A few thoughts for today:
1. There has been a lot of criticism over the DHS handling of the security for flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit. This is the same government many want to run our health care. This makes no sense.
2. Unemployment in Texas is down, and has always been below the national average, about 2 percentage points (8 vs 10). As a conservative state with a balanced budget, compared to states like New York and California, which is better? Conservative policies, or liberal policies? You pick...but many are leaving New York and CA to come to Texas.
3. The arrogance of the entertainment industry never ceases to amaze me. James Patterson: "Buy my book or I'll kill off Alex Cross" (main character of a series of popular novels he wrote). We'll, Mr. Patterson, I won't be blackmailed, so I'll pass on your book, though I already have read several. There are many other authors who don't have to stoop to such marketing, and my time is limited. See his video (until he takes it down.)
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
A review of broken promises
“The plan I’m announcing tonight," President Obama said on September 9th, "will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government."
“My plan," the President said, "would bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family…"
“I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficit," the President said, "either now or in the future."
"No family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase," he said. He said he wouldn’t cut Medicare. People who like the plans they have wouldn’t lose their coverage.
And, Americans were promised an open, honest debate. "That’s what I will do in bringing all parties together," then-Senator Obama said on the campaign trail, "not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN."
But the bill raises health care costs, according to the White House OMB.
While Obama states the current bill will reduce the deficit by $132 billion over 10 years, this is chump change compared to the $10 trillion in deficits his spending is forecasted to cause. If I owe my credit card company $10,000, this is like making a payment of $132. That doesn't even cover the interest.
If the bill will cost $2 trillion by most estimates, how is this lowering the deficit? This can only happend through higher taxes.
It raises premiums according to the the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office talking. It raises taxes on tens of millions of middle class Americans.
It plunders Medicare by half a trillion dollars and forces people off the plans they have — including millions of seniors.
It allows the federal government for the first time in our history to use taxpayer dollars for abortions. It raises feeds and taxes across the board, and the states may have to raise taxes to fund unfunded provisions of this 2,000+ page atrocity.
So a President who was voted into office on the promise of change said he wanted lower premiums. That changed. He said he wouldn’t raise taxes. That changed. He said he wanted lower costs. That changed. He said he wouldn’t cut Medicare. And, that changed too.
The fact the Democratic leadership had to bribe many of its members to vote for the bill should give you pause, if nothing else.
“My plan," the President said, "would bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family…"
“I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficit," the President said, "either now or in the future."
"No family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase," he said. He said he wouldn’t cut Medicare. People who like the plans they have wouldn’t lose their coverage.
And, Americans were promised an open, honest debate. "That’s what I will do in bringing all parties together," then-Senator Obama said on the campaign trail, "not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN."
But the bill raises health care costs, according to the White House OMB.
While Obama states the current bill will reduce the deficit by $132 billion over 10 years, this is chump change compared to the $10 trillion in deficits his spending is forecasted to cause. If I owe my credit card company $10,000, this is like making a payment of $132. That doesn't even cover the interest.
If the bill will cost $2 trillion by most estimates, how is this lowering the deficit? This can only happend through higher taxes.
It raises premiums according to the the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office talking. It raises taxes on tens of millions of middle class Americans.
It plunders Medicare by half a trillion dollars and forces people off the plans they have — including millions of seniors.
It allows the federal government for the first time in our history to use taxpayer dollars for abortions. It raises feeds and taxes across the board, and the states may have to raise taxes to fund unfunded provisions of this 2,000+ page atrocity.
So a President who was voted into office on the promise of change said he wanted lower premiums. That changed. He said he wouldn’t raise taxes. That changed. He said he wanted lower costs. That changed. He said he wouldn’t cut Medicare. And, that changed too.
The fact the Democratic leadership had to bribe many of its members to vote for the bill should give you pause, if nothing else.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Not just conservatives are angry
This from the Huffington Post:
Another:
And one more makes the point:
These are from Democrats and/or liberals, who by the way, happen to be Americans. Our government, as I've been saying for a long time, is failing us all, regardless of political ideology.
I voted for open transparency in Washington. I voted for bringing our troops home. I voted for to fix the economy by find us jobs instead of fattening the bonuses of Wall Street and financial political supporters. I voted for health care with a public option. And what did we get?
More Bush. Chicago politics. And a worse off economy with deepening unemployment. I have ten friends and family members all out of work, using up all their savings and what has Congress and the White House done about this past 12 months. Nothing. What a disappointment! I wish the election was tomorrow. I would vote them all out!
Another:
We have been played like a one string banjo, pickin' that deceptively simple ditty, "Belief we can change in."
And one more makes the point:
By embracing a half-baked bill from a corrupt Senate and a White House that made backroom sweetheart deals with the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, you are perpetuating bad government. If the political hacks keep receiving praise for their shoddy work, what's the incentive for them to do better?
These are from Democrats and/or liberals, who by the way, happen to be Americans. Our government, as I've been saying for a long time, is failing us all, regardless of political ideology.
Descending into the darkness
One of the features of Soviet-style leadership was everything for the ruling elite, while the masses where left with little or nothing.
This is happening here. The health care legislation is just the third step in the process (step 1 and 2 involved the auto and banking industries). Government control of our major industries is called facism (state-owned). But the bill won't affect federal employees, including our Representatives, Senators or President.
The bill that succeeded a test vote in the house the past weekend is "atrocious," according to the Washington Post's Robert Samuelson. The bill only passed its test vote because certain Senator's states where provided with hundred of millions of dollars in "pork" for pet projects. These amount to bribes, but only in name, not legality.
Obama said this morning his health care plan will lower the deficit by $132 billion over the next 10 years (while blaming all of our current problems on Bush. Are we tired of that yet?). This is a lie. No report, no study, has been able to substantiate that. Deficits will not only increase, but skyrocket. Obama's deficit for the first year is higher than all of Bush's eight years. Goverment will have to print more money, causing inflation. In fact, there is not enough money in the world to finance the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda. And that's according to the Chinese.
Taxes will go up, costs will go up, unemployment will go up. Our economy will falter, if not sink back into recession or depression. Everyone -- except those who work for the federal government -- will be poorer.
And still, this program will not provide everyone with heath care.
Has this happened somewhere before? If you don't know the answer to that, then you don't know history.
This is happening here. The health care legislation is just the third step in the process (step 1 and 2 involved the auto and banking industries). Government control of our major industries is called facism (state-owned). But the bill won't affect federal employees, including our Representatives, Senators or President.
The bill that succeeded a test vote in the house the past weekend is "atrocious," according to the Washington Post's Robert Samuelson. The bill only passed its test vote because certain Senator's states where provided with hundred of millions of dollars in "pork" for pet projects. These amount to bribes, but only in name, not legality.
Obama said this morning his health care plan will lower the deficit by $132 billion over the next 10 years (while blaming all of our current problems on Bush. Are we tired of that yet?). This is a lie. No report, no study, has been able to substantiate that. Deficits will not only increase, but skyrocket. Obama's deficit for the first year is higher than all of Bush's eight years. Goverment will have to print more money, causing inflation. In fact, there is not enough money in the world to finance the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda. And that's according to the Chinese.
Taxes will go up, costs will go up, unemployment will go up. Our economy will falter, if not sink back into recession or depression. Everyone -- except those who work for the federal government -- will be poorer.
And still, this program will not provide everyone with heath care.
Has this happened somewhere before? If you don't know the answer to that, then you don't know history.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Are you conservative? Or liberal?
If a conservative does not like guns, he (or she) does not buy one.
If a liberal does not like guns, then no one should have one.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he does not eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants to ban all meat products for everyone.
If a conservative sees a threat, he plans on how to defend himself.
A liberal wonders how to accommodate the threat by negotiating.
If a conservative is a homosexual, he quietly enjoys his life.
If a liberal is a homosexual, he loudly demands legislated respect.
If a Black or Hispanic is conservative, he sees himself as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of of government handouts.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative does not like a talk show, he switches stations.
Liberals demand that those they do not like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he does not go to church.
A liberal wants any mention of God or religion silenced.
If a conservative decides he needs health care insurance, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the government provide his.
If a liberal does not like guns, then no one should have one.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he does not eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants to ban all meat products for everyone.
If a conservative sees a threat, he plans on how to defend himself.
A liberal wonders how to accommodate the threat by negotiating.
If a conservative is a homosexual, he quietly enjoys his life.
If a liberal is a homosexual, he loudly demands legislated respect.
If a Black or Hispanic is conservative, he sees himself as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of of government handouts.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative does not like a talk show, he switches stations.
Liberals demand that those they do not like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he does not go to church.
A liberal wants any mention of God or religion silenced.
If a conservative decides he needs health care insurance, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the government provide his.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Junk science -- or at least reporting of it
Global Warming, which is now re-framed as climate change, is still a fuzzy area to me. I guess we don't really know which way it's going, so we can't call it global warming anymore. I'm not here to support either side, but to report bad reporting when I see it.
Part of the problem with the Internet is the ubiquity of bad writing and in-precise, sloppy thinking. Here's an example from a recent post on Red Orbit.
The headline alone is worthy of a prize: "Staggering Global Warming Statistics Emerge As UN Meeting Looms." The statistics are staggering, mind you. As in causing great astonishment, amazement, or dismay; overwhelming. I saw a statistic recently. In the last 120+ years, the earth's temperature has risen about 1 degree F. I'm staggering already.
Next we get this: "So far, the oceans have risen an inch and a half..." What does "so far" mean or describe? Since 1997? 1900? 3,000 BC? The age of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago? Depending on your timeline, an inch-and-a-half could be staggering, but I really doubt it. Science reporting must be precise.
We then learn, despite the incorrect sentence structure, that in one paragraph, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air is up 6.5 percent since 1997. Then, all of sudden, "world carbon dioxide has leapt up 31%."
Leaping lizards, batman. CO2 is up 6.5 percent, then "leapt" 31 percent? I really don't understand the blatant misuse of numbers here. besides the fact that "leapt" isn't the correct word to describe a 31 percent increase in anything.
And then I learned the amazing fact that "glaciers are disintegrating three times rapider than in the 1970s..." I felt like puking. "Rapider?" You mean faster? And then the statement, which is too general anyway, is not correct.
In the 10th Century, the Vikings grew grapes in Greenland. The climate was much warmer. So what is the disaster that is around the corner that will end life as we know it?
I'm sure I could find many more examples -- in fact I see them almost daily in my web travels.
It's hard enough getting the science straight, and even harder to communicate effectively. But if we continue to deal with how things change in our world in this manner, we'll be living in caves (except for Algore).
Part of the problem with the Internet is the ubiquity of bad writing and in-precise, sloppy thinking. Here's an example from a recent post on Red Orbit.
The headline alone is worthy of a prize: "Staggering Global Warming Statistics Emerge As UN Meeting Looms." The statistics are staggering, mind you. As in causing great astonishment, amazement, or dismay; overwhelming. I saw a statistic recently. In the last 120+ years, the earth's temperature has risen about 1 degree F. I'm staggering already.
Next we get this: "So far, the oceans have risen an inch and a half..." What does "so far" mean or describe? Since 1997? 1900? 3,000 BC? The age of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago? Depending on your timeline, an inch-and-a-half could be staggering, but I really doubt it. Science reporting must be precise.
We then learn, despite the incorrect sentence structure, that in one paragraph, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air is up 6.5 percent since 1997. Then, all of sudden, "world carbon dioxide has leapt up 31%."
Leaping lizards, batman. CO2 is up 6.5 percent, then "leapt" 31 percent? I really don't understand the blatant misuse of numbers here. besides the fact that "leapt" isn't the correct word to describe a 31 percent increase in anything.
And then I learned the amazing fact that "glaciers are disintegrating three times rapider than in the 1970s..." I felt like puking. "Rapider?" You mean faster? And then the statement, which is too general anyway, is not correct.
In the 10th Century, the Vikings grew grapes in Greenland. The climate was much warmer. So what is the disaster that is around the corner that will end life as we know it?
I'm sure I could find many more examples -- in fact I see them almost daily in my web travels.
It's hard enough getting the science straight, and even harder to communicate effectively. But if we continue to deal with how things change in our world in this manner, we'll be living in caves (except for Algore).
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Some highlights of the health care bill
Over the weekend, if you weren't paying attention, the House voted on the 2,000+ page Obama-Pelosi health care bill (without allowing the 72 hours of public disclosure). It passed 220-215.
Some highlights of this bill follow.
$250,000 fine and 5 years in Jail—Maximum sentence for an American guilty of not purchasing government-approved health coverage
5.5 Million—Number of jobs that could be lost as a result of taxes on businesses that cannot afford to provide health coverage, according to a model by President Obama’s Economic Advisor
$729.5 Billion—Total new taxes on small businesses, individuals, and employers who cannot afford to provide coverage that meets federal bureaucrats’ standards
$1.055 Trillion—New federal spending of your tax dollars for a government takeover of health care
114 Million—Number of individuals who could lose their current coverage under the bill’s government-run health plan, according to non-partisan actuaries at the Lewin Group
43—Entitlement programs the bill creates, expands, or extends
118—Additional offices, bureaus, commissions, programs, and bureaucracies the bill creates over and above the entitlement expansions
3,425—Uses of the word “shall,” representing new duties for bureaucrats and mandates on individuals, businesses, and States
2017—Year Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be exhausted—an entitlement crisis exacerbated by the bill, which cuts nearly $450 Billion from Medicare
It's no wonder Pelosi didn't want much debate on this, especially from us, the American people. This isn't about you and taking care of you. It's about control and power. And staying in power.
Some highlights of this bill follow.
