The President's latest Socialist plan to gain votes has hit the scene: Student Loan Debt Relief aka Obama's Student Loan Bailout. It's an irresponsible plan that is devoid of personal responsibility that, by the way, is going to cost a whole lot of money. There are so many questions to ask about it, so let's dive in.
First and foremost, it's pure entitlement mentality. Let's talk about what a loan is, student or otherwise. A loan is a bank giving an individual money to purchase something, like an education, for example. The bank then is paid back with interest for that loan. You see, the bank doesn't give loans to be nice or to help you out. If they give you a loan without charging interest, they have no reason to be in business, plus no revenue stream to pay their employees, pay interest on their depositors money and still make a significant enough profit to make the risk of giving you a loan worthwhile.
So you have people who have taken out loans to purchase a college education, have then proceeded to purchase that college education, and are now protesting saying "DON'T MAKE ME PAY YOU! DON'T MAKE ME PAY YOU!" I'm sorry, but that mentality is as preposterous as going out to dinner, ordering a meal, having the meal you ordered served to you correctly with fresh ingredients and finding the meal delicious, then protesting the manager for asking you to pay the bill. In short, you're seeking to rationalize and legalizing YOU breeching your end of contract after the other party in the contract, the bank, has fulfilled their end of the contract.
Secondly, with Obama's proposal to forgive all unpaid loans after 20 years. So why pay it back? Rework your student loan payments to pay minimal amounts, set it on a 30-40 year term, pay $50 or $100 per month instead of what you genuinely should owe on a standard 10 year repayment plan, and then see a huge part of it forgiven because it's outstanding after 20 years. I don't need to break out my Delorean Time Machine to figure out how THAT is going to end. It's going to end with either a) Banks only allowing an absolute maximum of 20 years to pay back loans to protect themselves and not allowing defferments, etc for any reason, thus meaning failure to pay will crush your credit score OR b) A massive crash from banks and government departments giving student loans in 20 years when people don't pay them back (and not giving new capital to give loans to the next generation).
Thirdly, and I cannot stress this enough: WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT? I can guarantee you Obama's answer, at least as it pertains to government loans, is raise taxes. Are you with me in the 53% of Americans who pay taxes? We're going to get the bill so Obama can make life "fair" or in reality so he can get the college vote strong for him in 2012. Obama is going to tell you the wealthiest amongst us must "pay their fair share." It's a lie, of course, again the top 1% pays 38% of the taxes already. The reality of the claim is that Obama is telling you you're entitled to someone else's money, this time for college.
Look, I have a student loan. I'm paying for it too...you know why? Because I legitimately owe that money back. The fine folks at Direct Loans gave me a loan to go to college. I used that money to go to college. Now I am paying for that education I received. I am fulfilling my end of the contract, Direct Loans finished fulfilling theirs back in 2005 when I received my degree. Now it was up to me to complete my end of the bargain.
I also can tell you that I know very few people with socially useful college degrees who can't find a job and owe thousands upon thousands of dollars. The people who have degrees in Business, or Communications, or Computers, or Accounting, or Engineering all have jobs in their field. The ones who don't are the ones who have degrees in Art or Philosophy or some other such thing. Those of us who made the decision to get a marketable degree are now dealing with the positive consequences of our decision, those who made the decision to get a degree in their hobby are experiencing the negative consequences of their decision. That's the reality.
But this generation doesn't WANT to take responsibility. It's somebody else's fault. Somebody is supposed to make their problems go away. They don't want to deal with the consequences of their decision to take out a loan and to get a degree that isn't marketable. And now President Obama is coddling this to get votes. Shame on you, Mr. Obama. Shame on you.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Friday, October 28, 2011
Understanding Rick Perry's Cut, Balance and Grow Plan
Earlier this week, Texas Governor Rick Perry released his Cut, Balance and Grow Plan. It includes two major conservative dreams: a Flat Tax and a Balanced Budget Amendment.
I'm sure many of you are unsure specifically what the 20% flat tax would mean to you as an individual, especially if you're one of the people who are currently in a tax bracket below 20%, like I am. Yet this plan claims it would actually cut your tax burden...how can this be?
For starters, it increases the personal standard deduction. As of 2010, the standard deduction for a single adult was $5700, $11,700 for a married couple filing jointly, and $11,400 for a Head of Household. (1) Under the Perry plan, you would receive a tax exemption of $12,500 per person in your household. $12,500 for you, for you spouse, for each of your children (up to 4 children).
So let's compare the current tax system for the Median Income family to Rick Perry's Flat Tax Plan. Earlier this week we actually broke down the Flat Tax, basing it on Perry advisor Steve Forbes plan from 1996 and 2000. (2) Now that we know the specifics of Perry's plan, lets examine what an American family making the median income of about $44,389 per year (2), lets examine what that family consisting of two parents and two children would be paying in taxes:
Under Perry's system, there would be only five types of exemptions and deductions: A $12,500 exemption per person in the family up to two parents and four children; mortgage interest deduction, charitable giving deduction, state and local tax deduction, and capital gains deduction (this is part of eliminating all Capital Gains taxes). So that means that family can deduct $50,000 in exemptions ($12,500 x 4). So before we even deduct anything else, that family is down to 0% taxes. But let's continue: Let's again say that the same American family can deduct an average of $1,227 per year in mortage interest (3) and say another 5% of their income in other, assorted deductions (charitable donations, etc) which would equal $3466.45 in additional deductions for a total of in total deductions. So now this family has $53,466.45 in total deductions against it's taxable income of $44,389. Translation: Zero taxes actually paid. As a matter of fact, a family of four that owns it's own home would have to have a household income of AT LEAST $53,466.65 to pay ONE PENNY in taxes (actually, with that income, they'd pay PRECISELY one penny in taxes). Their effective rate is 0% in taxes.
Now under the current system, that same American family would be in the 15% tax bracket. They would receive a total of $2000 tax credit because of the two children in that family. Let's again say that the same American family can deduct an average of $1,227 per year in mortage interest (3) and say another 5% of their income in other, assorted deductions (charitable donations, etc) which would equal $2219.45 in additional deductions for a total of $5446.45 in total deductions. So that means their taxable income on that income is $38,942.55 in taxable income That means that family would pay $5841.39 in taxes. That's an effective tax rate of 13.16% for an American family making the median income.
So that median income family with two parents and two children would have $5841.39 each year MORE in taxes. That is absolutely HUGE. That's $486 each month more money. That's two car payments for two good quality used cars with less than 50,000 miles.
What about a single adult who doesn't own his own home and makes a recent college graduate's salary of $30,000 per year? How about that person? Well, under the current system that individual wouldn't have enough deductions to itemize his taxes, so he'll take the Standard Deduction of $5700 on his taxes. That same person is in the 15% tax bracket, just like the above family, and lets say that person lives in New York state like I do, in the 7.85% tax bracket. So he takes a standard deduction of $5700 and also deduct another $500 in student loan interest giving him a taxable income of $23,800. At the 15% rate, he's paying $3570 in taxes each year. That's an effective tax rate of 11.9%.
But under Perry's plan, this same young adult is going to receive a $12,500 exemption, plus he can deduct any charitable donations. So let's figure that same man gives 5% of his annual income to charity. So now he's up to $13,900 in exemptions and deductions. Now let's also subtract his New York state taxes of $2198. Now he has $16,098 in total deductions. So his taxable income is $13,902. That means that single adult is paying $2780 in taxes. That's an effective tax rate of 9.27% in taxes.
That single adult is paying $790 less each year in taxes under the Rick Perry Flat Tax than he would be under the current system. It's not a ton of money, but it is a tax cut, both in dollars and effective tax rate.
Perhaps more importantly, the Perry Flat Tax is OPTIONAL. An individual can keep his current tax rate if he so chooses! It's kind of an alternative maximum tax option. Based on the huge increases in exemptions from the current deductions, it's ultimately going to be a choice most people make who take the time to do the math.
Of course, there are some people who are asking the question: How are you going to pay for this? It's a good question. There will be some increased revenue based on the new money in the economy being spent on new products and services which means more employees which means more taxpayers. However, the other cornerstone of the plan will take care of the rest: A Balanced Budget Amendment and a cap on spending of 18% of GDP. Our current spending is at 24% of GDP, so cutting spending back to 18% of GDP would cut $875 billion from last year (4) en route to a Balanced Budget by 2020. Don't believe it can work? It worked in Texas!
Rick Perry has my attention. As a conservative seeing a candidate who is presenting a Balanced Budget Amendment and a Flat Tax is exciting. He's got a few more things to do before I can really decide that he's "my candidate." I'll be honest...I really want to get on board with Perry. There's still a few things missing.
#1 - He has to explain where he's cutting government spending. That's HUGE. I for one believe $875 Billion in cuts is not only possible but reasonable. It's going to take a lot though. It's going to have to start with major reforms to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. It's going to require dealing with ad homonym attacks from liberals.
#2 - He needs to prove he can effectively communicate conservatism to a national audience. Once again, this is HUGE. Real conservatism wins whenever it is effectively communicated. We need someone who will effectively communicate it...and right now I'm just not sure if Perry can do that. Time will tell, and he's got plenty of chances to do it...now let's see if he does.
Perry's got a shot to make a comeback. He has my attention...what he doesn't have yet is my support. Yet being the operative word.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Overall Source: Cut-Balance-Grow Plan from RickPerry.org
(1) Standard tax deduction amounts
(2) Rick Perry Set to Propose Flat Tax
(3) Scrap the mortgage deduction? Americans weigh in
(4) Perry Joins Flat-Tax Camp
I'm sure many of you are unsure specifically what the 20% flat tax would mean to you as an individual, especially if you're one of the people who are currently in a tax bracket below 20%, like I am. Yet this plan claims it would actually cut your tax burden...how can this be?
For starters, it increases the personal standard deduction. As of 2010, the standard deduction for a single adult was $5700, $11,700 for a married couple filing jointly, and $11,400 for a Head of Household. (1) Under the Perry plan, you would receive a tax exemption of $12,500 per person in your household. $12,500 for you, for you spouse, for each of your children (up to 4 children).
So let's compare the current tax system for the Median Income family to Rick Perry's Flat Tax Plan. Earlier this week we actually broke down the Flat Tax, basing it on Perry advisor Steve Forbes plan from 1996 and 2000. (2) Now that we know the specifics of Perry's plan, lets examine what an American family making the median income of about $44,389 per year (2), lets examine what that family consisting of two parents and two children would be paying in taxes:
Under Perry's system, there would be only five types of exemptions and deductions: A $12,500 exemption per person in the family up to two parents and four children; mortgage interest deduction, charitable giving deduction, state and local tax deduction, and capital gains deduction (this is part of eliminating all Capital Gains taxes). So that means that family can deduct $50,000 in exemptions ($12,500 x 4). So before we even deduct anything else, that family is down to 0% taxes. But let's continue: Let's again say that the same American family can deduct an average of $1,227 per year in mortage interest (3) and say another 5% of their income in other, assorted deductions (charitable donations, etc) which would equal $3466.45 in additional deductions for a total of in total deductions. So now this family has $53,466.45 in total deductions against it's taxable income of $44,389. Translation: Zero taxes actually paid. As a matter of fact, a family of four that owns it's own home would have to have a household income of AT LEAST $53,466.65 to pay ONE PENNY in taxes (actually, with that income, they'd pay PRECISELY one penny in taxes). Their effective rate is 0% in taxes.
Now under the current system, that same American family would be in the 15% tax bracket. They would receive a total of $2000 tax credit because of the two children in that family. Let's again say that the same American family can deduct an average of $1,227 per year in mortage interest (3) and say another 5% of their income in other, assorted deductions (charitable donations, etc) which would equal $2219.45 in additional deductions for a total of $5446.45 in total deductions. So that means their taxable income on that income is $38,942.55 in taxable income That means that family would pay $5841.39 in taxes. That's an effective tax rate of 13.16% for an American family making the median income.
So that median income family with two parents and two children would have $5841.39 each year MORE in taxes. That is absolutely HUGE. That's $486 each month more money. That's two car payments for two good quality used cars with less than 50,000 miles.
What about a single adult who doesn't own his own home and makes a recent college graduate's salary of $30,000 per year? How about that person? Well, under the current system that individual wouldn't have enough deductions to itemize his taxes, so he'll take the Standard Deduction of $5700 on his taxes. That same person is in the 15% tax bracket, just like the above family, and lets say that person lives in New York state like I do, in the 7.85% tax bracket. So he takes a standard deduction of $5700 and also deduct another $500 in student loan interest giving him a taxable income of $23,800. At the 15% rate, he's paying $3570 in taxes each year. That's an effective tax rate of 11.9%.
But under Perry's plan, this same young adult is going to receive a $12,500 exemption, plus he can deduct any charitable donations. So let's figure that same man gives 5% of his annual income to charity. So now he's up to $13,900 in exemptions and deductions. Now let's also subtract his New York state taxes of $2198. Now he has $16,098 in total deductions. So his taxable income is $13,902. That means that single adult is paying $2780 in taxes. That's an effective tax rate of 9.27% in taxes.
That single adult is paying $790 less each year in taxes under the Rick Perry Flat Tax than he would be under the current system. It's not a ton of money, but it is a tax cut, both in dollars and effective tax rate.
Perhaps more importantly, the Perry Flat Tax is OPTIONAL. An individual can keep his current tax rate if he so chooses! It's kind of an alternative maximum tax option. Based on the huge increases in exemptions from the current deductions, it's ultimately going to be a choice most people make who take the time to do the math.
Of course, there are some people who are asking the question: How are you going to pay for this? It's a good question. There will be some increased revenue based on the new money in the economy being spent on new products and services which means more employees which means more taxpayers. However, the other cornerstone of the plan will take care of the rest: A Balanced Budget Amendment and a cap on spending of 18% of GDP. Our current spending is at 24% of GDP, so cutting spending back to 18% of GDP would cut $875 billion from last year (4) en route to a Balanced Budget by 2020. Don't believe it can work? It worked in Texas!
Rick Perry has my attention. As a conservative seeing a candidate who is presenting a Balanced Budget Amendment and a Flat Tax is exciting. He's got a few more things to do before I can really decide that he's "my candidate." I'll be honest...I really want to get on board with Perry. There's still a few things missing.
#1 - He has to explain where he's cutting government spending. That's HUGE. I for one believe $875 Billion in cuts is not only possible but reasonable. It's going to take a lot though. It's going to have to start with major reforms to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. It's going to require dealing with ad homonym attacks from liberals.
