election. President Obama represents one path, Governor Romney another path.

On the Left 

In one corner, we have Barack Obama, a man who exemplifies one set of choices. America needs to be transformed, changed and humbled. We know this because this is what the president has told us. Throughout his campaign, he preached the ideas of change and transformation. On the day of his electoral win, his victory speech was capped off with the words, “Change has come to America.”

His two signature programs would be a stimulus package of nearly a trillion dollars, followed up with increases in every single social program the government has with the coup de grace being the ‘Obamacare’ law that took the country one step closer to single-payer healthcare.

In the last three years, change and transformation have meant spending more money, according to the Congressional Budget Office, than all previous presidents combined. In order to pay for this, Mr. Obama has fallen on the politics of envy, telling millions of high-income Americans they are not paying their fair share.

Indeed, in the next election, it has almost become a repeated mantra of his: “Pay their fair share,” “Everyone needs to sacrifice and pay their fair share,” or “Everyone needs to pay their fair share, and do their part.” The single fact that the top 10% of wage earners already pay 65 percent of the tax bill seems lost on the president and those that support him.

This is not an accusation or an assertion; it is on the White House webpage. It is easy for anyone to add up and see. This is the America that Barack Obama is fighting to create. A country where the few take care of the many and the government decides what you need.

The path he would take America on is one that the world has previously seen. It is a place where the state takes care of the citizen. It is the duty of the government to provide healthcare, education at all levels, determine rules for what is or is not fair. It is a government that spends large amounts of money on social programs designed to make a person’s life better, even if it means running their life.

On this path, businesses large and small are to be watched closely, regulated tightly, and provide something for the common populace to do during the day. To pay for this path, the government will play Robin Hood and take from society’s most productive people in order to pay for all the rest. What it cannot make up in tax revenue or confiscation, it will pay via loans and debt to other countries.

America today is a debtor nation, no different from the man hocking his computer to pay for his habit, except America’s drug of choice will be money for birth control, abortions, food stamps, or worst yet, another bridge with a politician’s name on it. Food stamp usage has increased under President Obama exponentially.

And despite the Democrats cry of racist foul play toward Newt Gingrich over calling President Obama the food stamp President, his reelection team is using a TV ad proclaiming proudly the increased usage. The battle over giving women, rich or poor, free birth control has become the policy mascot in the Democrats insistence that there is a “War on Women.”

This is the fiscal path that President Obama has chosen to lead the country on. This is the transformation he for which he is fighting, a change in the social contract. A contract that gives, and gives, and gives, regardless of the cost.

President Obama is the current standard-bearer for the liberal mindset, and that mindset is one of no judgments, and excuse-making. It is how you get gay marriage, not as an equal right, but as some sort of equivalency to normal marriage. It is why obesity is the fault of soda companies, McDonald’s, or not enough side walks in the country, and not a parent’s inability to say no to a five-year-old, or pull the honey bun away from his or her own mouth.

The issue of whether any of these examples: social spending, socialism, alternative life styles, etc., are okay or should be seen as acceptable is not the issue. The issue is that this is one path that America can take. This is one of the choices we face.

On the Right

In the other corner, we have the vision of the Right. A vision that says anyone with the drive and ambition can move from being poor to being a billionaire in their lifetime. Jorge M. Perez managed to do it, even though he came to this country poor, uneducated and unable to speak English. The President’s biggest cheerleader Oprah Winfrey did it, despite her well documented trials of physical abuse and rape. The vision being championed this time around by Mitt Romney wants all people to have the same opportunity as Winfrey, Perez and millions of other Americans.

It is a country where charity to the needy is golden, but the healthy must put in work. It is a country where the rules for business are simple: do not lie, cheat, or defraud the public and if you do, then you go to jail, but otherwise, do what you want. Do all businesses follow that path? No, they do not, and when they do not, they are punished.

Much in the same way we punish individuals for robbing banks, speeding, or physically assaulting someone, but we do not believe most people act in those ways. There is no transformation that needs to take place. The vision on the Right rejects the idea that we are a deeply flawed nation.

The views of how business should be treated is perhaps best illustrated in the tale of two states: California and Texas. California follows the dreams of the Left; high taxes, social Liberalism, tightly regulated businesses and, they have a 15 billion dollar deficit. Starting a business is costly and tedious, so businesses are leaving the state, along with their tax revenue and jobs. Many are going to Texas where taxes are low, and regulation is smart, but not onerous.

As a result Texas has low unemployment and has had low unemployment for years. The idea of making it harder to open a business is silly to those on the Right. Conservatives want a path that embraces the entrepreneurial spirit of each person, wants it to take flight, and when it does, congratulates you for being successful.