$250,000 fine and 5 years in Jail—Maximum sentence for an American guilty of not purchasing government-approved health coverage
5.5 Million—Number of jobs that could be lost as a result of taxes on businesses that cannot afford to provide health coverage, according to a model by President Obama’s Economic Advisor
$729.5 Billion—Total new taxes on small businesses, individuals, and employers who cannot afford to provide coverage that meets federal bureaucrats’ standards
$1.055 Trillion—New federal spending of your tax dollars for a government takeover of health care
114 Million—Number of individuals who could lose their current coverage under the bill’s government-run health plan, according to non-partisan actuaries at the Lewin Group
43—Entitlement programs the bill creates, expands, or extends
118—Additional offices, bureaus, commissions, programs, and bureaucracies the bill creates over and above the entitlement expansions
3,425—Uses of the word “shall,” representing new duties for bureaucrats and mandates on individuals, businesses, and States
2017—Year Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be exhausted—an entitlement crisis exacerbated by the bill, which cuts nearly $450 Billion from Medicare
It's no wonder Pelosi didn't want much debate on this, especially from us, the American people. This isn't about you and taking care of you. It's about control and power. And staying in power.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
The Consumer Option
When liberals (or most politicians in general) start losing a political fight, one of their tactics (tricks) is to change the terminology. George Lakoff, pusher of political framing, would be proud. It's like changing the war on terror to contingency operations, as that will make everything different.
The public option for health care is no longer public. It's consumer. Can you believe this? This just in from CBS:
First of all, I think that the federal government to mandate everyone buy health insurance is unconstitutional. But we'll probably lose that battle, ever since the Supremes ruled that social security was constitutional.
And the fact that benefits will be paid by premiums is a farce. If people currently either could afford premiums -- or if they can afford it but choose not to -- we probably wouldn't be going down this track toward socialized government health care.
The whole thing is smoking mirrors. The government can't get anything right. They need to stay out of the people's business.
As Shakespeare had Juliet say:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
The public option for health care is no longer public. It's consumer. Can you believe this? This just in from CBS:
It's not really a public option, it's a consumer option," [Speaker of the House Nancy] Pelosi said. "As we're mandating that people buy insurance we are saying to them, you have leverage, you have another choice. This is your consumer option." To back up her point, Pelosi said that the program would be self-sustaining and benefits would be paid for by premiums, not taxpayers.
First of all, I think that the federal government to mandate everyone buy health insurance is unconstitutional. But we'll probably lose that battle, ever since the Supremes ruled that social security was constitutional.
And the fact that benefits will be paid by premiums is a farce. If people currently either could afford premiums -- or if they can afford it but choose not to -- we probably wouldn't be going down this track toward socialized government health care.
The whole thing is smoking mirrors. The government can't get anything right. They need to stay out of the people's business.
As Shakespeare had Juliet say:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
Monday, October 26, 2009
How many examples of bad thinking do you need?
Here's one: Even after years of a laissez-faire ideology that allowed businesses to pillage the economy, the idea of government intervention makes a lot of Americans nervous. -- Cynthia Tucker.
Cynthia, 99.9 percent of businesses in this country did not pillage the economy. You're drinking the far-left kool-aid if you think so. It was the government that caused the problems.
Here's a little history, courtesy of Paul D. White:
See my point. Liberal policies have made things worse in this country, not better.
The article goes on:
I have so many examples of weak or bad thinking by liberals (and some conservatives) on this blog, that you've have to be a true idiot not to see the truth.
Cynthia, 99.9 percent of businesses in this country did not pillage the economy. You're drinking the far-left kool-aid if you think so. It was the government that caused the problems.
Here's a little history, courtesy of Paul D. White:
This is not a new problem. Consider a memo written in 1965 to President Lyndon Johnson from Assistant Labor Secretary Daniel Moynihan in which the secretary expressed his great concern over the high rate of out-of-wedlock births among blacks (25 percent at that time). Unaddressed, Mr. Moynihan predicted, this large number of fatherless children would result in increasing school failure, criminal delinquency, and joblessness. Sadly, because liberals across the board condemned this call for action as racist propaganda, President Johnson didn't want to risk heated public debate and so did nothing. (emphasis mine)
See my point. Liberal policies have made things worse in this country, not better.
The article goes on:
The recent Chicago incident, and countless others that occur daily, are the result of not heeding Moynihan's warning 44 years ago. The previous out-of-wedlock birthrate has almost tripled, and 7 out of 10 black children now grow up not only without a father, but also in disproportionate poverty. That means millions of young kids lack adequate parental guidance to make the transition to become successful adults.
I have so many examples of weak or bad thinking by liberals (and some conservatives) on this blog, that you've have to be a true idiot not to see the truth.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
A letter to my Senator
I sent this letter to my senator today. We'll see what comes back.
Senator Cornyn:
I voted for you, and I support your positions -- at least the ones I know of (I get your newsletter via e-mail.)
I have two questions regarding the ongoing attempt to "reform" health care vis-a-vis military health plans and retirement. First of all, I do not support the Democratic approach. Our system needs improvement, not over haul. I googled this, and what I found -- mostly confusing -- scares the wits out of me...
1. How will any pending legislation affect my retired military health care plan? I use Tricare Prime. I don't need anything else. This plan works well for me, and I feel I earned it after 25 years of military service.
2. I am counting on Social Security to supplement my military pension, which I cannot live on. Right now, I believe, Social Security is not affected by my pension. Am I right? Make sure you don't allow this to change. I earned the pension, and I have paid into Social Security for 40 years. I expect both.
If the Dems have their way -- increased health care costs and taxes, cap and trade, higher income taxes, VAT, and on and on -- won't be much left to put food on the table.
To allow the Federal Government (or any government) to force any one to purchase something they don't want, is not only unconstitutional, but tyranny. This is what the Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate want. They must be stopped. I will be encouraging people to vote the rascals out in 2010.
Steve Taylor
Denison, TX
Thank you
Senator Cornyn:
I voted for you, and I support your positions -- at least the ones I know of (I get your newsletter via e-mail.)
I have two questions regarding the ongoing attempt to "reform" health care vis-a-vis military health plans and retirement. First of all, I do not support the Democratic approach. Our system needs improvement, not over haul. I googled this, and what I found -- mostly confusing -- scares the wits out of me...
1. How will any pending legislation affect my retired military health care plan? I use Tricare Prime. I don't need anything else. This plan works well for me, and I feel I earned it after 25 years of military service.
2. I am counting on Social Security to supplement my military pension, which I cannot live on. Right now, I believe, Social Security is not affected by my pension. Am I right? Make sure you don't allow this to change. I earned the pension, and I have paid into Social Security for 40 years. I expect both.
If the Dems have their way -- increased health care costs and taxes, cap and trade, higher income taxes, VAT, and on and on -- won't be much left to put food on the table.
To allow the Federal Government (or any government) to force any one to purchase something they don't want, is not only unconstitutional, but tyranny. This is what the Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate want. They must be stopped. I will be encouraging people to vote the rascals out in 2010.
Steve Taylor
Denison, TX
Thank you
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Drain the swamp, more transparency
Remember when House Speaker Pelosi promised to drain the swamp, rid the House of the culture of corruption?
Democrats defeat GOP attempt to remove Rangel
Sinking with Mr. Rangel -- NY Times
So much for her promises.
Remember when President Obama promised more transparency in government?
Transparency in government: Obama and Pelosi need to let the sun shine in
So much for his promises.
No wonder most Americans don't trust government.
Democrats defeat GOP attempt to remove Rangel
Sinking with Mr. Rangel -- NY Times
So much for her promises.
Remember when President Obama promised more transparency in government?
Transparency in government: Obama and Pelosi need to let the sun shine in
So much for his promises.
No wonder most Americans don't trust government.
Monday, October 5, 2009
From apathy to dependence
Received in an e-mail. I thought it worth repeating.
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government."
"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."
"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years"
"During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith
2. From spiritual faith to great courage
3. From courage to liberty
4. From liberty to abundance
5. From abundance to complacency
6. From complacency to apathy
7. From apathy to dependence
8. From dependence back into bondage
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..." Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
I believe the Democrats' goal -- if not all Democrats, then the left-wing of the party -- to move this country to the final stage of dependency. We'll then have one-party rule, which is a form of tyranny.
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government."
"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."
"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years"
"During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith
2. From spiritual faith to great courage
3. From courage to liberty
4. From liberty to abundance
5. From abundance to complacency
6. From complacency to apathy
7. From apathy to dependence
8. From dependence back into bondage
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..." Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
I believe the Democrats' goal -- if not all Democrats, then the left-wing of the party -- to move this country to the final stage of dependency. We'll then have one-party rule, which is a form of tyranny.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Unemployment to 9.8 (unexpectedly)
Are you surprised at the unemployment rate? The media is always surprised. The stimulus package, which is really a big government barrel of pork, is not working. And it won't. History proves that government spending does very little to stimulate the economy.
This is the problem with liberals. Over and over and over they try the same old worn out methods. And they never work. Haven't ever worked. Don't work here, didn't work elsewhere.
But on and on we have to try. And the American public (at least a majority right now) have bought the ideas -- because after a generation or more of the liberal hijacking of our education system, they know no better.
Read this. The Stimulus Doesn't Work. It might help you out.
But if you think 9.8 percent is bad, the latest statistics for unemployment of 16-24 year olds is now about 53 percent. Yea, ok. Maybe many of those aren't looking for work anyway, but the "official" rate of 18.3 percent is still very high.
Ouch!
You know, if government spending doesn't work, the libs in power will try more of the same. But when they pass their health take-over bill, the cap and trade, and all they other power-grabbing legislation, the economy will sink even lower.
Protect yourself now.
Go Obama.
This is the problem with liberals. Over and over and over they try the same old worn out methods. And they never work. Haven't ever worked. Don't work here, didn't work elsewhere.
But on and on we have to try. And the American public (at least a majority right now) have bought the ideas -- because after a generation or more of the liberal hijacking of our education system, they know no better.
Read this. The Stimulus Doesn't Work. It might help you out.
But if you think 9.8 percent is bad, the latest statistics for unemployment of 16-24 year olds is now about 53 percent. Yea, ok. Maybe many of those aren't looking for work anyway, but the "official" rate of 18.3 percent is still very high.
Ouch!
You know, if government spending doesn't work, the libs in power will try more of the same. But when they pass their health take-over bill, the cap and trade, and all they other power-grabbing legislation, the economy will sink even lower.
Protect yourself now.
Go Obama.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Observations about Taxes and the Stimulus
Liberals want to tax the "rich" and redistribute this money to the "poor." Conservatives want the lowest taxes possible for everyone.
Remember, Bush's tax cuts were for the "rich." Yet, if you do any small amount of research and study, when these tax cuts expire at the end of 2010, the "rich" will actually pay less of a share of taxes than they do now, according to the Tax Policy Center. This is because the lowest bracket, 10 percent, will go away and be replaced by the older 15 percent bottom bracket.
My conclusion on the liberal argument is that it is really about class warfare and perception, rather than based on fact.
Liberals firmly believe in taxation. Was it a coincidence that the national income tax (with a constitutional amendment) was instituted shortly after the birth of modern liberalism in the late 1800s and early 1900s?
In 1894, Democrats in Congress passed the Wilson-Gorman tariff, which imposed the first peacetime income tax. The rate was 2% on income over $4000, which meant fewer than 10 percent of households would pay any. The purpose of the income tax was to make up for revenue that would be lost by tariff reductions.
The Supreme Court later decided this was unconstitutional, so the Democrats responded by getting the 16th Amendment passed (ratified in 1913), which stated that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
As an amendment, it's pretty much permanent, hence the problems we face today.
Earlier this year, Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), which, among other things, temporarily put into place some of the refundable credits proposed during the campaign. The Tax Policy Center estimates that under the new law, 47 percent of taxpayers will owe no income tax in 2009.
Also according to the Tax Policy Center, 80 percent of taxpayers earning less than $50,000 a year pay no taxes.
According to the IRS, 23 million taxpayers received earned income credit -- which means they did not pay taxes, but received an amount of money from the government. That is about 17 percent of all individual taxpayers. Millions more get other credits, rather than paying taxes.
I hear all the time from conservatives that more than 50 percent of all Americans -- or is it wage earners -- do not pay income tax. This is about right, according to tax statistics. About 40 percent pay no taxes, yet receive a refund. The other 10 percent is more fuzzy, because the statistics are divided into quintiles. Yet liberals want more taxes, especially for the "rich." But the top 5 percent -- I guess those are "rich" people -- pay nearly 45 percent of federal taxes. Seems enough to me.
Liberals also believe that the worst time to cut taxes is during a recession (of course, during growth periods, they want to raise taxes). Increases government spending will get us out of recessionary periods. Conservatives on the other hand, believe cutting tax rates along with smaller government actually stimulates the economy.
What is the truth?
The Stimulus Doesn't Work
As of Sept 1, 2009, about 17 percent of the $787 billion stimulus package has been spent. You can bet as we get closer to mid-term elections next hear, much more will be spent. But it probably won't make much difference, if government spending doesn't work. Of course, as the economy slowly recovers, the Dems will take credit.
A further study of history will bear out the fact over government spending, yet our friends on the left won't or can't believe it.
What about you?
Remember, Bush's tax cuts were for the "rich." Yet, if you do any small amount of research and study, when these tax cuts expire at the end of 2010, the "rich" will actually pay less of a share of taxes than they do now, according to the Tax Policy Center. This is because the lowest bracket, 10 percent, will go away and be replaced by the older 15 percent bottom bracket.
My conclusion on the liberal argument is that it is really about class warfare and perception, rather than based on fact.
Liberals firmly believe in taxation. Was it a coincidence that the national income tax (with a constitutional amendment) was instituted shortly after the birth of modern liberalism in the late 1800s and early 1900s?
In 1894, Democrats in Congress passed the Wilson-Gorman tariff, which imposed the first peacetime income tax. The rate was 2% on income over $4000, which meant fewer than 10 percent of households would pay any. The purpose of the income tax was to make up for revenue that would be lost by tariff reductions.
The Supreme Court later decided this was unconstitutional, so the Democrats responded by getting the 16th Amendment passed (ratified in 1913), which stated that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
As an amendment, it's pretty much permanent, hence the problems we face today.