#2 - He needs to prove he can effectively communicate conservatism to a national audience. Once again, this is HUGE. Real conservatism wins whenever it is effectively communicated. We need someone who will effectively communicate it...and right now I'm just not sure if Perry can do that. Time will tell, and he's got plenty of chances to do it...now let's see if he does.
Perry's got a shot to make a comeback. He has my attention...what he doesn't have yet is my support. Yet being the operative word.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Overall Source: Cut-Balance-Grow Plan from RickPerry.org
(1) Standard tax deduction amounts
(2) Rick Perry Set to Propose Flat Tax
(3) Scrap the mortgage deduction? Americans weigh in
(4) Perry Joins Flat-Tax Camp
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Romney is Better than Obama, but GOP Can Do Better than Mitt
The Drive-By Media and the Republican establishment has gone out of their way to once again try to select our nominee for us. This time the official "establishment candidate" for the GOP is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt* Romney. Yet the conservative base of the Republican party clearly does not want Romney. He's not my first choice either. That said, I think it's fair to clear up a few things about Mitt.
Mitt's Not a RINO: I know, I know, I can just see the slams coming in now. He's not as conservative as someone like Herman Cain or Michelle Bachmann, this is true. However, you can be both a non-RINO and not a dyed in the wool conservative. Mitt Romney is one of these. He's a Rockefeller Republican. He's a genuine fiscal conservative who won't be as focused on the social issues. I want someone better than that, but Mitt's not Olympia Snowe or John McCain either.
Politically Speaking, Mitt's Mormonism will align with mainline Christian beliefs: I know this is a big issue for a lot of Evangelical and Pentecostal Christians. For the record, no, Mormonism is not a Christian denomination. It fails three of the eight Essential Doctrines of Christianity, because Mormons deny the monotheism of the Godhead, the person of Jesus, and the saving work of Jesus on the Cross. (1) That being said, Romney is strongly pro-life and pro-marriage. While Romney arrives at his faith-based reasons for standing on our side, he does concur with our beliefs.
Romneycare is not Obamacare: There are significant differences between Romneycare and Obamacare. I don't like either one, but Obamacare is, as Romney has said, a one-size-fits-all solution, Romneycare legitimately dealt with only the people who were uninsured. Most imporantly, however, Romneycare has an option that Obamacare does not: Self-Insure. The mandate in Romneycare was about personal responsibility. It said "either buy insurance or agree to pay your own way." That's a huge difference. Romney has promised to repeal Obamacare, and I do believe him.
Now that I've defend Romney a bit, time to say the rest: We can do better than Mitt. A lot better. Friends, in 2010, we in the Tea Party swept the GOP to a historic victory. We didn't do it with moderates and we didn't do it with Rockefeller Republicans. We did it with conservatism. True, no-nonsense, dyed in the wool conservatism. Now the Drive-By Media and teh Republican establishment will tell you that you can't win with no-nonsense conservatism. I'm telling you they are wrong. History proves that they are wrong. In 1980 the same type of Republicans said Reagan couldn't win. And they were proven right when Jimmy Carter won a second term right...wait a minute....that's not what happened at all! Reagan ran on genuine conservatism then put it into practice and BINGO! we had one of the most prosperous decades in history!
The reason Reagan won is because real conservatism wins every time it's effectively communicated and it works every time it's tried. The reason we won in 2010 is because real conservatism wins every time it's effectively communicated. We have the kind of once in a generation opportunity in 2012 that we had in 1980 to elect a history changing conservative. The question is will we take it? If we nominate Mitt Romney, the answer is likely no.
Would Mitt Romney be a better President that Obama? Absolutely. He'd be a better President than John McCain would be either. But my friends, we can do a whole lot better than Mitt Romney. We have an opportunity to get a real conservative. Let’s use it.
---------------------------------------------------------
* Actually, Mitt's real name is Willard. Just in case you were wondering.
(1) Is Mormonism Christian?
Mitt's Not a RINO: I know, I know, I can just see the slams coming in now. He's not as conservative as someone like Herman Cain or Michelle Bachmann, this is true. However, you can be both a non-RINO and not a dyed in the wool conservative. Mitt Romney is one of these. He's a Rockefeller Republican. He's a genuine fiscal conservative who won't be as focused on the social issues. I want someone better than that, but Mitt's not Olympia Snowe or John McCain either.
Politically Speaking, Mitt's Mormonism will align with mainline Christian beliefs: I know this is a big issue for a lot of Evangelical and Pentecostal Christians. For the record, no, Mormonism is not a Christian denomination. It fails three of the eight Essential Doctrines of Christianity, because Mormons deny the monotheism of the Godhead, the person of Jesus, and the saving work of Jesus on the Cross. (1) That being said, Romney is strongly pro-life and pro-marriage. While Romney arrives at his faith-based reasons for standing on our side, he does concur with our beliefs.
Romneycare is not Obamacare: There are significant differences between Romneycare and Obamacare. I don't like either one, but Obamacare is, as Romney has said, a one-size-fits-all solution, Romneycare legitimately dealt with only the people who were uninsured. Most imporantly, however, Romneycare has an option that Obamacare does not: Self-Insure. The mandate in Romneycare was about personal responsibility. It said "either buy insurance or agree to pay your own way." That's a huge difference. Romney has promised to repeal Obamacare, and I do believe him.
Now that I've defend Romney a bit, time to say the rest: We can do better than Mitt. A lot better. Friends, in 2010, we in the Tea Party swept the GOP to a historic victory. We didn't do it with moderates and we didn't do it with Rockefeller Republicans. We did it with conservatism. True, no-nonsense, dyed in the wool conservatism. Now the Drive-By Media and teh Republican establishment will tell you that you can't win with no-nonsense conservatism. I'm telling you they are wrong. History proves that they are wrong. In 1980 the same type of Republicans said Reagan couldn't win. And they were proven right when Jimmy Carter won a second term right...wait a minute....that's not what happened at all! Reagan ran on genuine conservatism then put it into practice and BINGO! we had one of the most prosperous decades in history!
The reason Reagan won is because real conservatism wins every time it's effectively communicated and it works every time it's tried. The reason we won in 2010 is because real conservatism wins every time it's effectively communicated. We have the kind of once in a generation opportunity in 2012 that we had in 1980 to elect a history changing conservative. The question is will we take it? If we nominate Mitt Romney, the answer is likely no.
Would Mitt Romney be a better President that Obama? Absolutely. He'd be a better President than John McCain would be either. But my friends, we can do a whole lot better than Mitt Romney. We have an opportunity to get a real conservative. Let’s use it.
---------------------------------------------------------
* Actually, Mitt's real name is Willard. Just in case you were wondering.
(1) Is Mormonism Christian?
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
"Jobs Bill" Subsidies Won't Work Longterm
The President's "Jobs Bill" (which, as a reminder, I will continue to refer to in quotation marks because it's not a Jobs Bill, it's a Stimulus Bill) died in the Senate a couple weeks ago, thanks to Senate Democrats (not Republicans, as Obama would like you to believe.) (1) Now the President wants the Bill passed in pieces. First and foremost, I can tell you that pretty much the only part that has a snowball's chance in July of passing is the Payroll Tax Holiday extension, because it's the only part of the bill that can't hurt the economy. (It won't help, by the way, but it can't hurt...temporary cuts won't cause hiring.)
Now there's the other parts of the "Jobs Bill" (the ones that don't have a snowball's chance in July of passing), the tax credits and hiring subsidies. These policies won't create jobs, and here's why: Businesses don't hire employees for one year. It's that simple, friends. Unless you're hiring a part time fast food employee for the night shift, at which point if that employee lasts one year then you're tickled pink, employers are looking to hire and train an employee who ends up working for them for five years or more.
Now that goal is not always achieved. However, an employee who works for a company for five years is going to bring at least 3 years of highly productive work where they require minimal additional training (although you'll always be training in a good company) and they reach a point where, even on their "bad days" they're still performing at a high level. I can say that from my current personal experience. I'm coming up on my two year anniversary with my current company in my current position. About a year ago, I hit my stride. Everything clicked. I got really good at my job and, even when I'm not at 100%, I still can put up respectable work on a daily basis. In my experience, this is pretty typical for most people. If you're qualified and a good match for your job, in 1-2 years you get to a point where the job clicks and you're good at it.
Now hiring for one year, on the other hand, is setting the economy up for disaster. Let's assume for a second that business owners really do hire an employee based on the subsidies. They perform a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) and learn that, with the tax credits and other subsidies, there is a positive CBA for one year, and that the subsidies and tax credits eat up the new expenses created by the Obama Administration like Obamacare and other unnecessary regulations and push the CBA for the hire into the positive, at least from a purely fiscal perspective. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that's "decide that hiring will make money based on the money we have and how much money we can make.")
What does that business do the next year? The subsidies and credits have now expired, and the Cost Benefit Analysis for the next year is back to negative. So fast forward one year and all those employees who were hired are now back out of work, because it's no longer a profitable investment to retain that employee. And consider that it takes at least a year for an employee to become really, truly good at most jobs and require minimal supervision and additional training. So guess what? The Cost Benefit Analysis is once again is negative based on a long term outlook.
This is the problem with liberal quick-stimulus ideas. They simply do not work. Unfortunately, President Obama has never run a business nor made a payroll. He's never had to perform a Cost-Benefit Analysis. He's enacting ideas he and the other college professors came up with in a faculty lounge. I've said it before, I'll say it again: The "Jobs Bill" won't create jobs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Dear AP: Senate Republicans Didn't Block the Jobs Bill...Democrats Did
Now there's the other parts of the "Jobs Bill" (the ones that don't have a snowball's chance in July of passing), the tax credits and hiring subsidies. These policies won't create jobs, and here's why: Businesses don't hire employees for one year. It's that simple, friends. Unless you're hiring a part time fast food employee for the night shift, at which point if that employee lasts one year then you're tickled pink, employers are looking to hire and train an employee who ends up working for them for five years or more.
Now that goal is not always achieved. However, an employee who works for a company for five years is going to bring at least 3 years of highly productive work where they require minimal additional training (although you'll always be training in a good company) and they reach a point where, even on their "bad days" they're still performing at a high level. I can say that from my current personal experience. I'm coming up on my two year anniversary with my current company in my current position. About a year ago, I hit my stride. Everything clicked. I got really good at my job and, even when I'm not at 100%, I still can put up respectable work on a daily basis. In my experience, this is pretty typical for most people. If you're qualified and a good match for your job, in 1-2 years you get to a point where the job clicks and you're good at it.
Now hiring for one year, on the other hand, is setting the economy up for disaster. Let's assume for a second that business owners really do hire an employee based on the subsidies. They perform a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) and learn that, with the tax credits and other subsidies, there is a positive CBA for one year, and that the subsidies and tax credits eat up the new expenses created by the Obama Administration like Obamacare and other unnecessary regulations and push the CBA for the hire into the positive, at least from a purely fiscal perspective. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that's "decide that hiring will make money based on the money we have and how much money we can make.")
What does that business do the next year? The subsidies and credits have now expired, and the Cost Benefit Analysis for the next year is back to negative. So fast forward one year and all those employees who were hired are now back out of work, because it's no longer a profitable investment to retain that employee. And consider that it takes at least a year for an employee to become really, truly good at most jobs and require minimal supervision and additional training. So guess what? The Cost Benefit Analysis is once again is negative based on a long term outlook.
This is the problem with liberal quick-stimulus ideas. They simply do not work. Unfortunately, President Obama has never run a business nor made a payroll. He's never had to perform a Cost-Benefit Analysis. He's enacting ideas he and the other college professors came up with in a faculty lounge. I've said it before, I'll say it again: The "Jobs Bill" won't create jobs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Dear AP: Senate Republicans Didn't Block the Jobs Bill...Democrats Did
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Lybia WAS NOT a Democracy Movement
And the President has egg on his face again. We were told last week when Mohammar Quadaffi was killed by NATO actions, once again, that this was a great victory for Obama and that Barack had made the world safer and that other nations would love us, all hail the Anointed One (dripping with sarcasm).
Of course, it did not take a Harvard degree to figure out what was going on...or at least to be skeptical. I did not speak on Lybia but I did write on Egypt, and here's an excerpt from my article on February 2, 2011:
Liberals want us to believe that this is absolutely, without a doubt, a Democracy movement. I hope they're right. But hoping and expecting are two different things. I know my history far too well to assume that this will go in the correct direction (see Iran). As I've said above, I do recognize that Egypt is not required to use an American-style Representative Republic.
HOWEVER, the fundamental Human Rights of all individuals must be respected. Therefore, even free people do not have the right to vote other people's rights away. It was wrong when Americans voted to keep blacks in slavery. It was wrong when Americans voted to keep blacks segregated. That's why the Constitution can be and has been amended and the Judicial Branch has the ability to strike down laws which take away other people's fundamental rights. (For example, the 13th Amendment abolished slavery and the Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education struck down Plessey v. Ferguson – a ruling which legalized segregation). (1)
Now here we are, and Lybia's chairman of the Lybian National Transitional Council Mustafa Abdul-Jalil stating that the basis of the new law of Lybia will be Sharia Law, including reinstituting the right of men to have up to four wives at once and also removing all laws on the books that go against Sharia. (2) It is reasonable to suspect that this would include beefing up penalties that aren't in line with the Sharia requirements, including using penalties like amputation of hands for theft, the death penalty for adultery and the death penalty for apostasy (leaving Islam). (3)
Included in these penalties are fundamental breeches of a person's fundamental human rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Adultery is, by modern standards and in a legal sense, a breech of the marriage contract and not a crime. (As a Christian I cannot say it is acceptable, however, there is a difference between legal penalties on Earth and answering to God for one's sin on the Last Day.) Amputation of a limb for theft is a punishment that I believe most would consider Cruel and Unsual Punishment and banned by the Eight Amendment to our Constitution and similarly banned by other civilized nations. Killing people for leaving Islam is both breeching the right to Religious Freedom as laid out by the First Amendment to the Constitution and, in a more general sense, is a breech of each individual's right to Liberty..
So, my friends, the very concerns that I had about the so-called Arab Spring are coming to fruition. Is the world "safer" without Quadaffi? Maybe not. It seems we may well have traded the Devil We Know and who is not a threat to us for the Devil We Don't Know and may well become a threat. For the people of Libya, I'd say the oppression of Sharia will be just as bad as the opression of Quadaffi.