Individualism, personal responsibility, and personal choice is the path being fought for by Mitt Romney. As the standard-bearer for the Right, he is fighting to create or maintain a structure that encourages entrepreneur-ism and self-reliance. It is a view that says the needy get help, but everyone else needs to step up to the plate, and take care of themselves.

New ideas, new innovations, products, and services that help people and make individuals money, that is the path that built America and created all the tools we take for granted. The Imac, I-pod, and I-phone were not created in a department in Washington. No, Apple was founded in a garage by a bright individual, whose company has become a powerhouse that provides thousands of jobs, and billions in tax revenue.

Take your pick of a product cell phones, internet, cars, air conditioning, high tech medicine, shopping malls, and Walmart. These items did not come out of a government program. These products were not conceived in some over-bloated governmental department. Americans did this in a nation that is a capitalist society. It is the backbone of the Great American Experiment. We have a system in America that allows a 19-year-old freshman at Harvard create a business and product that changes the world.

It is a country that allows another company to create a product, called Farmville, for the aforementioned company founded by that 19-year-old and generate 340 million in revenue. This is the country America is, and this what the Right represents. A vision that does not just fight for the millionaire or billionaire, but for the right and ability of you, your kids, and grandkids to become a millionaire or billionaire yourself.

This is what the election is about. Who are we going to be as a country? Are we going to be a North American version of France with social programs for every citizen and a laissez-faire population, or are we going to be  Americans? In America we work hard, people that do not perform get fired (unless they are union teachers), and compared to the rest of the world our economy shows it.

In France, you get 8 weeks of vacation, you cannot be fired easily, and you get riots from people if they try to change retirement by two years. More important, their economy reflects that as well. France, and other countries with similar policies have stagnant economies, and a financial house that is crumbling even as you read these words.

This is not a bashing of France. Judging by the recent presidential vote, they are proud to be socialists. The issue is what America wants to be. Is the path of national healthcare, eight-week vacations, and a nanny state that polices where we want to go?

This election is the one that will answer that question.

There will be many long arguments in the coming weeks and months about which path is better. Make no mistake, this is the election that will be a defining one in your life, my life, and in the world. If we go in one direction, we could end up going the path of empires before us such as Rome, Carthage, the British Empire, etc.: into a path of slow decay. Not because the notion of helping others is bad, but because to give people stuff, you have to pay for it, and there is never enough money in a social democracy.

If this is not the case then why are Spain, Greece, France, Italy, Ireland and others finding out that truth today? If there is more than enough, then why is Europe a heartbeat away from collapsing economically? Depending on what direction this next election takes, America may find out the answer to those questions. If we move Left, we might not like the answer.

Image Courtesy of  K2 images / Shutterstock.com

The article America: What the 2012 Election is Really About appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The economic crisis batters a great part of the world. Countries that used to live the “American dream” now witness how the extensive wave of revelry and happiness has come to an end. Spain is one of the many countries that lived above their possibilities. The Spanish downturn has given rise to an excessive increase of unemployment and has been the perfect excuse for politicians to pull out their scissors and begin cutting public spending from their welfare state.

The Spanish people, who watch how the youth unemployment is more than 50 percent, have not taken long to point their fingers at the politicians. Spanish citizens accuse politicians of being responsible for the country’s irreversible state, which they believe is inevitable as a result of the electoral system, where only two teams play.

It is quite the opposite in the United States. Criticisms about the political ‘duel’ have not yet arrived. As a matter of fact, some citizens are proud of it. They say that in the United States, presidential elections gather the many political and social aspects that characterize this country. However, critics against the electoral system, such as Occupy Wall Street, have indeed begun to be heard and could amplify if the situation worsens.

Since George Washington set the foundations, the United States has visibly favored a two-party system, made up of two blocks in Congress. Supporters of this system see it as a way to preserve the democratic health of the country. Perhaps they may be right, but it is also true that reducing the possibilities to solely black and white might not be the best example of a democracy.

It is inarguable that in the elections more than two candidates are represented. However, these dissidents are hardly given any voice in comparison to the two giants. As if that were not enough, their campaigns seem ridiculous when judged against the big parties’ greatly funded campaigns.

In previous elections, most of the media hardly had any say about third party candidates, such as McKinney, who was parliamentary of the United States for many years, or Nader, the activist who presented himself as independent and who ended up being attacked about his credibility and pride.