Earlier this year, Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), which, among other things, temporarily put into place some of the refundable credits proposed during the campaign. The Tax Policy Center estimates that under the new law, 47 percent of taxpayers will owe no income tax in 2009.
Also according to the Tax Policy Center, 80 percent of taxpayers earning less than $50,000 a year pay no taxes.
According to the IRS, 23 million taxpayers received earned income credit -- which means they did not pay taxes, but received an amount of money from the government. That is about 17 percent of all individual taxpayers. Millions more get other credits, rather than paying taxes.
I hear all the time from conservatives that more than 50 percent of all Americans -- or is it wage earners -- do not pay income tax. This is about right, according to tax statistics. About 40 percent pay no taxes, yet receive a refund. The other 10 percent is more fuzzy, because the statistics are divided into quintiles. Yet liberals want more taxes, especially for the "rich." But the top 5 percent -- I guess those are "rich" people -- pay nearly 45 percent of federal taxes. Seems enough to me.
Liberals also believe that the worst time to cut taxes is during a recession (of course, during growth periods, they want to raise taxes). Increases government spending will get us out of recessionary periods. Conservatives on the other hand, believe cutting tax rates along with smaller government actually stimulates the economy.
What is the truth?
The Stimulus Doesn't Work
As of Sept 1, 2009, about 17 percent of the $787 billion stimulus package has been spent. You can bet as we get closer to mid-term elections next hear, much more will be spent. But it probably won't make much difference, if government spending doesn't work. Of course, as the economy slowly recovers, the Dems will take credit.
A further study of history will bear out the fact over government spending, yet our friends on the left won't or can't believe it.
What about you?
Friday, September 18, 2009
A Liberal for Today
I'm going to be a liberal today. I'm hoping it will help me understand the mindset of these people -- oops, or I should say "my people." At least for today.
As George Lakoff has taught us, we must frame our debate correctly. One example he uses is "Tax Relief." This is how conservatives sell this typical policy. But since we are not for a reduction in taxes, we must reframe it as "paying taxes is patriotic." It's paying your dues for living in a democratic country.
This is what we're doing by calling conservatives racist: Reframing the debate. Eventually everyone -- including conservatives -- will believe it. My sister does already. If you're Republican, you're racist. She wants be believe she's a Democrat (though voted for McCain) because of this label, which she has learned to believe. That way, you don't have to debate the issues. Sane, rational people don't debate racists.
"You've been in Texas too long," she tells me. You see, Texas is a conservative state, so we all must be racist. When I tell her we're no more racist than anyone else, she's skeptical. When I point out that Texas has lower unemployment, a budget surplus, no income tax, etc, it's not good enough because we're gun-toting, bible-thumping racists. Never mind the fact that she's never been to Texas, doesn't know any Texans.
Misdirection and marginalization are liberal tools that are starting to work. We've taken over the education system, so future generations will only know what we want them to know. Once we silence conservative dissent -- like with the Fairness Doctrine -- we'll be even closer.
Because you see, our way is the correct and humane way. Everyone will feel better, everyone will have the same resources. We're nicer and more intelligent so we know they way everyone should live.
It will happen soon.
But now, again as a conservative -- neo-Libertarian -- I'll continue to support smaller government, less taxes, and individual freedom and responsibility.
As George Lakoff has taught us, we must frame our debate correctly. One example he uses is "Tax Relief." This is how conservatives sell this typical policy. But since we are not for a reduction in taxes, we must reframe it as "paying taxes is patriotic." It's paying your dues for living in a democratic country.
This is what we're doing by calling conservatives racist: Reframing the debate. Eventually everyone -- including conservatives -- will believe it. My sister does already. If you're Republican, you're racist. She wants be believe she's a Democrat (though voted for McCain) because of this label, which she has learned to believe. That way, you don't have to debate the issues. Sane, rational people don't debate racists.
"You've been in Texas too long," she tells me. You see, Texas is a conservative state, so we all must be racist. When I tell her we're no more racist than anyone else, she's skeptical. When I point out that Texas has lower unemployment, a budget surplus, no income tax, etc, it's not good enough because we're gun-toting, bible-thumping racists. Never mind the fact that she's never been to Texas, doesn't know any Texans.
Misdirection and marginalization are liberal tools that are starting to work. We've taken over the education system, so future generations will only know what we want them to know. Once we silence conservative dissent -- like with the Fairness Doctrine -- we'll be even closer.
Because you see, our way is the correct and humane way. Everyone will feel better, everyone will have the same resources. We're nicer and more intelligent so we know they way everyone should live.
It will happen soon.
But now, again as a conservative -- neo-Libertarian -- I'll continue to support smaller government, less taxes, and individual freedom and responsibility.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
I'm a Racist. Of Course
If I'm against illegal immigrants -- whether they be from England or Senegal -- I'm a racist.
If I'm against nationalized health care, I'm a racist.
If the U.S. government screws up it's Federal Emergency responses, it's racially motivated.
If I disagree with the president's policies, I'm a racist.
And you know that minorities don't really have much opportunity in today's United States, being oppressed by the white man, and all. Forget the fact that the President of the United States is Black, as well as the Chairman of the Republican National Committee.
And on and on.
Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of liberals playing the race card. Yes, there are racists in this country (and the planet), and they are white, brown, black and yellow.
But when members of Congress start throwing it around -- I can excuse ignorant bloggers and media personalities -- I think it's gone too far.
But when you can no longer debate the facts about issues, all that is left is to attack those who disagree with you. Calling someone a racist -- or any other derogatory name -- because he or she disagrees with you is at the very least intellectual dishonesty, and quite possibly just cowardice. Are you afraid to debate the facts? Or do they get in the way?
The hypocrisy of the left is now so exposed that I think we'll have a conservative revolution. And if we don't, welcome to the third world, America.
If I'm against nationalized health care, I'm a racist.
If the U.S. government screws up it's Federal Emergency responses, it's racially motivated.
If I disagree with the president's policies, I'm a racist.
And you know that minorities don't really have much opportunity in today's United States, being oppressed by the white man, and all. Forget the fact that the President of the United States is Black, as well as the Chairman of the Republican National Committee.
And on and on.
Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of liberals playing the race card. Yes, there are racists in this country (and the planet), and they are white, brown, black and yellow.
But when members of Congress start throwing it around -- I can excuse ignorant bloggers and media personalities -- I think it's gone too far.
But when you can no longer debate the facts about issues, all that is left is to attack those who disagree with you. Calling someone a racist -- or any other derogatory name -- because he or she disagrees with you is at the very least intellectual dishonesty, and quite possibly just cowardice. Are you afraid to debate the facts? Or do they get in the way?
The hypocrisy of the left is now so exposed that I think we'll have a conservative revolution. And if we don't, welcome to the third world, America.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Democrats step over the line again
Enough is enough. Congressional Democrats now want to discipline Rep. Wilson if he doesn't grovel in front of them, even though he has apoligized to just about everyone for his remarks (all two words of it) during Obama's address to Congress the other night.
While the Democrats can boo and hiss at George Bush during his State of the Union Address in 2005 with no consequences, let one Republican step out of line and the hammer is dropped without mercy.
I had to sit and listen to Democrats call conservatives and Republicans all kinds of things during the eight years of Bush, including Senators calling our troops killers and equating them will Nazis, etc. But God forbid if someone criticizes their President or their policies.
Not only did they at first support the war, then they didn't to the point of trying to get us to lose it. Well, I'm about to lose it.
Liberal groups can protest outside of Bush's ranch for months, act violently during international meetings, distrupt Senate hearings, and this is patriotism.
But when conservatives dissent, they are called all kinds of names, attacked personally, and generally marginalized.
This they way of the liberal, who is not liberal in his or her belief of democracy. They only like you if you agree with their attempt to control you.
I try to stay up with what liberals are writing and thinking, but it gets very tiring of reading personal attacks. Never address the issues. Just use name-calling. I gave that up in elementary school.
I wish they would too.
While the Democrats can boo and hiss at George Bush during his State of the Union Address in 2005 with no consequences, let one Republican step out of line and the hammer is dropped without mercy.
I had to sit and listen to Democrats call conservatives and Republicans all kinds of things during the eight years of Bush, including Senators calling our troops killers and equating them will Nazis, etc. But God forbid if someone criticizes their President or their policies.
Not only did they at first support the war, then they didn't to the point of trying to get us to lose it. Well, I'm about to lose it.
Liberal groups can protest outside of Bush's ranch for months, act violently during international meetings, distrupt Senate hearings, and this is patriotism.
But when conservatives dissent, they are called all kinds of names, attacked personally, and generally marginalized.
This they way of the liberal, who is not liberal in his or her belief of democracy. They only like you if you agree with their attempt to control you.
I try to stay up with what liberals are writing and thinking, but it gets very tiring of reading personal attacks. Never address the issues. Just use name-calling. I gave that up in elementary school.
I wish they would too.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Not Afraid? You Will Be.
The facts are piling up faster than manure on a cattle ranch. If you're not worried, frightened, disgusted, or just plain ol' concerned about what our 44th President is doing, saying and planning, you must be living in a different world than the rest of us.
Here are three must reads. You be the judge.
The Obama-Pelosi deficits, from the Wall Street Journal
Insulter-in-chief, from the American Thinker.
Obama's Follies, from Victor David Hanson
Here are three must reads. You be the judge.
The Obama-Pelosi deficits, from the Wall Street Journal
Insulter-in-chief, from the American Thinker.
Obama's Follies, from Victor David Hanson
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Liberal Hypocricy Once Again
While our sympathies go out to the Kennedy family over Sen. Ted Kennedy's death last night, the whole affair again points to liberal hypocrisy.
Back in March, Rush Limbaugh made the comment that the national heath care bill would eventually be named for Ted Kennedy. He caught all kinds of flack -- from Democrats and liberals -- for his comment.
For example, the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee called Limbaugh's comments about Sen. Kennedy "truly outrageous." "“Leader Limbaugh crossed the line. National Republicans must stand up to their leader, Rush Limbaugh, and tell him that enough is enough.”
Yet now, after the Senator's death, Democrats are tripping all over themselves to name the bill in honor of Kennedy.
If a conservative suggests something, it's a horrendous deed; if a liberal suggests the same thing, it's just great.
If you don't see the hypocrisy, you're not living on the same planet. It is one of the reasons debating a liberal is just about impossible.
Back in March, Rush Limbaugh made the comment that the national heath care bill would eventually be named for Ted Kennedy. He caught all kinds of flack -- from Democrats and liberals -- for his comment.
For example, the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee called Limbaugh's comments about Sen. Kennedy "truly outrageous." "“Leader Limbaugh crossed the line. National Republicans must stand up to their leader, Rush Limbaugh, and tell him that enough is enough.”
Yet now, after the Senator's death, Democrats are tripping all over themselves to name the bill in honor of Kennedy.
If a conservative suggests something, it's a horrendous deed; if a liberal suggests the same thing, it's just great.
If you don't see the hypocrisy, you're not living on the same planet. It is one of the reasons debating a liberal is just about impossible.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Hopeful signs are emerging
Both parties -- Democrats and Republicans -- have failed. Both are to blame for the problems we have, and both don't have real solutions. Our government has failed us. Politians are only interested in keeping and exercising power, and for decades have done nothing constructive, except dig us deeper into an already deep hole.
When George Washington stated "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master," he was right.
When Ronald Reagan said that government was the problem, not the solution, he was right. When Thomas Paine said "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one," he was right.
Thomas Jefferson judged government correctly:
Have we lost our way? This nation was founded on the principal that excessive government was tyranny, and what we have today is quickly approaching that condition, if it is not already here.
The Constitution of the United States states that any powers not specifically granted to the Federal government are to be granted to the States and Local governments! Much of what our Federal government in Washington has done over the last several decades is unconstitutional, yet the Supreme Court has gone along with this takeover.
The 10th Amendment:
Now we are seeing how our Republic works. If the people think the Federal government is taking too much power, we resist. This is not un-American, as Nancy Pelosi would have you believe. As one resident of San Franciso (Pelosi's home turf) said in a comment on www.sfgate.com:
Read more comments at the SFGate. I think you'll find the comments from this liberal bastion interesting.
I see a glimmer of hope that the American people will not let the Federal government become the tyranny our founders feared so much.
When George Washington stated "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master," he was right.
When Ronald Reagan said that government was the problem, not the solution, he was right. When Thomas Paine said "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one," he was right.
Thomas Jefferson judged government correctly:
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
Have we lost our way? This nation was founded on the principal that excessive government was tyranny, and what we have today is quickly approaching that condition, if it is not already here.
The Constitution of the United States states that any powers not specifically granted to the Federal government are to be granted to the States and Local governments! Much of what our Federal government in Washington has done over the last several decades is unconstitutional, yet the Supreme Court has gone along with this takeover.
The 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Now we are seeing how our Republic works. If the people think the Federal government is taking too much power, we resist. This is not un-American, as Nancy Pelosi would have you believe. As one resident of San Franciso (Pelosi's home turf) said in a comment on www.sfgate.com:
I've been a Democrat since I came back from the War in 1968. Let me get this straight: When I demonstrated in the street for Affirmative Action, Womens Lib and Gay rights, I was being Patriotic. But if you demonstrate in the street against secret legislation not open to the public for discussion, you are Unamerican? What am I missing here? Obama declared August 1st as being: "The People's Deadline" for passing Healthcare that the Congress hadn't even read yet and the public didn't have any details about. He was acting and sounding just like Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung. All those enlightened 20th Century Progressive Dictators were always spouting off about "The People's This & The People's That".
I'm a Liberal Democrat, but this guy is a buffoon. POWER TO THE PEOPLE-EVEN THE REPUBLICANS!
Read more comments at the SFGate. I think you'll find the comments from this liberal bastion interesting.