To those of you who believe this is just a matter of Lybian self-determination, I'd like to remind you what I said back in February regarding Egypt:
You see, the framers simply ASSUMED the fundamental human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING has those rights. They were given to them by nature's God. People do not have the right to abridge other individual’s rights, EVEN IN A FREE ELECTION! (1)
People do not have the right to vote away other people's rights. Period. Has our nation been perfect to this standard from the beginning? Heck no we haven't. But our Constitution provides for the correction of those mistakes, like the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery and Brown v. Board of Education which overturned segregation. Sharia has no such protections.
So now, Mr. President, at best you've spent our military might and treasure to trade out the Devil We Know for the Devil We Don't Know. Congratulations. At best you've left America, and Lybia, no less safe. At worst...well, you figure it out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Egyptian Unrest: Sign of Democracy in Middle East?
(2) Libya's liberation: interim ruler unveils more radical than expected plans for Islamic law
(3) Wikipedia: Sharia - Penalties
Of course, it did not take a Harvard degree to figure out what was going on...or at least to be skeptical. I did not speak on Lybia but I did write on Egypt, and here's an excerpt from my article on February 2, 2011:
Liberals want us to believe that this is absolutely, without a doubt, a Democracy movement. I hope they're right. But hoping and expecting are two different things. I know my history far too well to assume that this will go in the correct direction (see Iran). As I've said above, I do recognize that Egypt is not required to use an American-style Representative Republic.
HOWEVER, the fundamental Human Rights of all individuals must be respected. Therefore, even free people do not have the right to vote other people's rights away. It was wrong when Americans voted to keep blacks in slavery. It was wrong when Americans voted to keep blacks segregated. That's why the Constitution can be and has been amended and the Judicial Branch has the ability to strike down laws which take away other people's fundamental rights. (For example, the 13th Amendment abolished slavery and the Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education struck down Plessey v. Ferguson – a ruling which legalized segregation). (1)
Now here we are, and Lybia's chairman of the Lybian National Transitional Council Mustafa Abdul-Jalil stating that the basis of the new law of Lybia will be Sharia Law, including reinstituting the right of men to have up to four wives at once and also removing all laws on the books that go against Sharia. (2) It is reasonable to suspect that this would include beefing up penalties that aren't in line with the Sharia requirements, including using penalties like amputation of hands for theft, the death penalty for adultery and the death penalty for apostasy (leaving Islam). (3)
Included in these penalties are fundamental breeches of a person's fundamental human rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Adultery is, by modern standards and in a legal sense, a breech of the marriage contract and not a crime. (As a Christian I cannot say it is acceptable, however, there is a difference between legal penalties on Earth and answering to God for one's sin on the Last Day.) Amputation of a limb for theft is a punishment that I believe most would consider Cruel and Unsual Punishment and banned by the Eight Amendment to our Constitution and similarly banned by other civilized nations. Killing people for leaving Islam is both breeching the right to Religious Freedom as laid out by the First Amendment to the Constitution and, in a more general sense, is a breech of each individual's right to Liberty..
So, my friends, the very concerns that I had about the so-called Arab Spring are coming to fruition. Is the world "safer" without Quadaffi? Maybe not. It seems we may well have traded the Devil We Know and who is not a threat to us for the Devil We Don't Know and may well become a threat. For the people of Libya, I'd say the oppression of Sharia will be just as bad as the opression of Quadaffi.
To those of you who believe this is just a matter of Lybian self-determination, I'd like to remind you what I said back in February regarding Egypt:
You see, the framers simply ASSUMED the fundamental human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING has those rights. They were given to them by nature's God. People do not have the right to abridge other individual’s rights, EVEN IN A FREE ELECTION! (1)
People do not have the right to vote away other people's rights. Period. Has our nation been perfect to this standard from the beginning? Heck no we haven't. But our Constitution provides for the correction of those mistakes, like the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery and Brown v. Board of Education which overturned segregation. Sharia has no such protections.
So now, Mr. President, at best you've spent our military might and treasure to trade out the Devil We Know for the Devil We Don't Know. Congratulations. At best you've left America, and Lybia, no less safe. At worst...well, you figure it out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Egyptian Unrest: Sign of Democracy in Middle East?
(2) Libya's liberation: interim ruler unveils more radical than expected plans for Islamic law
(3) Wikipedia: Sharia - Penalties
Monday, October 24, 2011
Rick Perry Set to Propose Flat Tax
Governor Rick Perry has officially stepped up to the plate and proposed a conservative dream as part of his economic plan: the Flat Tax. In a time where 9-9-9 is gaining traction in the marketplace, Perry's Flat Tax could also take off just as fast.
I've been a longtime proponent of the Flat Tax. I believe it is not only the fairest possible tax but also the most Biblical tax available. When I published my Treatise on Biblical Conservatism in August, I noted that, in the original government God set up for Israel, there were two taxes. A one amount for all Temple Tax and the Tithe, a 10% tax on all people.
Now Governor Perry is proposing the Flat Tax. You have my attention, sir. The plan has not been officially presented, however, we can get some insight on what the plan would based largely on Steve Forbes' Flat Tax proposal from his two Presidential runs in the 1996 and 2000.
So what would this Flat Tax be, assuming Perry sticks to Forbes' plan? I'm glad you asked. A Flat Tax Rate of 17%, across the board, for all Americans, with every penny up to $36,000 being completely tax exempt. You read that right. Not one penny in Federal tax would be paid up to $36,000 for an American family. (1) So starting from that base, an American family making the median income of about $44,389 per year (2), lets examine what that family consisting of two parents and two children would be paying in taxes:
First and foremost, the first $36,000 in income would be tax free. So let's remove that amount, giving you a taxable income of only $8389. Yep, just over eight grand in taxable income. That American family would pay only $1426.13 in total income tax that year. That makes for an effective tax rate of 3.21% for an American family making the median income.
Now under the current system, that same American family would be in the 15% tax bracket. They would receive a total of $2000 tax credit because of the two children in that family. Let's again say that the same American family can deduct an average of $1,227 per year in mortage interest (3) and say another 5% of their income in other, assorted deductions (charitable donations, etc) which would equal $2219.45 in additional deductions for a total of $5446.45 in total deductions. So that means their taxable income on that income is $38,942.55 in taxable income That means that family would pay $5841.39 in taxes. That's an effective tax rate of 13.16% for an American family making the median income.
The difference is $4415.26 MORE MONEY under the Flat Tax in the pockets annually of the average American family. In terms of total dollars, that family would be paying just over 1/4 of the taxes they are currently paying. It's an extra $367 each month for that family. Over five years, that money could buy that family a brand new car. It's a huge amount more money in each American family's pockets each year.
Governor Perry, you were losing ground in my mind. Go this direction, you have my attention. The Flat Tax is the dream of conservatives.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Summary of Steve Forbes' Flat Tax Plan
(2) Wikipedia: Household Income in the United States - Median Income
(3) Scrap the mortgage deduction? Americans weigh in
I've been a longtime proponent of the Flat Tax. I believe it is not only the fairest possible tax but also the most Biblical tax available. When I published my Treatise on Biblical Conservatism in August, I noted that, in the original government God set up for Israel, there were two taxes. A one amount for all Temple Tax and the Tithe, a 10% tax on all people.
Now Governor Perry is proposing the Flat Tax. You have my attention, sir. The plan has not been officially presented, however, we can get some insight on what the plan would based largely on Steve Forbes' Flat Tax proposal from his two Presidential runs in the 1996 and 2000.
So what would this Flat Tax be, assuming Perry sticks to Forbes' plan? I'm glad you asked. A Flat Tax Rate of 17%, across the board, for all Americans, with every penny up to $36,000 being completely tax exempt. You read that right. Not one penny in Federal tax would be paid up to $36,000 for an American family. (1) So starting from that base, an American family making the median income of about $44,389 per year (2), lets examine what that family consisting of two parents and two children would be paying in taxes:
First and foremost, the first $36,000 in income would be tax free. So let's remove that amount, giving you a taxable income of only $8389. Yep, just over eight grand in taxable income. That American family would pay only $1426.13 in total income tax that year. That makes for an effective tax rate of 3.21% for an American family making the median income.
Now under the current system, that same American family would be in the 15% tax bracket. They would receive a total of $2000 tax credit because of the two children in that family. Let's again say that the same American family can deduct an average of $1,227 per year in mortage interest (3) and say another 5% of their income in other, assorted deductions (charitable donations, etc) which would equal $2219.45 in additional deductions for a total of $5446.45 in total deductions. So that means their taxable income on that income is $38,942.55 in taxable income That means that family would pay $5841.39 in taxes. That's an effective tax rate of 13.16% for an American family making the median income.
The difference is $4415.26 MORE MONEY under the Flat Tax in the pockets annually of the average American family. In terms of total dollars, that family would be paying just over 1/4 of the taxes they are currently paying. It's an extra $367 each month for that family. Over five years, that money could buy that family a brand new car. It's a huge amount more money in each American family's pockets each year.
Governor Perry, you were losing ground in my mind. Go this direction, you have my attention. The Flat Tax is the dream of conservatives.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Summary of Steve Forbes' Flat Tax Plan
(2) Wikipedia: Household Income in the United States - Median Income
(3) Scrap the mortgage deduction? Americans weigh in
Friday, October 21, 2011
Reactions to the Iraqi Troop Withdrawl
The news came down today: Complete troop withdraw from Iraq will be complete by December 31, 2011. Obama is trying to claim credit, and say that he has fulfilled a promise. Unfortunately, the truth is far less flattering to the President. The reality is the Iraqis told us "we'll take it from here," and we obliged.
We know this is not what the Generals on the ground recommend...you know, those guys who have ever served a day in uniform...recommended troop levels not be dropped any lower than 10,000 at this time when Obama pushed a plan in September to reduce troop strength to 3,000. (1) Now he wants to cut to zero and is claiming he's "fulfilling a promise," rather than admitting what's really going on: the free and soveriegn nation of Iraq feels they are ready to take command of their own security.
Again, we can have a discussion about whether or not it's time to bring our troops home, and frankly those of you who say yes, the time is right have some good arguments. Today, I agree with you for one reason: The Iraqi Government says they are ready to take over their own security.
That said, an American President does not go from "drop down to 3,000" as he was a little over a month ago to "complete troop withdrawl" two months later with no warning, no expectation, just out of the blue. Furthermore, and fare more importantly, American Generals don't go from "no less than 10,000" to "go ahead and let's withdraw all troops" in two months. It just doesn't work that way. It is my best guess that Obama was caught by surprise by this stated desire by the Iraqi government, since once again another nation isn't treating Obama as the annointed one but like the man-child President that he is in reality, and is now trying to spin the egg on his face into a positive. What's really happened is precisely what I said above: Iraq is ready to protect itself. Mission accomplished.
You may not think we should have gone to Iraq, but I believe we made the right decision. I believe that was a good decision for so very many reasons, and no, the fact that we did not find WMD does not faze me for one reason: Dictators want to stay in power above all else. If Saddam didn't have WMD, why didn't he just open the doors and let UN Inspectors see that fact? But I digress. Iraq believes it is ready to defend Iraq, and as a fellow soveriegn nation, it is not our place to argue that point.
Obama wants credit for ending the Iraq War. The truth is we are completing our mission, as planned in 2008 in the waning days of the Bush Administration. (2) Obama gets about as much credit for the completion of the Iraq War as the last relief pitcher who comes in when his team is up 10-0 in the 9th inning gets credit for the win. Obama has been the proverbial mop up man for a victory already in hand.
Yes, I said victory. We won. We set out with a specific goal in mind: Remove Saddam Hussein, the dictator who had defied the international community for years, fight Al Qaeda in Iraq (which we did, I hate to break it to you who decided it was the cool thing to do to be skeptical about that fact...whether or not they were there when we started they were our primary enemy in Iraq...no matter how many times liberals called them "insurgents") and we have left that nation at a point where they feel they can defend themselves.
This is a victory for the United States Military. They got the job done, and now our "exit strategy" of victory has been achieved. We did precisely what we set out to do. Thank you to our soldiers, and nobody else.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Fox News: Sources - Obama Administration to Drop Troop Levels in Iraq to 3,000
(2) U.S. OUT OF IRAQ BY 2011
We know this is not what the Generals on the ground recommend...you know, those guys who have ever served a day in uniform...recommended troop levels not be dropped any lower than 10,000 at this time when Obama pushed a plan in September to reduce troop strength to 3,000. (1) Now he wants to cut to zero and is claiming he's "fulfilling a promise," rather than admitting what's really going on: the free and soveriegn nation of Iraq feels they are ready to take command of their own security.
Again, we can have a discussion about whether or not it's time to bring our troops home, and frankly those of you who say yes, the time is right have some good arguments. Today, I agree with you for one reason: The Iraqi Government says they are ready to take over their own security.
That said, an American President does not go from "drop down to 3,000" as he was a little over a month ago to "complete troop withdrawl" two months later with no warning, no expectation, just out of the blue. Furthermore, and fare more importantly, American Generals don't go from "no less than 10,000" to "go ahead and let's withdraw all troops" in two months. It just doesn't work that way. It is my best guess that Obama was caught by surprise by this stated desire by the Iraqi government, since once again another nation isn't treating Obama as the annointed one but like the man-child President that he is in reality, and is now trying to spin the egg on his face into a positive. What's really happened is precisely what I said above: Iraq is ready to protect itself. Mission accomplished.
You may not think we should have gone to Iraq, but I believe we made the right decision. I believe that was a good decision for so very many reasons, and no, the fact that we did not find WMD does not faze me for one reason: Dictators want to stay in power above all else. If Saddam didn't have WMD, why didn't he just open the doors and let UN Inspectors see that fact? But I digress. Iraq believes it is ready to defend Iraq, and as a fellow soveriegn nation, it is not our place to argue that point.
Obama wants credit for ending the Iraq War. The truth is we are completing our mission, as planned in 2008 in the waning days of the Bush Administration. (2) Obama gets about as much credit for the completion of the Iraq War as the last relief pitcher who comes in when his team is up 10-0 in the 9th inning gets credit for the win. Obama has been the proverbial mop up man for a victory already in hand.
