Big Dogs House

Dick Morris: Goodbye Mortgage Interest Deduction

Jun 2, 2011 Political

Dick Morris has an interesting video out discussing the plan to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction. Those who believe this will stimulate people to buy houses are part of the same crowd that believes spending a trillion dollars stimulates economies. They are also part of the same crowd that is always shocked that the economic numbers are not what they expected.

I don’t know why this would surprise anyone. Obama is a Democrat and Democrats like to tax, eliminate tax deductions, and spend like there is no tomorrow.

If we ran our budgets like the federal government runs its budget the banks would stop lending us money and we would not be able to get credit. Our credit companies would NOT raise our limit so we could spend more of what we do not have.

So why is it the federal government is deciding to raise its own limit? Shouldn’t the people who extend the credit be doing that?

But don’t worry; the government will make up the shortfall by taking away tax deductions.

Personally, I would be fine with no deductions if they had a flat tax that everyone paid and that they could not increase without a super majority vote. Instead, taxes go up, deductions go down and government spends like there is no limit to the amount of money available.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: debt limit, dick morris, double dip, lies, mortgage deduction

Why Is Dick Morris So Uninformed?

Jul 4, 2008 Political

A piece by Dick Morris appeared today at the Rasmussen Reports web site. In the piece Morris states that the Supreme Court handed Obama a gift by voting 5-4 in favor of individual rights to gun ownership (which is what every person who debated the Amendment stated when they were writing it). I won’t get into why Morris thinks it was a gift because it is not really important to his basic misunderstanding of the Second Amendment.

In the piece Morris claims the justices made a “sea change” in Constitutional law and he claims:

By demonstrating how willing they are to toss aside decades of jurisprudence in pursuit of a conservative agenda…

I would like Morris, Constitutional scholar that he is, to explain what decades of jurisprudence were tossed aside since the Court has NEVER ruled on this issue. As I pointed out in a previous post, the Court ruled on whether a person’s rights were violated when he used a sawed off shotgun. They ruled that since the weapon was not one commonly associated with a militia (though those weapons have been used by the military for years) the guy (Miller) had no standing and his rights were not violated. As I pointed out though, the Court acknowledged the individual right in Dred Scott v. Sandford when they said that freeing Scott would allow him to keep and bear arms. So the jurisprudence has been in place since 1857.

Dick Morris also claims that gun control laws have no doubt saved lives and lowered crime rates but the truth is places in this country with the most stringent gun control laws have higher crime rates and higher rates of murder. Places where people’s rights are not violated by the government have lower crime and lower murder rates. Look at states where they have must issue laws and compare them with places that have strict control and there is a stark difference. Professor John Lott researched this and his conclusions support this.

Regardless, Morris is usually more informed than this so I wonder what his motivation is.

Perhaps it is because he is hawking his new book and he wants to help with the sales. Morris is smarter than to actually believe what he wrote about gun laws and the Second Amendment so I can only conclude that he is manipulating an emotional issue to sell a book.

I usually like Morris’ insight on politics but in this case he is woefully uninformed.

Tags: dick morris, founding fathers, Second Amendment, supreme court

Is Clinton Tested and Ready to Lead?

Nov 17, 2007 Political

I wrote a post about the Democratic debate in Nevada and said that none of the contenders were presidential and none were prepared to lead. Dick Morris wrote that CNN was kind to Hillary and failed to follow up on her flat NO when asked about driver’s licenses for ILLEGALS. Russert would have asked about the change of heart which Morris says is because New York Governor Spitzer dropped the idea of issuing the licenses. He did it to help Hillary. Now she can oppose it without offending a Governor from her adopted state, a Governor that could hurt her chances of getting votes. The debate showed that CNN truly stands for the Clinton News Network. They were easy on her, highlighted Bill Richardson who wants the VP job under a Hillary ticket and they failed to disclose that their post debate analyst, James Carville, is a consultant to the Clinton campaign. They were pushing Hillary and they were easy on her. In the debate though, Hillary made this statement:

“Let’s not forget that the Republicans are not going to vacate the White House voluntarily,” she said in the debate. “We need someone who is tested and ready to lead. I think that’s what my candidacy offers.” FT.com

She is correct, the other side is running for the White House and will not leave it voluntarily. But how does she get to the conclusion she is tested and ready to lead? She has never been in charge of a company, she has never been a governor of a state, she has never led anything. So how is she tested? How is she ready to lead. Richardson is a Governor so he has more experience leading than she does.

Perhaps Hillary is asking us to believe that eight years as First Lady has tested her and given her the experience to lead but since she and her husband refuse to release any of the papers that might prove such a claim that idea should be dismissed out of hand. If being First Lady for eight years is the sole qualification for being a tested leader than Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan are just as qualified as Hillary though I doubt many Hillary supporters would say these two women are tested and qualified to lead.

As for Hillary’s time in the Senate, what has she actually led? She attaches her name to a lot of bills that others have authored so she can get in on the action. It helps a candidate to be able to say that he (or she) cosponsored legislation. John Kerry’s dismal Senate record was part of his weakness. But how has Hillary led? What legislation has she proposed that was out in front of issues. Besides bashing the current administration at every turn, where has she been out in front of the issues? The fact that she attaches her name as cosponsor to many bills others have proposed (no doubt after seeing what polls and focus groups say) shows that she is more qualified to follow than lead.

She has been running for office for ten months now so she has had little time to actually do her job in the Senate and therefore it is easier for her to attach her name to the hard work of others. This is not the mark of a leader. The only thing that Hillary leads is the race according to national polls (not so in Iowa) but leading in a poll does not make one tested and qualified. I imagine Rush Limbaugh would have high marks in a national poll because he has what Clinton has, name recognition. Though I think Limbaugh would be better at running the country than Clinton the fact that he has name recognition does not make him tested and qualified to lead. The fact that he runs his own company, a company that makes a lot of money, makes him more qualified than a person whose only claim to fame is she happened to be married to a past President.

Hillary is not tested and she is not qualified. The only real test she faced was when a “hostile” moderator asked her to explain her position on driver’s licenses and she failed that test as alluded to by Wolf Blitzer when he said it tripped her up. He handlers must have told her not to address it in depth since they had Spitzer in their pockets and since Wolf had been warned to play nice.

Maybe I have a different idea about what tested and qualified to be a leader means. Then again, I was leading people while Clinton was scheming with Bill to get in the White House and I led long after they left the place. Under the tested and qualified aspect, I have more qualification to lead than Hillary Clinton does. The only two things she has that allows her to run is name recognition and money and those are not leadership qualities.

Face it, if she had not been married to Bill she would have never been elected tot he Senate in New York or any other state and she would not ever be considered as a Presidential candidate. The only thing she has is her husband’s name and his coattails.

Not bad for a woman who claims to be independent and running on her own. Seems to me that her crying they are picking on the girl and her dependence on her husband’s name and record shows that the girl is not a feminist when it is convenient and that she depends on a man for her success. Not very Presidential, now is it?

Oops, did I just pile on the girl?

Tags: bill richardson, clinton campaign, clinton news network, democratic debate, dick morris, first lady, governor spitzer, Hillary Clinton, illegals, james carville, laura bush, white house