I see a glimmer of hope that the American people will not let the Federal government become the tyranny our founders feared so much.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Liberal Insanity: Spend Your Way Out of Bankruptcy
The break with reality is complete. According to our esteemed Vice President, Joe Biden:
“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said.
“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”
That should work, right?
I guess I'd better to spend at least twice what I bring in -- that way I won't go bankrupt either. That seems to be the current administration's plan, anyway.
And we've got 42 months left of this insanity? But have no fear. About once every 20 years, we have to give the liberals a chance to see if their programs will work. They never do, but they keep trying.
Besides, it's not the results of their programs; it's the intention. Screw the results -- we had good intentions.
Problem this time is that Obama and Pelosi are trying to ram this in quick before anyone really knows what going on. The damage, if they succeed, will be great.
“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said.
“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”
That should work, right?
I guess I'd better to spend at least twice what I bring in -- that way I won't go bankrupt either. That seems to be the current administration's plan, anyway.
And we've got 42 months left of this insanity? But have no fear. About once every 20 years, we have to give the liberals a chance to see if their programs will work. They never do, but they keep trying.
Besides, it's not the results of their programs; it's the intention. Screw the results -- we had good intentions.
Problem this time is that Obama and Pelosi are trying to ram this in quick before anyone really knows what going on. The damage, if they succeed, will be great.
Monday, July 13, 2009
The re-making of America
Have you been paying attention to what the Democrats are now doing? Why have they been cramming new legislation through the system so fast that no one precisely knows what is being enacted into law?
First, the left-wing of the Democrat party is fully in charge. They now -- especially with the recession -- have the opportunity to covert the United States to a socialist model. But they know they must do it quickly before the majority of Americans realize what they are doing. Once the public does wake up, the chances are great the Democrats will lose power. And the Dems know it. But if they can get enough people dependent upon the teat of government handouts, watch out...
What exactly does the left-wing so highly desire, besides power? Victor Davis Hanson puts it better than I can come up with on a coffee break:
If this is the kind of European-type socialism that you want, then you'll be happy. I'll bet the majority of Americans do not.
Besides, the economic model will create a endless recession. Instead of just a few of us being poor, all of us will be poor.
Hanson comes to the same conclusion I have:
First, the left-wing of the Democrat party is fully in charge. They now -- especially with the recession -- have the opportunity to covert the United States to a socialist model. But they know they must do it quickly before the majority of Americans realize what they are doing. Once the public does wake up, the chances are great the Democrats will lose power. And the Dems know it. But if they can get enough people dependent upon the teat of government handouts, watch out...
What exactly does the left-wing so highly desire, besides power? Victor Davis Hanson puts it better than I can come up with on a coffee break:
Soon we will all end up after each April 15 making about the same, driving the same sort of cars and using the same sort of mass transit, living in about the same sorts of houses, and having about the same sorts of “‘they’ will take care of it for me” philosophies — all overseen by brilliant, but highly ranked and exempt Platonic Guardians who suffer on our behalf as they jet and limo at breakneck speed ensuring our welfare.
If this is the kind of European-type socialism that you want, then you'll be happy. I'll bet the majority of Americans do not.
Besides, the economic model will create a endless recession. Instead of just a few of us being poor, all of us will be poor.
Hanson comes to the same conclusion I have:
This recovery cannot work, other than a brief spurt that results from trillions in printed money, because we are rewarding unproductive areas of the economy (federal money for more wind farms, federal hurdles for pumping more known natural gas or nuclear power construction; more of the community-organizing model, less of the productive small business model) and punishing the engines of the economy.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Pelosi and her delusions
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi released a statement in response to the 28-year high in unemployment, which stood at 9.5 percent in June. Part of the statement reads:
Years of failure to invest in American education? We have spent trillions upon trillions of dollars for education, yet our schools have failed us, mostly because of liberal administrators and teachers corrupting what once was a fine education system.
Recently, the Goldwater Institute tested a group of high school seniors with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services exam. Only 3.5 percent of students tested who attend public schools passed. Nearly 98 percent of our high school kids can't pass this test, yet we require our new citizens to pass it.
Their report also states:
Legend has it that a woman asked Benjamin Franklin, leaving the Constitutional Convention, what sort of government had been created. “A Republic, if you can keep it,” Franklin replied. A major justification for supporting a system of public schools has long been the promotion of a general civic knowledge necessary for a well informed citizenry.
According to Pelosi, we have failed to invest, but the real root of the problem is what is being taught. While our heath care system is one of the worlds best -- it is a free market system -- our schools are one of the world's worst -- it is mostly government-run system.
So Ms. Speaker, not only do you and your party not understand what makes our educational system work, you do not have a clue on how to get us out of this near-depression. You are delusional on the fact that liberal policies do not work, have not worked, and never will work. Yet, you keep pushing them down our throats, without debate, and have bankrupted the mightiest economy the world has ever known.
That will be your legacy: the destruction of the American Republic.
Today's unemployment numbers are another reminder of the years of failure to invest in making Americans the most highly educated and innovative workforce in the world -- and years of delay on affordable health care and the clean energy jobs and industries that will sustain our economy for years to come.
Years of failure to invest in American education? We have spent trillions upon trillions of dollars for education, yet our schools have failed us, mostly because of liberal administrators and teachers corrupting what once was a fine education system.
Recently, the Goldwater Institute tested a group of high school seniors with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services exam. Only 3.5 percent of students tested who attend public schools passed. Nearly 98 percent of our high school kids can't pass this test, yet we require our new citizens to pass it.
Their report also states:
...public schools are not in fact equipping students with an understanding of civics. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) administered a grade-level-appropriate civic knowledge exam to a nationally representative sample of 4th-, 8th-, and 12th-graders in 2006. The percentages of students scoring at the proficient level or above: 25 percent of 4th graders, 24 percent of 8th graders, and 32 percent of 12th graders.
Legend has it that a woman asked Benjamin Franklin, leaving the Constitutional Convention, what sort of government had been created. “A Republic, if you can keep it,” Franklin replied. A major justification for supporting a system of public schools has long been the promotion of a general civic knowledge necessary for a well informed citizenry.
According to Pelosi, we have failed to invest, but the real root of the problem is what is being taught. While our heath care system is one of the worlds best -- it is a free market system -- our schools are one of the world's worst -- it is mostly government-run system.
So Ms. Speaker, not only do you and your party not understand what makes our educational system work, you do not have a clue on how to get us out of this near-depression. You are delusional on the fact that liberal policies do not work, have not worked, and never will work. Yet, you keep pushing them down our throats, without debate, and have bankrupted the mightiest economy the world has ever known.
That will be your legacy: the destruction of the American Republic.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Joe, Wrong Again.
First he claimed that most Americans want a government-sponsored health care system. Now, Joe Conasan, who writes for the liberal rag New York Observer, says:
Wait one minute. While it is true that the United States spends more on health care, both measured as per capita and as a percentage of GDP, to claim we get worse results is absurd.
According to the Economist, in an article "You get what you pay for:"
And from emaxhealth.com:
I could go on, but it's so easy for anyone to look up the facts (unless you're only looking for "facts" that back up your position). You may find that with other conditions, the results may be slighly different, but the bottom line for me -- and a lot of other people -- is that if I get injured or sick, I'm in the right country.
I have found in my own research that liberals tend to ignore facts that disagree with their position more than conservatives.
While far from perfect, the United States has the best health care system in the world.
So Joe, you can't fool everyone.
As a matter of fact, America's current health care system wastes considerably more than a trillion dollars every year. We know that because countries such as France, Germany, Japan and Finland, with comparable standards of living to ours, spend roughly half what the United States spends annually on health care per citizen, while covering everyone and achieving better results.
Wait one minute. While it is true that the United States spends more on health care, both measured as per capita and as a percentage of GDP, to claim we get worse results is absurd.
According to the Economist, in an article "You get what you pay for:"
After adjusting country data, from the 1990s, for differences in both age and death rates in the general population, Americans were found to have the best chance of survival for two of the five cancers that the reasearchers considered: breast cancer in women and prostate cancer. (Cuba had impressive survival rates, but these were probably over-estimated, say researchers). Europe lags behind America, with wide differences in survival rates, ranging from 10% for breast cancer to 34% for prostate cancer. Money appears to be an important factor: America spends a greater proportion of national income on health than the other countries.
And from emaxhealth.com:
Researchers found that USA has the best score with 5 years of survival rate for breast cancer at 83.9% and prostate cancer at 91.9%. Japan scores the best for colon cancer at 63% and rectal cancer at 58.2% in men. Women living in France have the highest rates for colon and rectal cancers at 60.1% and 63.9% respectively.
I could go on, but it's so easy for anyone to look up the facts (unless you're only looking for "facts" that back up your position). You may find that with other conditions, the results may be slighly different, but the bottom line for me -- and a lot of other people -- is that if I get injured or sick, I'm in the right country.
I have found in my own research that liberals tend to ignore facts that disagree with their position more than conservatives.
While far from perfect, the United States has the best health care system in the world.
So Joe, you can't fool everyone.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Be Afraid, Very Afraid
Let's do some fear-mongering, something the liberals have accused conservatives for years (we used fear about terrorism, which is an actual event).
Now, that these same critics are in power, they are using fear to ram countless new laws and regulations which far more stiffle our civil liberties than any conservative could ever dream up. Fear is now not directed against terrorism (other contingency operations), but the climate.
According to the Pulitzer-winning paper Investors Business Daily:
Yet, to "solve" this monumental problem, what does Congress do?
No one read it, yet they voted on it. In fact, the bill wasn't even on the floor, in the well, which is traditionally how it's done.
Reminds me of the last "stimulus" bill, which was not read by most before they voted on it.
Voting on a bill that will affect not only millions of Americans, but countless millions around the world, before you have read, studied and debated it -- this is insanity, not progress.
But as Investors Business Daily concludes at one point: "It may be the most flagrant attempted con job in U.S. history."
Here is another example of how Democrats do business, thanks to the Examiner:
Apparently House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev) are so afraid of a public backlash against the cost of the health care reform package that they don't want voters to see it. Along with Obama's promise of transparency, the two politicians think they can get away with anything because of having a majority in Congress. Their arrogance and lack of respect for American citizens has no bounds.
Like I said, be very afraid.
Now, that these same critics are in power, they are using fear to ram countless new laws and regulations which far more stiffle our civil liberties than any conservative could ever dream up. Fear is now not directed against terrorism (other contingency operations), but the climate.
According to the Pulitzer-winning paper Investors Business Daily:
Catastrophic sea levels, floods in lower Manhattan, California beaches permanently submerged. Ferocious hurricanes. Droughts. Food shortages, epidemic diseases, a quadrupling of heat-wave deaths. Aged sewer systems convulsing from massive storm runoff. Polar bears disappearing from the Arctic.
Yet, to "solve" this monumental problem, what does Congress do?
A 1,500-page bill to tax, regulate and penalize all U.S. hydrocarbon energy use to "save the planet" from climate Armageddon has passed the House 219-212 despite the fact that not one member read it.
No one read it, yet they voted on it. In fact, the bill wasn't even on the floor, in the well, which is traditionally how it's done.
Reminds me of the last "stimulus" bill, which was not read by most before they voted on it.
Voting on a bill that will affect not only millions of Americans, but countless millions around the world, before you have read, studied and debated it -- this is insanity, not progress.
But as Investors Business Daily concludes at one point: "It may be the most flagrant attempted con job in U.S. history."
Here is another example of how Democrats do business, thanks to the Examiner:
Apparently House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev) are so afraid of a public backlash against the cost of the health care reform package that they don't want voters to see it. Along with Obama's promise of transparency, the two politicians think they can get away with anything because of having a majority in Congress. Their arrogance and lack of respect for American citizens has no bounds.
Like I said, be very afraid.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Debunking the usual liberal myths
Joe Conasan tells us in a recent editorial: "Nearly every poll now shows the American people demanding change in the health care system, with majorities favoring universal coverage and, in many surveys, a government plan that competes with private insurance."
What polls is he reading? The first one I found on a google search had different conclusions, though if I'd spent more time, I may have found one that agreed with him. I probably should do that, in order not to be accused of picking my data, but the point is the Joe really doesn't understand middle Americans.
The majority do not want government-mandated health care. What they (we) want is a more fair playing field. Things like better tax deductions for the cost of insurance, making the insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions, cost of medications that actually work -- simple things like that.
And what's up with always having to go to one doctor to get a referral to another? That's insane. A year ago I knew I needed a surgeon for a hernia repair, and my primary care provider agreed. The whole process wasted his time, my time and took too weeks longer. (Though a third of the time it would have taken in Canada). It's an idiot policy. These are the kind of changes we want. Not a health dictator in Washington D.C.
The majority are afraid that if the government gets involved, quality will go down and costs will go up.
It's only the far-left that wants the government to take over health care (and everything else). To highlight this mentality, remember Obama's recent statement that he would allow us to keep our doctors under his plan.
Who gave him the right to choose my doctor? Or tell me whether I can keep the one I have?
Yes, we need some reform here. But not what these idiots are planning.
Next case, Susan Estrich, another liberal from the left-coast, declares: Will allowing the Bush tax cuts on the richest Americans to expire and increasing the taxes both on wealthy Americans and some small businesses raise revenue or depress the economy?
Susan, if those tax cuts expire, taxes will go up for all taxpayers. So quit with the liberal talking points, and re-framing the issue. I know what you're doing, so it's no secret that you and your liberal buddies are re-writing history. Obama has the lead, as mentioned here by an actual historian.
Shall I continue on with Cap and Trade and how it will solve so-called global warming? Why bother.
When will the madness stop?
What polls is he reading? The first one I found on a google search had different conclusions, though if I'd spent more time, I may have found one that agreed with him. I probably should do that, in order not to be accused of picking my data, but the point is the Joe really doesn't understand middle Americans.
