Jay Allen's Blog

Salaried professionals/white collar workers are more likely to have control of their work schedule than hourly blue collar workers. Therefore, white collar workers would have easier access to the election booth than their blue collar counterparts. It seems logical that this would create a situation in which people earning less money would be less likely and less able to vote.

In fact, Census data from the 2004 election shows a direct correlation between participation and household income - lower class citizens are much less likely to vote than upper class citizens. Only 36.5% of individuals from families earning less than $10k/yr voted, while 78.3% of individuals from families earning more than $150k/yr voted.

Do you think that election day should be a national holiday to help more low wage workers to vote?

Best regards,
Jay

Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

This weekend, Sarah Palin's hometown newspaper, The Anchorage Daily News announced that it would endorse Barack Obama for President. Based on Palin not being able to name one newspaper or magazine in an interview, it wouldn't surprise me if she didn't read the article. Despite her qualifications, the newspaper stated that "Palin's nomination clearly alters the landscape for Alaskans as we survey this race for the presidency -- but it does not overwhelm all other judgment."

In terms of the economy, The Anchorage Daily News cites McCain's longtime opposition to market regulation. And more recently his erratic (as the paper states "erratic is a kind description") behavior during the economic crisis and inability to demonstrate presidential maturity or leadership in the process. It shows that McCain is "ill-equipped to lead the essential effort of reining in a runaway financial system and setting an anxious nation on course to economic recovery."

The article concludes... Yet despite her formidable gifts, few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range. Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time.

Are you surprised that Palin's hometown paper opposes her ticket or has the liberal/elite/gotcha media infiltrated Alaska?

Best regards,
Jay


Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

A Democratic President, Senate, and House ended the Great Depression... and they'll do it again.

Many people have expressed concern, especially given the current depression-esque state of the economy, about Democrats controlling the White House, Senate and House. The suggestion is that spending will run rampant, socialism will ensue, and the country will disintegrate. However, the great depression ended with the Democrats in "full-control".

The years leading directly to the Great Depression were lead by Republican Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover and were supported by Republican controlled Congresses. As the saying goes, the Rich got Richer and the Poor got Poorer with the Republicans in total control and ultimately the economy collapsed due to the excesses of the rich. As illustrated by the timeline below, the Democrats fixed an economy that was broken by the Republicans. If history really does repeat itself, Obama will be President, the Democrats will control the House and Senate and our economy will be restored.

Do you think history will repeat itself?

Here is a brief timeline as seen on Hyperhistory.com...
1924 - The stock market begins its spectacular rise. Bears little relation to the rest of the economy.
1925 - The top tax rate is lowered to 25 percent - the lowest top rate in the eight decades since World War I. 1933 - Roosevelt does much to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, but is concerned with a balanced budget. The free fall of the GNP is significantly slowed; it dips only 2.1 percent this year. Unemployment rises slightly, to 24.9 percent.
1936 - Top tax rate raised to 79 percent. Economic recovery continues: GNP grows a record 14.1 percent; unemployment falls to 16.9 percent.
1937 - Roosevelt fears an unbalanced budget and cuts spending for 1937. That summer, the nation plunges into another recession. Despite this, the yearly GNP rises 5.0 percent, and unemployment falls to 14.3 percent.

One last thought... people lose track of time. And it's easy to look at a man of John McCain's age and think - "he knows what it was like to suffer because he grew up during the depression" - well, the fact is both McCain and Obama grew up after the depression.

Best regards,
Jay

Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

The proof that the McCain campaign created the hoax about 20-year-old, attention deprived Ashley Todd is not available, so perhaps I'm "jumping the gun" just like the McCain campaign.

According to several reports, McCain's Pennsylvania communications director disclosed very specific details about the supposed incident to John Verrilli, the news director for KDKA in Pittsburgh, at about the same time Ms. Todd provided the information to police. This would indicate that Ms. Todd was working directly with at least the state level of the McCain campaign.

So, what will the McCain/Palin campaign not do to steal this election?

Best regards,
Jay

Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

Many people have cited abortion as a primary, if not the sole, reason for opposing Barack Obama. I have written several blogs and comments that have illustrated how a McCain/Palin administration would threaten not only the lives of the unborn, but also the lives of children, men, women, Americans, foreigners and anyone else with a pulse.

