COMPLETE PULLOUT OF IRAQ

Rumor has it that President Obama is going to keep his promise to pull out of Iraq by pulling out all Combat Troops but leave 50,000 troops there to help control the terrorists. To some, troops with a mission to help control terrorists could be called combat troops.

The administration could pull out all of our troops as promised, and cooperate with the UN to take over the mission of helping to control terrorists in Iraq, providing perhaps 50% of the force until the UN decides that this mission is no longer necessary.

It might be adviseable for the administration to consider working with the UN to work out all of our foreign affairs requiring military action. Foreign bases such as the one in South Korea could also be turned over to UN control with a maximum 50% participation. This same policy could be enacted in the Israel/Palestine conflict. Such a policy could cut our foreign military aid costs by at least 50% plus cutting our troop casualties by at least 50% as well. --------------
It may also be the right thing to do.

U. S. NEEDS A SPECIAL FEDERAL GASOLINE TAX

After years of promoting cigarette consumption that caused countless deaths, a heavy tax was placed on cigarettes to curb the consumption. The tax was accepted and it not only helped to curb consumption, it gave consiberable funds to the government that could have been and and may have been put to good use.

Now we are faced with another problem that may be eased with another Federal Tax. The new administration is committed to relieving Global Warming by promoting the production of automobiles with reduced gas consumption; which was readily accepted when the price of gasoline soared at the pump. The success of the automobile companies with the new production will be a major factor in the recovery of our economy. The lower price of gasoline will jeopardize the new production success. An added substantial tax could bring the price at the pump to a level that would again motivate the promotion of automobiles with reduced gas consumption, thus assisting the success of the automobile companies and a recovery of the economy. The funds generated could also be used to help pay for the stimulation package.

An added gasoline tax is not only smart, it may be necessary.

POLITICAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Will Obama become the typical politician and forget his campaign promses?

Rumor has been spreading that the Obama Administration may not repeal the Bush Tax Break to the wealthy , "right away." Forget the fact that the government desperately needs funds to help with the massive stimulus packages to revitalize the economy; what is the motivation to continue to subsidize those who unfairly gained so much and helped bring about the financial crisis with their greed?

Perhaps, most important would be the disappointment that the "man of change" would not keep his campaign promises, and be like the typical politician.

ENOUGH ALREADY

The government has determinded that we have a financial crisis because Main St. doesn not have enough money to pay their credit debts and buy a new car. The government has also determinded that the way to solve the credit crisis is to give 750 Billion to Wall Street plus near 0% interest credit so that they can give Main St. more credit to pay off their current credit debt. (Pay off credit with credit and buy a new car on credit too? How interesting!) Interesting question, "What will happen when this larger credit debt comes due?

Wouldn't it make more sense to use some of the bailout money to supplement the Unemployment Insurance, follow the normal bankruptcy procedure where appropriate and give those who reached beyond their means the opportunity to start over again.

It might also make sense to balance the government budgets , starting by cutting all salaries and pensions of government employees making $75,000 or more by 10%, and cutting remuneration of Elected Officials who are "serving" the people by 25% to put them on a more realistic level with the current economy.

ARE WE THINKING?

The goverment has determined that the financial crisis was caused by excessive credit given as a result of easy credit encouraged by the government. The government solution to the crisis has been to give more money to the banks to extend more credit. Wouldn't this put the mortgagor even deeper in debt? If money is to be given away, shouldn't it be given to the mortgagor to pay off the debt?

Government intervention and lack of regulations brought about the crisis. Perhaps regulations and lack of intervention might be the solution to the crisis.

EASY MONEY BROUGHT HARD TIMES

The American Dream was based on honest, hard work! Easy money to banks to give easy money to home owners is another example of Government Intervention to destroy the American Dream.

Remember when the American Dream was to work hard, save your money, and buy a home? Easy low interest credit for banks from the Government brought about low savings rates at the bank which discouraged savings, and easy credit for purchase of a home looked like a way around "work hard and save your money" to buy a home.

The problem came when the payments for the home (PLUS INTEREST) requires more cash than Average Joe and his wife can earn. The case is very simple. That $200,000 dream home will cost $400,000 WHEN INTEREST IS ADDED, and that is more than the Average Joe and his wife can earn.

The Government solution to the problem; more easy money to the banks which Average Joe and his wife will have to pay for in taxes, will not leave them anything from their hard work for savings, and thus destroy the American Dream for good.

The American Dream was not meant to be a gift, it was something to work for.

Food for Thought: The Government gives the banks credit at 1 1/2% and the banks charge the Average Joe and his wife 5 1/2%. Who is the Government helping by bailing out the banks with easy credit?

WILL BILL CLINTON BE A PROBLEM IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION?

There is little reason not to think that Hillarie Clinton would be a competent member of the Obama team, but what about Bill? His lack of self discipline and "Poor Looser" characteristic are a matter of record. However, his pardoning of wealthy criminals and his subsequent acquisition of substantial wealth has not been all that well documented. Perhaps the confirmation of Eric Holder (former Deputy Attorney General under Clinton) as Attorney General will give the opportunity to look into this issue. Will Republicans in Congress fulfill their roles and invistigate Holder's role in the pardoning and question his reactions. Holder's answers on this issue could give legimate insight on his perception of the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Perhaps some of the Democrates in Congress who believe in the principles of law would join in the interrogation.