Yes, I said victory. We won. We set out with a specific goal in mind: Remove Saddam Hussein, the dictator who had defied the international community for years, fight Al Qaeda in Iraq (which we did, I hate to break it to you who decided it was the cool thing to do to be skeptical about that fact...whether or not they were there when we started they were our primary enemy in Iraq...no matter how many times liberals called them "insurgents") and we have left that nation at a point where they feel they can defend themselves.
This is a victory for the United States Military. They got the job done, and now our "exit strategy" of victory has been achieved. We did precisely what we set out to do. Thank you to our soldiers, and nobody else.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Fox News: Sources - Obama Administration to Drop Troop Levels in Iraq to 3,000
(2) U.S. OUT OF IRAQ BY 2011
Joe Biden Breaks Out the Usual Baseless Attacks on Jobs Bill
Don't look now, friends, but the Obama Administration has gone and let Joe Biden talk again, with typical results. This time, the Vice President wants you to believe that, if the President's Jobs Bill isn't passed, rapes and murders will increase. You read that right: the Jobs Bill will prevent rape and murder. Said the Vice President:
“In 2008, when Flint (MI) had 265 sworn officers on their police force, there were 35 murders and 91 rapes in this city,” Biden said, standing alongside city officials. “In 2010, when Flint had only 144 police officers, the murder rate climbed to 65 and rapes — just to pick two categories — climbed to 229. In 2011, you now only have 125 shields. God only knows what the numbers will be this year for Flint if we don’t rectify it.” (1)
There are just so very many holes in the Vice President's logic. For example, how many murders and rapists stop so their victim can call the police? How many rape and murder victims have warning so they CAN call the police? Seriously, simple logic tells you that "call the police" is really not something that practically can be done to prevent a rape or murder in progress. If and only if a police officer is nearby can that officer do pretty much anything. Aside from that, it's pretty much up to the victim to either avoid such situations and/or be prepared for self defense by carrying mace or exercising your constitutional right to bear arms and carrying a gun. For the record, I'm not blaming victims at all, I'm just saying that calling the police and waiting for them to arrive is just not a wise contingency plan. What the police do in such situations is pretty much in the area of prosecuting justice after the crime.
Yet Vice President Biden wants you to think; think about this for a second; that Obama's Jobs Bill will prevent rape and murder. (I for one can only believe Biden would be so brazen because I'm used to it.) Of course the inherent assumption of the claim is "Republicans don't want to pass this bill, ergo Republicans don't want to prevent rape and murder." It's a preposterous claim, of course. It's preposterous to assume that more police officers would mean that a calling the police in the process of being raped is going to get an officer on the scene immediately, or that it's even reasonable to consider calling the police a defense when being attacked, and then expect the police to arrive in a minute or two before the actual crime is perpetrated.
But hey, maybe Biden was just being foolish (it is Joe Biden after all) and speaking rashly. Surely he's retracted his statement by now, right? Nope, he's doubling down on his ridiculous claim! When he was pressed by a reporter, who, out of the blue, decided to actually be a journalist, to clarify his claim, Biden said,
"Murder will continue to rise. Rape will continue to rise. All crime will continue to rise." (2)
So not only is the Vice President making ridiculous claims, he's doubling down it it? Wow, just wow. If Biden genuinely believes this, he's even less intelligent than I thought. Having never been a rapist or a murder, I can't say with certainty, but I do not think the simple presence of additional police offers adds to the deterrent value against crime, because ultimately where police serve as a deterrent it is in the realm of expected punishment, not in actually stopping such crimes as they are happening, and certainly not by being called to the scene of the crime WHILE THE CRIME IS IN PROGRESS to stop it.
Biden's claim is preposterous. It's also exactly what I've learned to expect from liberals. Fortunately, I think the American public have smartened up on this baloney, and I believe these ad homonym attacks will simply end up hurting the Democratic Party cause. Good thing, too, because America can't take any more of Obama's "fix it some more, it's not broken enough" mentality!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Daily Caller: Biden: Pass this bill, prevent murders and rapes
(2) Joe Biden Warns Again: Rape, Murder Will Rise Without Jobs Bill
“In 2008, when Flint (MI) had 265 sworn officers on their police force, there were 35 murders and 91 rapes in this city,” Biden said, standing alongside city officials. “In 2010, when Flint had only 144 police officers, the murder rate climbed to 65 and rapes — just to pick two categories — climbed to 229. In 2011, you now only have 125 shields. God only knows what the numbers will be this year for Flint if we don’t rectify it.” (1)
There are just so very many holes in the Vice President's logic. For example, how many murders and rapists stop so their victim can call the police? How many rape and murder victims have warning so they CAN call the police? Seriously, simple logic tells you that "call the police" is really not something that practically can be done to prevent a rape or murder in progress. If and only if a police officer is nearby can that officer do pretty much anything. Aside from that, it's pretty much up to the victim to either avoid such situations and/or be prepared for self defense by carrying mace or exercising your constitutional right to bear arms and carrying a gun. For the record, I'm not blaming victims at all, I'm just saying that calling the police and waiting for them to arrive is just not a wise contingency plan. What the police do in such situations is pretty much in the area of prosecuting justice after the crime.
Yet Vice President Biden wants you to think; think about this for a second; that Obama's Jobs Bill will prevent rape and murder. (I for one can only believe Biden would be so brazen because I'm used to it.) Of course the inherent assumption of the claim is "Republicans don't want to pass this bill, ergo Republicans don't want to prevent rape and murder." It's a preposterous claim, of course. It's preposterous to assume that more police officers would mean that a calling the police in the process of being raped is going to get an officer on the scene immediately, or that it's even reasonable to consider calling the police a defense when being attacked, and then expect the police to arrive in a minute or two before the actual crime is perpetrated.
But hey, maybe Biden was just being foolish (it is Joe Biden after all) and speaking rashly. Surely he's retracted his statement by now, right? Nope, he's doubling down on his ridiculous claim! When he was pressed by a reporter, who, out of the blue, decided to actually be a journalist, to clarify his claim, Biden said,
"Murder will continue to rise. Rape will continue to rise. All crime will continue to rise." (2)
So not only is the Vice President making ridiculous claims, he's doubling down it it? Wow, just wow. If Biden genuinely believes this, he's even less intelligent than I thought. Having never been a rapist or a murder, I can't say with certainty, but I do not think the simple presence of additional police offers adds to the deterrent value against crime, because ultimately where police serve as a deterrent it is in the realm of expected punishment, not in actually stopping such crimes as they are happening, and certainly not by being called to the scene of the crime WHILE THE CRIME IS IN PROGRESS to stop it.
Biden's claim is preposterous. It's also exactly what I've learned to expect from liberals. Fortunately, I think the American public have smartened up on this baloney, and I believe these ad homonym attacks will simply end up hurting the Democratic Party cause. Good thing, too, because America can't take any more of Obama's "fix it some more, it's not broken enough" mentality!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Daily Caller: Biden: Pass this bill, prevent murders and rapes
(2) Joe Biden Warns Again: Rape, Murder Will Rise Without Jobs Bill
Thursday, October 20, 2011
New Poll Shows Who the Occupy Wall Street Protesters are Really
Brace yourself, friends, I'm about to say I told you so...
This week, Douglas Schoen, a former Democratic pollster for Bill Clinton, conducted a polling sample of the Occupy Wall Street protesters, in person at New York city's Zuccotti Park. What he found was not, as White House has recently claimed, a cross section of the American public in line with the current frustrations against government. It also was not a group that was compiled of people of different political values, as the Drive-By Media has claimed, and it certainly was not a protest of government corporatism, as a libertarian friend claimed early in the protests. Rather, as Schoen stated in his article in the Wall Street Journal:
Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence.
The realities of this poll flies in the face of the presentation of the protests by the Left. Some specific details are quite stark. For example:
How about the fact that over 50% of the group have participated in political movements before? I mean, isn't the Occupy Wall Street Protest supposed to be the liberal Tea Party? I mean the Tea Party is made up mostly of people who have never participated in political movements, and certainly not half made up of conservative political activist types. The Tea Party has some, of course (you're reading one of them right now) but it's largely made up of people just now joining the political fray.
What about the fact that 31% would support violence to advance their agenda? It's like this group has Communists, Anarchists, and Nazis in it...oh wait it does.
Or my favorite, 65% think government has a responsibility to "guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost." Because most conservatives and moderates believe that money grows on trees if you explain that a particular expenditure is really, super duper important, right? Oh, wait...that's pretty much a uniquely liberal mentality.
My friends, Occupy Wall Street is precisely what everyone from major conservative commentators to lowly conservative internet bloggers: A group of leftists and Causeheads with a healthy dose of communist and anarchist revolutionaries who would support violent revolt to gain their goals. This is not a mainline protest. At all. Mark my words, President Obama and the Democrats are going to regret supporting this movement when election day comes. I guarantee it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall Source: Polling the Occupy Wall Street Crowd
This week, Douglas Schoen, a former Democratic pollster for Bill Clinton, conducted a polling sample of the Occupy Wall Street protesters, in person at New York city's Zuccotti Park. What he found was not, as White House has recently claimed, a cross section of the American public in line with the current frustrations against government. It also was not a group that was compiled of people of different political values, as the Drive-By Media has claimed, and it certainly was not a protest of government corporatism, as a libertarian friend claimed early in the protests. Rather, as Schoen stated in his article in the Wall Street Journal:
Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence.
The realities of this poll flies in the face of the presentation of the protests by the Left. Some specific details are quite stark. For example:
- The vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed, and the proportion of protesters unemployed (15%) is within single digits of the national unemployment rate (9.1%).
- 65% say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost.
- By a large margin (77% support to 22% oppose), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans.
- Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before.
- Virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals.
- Nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.
How about the fact that over 50% of the group have participated in political movements before? I mean, isn't the Occupy Wall Street Protest supposed to be the liberal Tea Party? I mean the Tea Party is made up mostly of people who have never participated in political movements, and certainly not half made up of conservative political activist types. The Tea Party has some, of course (you're reading one of them right now) but it's largely made up of people just now joining the political fray.
What about the fact that 31% would support violence to advance their agenda? It's like this group has Communists, Anarchists, and Nazis in it...oh wait it does.
Or my favorite, 65% think government has a responsibility to "guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost." Because most conservatives and moderates believe that money grows on trees if you explain that a particular expenditure is really, super duper important, right? Oh, wait...that's pretty much a uniquely liberal mentality.
My friends, Occupy Wall Street is precisely what everyone from major conservative commentators to lowly conservative internet bloggers: A group of leftists and Causeheads with a healthy dose of communist and anarchist revolutionaries who would support violent revolt to gain their goals. This is not a mainline protest. At all. Mark my words, President Obama and the Democrats are going to regret supporting this movement when election day comes. I guarantee it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall Source: Polling the Occupy Wall Street Crowd
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Reactions to the CNN Western Debate
Last night, the Republican Candidates met in Las Vegas, NV. First and foremost, as an overview, I must say this was quite probably the most entertaining debate yet. Even Anderson Cooper failed to drive me crazy during the debate and Ron Paul forgot to sound crazy 15% of the time (limited it 5%). Oh and Jon Huntsman stayed home, which was nice, because it meant I wasn’t having my time wasted during this debate listening to him drone. So now it's time for everyone's favorite stock market analogy, "Buy, Hold, Sell, Sell All or Sold," with my last debate reaction in italics:
Michelle Bachmann – Hold (Sell):
Congresswoman Bachmann was articulate and said some good things in this debate. Unfortunately she didn’t really have any great moments that really made her stand out. I think she’s dropped off the radar in this race, thus far. That can change. I’m not selling all yet, because I know that we are still a full three months away from casting any vote. For now, however, I’m selling off Michelle Bachmann stock.
Congresswoman Bachmann came out swinging last night. She really had some great moments. I honestly do not know if this response will build any support for her. She had some great moments. My favorite was when she brought up that Barrack Obama’s relatives are still in this country illegally. Honestly I don’t know if she’s going to pick up any support, but I thought her debate performance was solid.
Herman Cain – Buy (Buy):
Cain really knocked this debate out of the park. He explained and articulated his 9-9-9 Plan wonderfully. The explanation that the new sales tax is not just offset but actually overcome by the repeal of the Payroll Tax and the Federal Income tax and lead to a smaller tax burden. The other thing he explained well is that the 9-9-9 Plan is the only plan where EVERYONE is paying their real “fair share,” which means that EVERYONE is paying taxes, not just 52% of us paying 100% of the taxes while the 48% pay 0% of the tax burden and receive the majority of the tax benefits. He really nailed it.
He took it hard on the 9% sales tax in the debate from the other candidates. I think he did a good job of responding and explaining that the plan is replacing the current pipeline, not giving a new tax pipeline.
In the last month I’ve done a 180 on Herman Cain. He’s become a viable candidate and is the current contender to Mitt Romney at the top of the race. I thought he did a very good job of explaining his 9-9-9 Plan and continuing to invite people to go to his website and view the plan in full. He did a great job to explain that his plan is replacing significant taxes that go into the price of every product we buy. He’s going to have to do a lot of explaining to get that fact into people’s heads. Yes, there would need to be significant and potentially Constitutional safeguards for a plan like 9-9-9 to work. But he did a good job I think of shaking off the attacks and staying firm on his plan.
Newt Gingrich – Buy (Sell):
Newt really took it to the moderators. He’s the reason I didn’t hop in my car and drive to NH to smack Charlie Rose. (That and my desire to not spend money to drive to NH and smack someone and then go to jail for assault. That was in there too.) Newt has started to rise in the polls a bit. I’m holding on to Newt’s Stock because he’s just so good in these debates. He’d crush Obama in a debate. I’d love to see Newt as the Vice President, or for that matter as the White House Press Secretary if he’d take the job. Let’s see if he can get back into this thing…because he could really take it to Obama.
Newt joins Herman Cain in the category of making me look bad, and I’m glad of it. I really like Newt. If he can show himself to be a viable option and not a throw away vote in my state’s primary, I’d strongly consider voting for him. He’s got great ideas and he would absolutely cream Obama in a debate. He had great moments in the debate. I’d like to see Newt really take the next step. Let’s see what happens.
Jon Huntsman – Not In Attendance (Sold):
I think the kids in those Peter G. Peterson Foundation commercials explaining how economics work would make better candidates than Jon Huntsman. Also, who names their kid Peter Peterson? Moving on.
I’m glad Huntsman wasn’t here. I’ve run out of funny statements for him. I’ll work on it before the next debate. Any suggestions, send me a tweet @UpstateMetFan.