Let's get back to the topic of abortion. I am personally opposed to abortions - as far back as I can remember, I have believed that abortions are simply wrong in most cases. BUT... what about people like Osama Bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, Timothy McVeigh, Jeffrey Dahmer, or the rapists, murderers, and child molesters that occupy prisons - would the world be a better place had these people not been born? I suspect that the victims in these cases would say YES.

So, why would a mother choose to have an abortion?
Is that mother evil, a satan worshiper, a socialist, an atheist, OR someone who has been dealt a series of personal and economic setbacks that many of you reading this have not experienced, will not experience and cannot understand? I tend to believe the latter and research proves it.

Joseph Wright of Penn State University and Michael Bailey of Georgetown University wrote a report about this subject. "This study of all U.S. states from 1982-2000 finds that social and economic supports such as benefits for pregnant women and mothers and economic assistance to low-income families have contributed significantly to reducing the number of abortions."

The government programs that provide economic assistance are not funded by growing money on trees, they are funded by taxpayers. John McCain's "hatchet" will chop away at these programs - he will cut taxes for the rich and famous and eliminate programs to help the poor including pregnant women. So, based on two decades of irrefutable government data, if you want more abortions vote for John McCain.

What are your thoughts?

Best regards,
Jay

Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

The October 19, 2008 edition of The Charleston Gazette reports that early voters are having trouble casting a vote for Barack Obama. The voting machine switches a vote cast for Obama to a vote cast for John McCain.

A voter at the Putnam County Courthouse in Winfield, WV said "I hit Obama and it switched to McCain. I am really concerned about that. If McCain wins, there was something wrong with the machines." When she asked officials at the courthouse for a printout of her vote she was told that it was not available.

A report like the one above shows that the integrity of our democracy is in question. In case you did not hear the voting machine "problems" from Ohio in 2004, read on...  Prior to the 2004 US Presidential Election, Walden O'Dell, the CEO of Diebold Inc. (the company that makes voting machines) stated that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president [Bush]." Based on O'Dell's comment, Diebold rigged the voting machines in Ohio for Bush. If Bush lost Ohio in 2004, he would have lost the election.

As McCain says - he is not George Bush- but do you think that McCain will be just like Bush and get a boost from Diebold's voting machines?

Best regards,
Jay

Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

According to the results of a 20-year study published today at businessweek.com- achieving the "American Dream" is becoming less of a reality and more of just a dream. Children are less likely to do better than their parents and the poor are less likely to become affluent through hard work. The BusinessWeek article states that "the gap between rich and poor is getting bigger -- particularly in the United States -- as top earners' incomes soar while others' stagnate."

It seems to me that many people are too optimistic about their earnings potential. If someone imagines a different lifestyle than they are living, most people prefer to imagine themselves as richer, not poorer. Therefore, as a rich person you wouldn't want to pay any more in taxes. But let's be realistic, the vast majority of people are not rich and should not be concerned about someone with multiple homes and a private jet paying more taxes.

Raising taxes on the richest is necessary. Based on the nearly non-existant American Dream, how could you not agree with more taxes for the richest (many of whom achieved vast sums of money by underpaying employees and defrauding shareholders)?

Best regards,
Jay

Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

The headline sums up the most newsworthy event of the weekend. On NBC's Meet The Press, Former Bush Secretary/GOP supporter Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama saying that he would be a great president.

Powell said that Obama has the "ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of this campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities -- we have to take that into account -- as well as his substance -- he has both style and substance -- he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president." At a campaign stop in Fayetteville, N.C. Obama told a crowd that he was "beyond humbled"

Retired US Army General Colin Powell has served as Secretary of State, National Security Advisor and as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The 3 debates and the Powell endorsement should eliminate any doubts about Obama's experience or ability to serve as president. Furthermore, the ACORN issue is being proven as something that has been blown out of proportion by Rush Limbaugh and Wanna-Be-Rush commentators like Sean Hannity.

Obama has the experience and ability to serve as president and the expertise to, in very basic terms, fix our broken economy. At this point, how can anyone object to Obama becoming President?

Best regards,
Jay


Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

According published reports, Joe Wurzelbacher (a/k/a Joe the Plumber) is apparently related the son-in-law of Charles Keating. What a coincidence that ole Joey had such a specific business tax question on a topic that he apparently knows nothing about...

