Your Blogmeister’s Desk
I’m going to take a different tack in analyzing tonight’s debate. Yeah, I’ll do the conventional stuff later. But I want to put myself in the position of a candidate and answer the questions as if I was a candidate.
JEREMY EPSTEIN: Mr. President, Governor Romney, as a 20-year-old college student, all I hear from professors, neighbors and others is that when I graduate, I will have little chance to get employment. What can you say to reassure me, but more importantly my parents, that I will be able to sufficiently support myself after I graduate?
BLOGMEISTER: You’ve been hoodwinked by the education-industrial complex. What I will do as President is to lobby for Federal legislation to overturn the Supreme Court decision Griggs vs Duke Power. That decision essentially prohibited employers from using performance and intelligence tests to make hiring and promotion decisions, and this forced employers to use education credentials as a proxy. This forced many young people into the college market, and since college became a de facto requirement for a prosperous existence, colleges had carte blanche permission to raise tuition rates year in and year out far faster than inflation. (Of course there are other reasons for the soaring costs of college, but they’re not germane to this question.) As for being able to support yourself, I will do all I can to change immigration policy to prevent the deluge of cheap non-white labor legal and illegal aliens, to sway the job market in favor of demand, i.e. the employee class.
Once upon a time, in-state residents were able to attend their state’s public institutions for free of charge, as long as they were admitted. I am in favor of returning to that paradigm. The catch is that far fewer people would be accepted to college.
PHILLIP TRICCOLA: Your energy secretary, Steven Chu, has now been on record three times stating it’s not policy of his department to help lower gas prices. Do you agree with Secretary Chu that this is not the job of the Energy Department?
BLOGMEISTER: Yes, I agree, because the Energy Department should not exist, because its functionality should be folded into the Commerce Department. And the energy policy of the Commerce Department should me to maximize the energy supply as reasonably as possible to keep energy prices as low as reasonably possible.
MARY FOLLANO: Governor Romney, you have stated that if you’re elected president, you would plan to reduce the tax rates for all the tax brackets and that you would work with the Congress to eliminate some deductions in order to make up for the loss in revenue. Concerning the — these various deductions — the mortgage deduction, the charitable deductions, the child tax credit and also the — oh, what’s that other credit? Oh, I remember. The education credits, which are important to me because I have children in college. What would be your position on those things, which are important for the middle class?
BLOGMEISTER: I propose converting the Federal income tax plus FICA into a single-rate earnings tax with no deductions other than the per person individual, spousal and dependent deductions. This will greatly reduce the cost of complying with Federal income tax law, and preclude lobbying and political concerns from engineering the Federal income tax laws and making them unduly complicated. It would also eliminate the requirement for most people to file a tax return. April 15 would truly be just another day. I have borrowed/stolen Ross Perot’s idea of a reverse stair stepped capital gains tax, to prevent the rapid buying and selling of assets, especially corporate stocks, that only serves to beg for job outsourcing. I also want to eliminate tax-exempt foundations and trusts, as they are largely escape hatches for the Top 0.01% and their income.
Along these lines, I favor eliminating the EITC, because everyone who has an income above the level of one’s personal and spousal and dependent deductions should have a net positive tax liability. This gives almost everyone skin in the game.
KATHERINE FENTON: In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?
BLOGMEISTER: I don’t intend to rectify the non-existent “problem” because there is no gender pay gap, ceteris paribus. To the extent there seems to be one, it is because women tend to jobs that pay less, and because men will tend to work longer hours because of their “mission oriented” nature. Feminists are demanding a government scheme called “comparable worth” where salaries and wages are artifically equalized, but I oppose that scheme because I think it’s a subtle effort to pay men less, not pay women more.
SUSAN KATZ: Governor Romney, I am an undecided voter because I’m disappointed with the lack of progress I’ve seen in the last four years. However, I do attribute much of America’s economic and international problems to the failings and missteps of the Bush administration. Since both you and President Bush are Republicans, I fear a return to the policies of those years should you win this election. What is the biggest difference between you and George W. Bush, and how do you differentiate yourself from George W. Bush?
BLOGMEISTER: I differentiate myself from George W. Bush because I am an economic populist, a foreign policy isolationist/pan-Caucasianist and a white nationalist, not a neo-conservative or a lamestream conservative.
MICHAEL JONES: Mr. President, I voted for you in 2008. What have you done or accomplished to earn my vote in 2012? I’m not that optimistic as I was in 2012. Most things I need for everyday living are very expensive.
BLOGMEISTER: The reason things are more expensive is that three rounds of quantitative easing has increased the money supply and therefore inflation, while the deluge of mass non-white immigration for cheap labor has depressed wages. Therefore, the solution is to enact real banking reform that precludes inflation and restricting non-white immigration to sway the labor market in favor of labor.
LORRAINE OSARIO: President — Romney, what do you plan on doing with immigrants without their green cards that are currently living here as productive members of society?