Gary Johnson – Not in Attendance (Sold):
Kermit stayed home this time. Miss Piggy wouldn’t let him come out and play I guess. Too bad. (Not really.)
See Jon Huntsman note.
Ron Paul - Sold (Sold):
No change in my opinion from Paul. Unlike the last two candidates listed, I respect Ron Paul. So I’ll just leave it at that.
Ron Paul forgot to sound crazy tonight for the majority of the debate. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I agree with him on 85% of his policies. Unfortunately the other 15%, which only came up minimally last night, scare me about him, like his isolationist policies that do not make sense in our modern world. I stay where I’ve stood, he won’t be the President. But I’m glad he’s in my party. Also, I’d like to give kudos to Paul on one statement, “We have rights, and they come from God.”
Rick Perry – Buy (Hold):
Rick Perry is losing people fast. He needs to have specific plans. Right now it still feels like he’s obfuscating (that’s “being confusing without saying anything” for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL). He really has lost a lot of potential in my mind. When a Republican can’t respond effectively to a Ronald Reagan question, there’s a problem.
I felt Perry rebounded pretty well. His plans to use the energy resources we have to power this country makes far too much sense to ignore. I can’t tell you what a boon to my budget it would be to see my energy costs go down. I’m fortunate enough to live in a town with local, municipal electricity, but even so, if gas prices were cut in half and energy prices were cut in half due to increased supply, that’d be a 10% increase in my monthly available budget, and that would be absolutely huge to me. For the rest of American that would be so as well. I felt he did a decent job on immigration as well.
Most importantly, I felt Perry did a good job of taking it to Mitt Romney. In fairness, Perry really should have let Mitt finish his sentences, but the reality of the situation was that I think Mitt sounded like a he was whining while Perry seemed like an attack dog. While Perry’s statement about Romney hiring illegal immigrants may not have only been true in name only (and I’ll look for a fact check on that), if Romney’s response was indeed true, it still did bloody Romney a bit. Perry may have started to rebound last night.
Mitt Romney – Buy (Buy):
Another great debate performance from Mitt Romney. His tough stance on China was impressive, if he lives it out, and I felt he did a good job showing that he is a good candidate on the economy. Now Mitt is not my first choice, and pretty much the only way he’ll get my vote in the primary is if Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum are out of the race (in that order). That said, he’s doing a good job of convincing me that, if Mitt becomes our nominee, it wouldn’t remind me of holding my nose in 2008 and voting for John McCain. (Actually, in 2008, I voted for Sarah Palin and her boss.)
In short, Mitt to me is like a vanilla ice cream cone. By comparison, my current favorite, Herman Cain, would be like eating a big delicious ice cream sundae with all the fixings*. I’d be happy to eat a vanilla ice cream cone. I’d enjoy it. I’d rather eat a sundae with all the fixings. That’s the line with Mitt…we can do better as conservatives. We also can do a whole lot worse. Unfortunately, Romneycare could be a big problem for Mitt.
Mitt stood his ground last night and did as well as he’s continued to do. I want to see a fact check on his claim that his “illegal immigrant hiring” was actually him contracting for landscaping with a company who hired illegals, which is, in fairness, not something I can legitimately blame Mitt for. However, where I think he looked bad was when he was defending himself against the interruptions by Perry. I know, it doesn’t sound right, and in most cases I would think that Perry sounded like a jerk and Mitt like a victim. Yet, in that particular instance, Mitt came off to me as condescending and Perry as someone who was legitimately looking for answers.
That exchange (and the subsequent Twitter reactions during said exchange) showed Mitt’s biggest problem. The conservative Republican base really doesn’t want him. That’s why there’s been a perpetual battle of Mitt vs. Not Mitt. (The role of Not Mitt has been played recently by Donald Trump, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and now Herman Cain.) Republicans are desperately seeking somebody else, and that will hurt Mitt.
Rick Santorum - Sold (Sold):
Santorum spent a lot of time trying to get back into the spotlight. It didn’t work. Considering he’s from Pennsylvania, he’s got a shot at being the Vice Presidential nominee in an effort to turn that 2008 blue state into a red state in 2012. But he’s not going to be the President, at least not without serving first as Vice President, and not in 2012.
Santorum was swinging away again tonight, and I still don’t think he gained any traction. I like him, but his highest possible realistic goal is Vice President.
Another debate in the books and my decision has gotten muddy again. My current options are, in alphabetical order, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry. I really don’t know where to go, but I’m glad I have so many choices that I would consider good, and even more that I consider acceptable. Thank
Michelle Bachmann – Hold (Sell):
Congresswoman Bachmann was articulate and said some good things in this debate. Unfortunately she didn’t really have any great moments that really made her stand out. I think she’s dropped off the radar in this race, thus far. That can change. I’m not selling all yet, because I know that we are still a full three months away from casting any vote. For now, however, I’m selling off Michelle Bachmann stock.
Congresswoman Bachmann came out swinging last night. She really had some great moments. I honestly do not know if this response will build any support for her. She had some great moments. My favorite was when she brought up that Barrack Obama’s relatives are still in this country illegally. Honestly I don’t know if she’s going to pick up any support, but I thought her debate performance was solid.
Herman Cain – Buy (Buy):
Cain really knocked this debate out of the park. He explained and articulated his 9-9-9 Plan wonderfully. The explanation that the new sales tax is not just offset but actually overcome by the repeal of the Payroll Tax and the Federal Income tax and lead to a smaller tax burden. The other thing he explained well is that the 9-9-9 Plan is the only plan where EVERYONE is paying their real “fair share,” which means that EVERYONE is paying taxes, not just 52% of us paying 100% of the taxes while the 48% pay 0% of the tax burden and receive the majority of the tax benefits. He really nailed it.
He took it hard on the 9% sales tax in the debate from the other candidates. I think he did a good job of responding and explaining that the plan is replacing the current pipeline, not giving a new tax pipeline.
In the last month I’ve done a 180 on Herman Cain. He’s become a viable candidate and is the current contender to Mitt Romney at the top of the race. I thought he did a very good job of explaining his 9-9-9 Plan and continuing to invite people to go to his website and view the plan in full. He did a great job to explain that his plan is replacing significant taxes that go into the price of every product we buy. He’s going to have to do a lot of explaining to get that fact into people’s heads. Yes, there would need to be significant and potentially Constitutional safeguards for a plan like 9-9-9 to work. But he did a good job I think of shaking off the attacks and staying firm on his plan.
Newt Gingrich – Buy (Sell):
Newt really took it to the moderators. He’s the reason I didn’t hop in my car and drive to NH to smack Charlie Rose. (That and my desire to not spend money to drive to NH and smack someone and then go to jail for assault. That was in there too.) Newt has started to rise in the polls a bit. I’m holding on to Newt’s Stock because he’s just so good in these debates. He’d crush Obama in a debate. I’d love to see Newt as the Vice President, or for that matter as the White House Press Secretary if he’d take the job. Let’s see if he can get back into this thing…because he could really take it to Obama.
Newt joins Herman Cain in the category of making me look bad, and I’m glad of it. I really like Newt. If he can show himself to be a viable option and not a throw away vote in my state’s primary, I’d strongly consider voting for him. He’s got great ideas and he would absolutely cream Obama in a debate. He had great moments in the debate. I’d like to see Newt really take the next step. Let’s see what happens.
Jon Huntsman – Not In Attendance (Sold):
I think the kids in those Peter G. Peterson Foundation commercials explaining how economics work would make better candidates than Jon Huntsman. Also, who names their kid Peter Peterson? Moving on.
I’m glad Huntsman wasn’t here. I’ve run out of funny statements for him. I’ll work on it before the next debate. Any suggestions, send me a tweet @UpstateMetFan.
Gary Johnson – Not in Attendance (Sold):
Kermit stayed home this time. Miss Piggy wouldn’t let him come out and play I guess. Too bad. (Not really.)
See Jon Huntsman note.
Ron Paul - Sold (Sold):
No change in my opinion from Paul. Unlike the last two candidates listed, I respect Ron Paul. So I’ll just leave it at that.
Ron Paul forgot to sound crazy tonight for the majority of the debate. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I agree with him on 85% of his policies. Unfortunately the other 15%, which only came up minimally last night, scare me about him, like his isolationist policies that do not make sense in our modern world. I stay where I’ve stood, he won’t be the President. But I’m glad he’s in my party. Also, I’d like to give kudos to Paul on one statement, “We have rights, and they come from God.”
Rick Perry – Buy (Hold):
Rick Perry is losing people fast. He needs to have specific plans. Right now it still feels like he’s obfuscating (that’s “being confusing without saying anything” for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL). He really has lost a lot of potential in my mind. When a Republican can’t respond effectively to a Ronald Reagan question, there’s a problem.
I felt Perry rebounded pretty well. His plans to use the energy resources we have to power this country makes far too much sense to ignore. I can’t tell you what a boon to my budget it would be to see my energy costs go down. I’m fortunate enough to live in a town with local, municipal electricity, but even so, if gas prices were cut in half and energy prices were cut in half due to increased supply, that’d be a 10% increase in my monthly available budget, and that would be absolutely huge to me. For the rest of American that would be so as well. I felt he did a decent job on immigration as well.
Most importantly, I felt Perry did a good job of taking it to Mitt Romney. In fairness, Perry really should have let Mitt finish his sentences, but the reality of the situation was that I think Mitt sounded like a he was whining while Perry seemed like an attack dog. While Perry’s statement about Romney hiring illegal immigrants may not have only been true in name only (and I’ll look for a fact check on that), if Romney’s response was indeed true, it still did bloody Romney a bit. Perry may have started to rebound last night.
Mitt Romney – Buy (Buy):
Another great debate performance from Mitt Romney. His tough stance on China was impressive, if he lives it out, and I felt he did a good job showing that he is a good candidate on the economy. Now Mitt is not my first choice, and pretty much the only way he’ll get my vote in the primary is if Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum are out of the race (in that order). That said, he’s doing a good job of convincing me that, if Mitt becomes our nominee, it wouldn’t remind me of holding my nose in 2008 and voting for John McCain. (Actually, in 2008, I voted for Sarah Palin and her boss.)
In short, Mitt to me is like a vanilla ice cream cone. By comparison, my current favorite, Herman Cain, would be like eating a big delicious ice cream sundae with all the fixings*. I’d be happy to eat a vanilla ice cream cone. I’d enjoy it. I’d rather eat a sundae with all the fixings. That’s the line with Mitt…we can do better as conservatives. We also can do a whole lot worse. Unfortunately, Romneycare could be a big problem for Mitt.
Mitt stood his ground last night and did as well as he’s continued to do. I want to see a fact check on his claim that his “illegal immigrant hiring” was actually him contracting for landscaping with a company who hired illegals, which is, in fairness, not something I can legitimately blame Mitt for. However, where I think he looked bad was when he was defending himself against the interruptions by Perry. I know, it doesn’t sound right, and in most cases I would think that Perry sounded like a jerk and Mitt like a victim. Yet, in that particular instance, Mitt came off to me as condescending and Perry as someone who was legitimately looking for answers.
That exchange (and the subsequent Twitter reactions during said exchange) showed Mitt’s biggest problem. The conservative Republican base really doesn’t want him. That’s why there’s been a perpetual battle of Mitt vs. Not Mitt. (The role of Not Mitt has been played recently by Donald Trump, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and now Herman Cain.) Republicans are desperately seeking somebody else, and that will hurt Mitt.
Rick Santorum - Sold (Sold):
Santorum spent a lot of time trying to get back into the spotlight. It didn’t work. Considering he’s from Pennsylvania, he’s got a shot at being the Vice Presidential nominee in an effort to turn that 2008 blue state into a red state in 2012. But he’s not going to be the President, at least not without serving first as Vice President, and not in 2012.
Santorum was swinging away again tonight, and I still don’t think he gained any traction. I like him, but his highest possible realistic goal is Vice President.
Another debate in the books and my decision has gotten muddy again. My current options are, in alphabetical order, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry. I really don’t know where to go, but I’m glad I have so many choices that I would consider good, and even more that I consider acceptable. Thank
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Dear Wall Street Protesters: You are Not "the 99%." We Surround You!
The Occupy Wall Street protesters keep saying that they are "The 99%," setting them apart from "The 1%" aka the wealthy people in America (who pay 38% of the taxes). I'm sorry, but you are not the 99%. We, the 53% of Americans who pay taxes, are not a part of your group.
I am one of those 53%. I go to work and earn my paycheck. I have entered into a contract with my employer wherein I sell them 40 hours of my time each week to perform professional business services, in exchange for which I receive a paycheck. That paycheck is based upon a salary which we agreed upon at the beginning of my employment. That amount was not based upon some idealistic sense of "fairness." It was an agreement reached that fit two criteria: The amount of money my employers were willing to invest in retaining my employment in exchange for a certain expected fiscal benefit above and beyond the cost too keep me employed; and two, an amount for which I was willing to sell 40 hours each week of my time. This was our agreement. I keep up my end of the contract, they keep up their end. Each year, we sit down to discuss whether or not I have exceeded my previous expectations and thus am deserving of a raise.
To be qualified to do my job, I went to college. I obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in Communications from the State University of New York's College at Brockport. That degree gives me skills that are in demand. If you have a degree in English Literature or Basket Weaving and can't find a job, perhaps this is the reason why you aren't as successful as I am in finding gameful employment in your field? My ability to find a good paying job is a (positive) consequence of my choice of college major.
I, too, have a college loan from one of those "evil" Wall Street banks. And you know what? I don't have a problem with paying it back. You know why? Because I agreed to take that loan and pay it back! The bank didn't give me that loan to be nice to me or because they had the money. It was a contract between us that I am fulfilling. I got an education for my loan investment and now I'm paying for it. That's what happens with loans!
I don't have a mortgage, but I hope to someday. My parents have a mortgage though. You know why their home ISN'T being repossessed? They are paying their mortgage payments! They are fulfilling their contract with the bank on the mortgage. If you or someone you know is seeing their house repossessed, it's not because the Bank is evil. It's because you or the homeowner you know breeched the contract with the bank! See, that's how loans work. You have to pay for it. It's not a gift from the bank. It's a contract. If you've lost your home, that's not the bank's fault. It's your own fault. You're the one who failed to pay your mortgage!