"Joe the Plumber" has no plumbing license which means he has no real interest in starting a plumbing company, and even less reason to be concerned with taxes. Had Obama made such a big deal, as McCain did with "Joe", about someone related to Bill Ayers - Obama would be down in the polls by 20 points today. McCain gets many more "free passes" than the GOP/supporters will ever admit.

Will this revelation have any impact on for whom you are voting?

Best regards,
Jay


Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

One crazy person at a campaign rally is unavoidable. Many crazy people at a campaign rally is unacceptable.

I have read blogs and written blogs about why people will/won't vote for Barack Obama. If you think that extreme racism is not playing a role in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election think again. Watch the following video from a recent Sarah Palin campaign rally in Ohio.

What are your thoughts?

Best regards,
Jay


Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net 

It should have become abundantly clear to anyone watching tonight's debate that Senator Barack Obama should be and needs to be the person that will serve as President of the United States from 2009-2017.

I am a man who has worked for more female bosses in my adult life than male bosses. As a white male, since childhood, I have heard occasional sexist and racist comments about working with/for women and/or minorities. Everything negative I was told turned out to be false. With the exception of my father-in-law, I have respected my female bosses much more than my male bosses - respect in terms of intelligence, ability, attentiveness, and leadership, among other characteristics.

In the 2008 presidential election, I support Barack Obama and feel that he has enough support to win the election. However, I still believe that many white, Christian voters will change their mind, in the poll booth at the last minute, thinking of Obama as a minority and/or as a Muslim.

Ultimately, I want Barack Obama to be elected the 44th President of the United States. Why do you agree or disagree with the preceding sentence?

Best regards,
Jay


Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

Here’s something entertaining that I came across earlier this evening. If you've got a couple of minutes visit palinaspresident.com (be sure to click on the door to the left a few times). The website makes light of many of Governor and Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin's quirks.

Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I found this website at Oursignal.com.  Oursignal.com complies a list of the most blogger/researched stories on sites similar to Yahoo Buzz and Digg.

Best regards,
Jay

Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

It's been nearly a week since the second presidential debate. In hindsight, the statement that stands out the most to me is Obama saying that health care is a "right". The founding principles of our country include certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

• We have national defense to protect all Americans from death by attack.
  
• We have government imposed speed limits to protect all Americans from death by high-speed crash.
  
• We have government sponsored police and fire departments to protect all Americans from death by murder or fire.
  
• Why should we not have government sponsored (universal) health care to protect all Americans from death by disease?
  

No bailout is/was needed...
To reverse this nation's economic crisis, I would argue that universal health care is the best answer. Most people that do not have employer sponsored health insurance are working a lower wage job and cannot afford to buy an individual policy (the same people who are likely to have a subprime mortgage). If you're one of those people, McCain's $5k tax credit does nothing, but add insult to injury. People would be able to afford mortgage payments if they did not have to pay for health care. Universal health care would result in a healthier, more productive population, fewer bankruptcies and no need for any bailout, because many more people would be able to afford to pay their mortgage.

What are your thoughts?

Best regards,
Jay


Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

Tonight, numerous news agencies are reporting that Governor Sarah Palin abused the power of her office to fire a personal enemy. She violated a statute of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act when she fired her sister's ex-husband.

Damn the witchcraft! Perhaps Palin should blame that preacher from 2005 for not blessing her well enough against witchcraft. She's just a simple, moose killin' hockey mom - she doesn't have time for little things like readin' newspapers, teachin' the birds and the bees, answerin' questions, and ethics.

Will the results of this bi-partisan committee have any impact on the election?

Best regards,
Jay

Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net

John Sidney McCain III VS. Barack Hussein Obama II

This week the McCain campaign has mentioned Barack Obama's middle name regularly. As if to say, this non-white man with the middle name Hussein is evil and "is not like you".

Let's look at these American names Ted, Bonnie, Jeffrey, Charles, Timothy...
Do they look/sound evil? NO.

What about Timothy McVeigh, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Bonnie & Clyde, Jeffrey Dahmer...
Do they look/sound evil? YES, those are the names of evil people.

A candidate's name is as irrelevant as with what that name rhymes, how many characters are in the name, the ratio of vowels to consonants, etc. This is simply a pitiful, last ditch effort from the McCain campaign to scare voters.

Are you or your friends/collegues concerned with Obama's middle name?

Best regards,
Jay


Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net