BLOGMEISTER: The individuals in question are illegal aliens working at some sort of job. By definition, some Federal crime was committed, either the employers knowingly hired illegal aliens, or the illegal aliens presented fake ID and may have committed identity theft along the way. My solution is either to prosecute the illegals for slinging false identification slash stealing someone’s identity, and/or the employers for knowingly hiring illegal aliens, depending on the situation. Deport the illegal aliens to their home countries either right away or after they complete their Federal prison time, as the case may be. The only exception I would grant is for identifiably white people fleeing persecution of some sort, including but not limited to white South Africans on the verge of experiencing genocide and ethnic cleansing.
KERRY LADKA: This question actually comes from a brain trust of my friends at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola yesterday. We were sitting around talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?
BLOGMEISTER: I believe that President Obama himself deliberately denied security, because he knew AQ was planning a hit timed to 9/11, and he wanted AQ to kidnap Ambassador Stevens, because he wanted to negotiate for his release and safe return, in order to set himself up as an “October Surprise” foreign policy hero. It went off the tracks when AQ murdered Stevens instead of holding him hostage. And ever since then, this administration has been in full CYA/Pass the Hot Potato mode, including blaming a YouTube video that hardly anyone ever watched before 9/11/2012, and by deduction, blaming the First Amendment, and jailing the filmmaker for a supposed probation violation “for show.”
NINA GONZALES: President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or plan to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?
BLOGMEISTER: There is no such thing as an “assault weapon,” therefore, I can’t and won’t do anything about them that I wouldn’t do in regards to all other firearms. Before I answer the rest of your question, we have to start with defining fundamental terms. A firearm by definition is a device specifically designed to give the average person the ability to do debilitating bodily harm or worse to another living being from a relatively long distance. With that in mind, we have to have a different policy on firearms than we do on things that are not weapons, or even other deadly weapons — After all, a knife can be a deadly weapon, but you can’t kill a man with it from 100 yards. My ideal of gun control is who, not what. I favor vigorous enforcement of no-possession laws on people who by their actions prove that they shouldn’t be possessing firearms (including Mexican gangsters). I favor extending the Federal prison time for felon-in-possession, if not that felons caught with guns actually do that time, that at the very least those charges are held over the heads like the Sword of Damocles while they’re turned around as supergrass (stool pidgeons). I oppose firearms laws that deal with “what,” because they only serve to beg for Ruby Ridge.
CAROL GOLDBERG: The outsourcing of American jobs overseas has taken a toll on our economy. What plans do you have to put back and keep jobs here in the United States?
BLOGMEISTER: Tariffs, adjusted on a per-country basis effectively to remove the competitive advantage of cheap labor and lax environmental regulations in low-wage low-regulation countries. Trade should be freer (but not totally free) with countries most like ours, i.e. white countries in central, western and northern Europe, and also Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and most restricted with countries the least like us, which is to say most of the non-white world. To prevent the outsourcing of intangible goods, we should use of interstate commerce laws to require that call centers for American customers be placed in America and have native born white American English-speaking employees. To prevent the underappreciated phenomenon of “outsourcing by insourcing,” that is, importing the non-white legal immigrant cheap labor to do the job in the United States in lieu of outsourcing the actual job to another country, I favor the elimination of most if not all of the legal immigrant visa programs created in the Bush 41 administration.
Trade among individuals and institutions within our country is not the same as trade between countries, because countries have interests and responsibilities toward their citizens that individuals qua individuals do not have.
CANDY CROWLEY: Mr. President, we have a really short time for a quick discussion here.
IPad, the Macs, the iPhones, they are all manufactured in China, and one of the major reasons is labor is so much cheaper here. How do you convince a great American company to bring that manufacturing back here?
BLOGMEISTER: iWhatevers are all Apple products manufactured by Foxconn, and Foxconn does all their manufacturing in China. I would use the Federal government’s power of trade regulation to force Apple and/or Foxconn, as a cost of being able to access the lucrative American domestic consumer market, to source a small percentage of its employment base to the United States, preferrably for a facility built in a rust belt swing state to employ native born white American men in the low-average IQ range.
BARRY GREEN: Hi, Governor. I think this is a tough question. Each of you: What do you believe is the biggest misperception that the American people have about you as a man and a candidate? Using specific examples, can you take this opportunity to debunk that misperception and set us straight?
BLOGMEISTER: Since I’m not actually a candidate, and I’m pretending to answer these Town Hall questions for the purposes of this blog post, I can’t answer this question in terms of what is misunderstood about me as a candidate. However, I can answer that question from the perspective of a misunderstood man. The most common criticism of me is that I’m a know-it-all. The problem with that criticism is that I’m all right and the world is all wrong. In other words, I’m not at fault for being a know-it-all, people who don’t like know-it-alls are the problem. Almost all of the progress responsible for taking Homo Sapiens from being nomadic hunter-gatherers to the present is due to the obsession and passion of know-it-alls.
Being a know-it-all is a feature, not a bug.