The media should try to balance the budgetary instability of the current plutocratic regime and avoid instructing anyone with phrases like, “Voting for a candidate that is not a Democrat or Republican is a waste of your vote.” Let us remember that democracy is not a political calculation, but simply a way of expressing one’s support for a leader. Journalists, who are guarantors of freedom, should attempt to treat all parties fairly.

Image Courtesy of  Pete Souza (Source; Story) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

The article The Two-Party System: Playing Favorites appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Likely Republican nominee Mitt Romney has opened a six-point lead (46%-40%) over President Barack Obama in Virginia, according to The Roanoke College Poll.

The two were statistically tied in the College’s February poll. Republican George Allen maintains an eight-point lead (44%-36%) on Democrat Tim Kaine in the likely November matchup for the U.S. Senate seat from Virginia. The margin is unchanged from last month.

The Roanoke College Poll interviewed 603 Virginia residents between March 24 and April 5 and has a margin of error of +/-4%. Screening for registered voters (N=537) reduces Allen’s lead to seven points (46%-39%) and Romney’s lead to five points (46%-41%).

“While Mitt Romney fares well in the top-line numbers of this poll, looking beneath the surface suggests that his position is somewhat precarious,” said Harry Wilson, director of the Institute for Policy and Opinion Research.

“The commitment of his supporters lags significantly behind the commitment of President Obama’s supporters in several areas. While his lead over Obama has widened in a month, his favorable/unfavorable numbers and the fact that Virginians think Obama better understands their needs do not bode well for the likely Republican nominee.”

“The Allen/Kaine race has not changed since the last Roanoke College Poll. It is also interesting that Kaine is actually winning among Virginians with the highest income.”

“The results of this poll indicate a very high level of dissatisfaction on the part of Virginians. Approval of Obama and McDonnell and Congress are all down slightly, and perceptions of the state and the country have declined as well.

Both Presidential candidates have higher unfavorable than favorable ratings. Virginians are a disgruntled group right now.”

Image Courtesy of    Gage Skidmore

The article Romney Opens Lead Over Obama but Faces Enthusiasm Gap appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The Occupy Wall Street movement tapped into anger about bank bailouts, crony capitalism and corporate welfare, but it turns out that most Americans are mad at the federal government and not their banks. A new Reason-Rupe Poll finds 76 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of their banks and just 15 percent view them unfavorably.

In contrast, only 32 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the federal government. Sixty-two percent of voters rate the federal government unfavorably.

Forty-nine percent of Americans approve of the job President Obama is doing, with 47 percent disapproving. Only 13 percent approve of the job Congress is doing, 80 percent disapprove.

Fifty-four percent of Americans also say they are more worried that the federal government will do something to make the economy worse, while 40 percent are more worried that the government will fail to take action on the economy.

State governments are more popular than the feds, but only half of all Americans view them positively. As you get closer to home, 58 percent of Americans have positive views of their local governments, and the same number look upon their local school districts favorably.

The survey finds people feel a lot better about private businesses. For example, 88 percent of Americans have a positive view of their grocery stores; 73 percent look favorably upon their cell phone makers; and 69 percent say they view their Internet service providers favorably.

If Ron Paul does not win the Republican presidential nomination, he is the best positioned candidate to make a third-party or independent run, according to the Reason-Rupe poll. Thirty-four percent of Americans say they would consider voting for Paul if he ran as an independent or third-party presidential candidate.

A similar number, 31 percent, say they would consider voting for New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, if he made an independent run for the White House in 2012.

Sarah Palin said it is “not too late for folks to jump in” to the presidential race. If Palin left the Republican Party and ran as an independent, 27 percent of voters say they might vote for her. The problem for Palin: 67 percent of Americans would not consider voting for her in that scenario.

It has been reported that former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson is considering running as the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate. Twenty-one percent of voters say they’d consider voting for Johnson, while 29 percent say they do not know enough about him yet.

In terms of the 2012 presidential election, 29 percent of Americans say they will definitely vote for President Obama next November and 44 percent say they will not vote for him.

In a memorable Republican presidential debate moment last month, Texas Governor Rick Perry could not remember the third government agency he would eliminate if elected president.  And another GOP candidate, Ron Paul, says if he is elected he will get rid of five federal agencies: Commerce, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, and Interior.

So which federal agencies are the American people most willing to eliminate or consolidate? Forty-five percent of Americans are ready to eliminate the Department of Housing and Urban Development and 41 percent would eliminate the Department of Energy.

The Department of Education was on both Paul’s and Perry’s lists to cut, but 61 percent of Americans want to keep the Department of Education and just 34 percent say eliminate it.

The article Banks Are Seen More Positively Than Federal Government appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.