Most importantly, my friends, you are not the majority. You call yourself the 99%, but considering you're primarily liberals, that would mean you're actually at best the 20%. Remember, Gallup said as of last year that only 20% of Americans are liberals. Now those of us who are conservatives, we're 42% of Americans (1). So we've got twice as many in our group than you.
My friends who Occupy Wall Street, we surround you. There are 53% of us who pay taxes. (There's also 42% of us who are conservative.) It's OUR money you're demanding be spent for things that we can't afford, and we're not going to give our fiscal property to you because you demand it.
As much as you may ideally like the idea of "free" healthcare and "free" college, neither things are free. You have to get the money from somewhere, and that would be coming from US, the 53% who pay our taxes. We don't owe you a darn thing, and we surround you.
We haven't stolen anything from you, wether we make $30,000 per year or have $30 Billion in wealth. Whatever we have we've earned on our own. It's not yours. No matter how much you wish it was yours, it's not. You are not entitled to my money. I've earned it, and I will use it how I see fit. We surround you.
That means giving it to the charities I choose and directing HOW I will fulfill the Christian requirement to provide for the needy. We in the Church of Jesus Christ will take care of the needy through our churches and other charitable organizations. Those of other faiths than mine are willing and able to do the same. Those churches and charities can do a better job of it than government can. We surround you.
We, the 53% who pay taxes, don't owe you anything. We are already paying more than our "fair share" because just over half of us pay for 100% of the population. You who don't pay a cent have absolutely no right to complain that those of us who do pay taxes aren't paying our "fair share." If you want better for yourself, get up off your rear end and make something of yourself. Earn it, just like I have. We surround you.
You, my friends, aren't the 99%. You're the 20%. The whiny 20% who wants what doesn't belong to them because you think you're entitled to it and the spoiled 20% who think you're entitled to someone else's property simply because they have a lot of it. I'm hear to tell you that you aren't entitled to a thing I have. I'm not a wealthy man. I'm a hardworking middle class man who has earned everything I have. It belongs to me, not you. No amount of whining and complaining about how life isn't fair will make my property rightfully yours. I'm sorry I have to be the one to tell you this, considering your parents should have told you a long time ago, but life isn't fair.
You are not the 99%, Occupy Wall Street protesters. We are the 53% of Americans who pay taxes, and we surround you!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals
I am one of those 53%. I go to work and earn my paycheck. I have entered into a contract with my employer wherein I sell them 40 hours of my time each week to perform professional business services, in exchange for which I receive a paycheck. That paycheck is based upon a salary which we agreed upon at the beginning of my employment. That amount was not based upon some idealistic sense of "fairness." It was an agreement reached that fit two criteria: The amount of money my employers were willing to invest in retaining my employment in exchange for a certain expected fiscal benefit above and beyond the cost too keep me employed; and two, an amount for which I was willing to sell 40 hours each week of my time. This was our agreement. I keep up my end of the contract, they keep up their end. Each year, we sit down to discuss whether or not I have exceeded my previous expectations and thus am deserving of a raise.
To be qualified to do my job, I went to college. I obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in Communications from the State University of New York's College at Brockport. That degree gives me skills that are in demand. If you have a degree in English Literature or Basket Weaving and can't find a job, perhaps this is the reason why you aren't as successful as I am in finding gameful employment in your field? My ability to find a good paying job is a (positive) consequence of my choice of college major.
I, too, have a college loan from one of those "evil" Wall Street banks. And you know what? I don't have a problem with paying it back. You know why? Because I agreed to take that loan and pay it back! The bank didn't give me that loan to be nice to me or because they had the money. It was a contract between us that I am fulfilling. I got an education for my loan investment and now I'm paying for it. That's what happens with loans!
I don't have a mortgage, but I hope to someday. My parents have a mortgage though. You know why their home ISN'T being repossessed? They are paying their mortgage payments! They are fulfilling their contract with the bank on the mortgage. If you or someone you know is seeing their house repossessed, it's not because the Bank is evil. It's because you or the homeowner you know breeched the contract with the bank! See, that's how loans work. You have to pay for it. It's not a gift from the bank. It's a contract. If you've lost your home, that's not the bank's fault. It's your own fault. You're the one who failed to pay your mortgage!
Most importantly, my friends, you are not the majority. You call yourself the 99%, but considering you're primarily liberals, that would mean you're actually at best the 20%. Remember, Gallup said as of last year that only 20% of Americans are liberals. Now those of us who are conservatives, we're 42% of Americans (1). So we've got twice as many in our group than you.
My friends who Occupy Wall Street, we surround you. There are 53% of us who pay taxes. (There's also 42% of us who are conservative.) It's OUR money you're demanding be spent for things that we can't afford, and we're not going to give our fiscal property to you because you demand it.
As much as you may ideally like the idea of "free" healthcare and "free" college, neither things are free. You have to get the money from somewhere, and that would be coming from US, the 53% who pay our taxes. We don't owe you a darn thing, and we surround you.
We haven't stolen anything from you, wether we make $30,000 per year or have $30 Billion in wealth. Whatever we have we've earned on our own. It's not yours. No matter how much you wish it was yours, it's not. You are not entitled to my money. I've earned it, and I will use it how I see fit. We surround you.
That means giving it to the charities I choose and directing HOW I will fulfill the Christian requirement to provide for the needy. We in the Church of Jesus Christ will take care of the needy through our churches and other charitable organizations. Those of other faiths than mine are willing and able to do the same. Those churches and charities can do a better job of it than government can. We surround you.
We, the 53% who pay taxes, don't owe you anything. We are already paying more than our "fair share" because just over half of us pay for 100% of the population. You who don't pay a cent have absolutely no right to complain that those of us who do pay taxes aren't paying our "fair share." If you want better for yourself, get up off your rear end and make something of yourself. Earn it, just like I have. We surround you.
You, my friends, aren't the 99%. You're the 20%. The whiny 20% who wants what doesn't belong to them because you think you're entitled to it and the spoiled 20% who think you're entitled to someone else's property simply because they have a lot of it. I'm hear to tell you that you aren't entitled to a thing I have. I'm not a wealthy man. I'm a hardworking middle class man who has earned everything I have. It belongs to me, not you. No amount of whining and complaining about how life isn't fair will make my property rightfully yours. I'm sorry I have to be the one to tell you this, considering your parents should have told you a long time ago, but life isn't fair.
You are not the 99%, Occupy Wall Street protesters. We are the 53% of Americans who pay taxes, and we surround you!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals
Monday, October 17, 2011
Understanding Herman Cain's 9-9-9 Plan
Recently, a friend of mine asked me my thoughts about Herman Cain's 9-9-9 Plan, expressing concern about the addition of a 9% sales tax to he already pays, a total 8% sales tax in Upstate New York between state and local. He was concerned about seeing his sales tax increased to 17%. I understand the concern, however, when the plan is explained more clearly, basically everybody is looking at a cut in their overall tax burden.
Before we proceed, it is important to understand that Cain does not intend 9-9-9 to be the permanent tax plan. Rather it is Phase 1 of a two phase plan to institute the Fair Tax as the new tax system of the nation and completely erradicate our current system. To read the entirety of the plan, visit Herman Cain's Website or Click Here to see the plan in PDF form.
One must remember that if you are paying taxes, you are paying not just your current income taxes but an additional 6.2% in payroll taxes. So if we use the current Median Household Income of approximately $50,000 per year, let's look at what they would be paying in taxes under the current system vs the 9-9-9 Plan.
Under our current system, the family making $50,000 per year would be paying 25% Federal Income Tax and 6.2% Payroll Tax, for a total of a 31.2% tax burden. Let's break that down:
$597.72 LESS taxes paid each month. That's $597.72 MORE MONEY in your pocket, every month! What would an extra nearly $600 per month do for you? If the Median American family had $600 extra each month to spend, what do you think that would do for the economy? I'll tell you what it'd do: A whole lot. You want to talk stimulus? How about an extra $600 in the pockets of the average American family.
You want to talk about fundamentally changing the American tax system to one that's fair? How about a plan that taxes on what you buy, not on what you earn. Also, remember that there are no taxes on used items, like a used car or purchasing an existing home. By the numbers, the 9-9-9 Plan as written is good for America.
Now look, I recognize the need for some very heavy safeguards in the program. Requirement of a super-majority within the plan to raise the tax rates is one of them. Without the safeguards, a lot can go wrong. However, overall, I think if properly implemented it's a good plan.
Before we proceed, it is important to understand that Cain does not intend 9-9-9 to be the permanent tax plan. Rather it is Phase 1 of a two phase plan to institute the Fair Tax as the new tax system of the nation and completely erradicate our current system. To read the entirety of the plan, visit Herman Cain's Website or Click Here to see the plan in PDF form.
One must remember that if you are paying taxes, you are paying not just your current income taxes but an additional 6.2% in payroll taxes. So if we use the current Median Household Income of approximately $50,000 per year, let's look at what they would be paying in taxes under the current system vs the 9-9-9 Plan.
Under our current system, the family making $50,000 per year would be paying 25% Federal Income Tax and 6.2% Payroll Tax, for a total of a 31.2% tax burden. Let's break that down:
$ 4166.66 Income Before Taxes
- 1041.68 Federal Income Tax (25%)
$ 3124.98 After Federal Income Tax
$ 3124.98 After Federal Income Tax
$ 3124.98 After Federal Income Tax
- 258.33 Federal Payroll Tax (6.2%)
$ 3124.98 After Federal Income Tax
$ 3124.98 After Federal Income Tax
$ 3124.98 After Federal Income Tax
- 258.33 Federal Payroll Tax (6.2%)
$ 2866.65 After All federal Taxes
So under the current system:
So under the current system:
Total Taxes paid: $1300.01 Monthly
Total Spendable Income: 2866.65 Monthly
Total Spendable Income: 2866.65 Monthly
Now under Cain's 9-9-9 Plan, all that would be replaced with a 9% income tax and a 9% sales tax.
$ 4166.66 Income Before Taxes
- 374.99 Income Tax (9% Rate)
$ 3791.67 After Income Tax
$ 3261.67 Total Money After Paycheck
$ 3261.67 Total Money After Paycheck
- 327.30 Total Sales Tax (If 100% of Paycheck Spent)
$ 2934.37 Income After Taxes
So under the 9-9-9 Plan the median American family would have:$ 3791.67 After Income Tax
$ 3261.67 Total Money After Paycheck
$ 3261.67 Total Money After Paycheck
- 327.30 Total Sales Tax (If 100% of Paycheck Spent)
$ 2934.37 Income After Taxes
Total Taxes paid $702.29 Monthly
Total Spendable Income: $ 3498.12 Monthly$597.72 LESS taxes paid each month. That's $597.72 MORE MONEY in your pocket, every month! What would an extra nearly $600 per month do for you? If the Median American family had $600 extra each month to spend, what do you think that would do for the economy? I'll tell you what it'd do: A whole lot. You want to talk stimulus? How about an extra $600 in the pockets of the average American family.
You want to talk about fundamentally changing the American tax system to one that's fair? How about a plan that taxes on what you buy, not on what you earn. Also, remember that there are no taxes on used items, like a used car or purchasing an existing home. By the numbers, the 9-9-9 Plan as written is good for America.
Now look, I recognize the need for some very heavy safeguards in the program. Requirement of a super-majority within the plan to raise the tax rates is one of them. Without the safeguards, a lot can go wrong. However, overall, I think if properly implemented it's a good plan.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Occupy Wall Street IS NOT the Liberals’ Tea Party
For about a month now, the Occupy Wall Street protests have been going on, protesting things that, as I have said before, are none of their business like business profits and the size of corporate bonuses, not to mention the fact that businesses haven’t hired even though they have the money. (Which misses the entire point of why a business hires a new employee. I have the financial ability to hire a babysitter for Friday night. I don’t have a child, and thus I don’t NEED a babysitter. I’m not going to hire a babysitter so some teenager can have money.) Now the Left and the Drive-By Media want to compare this movement to the Tea Party.
Friends, Occupy Wall Street is not the liberal equivalent of the Tea Party for so very many reasons, some of which I will enumerate in a moment. Before I do, I’d like to explain why the left so desperately wants their own version of the Tea Party: They are jealous of the Tea Party. The Tea Party sprang up from the grassroots level without any prompting from the national party or massive donors. It came up because many Americans are frustrated with the way Obama in specific and government in general is going about their business. Out of that came a peaceful, respectful movement that has changed the political landscape. It is not unlike the way the Civil Rights movement sprung up…and once again, like the Civil Rights movement, it was a Republican movement. But I digress.
So know let’s talk about WHY Occupy Wall Street is not a Left wing equivalent of the Tea Party:
- The Tea Party happened on its own. Occupy Wall Street was created by Big Unions, liberal activist groups like MoveOn.org and other George Soros funded groups, and is being egged on by the mainstream Democrat Party. The Tea Party, in contrast, is often disliked by the mainstream Republican Party.
- There has still never been an arrest at a Tea Party rally. We in the Tea Party clean up after ourselves, we stick within the Time, Place and Manner restrictions placed on us by the protest permits we’re given, and do not cause problems for law enforcement or other people who are near our protest. Meanwhile, Occupy Wall Street has already seen dozens of arrests, have violated the Time, Place and Manner restrictions of their permits, have attempted to stop traffic by marching not on the sidewalks but in the streets, and have generally been menaces to those around them.
- The Tea Party knows what we stand for and what we are trying to achieve: Small, unobtrusive government and the maximum amount of freedom for all Americans that can be provided, a minimal tax burden, and equality of opportunity for all (not of result, but of opportunity). Interviews with Occupy Wall Street protesters show that they don’t have much of a platform, except for “life isn’t fair”, “someone else has what I want and I want it,” some sputtering about wealth inequality, and some bumper sticker slogans about the wealthy paying “their fair share” even though no one can define what that “fair share” is, except for it’s more than what’s being paid now.
- The Tea Party formed around its issues, Occupy Wall Street formed and NOW is trying to establish its issues. The Occupy Wall Street leadership has had to post a vote on its Facebook page to decide WHAT their demands are. They formed a protest, they’re in progress of protesting, and only now are they trying to figure out what they want. To use a term from the movie PCU, it’s a movement of Causeheads. There is a group of people who wants to protest SOMETHING, and now they are filling in their own private frustrations with an occasional semi-legitimate grievance. Meanwhile the Tea Party has always stood for specific Constitutional values.