The majority do not want government-mandated health care. What they (we) want is a more fair playing field. Things like better tax deductions for the cost of insurance, making the insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions, cost of medications that actually work -- simple things like that.
And what's up with always having to go to one doctor to get a referral to another? That's insane. A year ago I knew I needed a surgeon for a hernia repair, and my primary care provider agreed. The whole process wasted his time, my time and took too weeks longer. (Though a third of the time it would have taken in Canada). It's an idiot policy. These are the kind of changes we want. Not a health dictator in Washington D.C.
The majority are afraid that if the government gets involved, quality will go down and costs will go up.
It's only the far-left that wants the government to take over health care (and everything else). To highlight this mentality, remember Obama's recent statement that he would allow us to keep our doctors under his plan.
Who gave him the right to choose my doctor? Or tell me whether I can keep the one I have?
Yes, we need some reform here. But not what these idiots are planning.
Next case, Susan Estrich, another liberal from the left-coast, declares: Will allowing the Bush tax cuts on the richest Americans to expire and increasing the taxes both on wealthy Americans and some small businesses raise revenue or depress the economy?
Susan, if those tax cuts expire, taxes will go up for all taxpayers. So quit with the liberal talking points, and re-framing the issue. I know what you're doing, so it's no secret that you and your liberal buddies are re-writing history. Obama has the lead, as mentioned here by an actual historian.
Shall I continue on with Cap and Trade and how it will solve so-called global warming? Why bother.
When will the madness stop?
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
The U.S.A. -- R.I.P
Do you now doubt the liberal agenda? Here's what they are in the process of doing, under the label of "progressives". But it's hardly progressive.
1. Taxes. One way or another, you'll start paying more taxes soon, either directly to the government, or indirectly through higher prices. Either way, you're paying them. All kinds of little things add up. Cap and trade will raise utility and gas prices. And some tax laws will be re-written so that some previous deductions will no longer be allowed. This is what liberals call tax loopholes, but this is the misuse of terminology again. How about the mortgage deduction? Is that a loophole? Obama will come after it soon. His stated goal is to revoke all of the Reagan tax cuts, which did so much for economic growth over the last 25 years. It's his distribution of income scheme...spreading the wealth. Spreading it so thin, the middle class will be destroyed.
2. First admendment. Not only are they instituting policy councils, but a diversity conference over at the FCC. Ever heard of the Fairness Doctrine? The federal government will start to dictate what is on the air -- politically -- very soon. They will silence any opposition to their cause. Without political free speech, democracy is dead.
3. Gun laws. There is already a bill that greatly strengthens gun laws. A lot. Putting the government in full control over who can own a gun. Very dangerous.
4. Medical care. The liberal mantra is to lower health care costs while making it guaranteed to everyone. Nationalized healthcare does not work as well as what we have. It become less and less available. Consider Great Britain, Canada, and others with this type of plan. It doesn't work. Why will it here? Actually, I don't think the liberal elite really care. It just sounds like a good plan. Makes you feel good all over, a tingly feeling running down your leg.
5. Education. Yes, we'll spend more for education, but with greater government controls in place as well. This will continue the onslaught to a good education. They want you to learn only what they want you to know.
6. Foreign Policy. It won't be long, I predict. Obama will have some despot walk all over him.
There is much more going on. Hope you pay attention. Remember the liberals who screamed (and many still do) about how our liberties were being taken away by the Bush administration.
Bush is a light-weight, when it comes to Obama.
The United States of America. Born July 2, 1776. Died Nov. 4, 2008 (Suicide)
1. Taxes. One way or another, you'll start paying more taxes soon, either directly to the government, or indirectly through higher prices. Either way, you're paying them. All kinds of little things add up. Cap and trade will raise utility and gas prices. And some tax laws will be re-written so that some previous deductions will no longer be allowed. This is what liberals call tax loopholes, but this is the misuse of terminology again. How about the mortgage deduction? Is that a loophole? Obama will come after it soon. His stated goal is to revoke all of the Reagan tax cuts, which did so much for economic growth over the last 25 years. It's his distribution of income scheme...spreading the wealth. Spreading it so thin, the middle class will be destroyed.
2. First admendment. Not only are they instituting policy councils, but a diversity conference over at the FCC. Ever heard of the Fairness Doctrine? The federal government will start to dictate what is on the air -- politically -- very soon. They will silence any opposition to their cause. Without political free speech, democracy is dead.
3. Gun laws. There is already a bill that greatly strengthens gun laws. A lot. Putting the government in full control over who can own a gun. Very dangerous.
4. Medical care. The liberal mantra is to lower health care costs while making it guaranteed to everyone. Nationalized healthcare does not work as well as what we have. It become less and less available. Consider Great Britain, Canada, and others with this type of plan. It doesn't work. Why will it here? Actually, I don't think the liberal elite really care. It just sounds like a good plan. Makes you feel good all over, a tingly feeling running down your leg.
5. Education. Yes, we'll spend more for education, but with greater government controls in place as well. This will continue the onslaught to a good education. They want you to learn only what they want you to know.
6. Foreign Policy. It won't be long, I predict. Obama will have some despot walk all over him.
There is much more going on. Hope you pay attention. Remember the liberals who screamed (and many still do) about how our liberties were being taken away by the Bush administration.
Bush is a light-weight, when it comes to Obama.
The United States of America. Born July 2, 1776. Died Nov. 4, 2008 (Suicide)
Friday, April 24, 2009
Taxes, Taxes and More Taxes
Just about everything you do involves taxes.
Just bought gasoline? You paid taxes. Made a phone call? You paid taxes. Bought tires? You paid taxes. Cigarettes? Beer? Of course, you paid the sin tax. Traded stock? You'll pay taxes. Sold something? Probably have to pay taxes. Bought a house? You paid taxes. Sold a house? You paid taxes. Flew on an airplane. You paid taxes. Got your paycheck? You paid taxes. Buy a car? You paid taxes. Turned on your lights? You paid taxes. Traded something for something? You paid taxes. You died? Your heirs may have to pay taxes again on assets you've already paid taxes on...
And the Democrats want more.
It never ends. The federal tax code alone is now 70,000 pages. Six hundred forms. When does it end?
Just bought gasoline? You paid taxes. Made a phone call? You paid taxes. Bought tires? You paid taxes. Cigarettes? Beer? Of course, you paid the sin tax. Traded stock? You'll pay taxes. Sold something? Probably have to pay taxes. Bought a house? You paid taxes. Sold a house? You paid taxes. Flew on an airplane. You paid taxes. Got your paycheck? You paid taxes. Buy a car? You paid taxes. Turned on your lights? You paid taxes. Traded something for something? You paid taxes. You died? Your heirs may have to pay taxes again on assets you've already paid taxes on...
And the Democrats want more.
It never ends. The federal tax code alone is now 70,000 pages. Six hundred forms. When does it end?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
If There Ever Was a Liar: Meet Barney Frank
Recent sound-bites from Barney Frank, courtesy of Rush Limbaugh:
As Rush points out, who did that? Why, it was Barney Frank himself, with his steadfast backing of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
But Franks says:
And now, in a separate story, students at American University don't want Franks to speak at their school.
Who elected this guy, anyway? Ah, that's right. The people of Massachusetts.
One of the causes of the terrible crisis we had over the last few years, which has given us today's problem, it came from people being pushed into buying houses -- taking homes that they couldn't afford.
As Rush points out, who did that? Why, it was Barney Frank himself, with his steadfast backing of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
But Franks says:
It was a conservative view that rental housing was a bad thing. I have been trying to continue programs to build descent rental housing. What we had were in people in power who didn't like that, and they said no, no, we'll help them become homeowners.Frank was the one in power who was pushing homeownership, not rentals. If you don't believe it, see my blog for September 26, 2008.
And now, in a separate story, students at American University don't want Franks to speak at their school.
About 130 American University students are asking school administrators to withdraw Barney Frank’s invitation to deliver a commencement address to AU’s School of Public Affairs in a few weeks. The students blame the fiery House Financial Services Committee chairman for the financial meltdown, singling out his longtime support of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as contributing to the severity of the crisis and magnitude of bailouts.
Who elected this guy, anyway? Ah, that's right. The people of Massachusetts.
Friday, April 17, 2009
If You Ain't Texan, Shut Up
Susan Estrich -- who is orginally from Massachusetts and now lives in California -- basically condemned Rick Perry, governor of Texas, in a recent op-ed.
"What makes it easy for Perry to "fire up" the crowds, as local headlines put it, is what makes it irresponsible for him, or anyone else who calls himself a leader, to do so."
Isn't this what politicians from both sides attempt to do: "fire up" crowds? What is her problem?
Give me a break. We're not going to give California money. Texas is one of the few states with a budget surplus, so we really don't need to have the feds tell us what to do. Texas has been run by conservatives for at least the last 12 years; California by liberals. We have lower unemployment, lower housing costs, a balanced budget and do not need government handouts to survive.
Tell that to California democrats, who have basically destroyed their state.
People like Susan just don't get it.
"What makes it easy for Perry to "fire up" the crowds, as local headlines put it, is what makes it irresponsible for him, or anyone else who calls himself a leader, to do so."
Isn't this what politicians from both sides attempt to do: "fire up" crowds? What is her problem?
Is Washington spending too much money? I don't know. If the people of Texas want to give theirs back, if they really think they have more than they'll need to educate their kids and care for their sick and help their newly homeless, then all I can say is that California most certainly does not and would be happy to have any leftovers from anywhere. Gov. Perry, meet Gov. Schwarzenegger. His hand is out. But angry talk by those who are supposed to be leaders can only lead to even angrier words or deeds by those who follow them, not understanding that it was just political talk in the first place.
Give me a break. We're not going to give California money. Texas is one of the few states with a budget surplus, so we really don't need to have the feds tell us what to do. Texas has been run by conservatives for at least the last 12 years; California by liberals. We have lower unemployment, lower housing costs, a balanced budget and do not need government handouts to survive.
Tell that to California democrats, who have basically destroyed their state.
People like Susan just don't get it.
Frank Back At It Again
We all know that Rep. Barney Frank caused a lot of our financial woes, mostly through inaction. For years he refused to act -- or prevented other committee members from acting -- when warned of the pending doom of Freddie and Fannie. (If you don't believe this, you haven't been paying attention; Google it.)
Now, Frank is back at it again. This time he wants the government to get in the business of guaranteeing municipals, which are already insured by private insurance. I guess he wants to undercut private companies -- though I don't know why.
And he assures everyone that it won't cost the taxpayer a cent, just like he told us about Freddie and Fannie.
The Wall Street Journal has the full story.
They guy has got to go. But the people of Massachusetts just don't elect good people, do they?
Now, Frank is back at it again. This time he wants the government to get in the business of guaranteeing municipals, which are already insured by private insurance. I guess he wants to undercut private companies -- though I don't know why.
And he assures everyone that it won't cost the taxpayer a cent, just like he told us about Freddie and Fannie.
The Wall Street Journal has the full story.
They guy has got to go. But the people of Massachusetts just don't elect good people, do they?
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Huffington Criticizes Obama Administration
When left-wing Arianna Huffington starts criticizing the Obama administration's handling of the economy, you know something just ain't right.
Wow! That's quite a statement coming from an ardent Obama supporter. In reading her full article, I may have to agree with her solution, as vague as it is, because it's more conservative than liberal. In brief, she wants to move government out of the solution and put it in the hands of the American people. In her own words:
Look, capitalism is based on letting losers fail, and someone will fill the vacuum with winners. People do get hurt. This is the brutal honesty of capitalism. In a socialistic state, the state props up entities, whether successful or not. Socialism strives for equal results, not equal opportunity. This is why socialism has not worked. Ask your average Hungarian, former East German, or Czech.
Americans have one thing going for them. When things are at their worst, we seem to be at our best.
Talking about our financial crisis with them [Obama's economic team] is like beaming back to the 2nd century and discussing astronomy with Ptolemy.
Wow! That's quite a statement coming from an ardent Obama supporter. In reading her full article, I may have to agree with her solution, as vague as it is, because it's more conservative than liberal. In brief, she wants to move government out of the solution and put it in the hands of the American people. In her own words:
The longer bank-centrism is the dominant cosmology in the Obama administration -- and the longer it takes to switch to a plan that reflects a cosmology in which the American people are the center of the universe and are deemed too-big-to-fail -- the greater the risk that the economic crisis will be more prolonged than necessary. And the greater the suffering the crisis will continue to cause.
Look, capitalism is based on letting losers fail, and someone will fill the vacuum with winners. People do get hurt. This is the brutal honesty of capitalism. In a socialistic state, the state props up entities, whether successful or not. Socialism strives for equal results, not equal opportunity. This is why socialism has not worked. Ask your average Hungarian, former East German, or Czech.
Americans have one thing going for them. When things are at their worst, we seem to be at our best.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Progressives Not So Progressive
Gary Shapiro, writing in the Huffington Post, comments that when Progressives -- for whatever reason -- gave up on free trade, they have turned their backs on the third world.
Of course. By giving up on free trade, part of what capitalism is all about, and which progressives are trying to destroy, the third world hurts first.
(By the way: I only use "progressive" because Shapiro does. I don't believe for one minute that liberals are "progressive." They are not.)
As Shapiro points out:
Spreading the wealth -- taking from the rich and giving to the poor -- does not improve the conditions of the world. How many socialist nations on this planet have done as well, or better, than a capitalistic democracy in improving the conditions of its people, overall?
If you can answer that, I'll convert today.
But I'm not worried.
Of course. By giving up on free trade, part of what capitalism is all about, and which progressives are trying to destroy, the third world hurts first.
(By the way: I only use "progressive" because Shapiro does. I don't believe for one minute that liberals are "progressive." They are not.)
As Shapiro points out:
In the 1960s, President Kennedy outlined a global vision based on the premise that a "rising tide lifts all boats." And lift it did. In the last 15 years alone, global trade has helped to lift 400 million people out of poverty around the world. Yet, when it comes to boosting living standards in places like Colombia and Panama, we hear hardly a peep from progressives. These stalled trade deals would improve economic and humanitarian conditions in those countries while helping U.S. companies, including many consumer electronics and technology companies, access new markets. The last 15 years are proof of that.
