The election ended and the crowds in bars and taverns where filled with joyous customers.  Imbibing drink after drink and speaking merrily of the salvation from the previous party.  The new President, according to the merry makers would bring new jobs, reconstruction, reestablishment of known freedoms, and bring home the troops.

The crowds spoke of how the labor would be saved by the tumultuous competition that was unfair to them.  In other moments they spoke of how unfair and stupid the previous administration was for making the trade deals they had made.

As the election ended and the economy plunged into darker territory, fear gripped the nation, but the new President would have many solutions.  He’d save us from our own mistakes by applying what the previous President had done to create the mistakes.  Many where sure of this, and they where ready to put their money down – or more realistically to trigger those credit cards again for some purchases!  For no doubt, the Federal Reserve would fix things by printing more money or making money cheap and easy.  Somehow, someway, some miracle would bring us through!

The days before the inauguration brought tears to the eyes of many women, who now felt empowered to go about their business.  They thought, finally, “we won’t have to listen to the other side and their sexist demeaning ramblings”.  These ladies thought, “we’ll stand on our own in the world of business now with this new leader”.  In fact they would.

Men stood by solemnly, wanting to move further ahead in business.  Many men wanted to provide for their families, some wanting tradition, some just wanting to know that they could find a job.  The new President gave them hope, not particularly because they where prepared, but because the previous President was a let down.

Millions however, still stood apathetic in the face of the media blitz.

These stories tell of what I saw, at the end of an election cycle at the end of a two term President.

Deja Vu

The strange thing is, this has happened to me twice.  Once just recently, with the inauguration set.  The irrational joys bring fear to me as I know how things pan out afterwards, at least according to past Presidents taking the throne of power.  The other however, was 8 years ago when George W. Bush took office.  Revered in the red counties as one who would give the farmers an ability to stand up again.  Someone who would bring the troops home.  Either way, one sees the same emotional responses, you just have to be in the right place.

The only real question though, that is left, is will Obama be different?  I’d garner that the real question is how different will he be?  Will this scenario get replayed again in 8 years?  One thing is for sure, I’m up for something, I wouldn’t call it change, but Obama seems to at least spurring something.  Let’s hope it doesn’t become irrational exuberance, and hopefully America will get a little sober in it’s drunken binges of easy money.

We shall see.

He's back!  ??  Really?  Maybe Obama has been listening to Ron Paul and crew after all.  Better to tighten down and get to the dry dock to fix this financial collapse than to try and keep this ship afloat.  Mr. Volcker is probably a good candidate to help with that.  So far, I must admit, I'm impressed by Obama's fast pace at naming new administration members and such.  He's being more pragmatic than I originally thought he would be.  Of course, this will piss off tons of Democrats, especially Socialist Democrats, but really what we need is for him to look at the options and use reason in application of policy.

He's already shaping up to be more free market than George Bush (who is probably one of our most socialist of President's, ironically enough).  Obama is pushing for tax breaks, keeping Bush's until their expiration, and has pushed for Volcker and other stronger money policies.  This is almost against the Democrat's historical tendency.  Oh the craziness - I guess Democrat's are fairly pragmatic though, and the core beliefs of the party are as wrought with idiocy as the Republicans.  Oh well, dibs to Obama.

Now if only we can get the Government removed from the nationalization business of taking over large shares of banks and other financial entities.  What we really need, is a Pierpont Morgan again, because obviously the Government (Paulson and such) doesn't seem to have a clear cut idea or direction in what they're doing.  Morgon, as his actions showed, had a talent for laying things straight and honest.

So, no clear sight on this whole financial collapse yet, but I'm starting to figure out what is going on from the insides.  Some of my intuition is right and some is wrong so far.  Overall though my intuition has been leading me in a good direction.  Anyway, that's enough bantering for tonight, I have some turkey and such to eat tomorrow and am off to begin preparations...

Larry Elder points out in a recent article he writes about the hypocrisy of charitable giving on the lefty and righty candidates and existing President.

"Liberal families earn about 6 percent more than conservative families, yet conservative households donate about 30 percent more to charity than do liberal households. And conservatives give more than just to their own churches and other houses of worship. Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, give far more money and donate more of their time to nonreligious charitable causes than do liberals — especially secular liberals.

In 2007, President George W. Bush and his wife had an adjusted gross income of $923,807. They paid $221,635 in taxes, and donated to charity $165,660 — 18 percent of their income.

Vice President and Mrs. Cheney, in 2007, had a taxable income of $3.04 million. And they paid $602,651 in taxes, and donated to charity $166,547 — 5.5 percent of their income.

Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned between $200,000 and $300,000 a year between 2000 and 2004, and they donated less than 1 percent to charity. When their income soared to $4.2 million in 2007, their charitable contributions went up to 5 percent.

Joe and Jill Biden, by contrast, made $319,853 and gave $995 to charity in 2007, or 0.3 percent of their income. And that was during the year Biden was running for president. Over the past 10 years, the Bidens earned $2,450,042 and gave $3,690 to charity — or 0.1 percent of their income."

Of course, I'm for whatever you want to give.  I don't really have many programs I can honestly support that are "charitable".  I don't particular care that either of these groups of people gave as much or as little as they did, but it really points out how absurd the common belief of bleeding heart liberals and tight wad conservatives is.  Matter of fact, it just goes to show how absurd both side's arguments are as is often the case.  Seriously you Republicans and Democrats need to sit down and review your facts before lobbing talking points at each other.

As for charity, I find it amazingly odd that the Dems often want the Government, by force, to take your money and provide some form of charity.  Meanwhile Republicans give their money away like crazy and generally do something about the needy themselves.  Very strange reversal of perceived ideals.

Anyway, this is a good point to keep in mind for arguments and debate, for now, I'm again off to do something more useful.