No, my friends, Occupy Wall Street is not a leftwing equivalent of the Tea Party. It’s a cheap knockoff that rose up out of the liberal desire to protest anything that they don’t like, regardless of the legitimacy of those frustrations or their right to demand reparations for harms not perpetrated. The Democrat Party and the Left deeply desire their own version of the Tea Party. Unfortunately for liberals, Occupy Wall Street is not it.
Friends, Occupy Wall Street is not the liberal equivalent of the Tea Party for so very many reasons, some of which I will enumerate in a moment. Before I do, I’d like to explain why the left so desperately wants their own version of the Tea Party: They are jealous of the Tea Party. The Tea Party sprang up from the grassroots level without any prompting from the national party or massive donors. It came up because many Americans are frustrated with the way Obama in specific and government in general is going about their business. Out of that came a peaceful, respectful movement that has changed the political landscape. It is not unlike the way the Civil Rights movement sprung up…and once again, like the Civil Rights movement, it was a Republican movement. But I digress.
So know let’s talk about WHY Occupy Wall Street is not a Left wing equivalent of the Tea Party:
- The Tea Party happened on its own. Occupy Wall Street was created by Big Unions, liberal activist groups like MoveOn.org and other George Soros funded groups, and is being egged on by the mainstream Democrat Party. The Tea Party, in contrast, is often disliked by the mainstream Republican Party.
- There has still never been an arrest at a Tea Party rally. We in the Tea Party clean up after ourselves, we stick within the Time, Place and Manner restrictions placed on us by the protest permits we’re given, and do not cause problems for law enforcement or other people who are near our protest. Meanwhile, Occupy Wall Street has already seen dozens of arrests, have violated the Time, Place and Manner restrictions of their permits, have attempted to stop traffic by marching not on the sidewalks but in the streets, and have generally been menaces to those around them.
- The Tea Party knows what we stand for and what we are trying to achieve: Small, unobtrusive government and the maximum amount of freedom for all Americans that can be provided, a minimal tax burden, and equality of opportunity for all (not of result, but of opportunity). Interviews with Occupy Wall Street protesters show that they don’t have much of a platform, except for “life isn’t fair”, “someone else has what I want and I want it,” some sputtering about wealth inequality, and some bumper sticker slogans about the wealthy paying “their fair share” even though no one can define what that “fair share” is, except for it’s more than what’s being paid now.
- The Tea Party formed around its issues, Occupy Wall Street formed and NOW is trying to establish its issues. The Occupy Wall Street leadership has had to post a vote on its Facebook page to decide WHAT their demands are. They formed a protest, they’re in progress of protesting, and only now are they trying to figure out what they want. To use a term from the movie PCU, it’s a movement of Causeheads. There is a group of people who wants to protest SOMETHING, and now they are filling in their own private frustrations with an occasional semi-legitimate grievance. Meanwhile the Tea Party has always stood for specific Constitutional values.
No, my friends, Occupy Wall Street is not a leftwing equivalent of the Tea Party. It’s a cheap knockoff that rose up out of the liberal desire to protest anything that they don’t like, regardless of the legitimacy of those frustrations or their right to demand reparations for harms not perpetrated. The Democrat Party and the Left deeply desire their own version of the Tea Party. Unfortunately for liberals, Occupy Wall Street is not it.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Dear AP: Senate Republicans Didn't Block the Jobs Bill...Democrats Did
"GOP senators block Obama's jobs bill." That is the Associated Press' headline today. (1) Republicans blocked the bill. Unfortunately for the Associated Press, this is a flat out lie.
The proceedural vote that took place on Tuesday to set a time limit on the debate on the Jobs Bill failed by a vote of 50 to 49. For those of you not familiar with the inner workings of the United States Senate, the Senate rules require 60 votes to bring cluture (a close to any debate or set a time limit to the debate). Without a cloture vote, an official vote on the bill will not occur.
Now here's the real reason why this failure doesn't belong to the GOP: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid couldn't even get HIS caucus to vote unanimously to bring this bill to a vote. The current Senate breakdown is 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans, and two Independents who caucus with the Democrats. The Democrat caucus has 53 votes. Harry Reid couldn't even get unanimity from his own caucus.
Meanwhile, when Mitch McConnell called for a vote on the bill last week, Harry Reid and the Democrats refused. (2) Now we know why: Not even all the Democrats were willing to pass this bill. And that was just for the procedural vote to bring cloture. I suspect that at least two more Democrats would have refused to vote for a tax increase in an election season and that the bill wouldn't have passed anyway.
This bill is bad for America. It won't create jobs, because, as I've said so many times, because business owners don't hire people based on a one or two year tax credit. They hire people expecting them to be an employee for at least five years or they don't hire. That's the way business works. Now the Senate won't let it through. Good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) GOP senators block Obama's jobs bill (Source: AP Affiliate St. Petersburg Times)
(2) Actually, President Obama, it's the Democrats Blocking the Jobs Bill
The proceedural vote that took place on Tuesday to set a time limit on the debate on the Jobs Bill failed by a vote of 50 to 49. For those of you not familiar with the inner workings of the United States Senate, the Senate rules require 60 votes to bring cluture (a close to any debate or set a time limit to the debate). Without a cloture vote, an official vote on the bill will not occur.
Now here's the real reason why this failure doesn't belong to the GOP: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid couldn't even get HIS caucus to vote unanimously to bring this bill to a vote. The current Senate breakdown is 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans, and two Independents who caucus with the Democrats. The Democrat caucus has 53 votes. Harry Reid couldn't even get unanimity from his own caucus.
Meanwhile, when Mitch McConnell called for a vote on the bill last week, Harry Reid and the Democrats refused. (2) Now we know why: Not even all the Democrats were willing to pass this bill. And that was just for the procedural vote to bring cloture. I suspect that at least two more Democrats would have refused to vote for a tax increase in an election season and that the bill wouldn't have passed anyway.
This bill is bad for America. It won't create jobs, because, as I've said so many times, because business owners don't hire people based on a one or two year tax credit. They hire people expecting them to be an employee for at least five years or they don't hire. That's the way business works. Now the Senate won't let it through. Good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) GOP senators block Obama's jobs bill (Source: AP Affiliate St. Petersburg Times)
(2) Actually, President Obama, it's the Democrats Blocking the Jobs Bill
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Reactions to the Washington Post Bloomberg Debate
Last night, the Republican Candidates met for a debate in Dartmouth, NH and shown on Bloomberg Television, because apparently the media couldn't find a station that fewer people had access to than Bloomberg Television. Apparently Aurora, IL Channel 2 Cable Public Access wasn't available. (If you got that joke, let me know in the comments.)
First and foremost, I have to say this was just about the worst moderated debate I've seen this campaign season. It made me miss that first CNN debate with the "Elvis or Johnny Cash" questions. The fact that they dared take Ronald Reagan so far out of context as to quote that same "wealthiest pay their fair share" comment from Reagan in 1985 that was shown out of context. Let me give you that context: The tax system Reagan reformed was one where the "janitor" named in the speech was paying 10% of his wages in taxes and the wealthy individual was paying 0%. Reagan's "fair share" was a top marginal rate of 28%. If the wealthy paid what Reagan considered their "fair share," is a full 17% lower than what Barrack Obama calls the rich's "fair share," which, at last check, was 40% (whether he does it through "millionaires surtaxes" or "ending the Bush Tax Cuts.")
I wanted to high five every moderator in that debate in the face with a folding chair several times during the debate. It was ridiculous. I wanted to drive to New Hampshire to smack Charlie Rose in particular. Especially when he kept interrupting candidates because he was losing his debate.
So now let's play everyone's favorite Biblical Conservatism post-debate game: Buy, Hold, Sell, Sell All or Sold. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that's a stock market analogy.)
After the last debate I thought Bachmann was going to swing upward. Unfortunately, she hasn't. In this debate she did okay, but she didn't really stand out as she did last time. For now I'll hold her stock, but she could be at the sell point soon. She needs to really make her stamp, or else she'll find herself in the Vice Presidential Nominee discussion but out of the Presidency. She seems to have become an attack dog at Governor Perry, but that's going to benefit Romney, not Bachmann.
Congresswoman Bachmann was articulate and said some good things in this debate. Unfortunately she didn't really have any great moments that really made her stand out. I think she's dropped off the radar in this race, thus far. That can change. I'm not selling all yet, because I know that we are still a full three months away from casting any vote. For now, however, I'm selling off Michelle Bachmann stock.
Herman Cain – Buy (Sell):
My opinion on Cain hasn't changed. His 9-9-9 Plan sounds good to me. I wish he had enough support nationally that I could consider voting for him. But right now his support is such that a vote for Cain could be a vote that doesn't cancel out the vote of a Democrat or Independent voting for the RINO in an open primary state. He'll be a great cabinet secretary or Vice President, but he's not going to be President.
Cain really knocked this debate out of the park. He explained and articulated his 9-9-9 Plan wonderfully. The explanation that the new sales tax is not just offset but actually overcome by the repeal of the Payroll Tax and the Federal Income tax and lead to a smaller tax burden. The other thing he explained well is that the 9-9-9 Plan is the only plan where EVERYONE is paying their real "fair share," which means that EVERYONE is paying taxes, not just 52% of us paying 100% of the taxes while the 48% pay 0% of the tax burden and receive the majority of the tax benefits. He really nailed it.
He took it hard on the 9% sales tax in the debate from the other candidates. I think he did a good job of responding and explaining that the plan is replacing the current pipeline, not giving a new tax pipeline.
Newt Gingrich – Hold (Hold):
Gingrich again is strong and does well in debates. He'd kick Obama's butt in a debate, but he's not going to get the nomination. He scores well in debates, but he doesn't do well in polls. I'm leaving him as a hold for now, because there's a small chance he turns it around, but for now I don't expect him to go far. He is, however, another person who could find a place in a new Republican administration in the cabinet. I stand on my previous statements with Newt. Once again he had great moments in the debate. He had great applause lines. He's just not doing well enough to be a viable candidate in 2012.
Newt really took it to the moderators. He's the reason I didn't hop in my car and drive to NH to smack Charlie Rose. (That and my desire to not spend money to drive to NH and smack someone and then go to jail for assault. That was in there too.) Newt has started to rise in the polls a bit. I'm holding on to Newt's Stock because he's just so good in these debates. He'd crush Obama in a debate. I'd love to see Newt as the Vice President, or for that matter as the White House Press Secretary if he'd take the job. Let's see if he can get back into this thing…because he could really take it to Obama.
Jon Huntsman - Sold (Sold):
Take me out to the ballgame, take me out to the crowd, buy me some peanuts and Cracker Jack, I don't care if I ever get back! Let me root, root, root for the home team, if they don't win it's a shame! For its one, two, three strikes you're out at the old ballgame! (Huntsman is such a waste of time I decided to sing "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" instead of wasting time on him.)
I think the kids in those Peter G. Peterson Foundation commercials explaining how economics work would make better candidates than Jon Huntsman. Also, who names their kid Peter Peterson? Moving on.
Gary Johnson – Sold (Sell All)
Who? I mean seriously…who let Kermit the Frog in the debate? But seriously, he's in the Huntsman category, although Johnson's not a RINO. But he isn't going to be our nominee. Moving on.
Kermit stayed home this time. Miss Piggy wouldn't let him come out and play I guess. Too bad. (Not really.)
Ron Paul - Sold (Sold):
It occurred to me since the last debate that, in the strictest sense of the term, Paul is a RINO. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that's "Republican In Name Only.") Now, Paul isn't the moderate, wimpy, half liberal sort of RINO. Not in the slightest. But Paul is a Republican by default, because the political term that most applies to him is Libertarian. Now that's not a bad thing, my friends. As I've said before, I agree with Paul on about 75% of issues. However, he's not in line with the mainstream conservative Republican party, and that's why he won't get the nomination.
No change in my opinion from Paul. Unlike the last two candidates listed, I respect Ron Paul. So I'll just leave it at that.
Rick Perry – Hold (Buy):
I'm buying, but I'm buying slower. I felt Perry was on his heels a lot. He went head to head with Romney and I felt Romney got the better of him. I question his opposition to a border fence on our Mexican border and also his allowance of in-state tuition to the children of illegal aliens. He had some good moments too. Here's the problem I have thus far with Perry, I feel he's a little vague. I need to know more of what I can expect from a Perry Presidency beyond platitudes. Not sure if he's obfuscating or just not making specific promises before he finds out what's going on from the Oval Office desk. Where I felt he did well, however, was presenting his views on small, limited government. He's still a valid conservative, but I just want more information!
Rick Perry is losing people fast. He needs to have specific plans. Right now it still feels like he's obfuscating (that's "being confusing without saying anything" for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL). He really has lost a lot of potential in my mind. When a Republican can't respond effectively to a Ronald Reagan question, there's a problem.
Mitt Romney – Buy (Buy):
I felt Romney won the head to head with Perry and the debate overall. He had moments that made me cringe, like when he went on and on about protecting the middle class, because I don't believe in any separation of Americans. We're all Americans. We all pay too high of a percentage in taxes, and we all should see a rate reduction. I thought Romney was playing the class game a bit, and that bothered me. Where I do trust Romney is understanding how to create a positive business climate, because, as he's said, his experience is mainly in the private sector. His weakness, however, is Romneycare and that hurts him in my book.
Another great debate performance from Mitt Romney. His tough stance on China was impressive, if he lives it out, and I felt he did a good job showing that he is a good candidate on the economy. Now Mitt is not my first choice, and pretty much the only way he'll get my vote in the primary is if Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum are out of the race (in that order). That said, he's doing a good job of convincing me that, if Mitt becomes our nominee, it wouldn't remind me of holding my nose in 2008 and voting for John McCain. (Actually, in 2008, I voted for Sarah Palin and her boss.)
In short, Mitt to me is like a vanilla ice cream cone. By comparison, my current favorite, Herman Cain, would be like eating a big delicious ice cream sundae with all the fixings*. I'd be happy to eat a vanilla ice cream cone. I'd enjoy it. I'd rather eat a sundae with all the fixings. That's the line with Mitt…we can do better as conservatives. We also can do a whole lot worse. Unfortunately, Romneycare could be a big problem for Mitt.
Rick Santorum - Sold (Sold):
I stand on my previous belief on Santorum. Now, there was one moment he said something I really liked; that a person's sexuality shouldn't be even an issue in the military, and treating Don't Ask Don't Tell as a rule that applies to both heterosexual and homosexual individuals, specifically, one's sexuality belongs in private time, not public. Such things are rarely discussed in my private sector workplace, and I work in an industry that discusses such things more (radio). Ultimately, Don't Ask Don't Tell should be reinstated, FOR EVERYONE. Let's make sexuality a topic not discussed in the military on official time, just like politics tends to be in the military.