Spreading the wealth -- taking from the rich and giving to the poor -- does not improve the conditions of the world. How many socialist nations on this planet have done as well, or better, than a capitalistic democracy in improving the conditions of its people, overall?
If you can answer that, I'll convert today.
But I'm not worried.
Friday, March 27, 2009
On Being Liberal, Even in Oklahoma
I've had an e-mail newsletter exchange with the editor of a local small-town (just over the river in Oklahoma) shopper newspaper (circ 3,400). I wanted to respond to some statements he made about how he wanted to provide balanced, factual articles for his readers. I knew he was a liberal before I was finished with the first paragraph, but he is so typical of the liberal (he prefers progressive) mind-set that I wanted to share some of his ideas.
To this gentleman, bias means a right-wing slant, and he invited fact-based commentary, which didn't mean conservatives, but he back-tracked on that a bit.
I asked him what he used for sources for his opinions.
On taxes, he's typically liberal: The wealthy don't pay their fair share, taxes redistributed downward will create jobs and stimulate the workplace, etc...and he's very anti-corporate. Those evil corporations, you know.
He's still convinced, like most liberals, that FDR had it right, and to this day he doesn't even realize what caused our current recession:
I asked him to view the video at http://www.bornagainamerican.org, but alas, no luck here either:
But this guy, at least, welcomes opposing opinions (unlike so much of his liberal friends).
I do not put his comments here to mock him, or make fun of his ideas. The purpose here is to point out how different our ideas are. To him, and his liberal friends, everything is logical, factual, and the only way to make things better.
It seems we both want things to be better. We just disagree on how to get there.
To this gentleman, bias means a right-wing slant, and he invited fact-based commentary, which didn't mean conservatives, but he back-tracked on that a bit.
I prefer to be thought of as a Progressive. I am just a pundit with a long and varied life of studies and interesting experiences. I research, paraphrase and quote from a variety of valid sources. Yes, it is my intention to persuade people to my views. I believe well-meaning people who label themselves Right Wing Conservative have been misled into supporting disastrous governmental policy that has negatively impacted the world. As I have stated in each issue… I welcome opposing points of view. You are welcome to express your views in The Texoman.
I asked him what he used for sources for his opinions.
I do read Harper’s, The Washington Spectator, The Hightower Lowdown, Mother Jones, The Nation and an assortment of online publications and research sites. Except for The Herald Democrat, KTEN and KXII, I do not read any other right wing publications. Most of what I do hear from the Right comes from the likes of Limbaugh, Gingrich, Perry, Hall, Colter, Paul and of course, Steve Taylor. And I only need listen to the conservatives in Washington to conclude, ‘we ain’t in Kansas anymore Dorothy.’ I feel wisdom, understanding and direction are as important as allegedly unbiased journalism.
On taxes, he's typically liberal: The wealthy don't pay their fair share, taxes redistributed downward will create jobs and stimulate the workplace, etc...and he's very anti-corporate. Those evil corporations, you know.
He's still convinced, like most liberals, that FDR had it right, and to this day he doesn't even realize what caused our current recession:
FDR enacted regulations on the financial markets and taxes on the rich that while thought by some to weaken the economy were necessary to redistribute revenue downward and rebuild a financial system founded on the broader base of the majority. Regulations and much of 1930’s taxation if left in place by subsequent administrations would have prevented our current economic problems. The gutting of the Glass Steagall financial regulations act by the Reagan administration and Phil Graham and tax cuts by anyone seeking re-election and needing big money laid the ground work for our current recession.
I asked him to view the video at http://www.bornagainamerican.org, but alas, no luck here either:
My warm fuzzy proud to be an American feelings died in Viet Nam along with several of my childhood friends and the senseless murder of countless men, women and children I could not help and all the wealthy American industrial corporate executives I did.
But this guy, at least, welcomes opposing opinions (unlike so much of his liberal friends).
It has never been my intention to make The Texoman the exclusive property of the Left. I encourage everyone of every persuasion to address the issues of the day here. You don’t even have to be polite, well-read or logical. You only need to write.
I do not put his comments here to mock him, or make fun of his ideas. The purpose here is to point out how different our ideas are. To him, and his liberal friends, everything is logical, factual, and the only way to make things better.
It seems we both want things to be better. We just disagree on how to get there.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
He's Not Joe the Plumber
I'm actually talking about Joe Conason, a writer for the New York Observer. A recent editorial he wrote can be used as a case-study of how liberals view history. I'll point out some of his more obvious mis-statements, but I don't have the time or room here for a line-by-line blow, so don't accuse me of cherry-picking.
The only sentence in his piece that is factually true is the first one:
Next,
And of course,
But if you actually paid any attention, you'd know this is not really true. Of course, many Republicans are to blame as well, but it is the Democrats who are mostly responsible for this mess, starting with the Community Investment Act during Jimmy Carter's years, then strengthened during Bill Clinton's reign, with the continued pressure applied to financial institutions to lend, lend, lend...and when the Bush adminstration saw problems six years ago, they were blocked by the Democrats (Franks and Dodd) of any regulatory overall.
He goes on about how it's all a con game, how Republicans never get blamed for anything, how it's always Democrats who get blamed for economic woes, and on and on. Since when have Republicans never been blamed for everything. What world does Joe live in.
But here's one of my favorites, used by anyone on the left:
Tax cuts for the rich is not part of conservative theory. Obviously Mr. Conason has not bothered to study conservative theory. This is part of the kool-aid crowd's attempt to advance class warfare, so we know where he gets this theory. Yes, the last two tax cuts did cut taxes for the rich -- they cut taxes for everyone. I got one. I'm sure he got one.
Actual studies have shown that rebates and government spending are not stimulatory. But long-term tax relief for everyone -- including small business (which make around $250,000, or part of the "rich") are the real engines of growth, because growth is then put in the hands of people who create growth. Governments never create growth. This is a fact, based on economic history.
But I guess, for Mr. Conason, facts are truely an inconvenience.
The only sentence in his piece that is factually true is the first one:
As Barack Obama's economic advisers confront choices that vary from bad to worse in their mission to revive the financial sector and the broader economy, it is worth remembering that those choices were in essence inherited by the president, who is still new to his office.Choices that vary from bad to worse. Well, there are better choices, such as tax reform, fiscal constraint, a balanced budget, just not what Obama is actually doing. But he did inherit this mess, so these two statements are mostly true.
Next,
Listening to his critics, especially on the right, it would be easy to believe that the president is personally responsible for ballooning deficits, gigantic bailouts, ridiculous bonuses, nationalized institutions and careening markets.But the president (along with Congress) is responsible for ballooning deficits, gigantic bailouts (even though started by Bush, but continued by this president), ridiculous bonuses (signed into law by Obama), nationalized institutions (taking over AIG; Geithner's expanded power request), and careening markets.
And of course,
Ever since Election Day 2008, the usual suspects have been hard at work, deflecting responsibility from the Bush administration (and the Republicans in Congress) for the catastrophic effects of conservative policy enacted during the past eight years.
But if you actually paid any attention, you'd know this is not really true. Of course, many Republicans are to blame as well, but it is the Democrats who are mostly responsible for this mess, starting with the Community Investment Act during Jimmy Carter's years, then strengthened during Bill Clinton's reign, with the continued pressure applied to financial institutions to lend, lend, lend...and when the Bush adminstration saw problems six years ago, they were blocked by the Democrats (Franks and Dodd) of any regulatory overall.
He goes on about how it's all a con game, how Republicans never get blamed for anything, how it's always Democrats who get blamed for economic woes, and on and on. Since when have Republicans never been blamed for everything. What world does Joe live in.
But here's one of my favorites, used by anyone on the left:
According to conservative theory, the mere announcement of massive tax cuts for the rich by a Republican president ought to have stimulated euphoria in the markets and rapid growth.
Tax cuts for the rich is not part of conservative theory. Obviously Mr. Conason has not bothered to study conservative theory. This is part of the kool-aid crowd's attempt to advance class warfare, so we know where he gets this theory. Yes, the last two tax cuts did cut taxes for the rich -- they cut taxes for everyone. I got one. I'm sure he got one.
Actual studies have shown that rebates and government spending are not stimulatory. But long-term tax relief for everyone -- including small business (which make around $250,000, or part of the "rich") are the real engines of growth, because growth is then put in the hands of people who create growth. Governments never create growth. This is a fact, based on economic history.
But I guess, for Mr. Conason, facts are truely an inconvenience.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Ignoring the Constitution: Our Congress
People are still arguing over the "facts" of who got us into this mess. Most of the blame, at least by the left, has fallen on .... drum roll, please ... you got it: Bush.
But the facts, for those of you who are interested, paint a different picture, one based in reality. David Young, a Constitutional scholar, on his blog On Second Opinion, could not have summarized it better:
The insanity of the whole affair is that the people who caused this -- both government and private -- are the ones who are attempting to fix the problem. Does this make sense to you?
Young writes: "Apparently it is simply the result of politicians ignoring the power actually given them in the U.S. Constitution and doing whatever they please whenever they want."
Victor Davis Hanson is also worth reading on these -- indeed, most -- issues. (In fact, if you're not a regular reader of his columns and books, you should become one now.)
In the meantime, let's just keep doing the same thing, and hope for different results.
This are truly insane times.
But the facts, for those of you who are interested, paint a different picture, one based in reality. David Young, a Constitutional scholar, on his blog On Second Opinion, could not have summarized it better:
The current economic situation is largely the result of two separate problems. The first is government policy that has forced lending institutions to loan money for homes to those who cannot actually repay the loans. Due to the government's policy requiring unsound loans for housing, many people have purchased homes much more expensive than they would otherwise have bought. Others have purchased more than a home, they have engaged in extensive speculation in the housing market, buying up houses, especially in a few parts of the country, to make extensive profits.
The second problem involves some of the largest financial institutions that have engaged in what amounts to gambling or blatant speculation through the medium of credit default swaps, betting on the likelihood of various large
businesses failing. Because of the failure of Freddie and Fanny due to unsound loans caused by equally unsound public policy, the failure of various major financial institutions has become likely, and as a result of a possible string of failures, literally trillions of dollars may be owed to those speculating in credit default swaps.
The insanity of the whole affair is that the people who caused this -- both government and private -- are the ones who are attempting to fix the problem. Does this make sense to you?
Young writes: "Apparently it is simply the result of politicians ignoring the power actually given them in the U.S. Constitution and doing whatever they please whenever they want."
Victor Davis Hanson is also worth reading on these -- indeed, most -- issues. (In fact, if you're not a regular reader of his columns and books, you should become one now.)
We had a 9/11 Commission; we formed the Baker-Hamilton Commission on Iraq (never mind the utility of the conclusions). So let us try a bipartisan investigatory commission on the autumn financial meltdown. Thus far the mainstream media narrative is a reductive “Bush did it.” But let us examine past bundling of subprime mortgages, and derivatives, and who introduced more regulation of banks, who opposed it; who tried to restrain Freddie and Fannie, who fought that tooth and nail, what the SEC did and did not do — and why. Let us collate all the campaign contributions from the failed banks, Madoff, the entire open sewer of politics and high finance, and then let those of the commission, both Democrat and Republican, issue a white paper on when, why, and how it all went down.
In the meantime, let's just keep doing the same thing, and hope for different results.
This are truly insane times.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Reality: Reserved for Democrats
To so-called liberals, the only reality is what they tell you it is. As Katha Pollit wrote a few months ago (emphasis mine):
What the fuck does that mean?
I guess that means if I'm not a Democrat, my reality isn't real. Something I made up.
I'm sorry. I'm so tired of "liberal," "progressive," crap like this. I'm tired of being called all sorts of things because I believe in liberty, individual freedom and responsibility, instead of the fucking government getting in all my business, which means elitist (she teaches at Princeton, which she points out is an elite institution) folks like Katha, who are so special that they know best, want to control what I say, what I read and what I believe in. From before birth to after death. This is not liberal or progressive in any sense of the word, so don't you believe this claptrap shit at all, or else you'll be living soon in a nation modelled after Cuba or East Germany.
These are the same people who are so stupid that Geithner's plan for the banks is to do that same thing done in the United Kingdom, which failed. Or Japan tried for 10 years, and failed. Or the New Deal, which extended the depression (and actually created a second repression within the depression in 1937). So why will it work now? And we have a stupid, ignorant, tax-evader for our secretary of treasury, an Obama goonsquad character.
So Katha, this is a warning to you and your friends. Today, I'm not going to treat anyone who wants to destroy my country with any kind of tolerance or kindness. I can give as good as I have gotten.
The gloves are off.
Only Democrats, it seems, reward their most loyal supporters -- feminists, gays, liberals, opponents of the war, members of the reality-based community -- by elbowing them aside to embrace their opponents instead.While the article this appeared in was complaining of Obama's choice of Rick Warren for the inaugural invocation, what is interesting to me is the phrase: members of the reality-based community.
What the fuck does that mean?
I guess that means if I'm not a Democrat, my reality isn't real. Something I made up.
I'm sorry. I'm so tired of "liberal," "progressive," crap like this. I'm tired of being called all sorts of things because I believe in liberty, individual freedom and responsibility, instead of the fucking government getting in all my business, which means elitist (she teaches at Princeton, which she points out is an elite institution) folks like Katha, who are so special that they know best, want to control what I say, what I read and what I believe in. From before birth to after death. This is not liberal or progressive in any sense of the word, so don't you believe this claptrap shit at all, or else you'll be living soon in a nation modelled after Cuba or East Germany.
These are the same people who are so stupid that Geithner's plan for the banks is to do that same thing done in the United Kingdom, which failed. Or Japan tried for 10 years, and failed. Or the New Deal, which extended the depression (and actually created a second repression within the depression in 1937). So why will it work now? And we have a stupid, ignorant, tax-evader for our secretary of treasury, an Obama goonsquad character.
So Katha, this is a warning to you and your friends. Today, I'm not going to treat anyone who wants to destroy my country with any kind of tolerance or kindness. I can give as good as I have gotten.
The gloves are off.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Do You Regret Your Vote Yet, Part 2?
Headlines from this morning:
Obama Apologizes to Special Olympics for Bowling Joke
President Obama called the chairman of the Special Olympics, Tim Shriver, to say he was sorry for an offhand remark on the "The Tonight Show."
Sen. Dodd's Political Future Cloudy After AIG Bonus Controversy
As head of the banking panel, Sen. Christopher Dodd has become a convenient target for voter anger over the economic crisis.
U.S. Budget Deficit Forecast to Hit $1.8 Trillion This Year
The Congressional Budget Office says the deficit under President Obama's policies would never go below 4 percent of the size of the economy, figures that economists agree are unsustainable.
Iranian Leaders Ignore Obama's Outstretched Hand
Iran's supreme leader snubs President Obama in response to a warm video issued by the White House seeking a "new beginning" with Iran.
$1 trillion deficits seen for next 10 years
President Barack Obama's budget would generate deficits averaging almost $1 trillion a year over the next decade, according to the latest congressional estimates, significantly worse than predicted by the White House just last month.
13 Firms Receiving Federal Bailout Funds Owe $220M in Back Taxes
The House Ways and Means subcommittee on oversight discovered the delinquent taxes in a review of tax records from 23 of the firms.
House Kills Effort to Investigate Lobbyist-Lawmaker Ties
The proposal would have forced the House Ethics Committee to launch a probe into ties between the source and timing of campaign contributions by lobbyists and subsequent legislator requests for special projects or earmarks.
Did Tim Geithner lie about knowing of AIG bonuses?
Treasury Secretary may have known a lot more than he admits about the huge and controversial bonuses paid out by insurance giant AIG to its employees. The New York Times reports that Geithner admitted knowing about bonuses at AIG two weeks ago after claiming this week he only learned about them later.
Big labor ignores a basic freedom of Democracy
...union bosses, egged on by Democrats from Capitol Hill to the White House, display world-class hypocrisy, violate international labor standards, and contradict their own sales pitch as they desperately promote "card-check" legislation to drive secret ballots from union-authorization elections.
Headlines from just this morning, March 20, 2009, the first day of spring. I haven't been collecting them. This is after a little more than 2 years of a Democrat majority in the White House, and some 60 days of the Obmana administration.
Could it get any worse? Seems more like a long winter ahead of us.
Obama Apologizes to Special Olympics for Bowling Joke
President Obama called the chairman of the Special Olympics, Tim Shriver, to say he was sorry for an offhand remark on the "The Tonight Show."
Sen. Dodd's Political Future Cloudy After AIG Bonus Controversy
As head of the banking panel, Sen. Christopher Dodd has become a convenient target for voter anger over the economic crisis.
U.S. Budget Deficit Forecast to Hit $1.8 Trillion This Year
The Congressional Budget Office says the deficit under President Obama's policies would never go below 4 percent of the size of the economy, figures that economists agree are unsustainable.
Iranian Leaders Ignore Obama's Outstretched Hand
Iran's supreme leader snubs President Obama in response to a warm video issued by the White House seeking a "new beginning" with Iran.
$1 trillion deficits seen for next 10 years
President Barack Obama's budget would generate deficits averaging almost $1 trillion a year over the next decade, according to the latest congressional estimates, significantly worse than predicted by the White House just last month.
13 Firms Receiving Federal Bailout Funds Owe $220M in Back Taxes
The House Ways and Means subcommittee on oversight discovered the delinquent taxes in a review of tax records from 23 of the firms.
House Kills Effort to Investigate Lobbyist-Lawmaker Ties
The proposal would have forced the House Ethics Committee to launch a probe into ties between the source and timing of campaign contributions by lobbyists and subsequent legislator requests for special projects or earmarks.
Did Tim Geithner lie about knowing of AIG bonuses?
Treasury Secretary may have known a lot more than he admits about the huge and controversial bonuses paid out by insurance giant AIG to its employees. The New York Times reports that Geithner admitted knowing about bonuses at AIG two weeks ago after claiming this week he only learned about them later.
Big labor ignores a basic freedom of Democracy
...union bosses, egged on by Democrats from Capitol Hill to the White House, display world-class hypocrisy, violate international labor standards, and contradict their own sales pitch as they desperately promote "card-check" legislation to drive secret ballots from union-authorization elections.
Headlines from just this morning, March 20, 2009, the first day of spring. I haven't been collecting them. This is after a little more than 2 years of a Democrat majority in the White House, and some 60 days of the Obmana administration.
Could it get any worse? Seems more like a long winter ahead of us.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
What's Next?
And you think liberalism means more freedom?
The Obama administration is taking steps quietly to shut down the program that qualifies commercial airline pilots to carry firearms in jetliner cockpits in order to ward off another 9/11-type attack.
The administration recently diverted $2 million from a program to train and certify pilots to carry firearms safely while on duty. Instead, it is using the money to hire additional field inspectors to help discipline pilots who step out of line, according to a report in Tuesday’s Washington Times.
A Times editorial condemned the Obama administration's action, calling it "completely unnecessary harassment of the pilots."
Since Obama took office, the approval process for certifying pilots to carry firearms has ground to a halt, the newspaper reports. Pilots are afraid to speak out about the behind-the-scenes maneuverings, for fear of retaliation, according to the newspaper. No cases have been reported in which pilots have brandished a weapon inappropriately or otherwise abused their eligibility to carry firearms.
About 12,000 pilots have been authorized to carry handguns while flying aircraft as part of the Federal Flight Deck Officers Program. Congress authorized the program in a 310-to-113 vote following the 9/11 attacks to help prevent terrorists from turning jetliners into flying bombs that could be used to attack key sites like the White House, the Pentagon, or Capitol Hill.
The Obama administration is taking steps quietly to shut down the program that qualifies commercial airline pilots to carry firearms in jetliner cockpits in order to ward off another 9/11-type attack.
The administration recently diverted $2 million from a program to train and certify pilots to carry firearms safely while on duty. Instead, it is using the money to hire additional field inspectors to help discipline pilots who step out of line, according to a report in Tuesday’s Washington Times.
A Times editorial condemned the Obama administration's action, calling it "completely unnecessary harassment of the pilots."
Since Obama took office, the approval process for certifying pilots to carry firearms has ground to a halt, the newspaper reports. Pilots are afraid to speak out about the behind-the-scenes maneuverings, for fear of retaliation, according to the newspaper. No cases have been reported in which pilots have brandished a weapon inappropriately or otherwise abused their eligibility to carry firearms.
About 12,000 pilots have been authorized to carry handguns while flying aircraft as part of the Federal Flight Deck Officers Program. Congress authorized the program in a 310-to-113 vote following the 9/11 attacks to help prevent terrorists from turning jetliners into flying bombs that could be used to attack key sites like the White House, the Pentagon, or Capitol Hill.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Queen Pelosi Decides Which Laws to Enforce
The other day, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated that we really didn't need any new gun laws; we should just enforce the laws we had.
Yet she tells illegal immigrants that enforcing our immigration laws is "Unamerican."
Go figure. I can't.
But when our own legislators are ignoring the very laws they have passed, we have crossed from democracy to tyranny.
Yet she tells illegal immigrants that enforcing our immigration laws is "Unamerican."
Go figure. I can't.
But when our own legislators are ignoring the very laws they have passed, we have crossed from democracy to tyranny.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Obama a Liar? It Seems So
I was holding judgement, trying to give the man the benefit of the doubt, but the evidence is now overwhelming.
Obama is a liar and can't be trusted. I have come to that conclusion. First it was on taxes, then on earmarks, now on veterans.
Just yesterday, I heard a part of his speach to a veterans groups, in which he promised that veterans today would get the same treatment from their government as his grandfather did after WWII.
The very next morning, the White House announces that private insurance companies "will pay their fair share" of veterans medical expenses, even service-related, I presume.
If that ain't lying, I don't know what is. He can't be trusted any more.
And the left called Bush a liar. I guess you're only a liar if you're a Republican.
Obama is a liar and can't be trusted. I have come to that conclusion. First it was on taxes, then on earmarks, now on veterans.
Just yesterday, I heard a part of his speach to a veterans groups, in which he promised that veterans today would get the same treatment from their government as his grandfather did after WWII.
The very next morning, the White House announces that private insurance companies "will pay their fair share" of veterans medical expenses, even service-related, I presume.
If that ain't lying, I don't know what is. He can't be trusted any more.
And the left called Bush a liar. I guess you're only a liar if you're a Republican.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Liberal Free Speech Ain't Freedom
It has been my observation over the years -- and it is confirmed for me almost daily -- that liberal free speech means free only if you agree with their liberal, anti-American, pro-diversity, open-border, multi-culturalism, pro-choice, cradle-to-grave nanny state agenda.
Let me further define these subjects, so that you don't think that conservatives are actually the racists hate-mongers liberals would have you believe.
Liberal is left-wing, which would take too long to explain here. It is not liberal in the classic sense, of which the country was founded. Convervatism is actually more closely aligned with classical liberalism, which believes in the individual over the state. Liberals believe in the power of the state first.
Anti-American. America has been bad, we've mistreated too many people, etc. It's always our fault when we're attacked. Conservatives actually believe that America is a great place; not perfect, a work in progress, but the best country in the world. Why else does everyone (almost) want to come here.
Pro-diversity. Actually favoring people based on skin color, which is anti-discrimination. This is more racist that actually believing in equal opportunity for everyone. Conservatives, mostly, are not racist and believe in equal opportunity, not equal results. To say you don't have prejudices is to lie to yourself. It's just the way we are. But it doesn't mean you have to act out on your imperfections.
Open-border. Everyone is legal. Come on over, we'll take care of you as long as you vote for us so we can stay in power. We don't care if you commit crimes, you poor victims of the hated conservatives. Liberals only care about our laws when it suits them. (Recently, Nancy Pelosi stated that we should enforce our gun laws, but she doesn't think we should enforce immigrantion laws.) Conservatism believes that you can come here, but you have to follow the law of the land.
Multi-culturalism. Every culture is equal. Even if they aren't. Conservatives believe there are many aspect of different cultures that are good, but some things we don't need to embrace. If you make the U.S. like Mexico, it won't be the U.S. any longer.
Pro-choice. It's a woman's right to kill her baby at any point before the actual birth. Men have no right to say anything about this. Conservatives want this to be limited and most conservatives don't want government mandating this area of policy at all.
Cradle-to-grave nanny state. We'll take care of you as long as you keep us in power. Conservatives: I can take care of myself a lot better than the government.
Disagree with them and they'll try to shut you up, or shut you down. If you don't believe this, you haven't been paying attention.
Part of their attempt to quiet any opposition is to discredit them. It's a tactic that can work, but only if you don't fight back.
This is one reason for the obsession (or even a hint of interest) in the Obama administration over Rush Limbaugh. This is the liberal mindset. If someone disagrees with you, go after them to discredit them.
Remember the Bush years? It must have been hard for him to ignore all the hate thrown at him, but he kept the Presidency above it. Obama can't.
Wake up before you lose the right (or ability) to disagree, to state your position, to stop the liberal, socialistic takeover of your country.
Let me further define these subjects, so that you don't think that conservatives are actually the racists hate-mongers liberals would have you believe.
Liberal is left-wing, which would take too long to explain here. It is not liberal in the classic sense, of which the country was founded. Convervatism is actually more closely aligned with classical liberalism, which believes in the individual over the state. Liberals believe in the power of the state first.
Anti-American. America has been bad, we've mistreated too many people, etc. It's always our fault when we're attacked. Conservatives actually believe that America is a great place; not perfect, a work in progress, but the best country in the world. Why else does everyone (almost) want to come here.
Pro-diversity. Actually favoring people based on skin color, which is anti-discrimination. This is more racist that actually believing in equal opportunity for everyone. Conservatives, mostly, are not racist and believe in equal opportunity, not equal results. To say you don't have prejudices is to lie to yourself. It's just the way we are. But it doesn't mean you have to act out on your imperfections.
Open-border. Everyone is legal. Come on over, we'll take care of you as long as you vote for us so we can stay in power. We don't care if you commit crimes, you poor victims of the hated conservatives. Liberals only care about our laws when it suits them. (Recently, Nancy Pelosi stated that we should enforce our gun laws, but she doesn't think we should enforce immigrantion laws.) Conservatism believes that you can come here, but you have to follow the law of the land.
Multi-culturalism. Every culture is equal. Even if they aren't. Conservatives believe there are many aspect of different cultures that are good, but some things we don't need to embrace. If you make the U.S. like Mexico, it won't be the U.S. any longer.
Pro-choice. It's a woman's right to kill her baby at any point before the actual birth. Men have no right to say anything about this. Conservatives want this to be limited and most conservatives don't want government mandating this area of policy at all.
Cradle-to-grave nanny state. We'll take care of you as long as you keep us in power. Conservatives: I can take care of myself a lot better than the government.
Disagree with them and they'll try to shut you up, or shut you down. If you don't believe this, you haven't been paying attention.
Part of their attempt to quiet any opposition is to discredit them. It's a tactic that can work, but only if you don't fight back.
This is one reason for the obsession (or even a hint of interest) in the Obama administration over Rush Limbaugh. This is the liberal mindset. If someone disagrees with you, go after them to discredit them.
Remember the Bush years? It must have been hard for him to ignore all the hate thrown at him, but he kept the Presidency above it. Obama can't.
Wake up before you lose the right (or ability) to disagree, to state your position, to stop the liberal, socialistic takeover of your country.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Texas Governor Says No Thanks
Rick Perry, governor of Texas, said no thanks to the federal government's proposed influx of $550 million for the state's unemployment fund.
According to the Dallas Morning News:
I find it interesting that Texas, a republican-led state since the early 1990s, when compared to my home-state of Michigan, a democrat-led state, has a much lower unemployment rate and has a budget surplus. In January 2009, Michigan had an 11.6 percent unemployment rate, nearly twice that of Texas. (And yes, we even have car plants here too.)
According to the Dallas Morning News:
Gov. Rick Perry, joining a handful of his fellow Southern Republican leaders, said Thursday that he was rejecting $556 million in federal stimulus money for unemployed Texans because it had too many strings attached.Texas is one of the few states in the country that has a balanced budget, as well as an unemployment rate lower than the national average: 6.4 percent vs 8.1 percent.
Perry said the federal provisions would require unprecedented changes in state rules on who is eligible for unemployment payments. He also argued that the funds – which Democrats say would update benefits so that more women, elderly and student workers could qualify – would place additional burdens on businesses, leaving them to pay the added costs when the federal money ran out.Democrats in the state legislature are going to try to over-ride the governor, but will need two-thirds votes to be successful.
Instead, businesses should be able to use the money to create jobs, Perry said.
"That is why I am so concerned about the belief that has gained a foothold in our national consciousness that the best and only way to solve our nation's problems is to drown them with taxpayer dollars," said Perry, announcing his decision at a Houston hardware store.
I find it interesting that Texas, a republican-led state since the early 1990s, when compared to my home-state of Michigan, a democrat-led state, has a much lower unemployment rate and has a budget surplus. In January 2009, Michigan had an 11.6 percent unemployment rate, nearly twice that of Texas. (And yes, we even have car plants here too.)
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Do You Regret Your Vote Yet?
If you voted for Obama, do you regret it yet? Are you over the Obamamania enough to wake up and see that you were lied to? That the change that is coming is less freedom -- both economically and politically?
These stimulus packages are scams. They are designs to kick in around 18 months or so from now, just before the next elections. These politians don't care about you. They only care about staying in office and in power.
Jason Whitlock, of the Kansas Star, put it so succinctly:
Couldn't agree more. We need to throw the bums out, starting with the democrats, since they are the ones currently in power. Then we'll go on to Republicans who don't do our (meaning we the people) bidding.
Until then, as I've been saying for the last seveal months: Hang on to your wallet. The government is coming for you.
These stimulus packages are scams. They are designs to kick in around 18 months or so from now, just before the next elections. These politians don't care about you. They only care about staying in office and in power.
Jason Whitlock, of the Kansas Star, put it so succinctly:
Politics, in my opinion, is a haven for dishonest people with no discernible skill other than smooth talking and deal-making.
Couldn't agree more. We need to throw the bums out, starting with the democrats, since they are the ones currently in power. Then we'll go on to Republicans who don't do our (meaning we the people) bidding.
Until then, as I've been saying for the last seveal months: Hang on to your wallet. The government is coming for you.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Stimulus Stimulates What?
Nancy Pelosi told reporters today that the Congress needs to keep an open door for more "stimulus" money, on top of the $1.7 trillion already in the pipeline.
Yet, as the Washington Post reported: "Several economists have said the stimulus package will not meet the administration's goal of saving or creating 3.5 million jobs by the end of next year because the final package was smaller than expected and contained several provisions that they say are unlikely to be particularly effective."
The "stimulus" bills are a cover for the left's agenda for a complete makeover of the country and its enonomy. Even Obama is now admitting that he wants to change capitalism.
Son, you don't change capitalism. It either is, or isn't. Socialism is what they want.
As foreign powers keep buying up our debt and assets, it won't be long before the United States of America of even last year won't exist.
But the liberals will be happy, because they hate America.
Yet, as the Washington Post reported: "Several economists have said the stimulus package will not meet the administration's goal of saving or creating 3.5 million jobs by the end of next year because the final package was smaller than expected and contained several provisions that they say are unlikely to be particularly effective."
The "stimulus" bills are a cover for the left's agenda for a complete makeover of the country and its enonomy. Even Obama is now admitting that he wants to change capitalism.
Son, you don't change capitalism. It either is, or isn't. Socialism is what they want.
As foreign powers keep buying up our debt and assets, it won't be long before the United States of America of even last year won't exist.
But the liberals will be happy, because they hate America.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Pelosi Wants More Ethanol In Gas
Nancy Pelosi is determined to have everything her way. Now she's back to ethanol, and how she wants to mandate higher percentages of ethanol in gasoline -- to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Won't work. Hasn't worked before, so why now. Besides, food should be used to feed people, not cars.
I've already written on this subject on how Ethanol lowers gas mileage.
I really don't have much more to say on the matter, except that is there anyone out there is as outraged as I am on the way our government is going in trying to control every last bit of our lives, from birth to death -- and even after?
Won't work. Hasn't worked before, so why now. Besides, food should be used to feed people, not cars.
I've already written on this subject on how Ethanol lowers gas mileage.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Monday that she supported a higher ethanol-to-gasoline blend rate as a way to reduce reliance on petroleum imports.
"It seems to me we should be able to do that," Pelosi told reporters after speaking to the National Farmers Union convention.
At present, gasoline may contain up to 10 percent fuel ethanol, made mostly from corn (maize). An ethanol trade group asked the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday to allow blends of up to 15 percent ethanol in motor fuel.
I really don't have much more to say on the matter, except that is there anyone out there is as outraged as I am on the way our government is going in trying to control every last bit of our lives, from birth to death -- and even after?
Monday, March 9, 2009
The Continuing Kiss-Up to Illegal Aliens
Note: In case you can't read, let me repeat: ILLEGAL Aliens. OK? I don't want to debate the status of those here in this country legally, OK? So if you think everyone in the world should be here, go somewhere else with your stupid ideas.
Nancy Pelosi was in San Francisco over the weekend to help protest the deportation of illegal aliens, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle:
But it gets better, and I'm not sure whether it's Pelosi or Kelly Zito, the author of the article:
Of course immigrants have made great contributions. But remember, ICE doesn't deport legal immigrants, you twit. Then, of course, we find out how terrible it all is, from Illinios Congressman Luis Gutierrez, a Democrat (naturally), who is leading the five-week pro-illegal tour:
Nope. No city in America has been spared from an increase in crime, gangs, tremendous increase in the expense of providing services, and everything else that comes from having just anyone come across our borders.
Zito goes on (she really doesn't need Pelosi's help here):
But those Irish, Italian, Asian and African-American immigrants were legal, and what about British, Scottish, Germans, etc. And instead of deporting just parents, we should deport the children as well, if the Constitution allowed it. What a friggin' mess our government and its leaders have created by not enforcing the same laws they passed.
But what is most interesting are the comments from readers. I expected the usual liberal crap about how we mistreat illegals, but I guess the winds are changing, because of the 56 comments, not one was in favor of granting illegals any kind of benefit, let alone amnesty.
I guess there is hope for us after all. As soon as we get rid of Pelosi and Reid, and all the other bleeding-heart liberals who are ruining this country.
Nancy Pelosi was in San Francisco over the weekend to help protest the deportation of illegal aliens, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi joined hundreds of families Saturday evening at a church in San Francisco's Mission District demanding an end to the immigration raids and deportations that separate parents from children across the United States.
But it gets better, and I'm not sure whether it's Pelosi or Kelly Zito, the author of the article:
Pelosi, who has said securing U.S. borders is a top priority, used the forum to call for a comprehensive immigration program that recognizes the broad contributions immigrants have made to the fabric of the country.
Of course immigrants have made great contributions. But remember, ICE doesn't deport legal immigrants, you twit. Then, of course, we find out how terrible it all is, from Illinios Congressman Luis Gutierrez, a Democrat (naturally), who is leading the five-week pro-illegal tour:
"No city in American (sic) has been spared the devastating effects of our broken system," said Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez, a Democrat who is leading the five-week tour. "We cannot wait any longer for fair and just immigration reform."
Nope. No city in America has been spared from an increase in crime, gangs, tremendous increase in the expense of providing services, and everything else that comes from having just anyone come across our borders.
Zito goes on (she really doesn't need Pelosi's help here):
Organizers of Saturday evening's event said raids and family separations -- often parents are taken away from their U.S.-born children -- run counter to a country where early Irish, Italian, Asian and African American families founded some of the country's most important institutions. In addition, they say, such measures have devastating impacts on the young children who are left behind, or
forced to move with their parents.
Ivan Torres, a 9-year-old boy from San Jose, said he lives in fear that his father, who earns a living cleaning offices, will be taken away: "If (my father) is deported, who will pay the bills? Who will take care of me and my two sisters? We need to keep families together."
But those Irish, Italian, Asian and African-American immigrants were legal, and what about British, Scottish, Germans, etc. And instead of deporting just parents, we should deport the children as well, if the Constitution allowed it. What a friggin' mess our government and its leaders have created by not enforcing the same laws they passed.
But what is most interesting are the comments from readers. I expected the usual liberal crap about how we mistreat illegals, but I guess the winds are changing, because of the 56 comments, not one was in favor of granting illegals any kind of benefit, let alone amnesty.
I guess there is hope for us after all. As soon as we get rid of Pelosi and Reid, and all the other bleeding-heart liberals who are ruining this country.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Was the New Deal a Success?
Unemployment was 3.14 percent in 1929. In 1939, it still stood at more than 17 percent. On that basis, you could conclude that the New Deal was not successful. But as all things in life, it's not that simple.
It has been pointed out by some that unemployment during that decade (around 1936) actually dipped below 15 percent. This is because the "official" statistics -- based on the U.S. Bureau of Labor -- did not count work-relief programs. From what I've seen, if the commentator is a conservative, the "official" statistics will be used. Liberal commentators tend to use the figures which include the work-relief, or the lower unemployment percentage.
Whether unemployment is 18 percent or 15 percent is a moot point. In either case, a lot of the labor force was unemployed. At the peak of the depression, the unemployment rate was around 25 percent, and then FDR pushed through his New Deal programs.
So one could conclude that the New Deal helped. Somewhat. But unemployment was still high.
Currently, unemployment is at 8.1 percent. So that doesn't sound too bad. Yet, if you take the number of unemployed who are no longer in the job market because they have not been able to find suitable work, the number is higher.
So the facts are murky, because the government doesn't count the unemployed as it did 80 years ago, so it's difficult to make a rational decision about what is going on. Kind of like comparing apples to oranges. But when you take these into consideration, the New Deal was only able to lower an astronomical unemployment rate from about 25 percent to a range of 15 percent to 18 percent.
To me, the only choice left is whether you want government to provide jobs, or you want the private sector to provide jobs.
We're now at a point where the government will be providing most the new employment, instead of the private sector. Big government is not going to get us back to the boom days of the 1920s, 1960s, 1980s, etc. During these periods, government got out of the way, lowered tax rates, and helped the private sector create jobs.
This is what I'd prefer. What about you?
It has been pointed out by some that unemployment during that decade (around 1936) actually dipped below 15 percent. This is because the "official" statistics -- based on the U.S. Bureau of Labor -- did not count work-relief programs. From what I've seen, if the commentator is a conservative, the "official" statistics will be used. Liberal commentators tend to use the figures which include the work-relief, or the lower unemployment percentage.
Whether unemployment is 18 percent or 15 percent is a moot point. In either case, a lot of the labor force was unemployed. At the peak of the depression, the unemployment rate was around 25 percent, and then FDR pushed through his New Deal programs.
So one could conclude that the New Deal helped. Somewhat. But unemployment was still high.
Currently, unemployment is at 8.1 percent. So that doesn't sound too bad. Yet, if you take the number of unemployed who are no longer in the job market because they have not been able to find suitable work, the number is higher.
So the facts are murky, because the government doesn't count the unemployed as it did 80 years ago, so it's difficult to make a rational decision about what is going on. Kind of like comparing apples to oranges. But when you take these into consideration, the New Deal was only able to lower an astronomical unemployment rate from about 25 percent to a range of 15 percent to 18 percent.
To me, the only choice left is whether you want government to provide jobs, or you want the private sector to provide jobs.
We're now at a point where the government will be providing most the new employment, instead of the private sector. Big government is not going to get us back to the boom days of the 1920s, 1960s, 1980s, etc. During these periods, government got out of the way, lowered tax rates, and helped the private sector create jobs.
This is what I'd prefer. What about you?
Thursday, March 5, 2009
The Destruction of Small Business
This is how America works. I received it in an e-mail (not my current employer) that is being sent around. But I work for a small business, owned by two brothers, who are in the same position.
To All My Valued Employees,
There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country.
However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interests. First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a Back Story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've seen my home at last year's Christmas party. I'm sure; all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life.
However, what you don't see is the BACK STORY : I started this company 28 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living apartment was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't have time to date.
Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business -- hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the discount store extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's.
My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had. So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden -- the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations... you never realize the Back Story and the sacrifices I've made.
Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed decades of my life for. Yes, business ownership has its benefits but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds.
Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why: I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough. I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time.
On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch. The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 23 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country.
The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy.
Here is what many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what?
Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now. When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the poor of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep.
So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child's future. Frankly, it isn't my problem anymore.
Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship. So, if you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about....
Signed, THE BOSS
To All My Valued Employees,
There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country.
However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interests. First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a Back Story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've seen my home at last year's Christmas party. I'm sure; all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life.
However, what you don't see is the BACK STORY : I started this company 28 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living apartment was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't have time to date.
Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business -- hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the discount store extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's.
My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had. So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden -- the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations... you never realize the Back Story and the sacrifices I've made.
Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed decades of my life for. Yes, business ownership has its benefits but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds.
Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why: I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough. I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time.
On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch. The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 23 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country.
The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy.
Here is what many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what?
Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now. When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the poor of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep.
So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child's future. Frankly, it isn't my problem anymore.
Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship. So, if you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about....
Signed, THE BOSS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)