Santorum spent a lot of time trying to get back into the spotlight. It didn't work. Considering he's from Pennsylvania, he's got a shot at being the Vice Presidential nominee in an effort to turn that 2008 blue state into a red state in 2012. But he's not going to be the President, at least not without serving first as Vice President, and not in 2012.
In a final note, I'd like to note to Charlie Rose that here at Biblical Conservatism we've been using the alphabetical order for the candidates for now four debates. Please feel free to use us as a source for that purpose.
We're still seeing the field shape up. So much can change. Last time I wrote one of these responses, I was writing Herman Cain off. I've been proven wrong. So much can change. I think we could see more changes as this time goes on. This field could change too. So my recommendation to all of you is to support the candidate you think is best and don't concern yourself with "electability." Pretty much every one of those candidates on stage is more electable than Barrack Obama. This is a time for choosing. Pick the most conservative person and vote for him or her.
*In 2008, I compared John McCain to eating a meal of plain white bread and Barrack Obama to eating a turd. I said I don't want to eat just white bread, but at least its food and nourishment and won't make me sick. Jon Huntsman would be white bread, for the record. Mitt Romney would be an improvement on not just Obama but on John McCain in 2008, but there are better options.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Here Comes Herman Cain
Well, friends, it looks like I was wrong about Herman Cain. As of the last debate, I was continuing to say that, while I like Cain as a candidate and I think he'd make a good President, I also did not think he was going to get the nomination. Now Mr. Cain is making me wrong. I'm very happy to be wrong about this by the way, and it is neither the first time I've been wrong nor will it be the last time I am wrong.
All of a sudden, here comes Herman Cain! He's filling the grassroots Tea Party void that Michelle Bachmann has unfortunately left. Last time I wrote about the candidates I considered Cain at best a Vice Presidential nominee. Now I'd have to say he's at worst the VP. Just think about this: Cain has the frankness and the moxie to say it like it is and have people listen. Combine the frankness of Chris Christie with the conservative credentials of Sarah Palin and wrap it up in the experience of a man who has lived the American dream and you've got one heck of a great candidate.
I'd have to say, right now, if my state's primary were today he'd get my vote. Let me tell you why:
- Cain has real business executive experience. He has run Burger King Corporation and Godfather's Pizza under the banner of the Pillsbury Corporation.
- Cain's 9-9-9 Plan combines two common sense conservative tax principles, the Flat Tax and the Fair Tax. I find this idea intriguing, actually. Most people who speak of a flat tax talk about a flat rate of 10-17% (depending on who you ask), whilst the Fair Tax is generally expected to be about 23%. (Please note that the Fair Tax is intended to replace ALL Federal taxes whilst a Flat Tax would replace all income taxes, so it makes sense that the Fair Tax would be at a higher rate.)
Cain's plan takes both these concepts and essentially takes the best of both. He creates a 9% personal income tax and a 9% sales tax would be a net 18% tax on individuals. That's just about the average of say a 15% Flat Tax and a 23% Fair Tax. It would create two tax bases: One income based and one that is consumption based. The net result of the consumption end would be a significant amount of fresh money in the economy that would be spread out into further purchase, which by the way would create a new tax base. The 9% flat income tax rate will provide for the necessities of government that cannot ebb and flow with the economy. It's a good plan.
For those of you concerned about the 9-9-9 plan's impact on your personal income, please note that if you are in the 15% tax bracket or higher, you are looking at a tax CUT, because your current 15% rate plus 6.2% in payroll taxes for a total tax of 21.2%. Cain's cut would put you at 19% total, and actually a bit less because the 9% sales tax would not include food.
- Cain tells it like it is, but he does it in a way that is loving and grandfatherly. He doesn't talk down to people like Obama does, but he doesn't talk above people the way someone like a Newt Gingrich tends to do. My point is not "Cain is a good speaker, elect him" (we've learned how that doesn't help the country at all), but rather that Cain has the rhetorical tools to effectively communicate conservatism.
- Cain is a real, dyed in the wool conservative. He believes in freedom, he believes in America. Even though he was born into the segregated South, he doesn't walk around expecting to be given constant repayment for this wrong, rather he appreciates this nation's ability to change away from the mistakes of our past and to constantly strive toward a more perfect union.
- Cain is a shining example of how the opportunities of America can take a man from rags to riches through the sweat of his brow and his own hard work. Cain has shared that his American dream started with making a lower middle class salary. He felt when he hit a modest middle class salary "His American Dream had come true." However he didn't satisfy himself there, but rather he then set a new goal. He went from so poor that he felt poor didn't describe it to becoming a very wealthy man. He earned it, and he understands that you can make whatever you want out of yourself in this country with hard work and sacrifice.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Actually, President Obama, it's the Democrats Blocking the Jobs Bill
President Obama has spent the last couple weeks lambasting the Republican Party for not taking up his Jobs Bill. Once again, Obama wants to paint the GOP as "obstructionists" for not letting him do more damage to the economy. More importantly, however, it's not the GOP who is blocking Obama's bill from coming to a vote! It's the President's own party.
Now that's not what Obama is saying, of course...he's saying:
Eric Cantor said that right now, he won't even let this jobs bill have a vote in the House of Representatives. That's what he said. Won't even let it be debated. (1)
See there's one big problem with this claim by Obama: The Jobs Bill CAN'T be debated on the floor of the House...it doesn't have a sponsor! (2) You see, Mr. President, in both houses of Congress, a bill needs a sponsor who is a member of that house to allow it to even come to a debate. No Democrat in the House of Representatives wants to sponsor your bill. It couldn't be voted on if Eric Cantor wanted it to be voted on!
What about the Senate? The Democrats control the Senate...so there MUST be debate and a vote scheduled for the bill there, right? Actually, no...Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to let the bill come to a vote when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called for a vote. (3) Of course, the President called this a "parlor trick." So apparently this means anything except for voting for Obama's bill is a parlor trick in the President's eyes?
Bottom line, Mr. President, is that YOUR PARTY won't take your bill up for a vote. Not even your party wants this bill...that's how bad this bill really is...it's unpassable! Sorry Mr. President, nobody wants your bill. Not even Democrats.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Obama knocks GOP leader, says GOP blocks jobs vote
(2) Hoyer Says He Backs Obama’s Jobs Bill, But It Has No House Co-Sponsors – Not Even Hoyer
(3) Reid resists McConnell’s move to take up the president’s jobs bill
Now that's not what Obama is saying, of course...he's saying:
Eric Cantor said that right now, he won't even let this jobs bill have a vote in the House of Representatives. That's what he said. Won't even let it be debated. (1)
See there's one big problem with this claim by Obama: The Jobs Bill CAN'T be debated on the floor of the House...it doesn't have a sponsor! (2) You see, Mr. President, in both houses of Congress, a bill needs a sponsor who is a member of that house to allow it to even come to a debate. No Democrat in the House of Representatives wants to sponsor your bill. It couldn't be voted on if Eric Cantor wanted it to be voted on!
What about the Senate? The Democrats control the Senate...so there MUST be debate and a vote scheduled for the bill there, right? Actually, no...Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to let the bill come to a vote when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called for a vote. (3) Of course, the President called this a "parlor trick." So apparently this means anything except for voting for Obama's bill is a parlor trick in the President's eyes?
Bottom line, Mr. President, is that YOUR PARTY won't take your bill up for a vote. Not even your party wants this bill...that's how bad this bill really is...it's unpassable! Sorry Mr. President, nobody wants your bill. Not even Democrats.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Obama knocks GOP leader, says GOP blocks jobs vote
(2) Hoyer Says He Backs Obama’s Jobs Bill, But It Has No House Co-Sponsors – Not Even Hoyer
(3) Reid resists McConnell’s move to take up the president’s jobs bill
Friday, October 7, 2011
Hank Williams Jr, Double Standards, and the Hitler Rule
This past week, Hank Williams, Jr. made a comparison on Fox News' Fox and Friends. Since then, Williams has been suspended from ESPN and then was either fired by ESPN or decided to end his own relationship with ESPN over the suspension for having "stepped on the Toes of The First Amendment Freedom of Speech," depending on who you ask. (1) Wow.
In case you haven't seen/heard the comment, here it is:
First and foremost, yes, it was over the top to compare Obama to Hitler. Absolutely. I will deal with that shortly. That said, the number of liberals who called George W. Bush Hitler can not be enumerated.
So let's make sure we keep THAT in perspective. Especially because Williams didn't say "Obama is Hitler." He said Boehner playing golf with Obama was like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Nentanyahu playing golf with Hitler. For the record, it's an overstatement, to say the least. Obama does not want to physically kill anyone. He just wants to remake the nation into a socialist image. No, Obama is not Hitler. He's just a really bad President.
That said, there is a tremendous double standard in the Media. As we showed above, the number of liberals who called George W. Bush Hitler can not be enumerated. (Seriously, if you didn't click the link the first time, DO IT). There was no widespread demand that these lefties resign or be fired. Check out this MoveOn.org Ad from Post 9-11. Both that ad and the image above were far more blatant, and there was no demand for firing or protests against MoveOn.org by the mainstream media.
Yet when a right-wing celebrity does half the of what Moveon.org did, there is demand that they are fired. It's a ridiculous double standard. Personally, I do not think anyone should be fired or boycotted because of a momentary stupid statement unless it was a direct threat to somebody. However, directly comparing a US President to Hitler in a well produced television ad that went through conceptual approval, production, editing, etc is something else entirely.
Now, to you, Mr. Williams, I have a few things to add: One, not a good comparision. I mean seriously, Bocephus, HILTER? Obama is a terrible President, but he's not Hitler. He's not even close to Hitler. Jimmy Carter? Absolutely! Millard Filmore? Why not. Random Socialist executive in Europe? Go for it. But not Hitler man.
However, your free speech has not been abridged. Please understand me when I say this: Only government can abridge someone's freedom of speech. ESPN, as your employer, has every right to suspend or fire you if you say something that they feel harms their image. Sorry man, it's true.
Now to the "Hitler Rule," or perhaps you know it better as Godwin's Law: Godwin's Law states that "As a...discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means 100% certainty of one side comparing the other to Hitler.) While Godwin's Law began as an online rule, it ultimately evolved into what I call the Hitler Rule that "if you bring up a Hitler analogy in a debate that is not absolutely perfect, you have forfeited the debate."
Hank Williams, Jr. did fail the Hitler Rule when he made this comparison. As much as I criticize Obama, he's definitely not Hitler. I've said many times that I would take the worst President in history over the most benevolent dictator or king, and Hitler was far from benevolent.
In short, Hank Williams, Jr. should not have compared Obama to Hitler. There should not have been a threat of him being fired. He shouldn't have even been suspended from Monday Night Football. He made a stupid error. It shouldn't cost him a job. Besides...does anyone else want to watch Monday football without this:
I know I sure don't...this song is as much a part of my Monday night during football season as "Happy Birthday" is to the celebration of the anniversary of my birth. In truth, people need to stop looking for chances to be offended and learn to get over small mistakes. Oh, and for Heaven's sake people, figure out who the First Amendment protects you against! (Got that, Bocephus?)
---------------------------------------------------------------
(1) ESPN benches Hank Williams Jr. for good
In case you haven't seen/heard the comment, here it is:
First and foremost, yes, it was over the top to compare Obama to Hitler. Absolutely. I will deal with that shortly. That said, the number of liberals who called George W. Bush Hitler can not be enumerated.
So let's make sure we keep THAT in perspective. Especially because Williams didn't say "Obama is Hitler." He said Boehner playing golf with Obama was like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Nentanyahu playing golf with Hitler. For the record, it's an overstatement, to say the least. Obama does not want to physically kill anyone. He just wants to remake the nation into a socialist image. No, Obama is not Hitler. He's just a really bad President.
That said, there is a tremendous double standard in the Media. As we showed above, the number of liberals who called George W. Bush Hitler can not be enumerated. (Seriously, if you didn't click the link the first time, DO IT). There was no widespread demand that these lefties resign or be fired. Check out this MoveOn.org Ad from Post 9-11. Both that ad and the image above were far more blatant, and there was no demand for firing or protests against MoveOn.org by the mainstream media.
Yet when a right-wing celebrity does half the of what Moveon.org did, there is demand that they are fired. It's a ridiculous double standard. Personally, I do not think anyone should be fired or boycotted because of a momentary stupid statement unless it was a direct threat to somebody. However, directly comparing a US President to Hitler in a well produced television ad that went through conceptual approval, production, editing, etc is something else entirely.
Now, to you, Mr. Williams, I have a few things to add: One, not a good comparision. I mean seriously, Bocephus, HILTER? Obama is a terrible President, but he's not Hitler. He's not even close to Hitler. Jimmy Carter? Absolutely! Millard Filmore? Why not. Random Socialist executive in Europe? Go for it. But not Hitler man.
However, your free speech has not been abridged. Please understand me when I say this: Only government can abridge someone's freedom of speech. ESPN, as your employer, has every right to suspend or fire you if you say something that they feel harms their image. Sorry man, it's true.
Now to the "Hitler Rule," or perhaps you know it better as Godwin's Law: Godwin's Law states that "As a...discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means 100% certainty of one side comparing the other to Hitler.) While Godwin's Law began as an online rule, it ultimately evolved into what I call the Hitler Rule that "if you bring up a Hitler analogy in a debate that is not absolutely perfect, you have forfeited the debate."
Hank Williams, Jr. did fail the Hitler Rule when he made this comparison. As much as I criticize Obama, he's definitely not Hitler. I've said many times that I would take the worst President in history over the most benevolent dictator or king, and Hitler was far from benevolent.
In short, Hank Williams, Jr. should not have compared Obama to Hitler. There should not have been a threat of him being fired. He shouldn't have even been suspended from Monday Night Football. He made a stupid error. It shouldn't cost him a job. Besides...does anyone else want to watch Monday football without this:
I know I sure don't...this song is as much a part of my Monday night during football season as "Happy Birthday" is to the celebration of the anniversary of my birth. In truth, people need to stop looking for chances to be offended and learn to get over small mistakes. Oh, and for Heaven's sake people, figure out who the First Amendment protects you against! (Got that, Bocephus?)
---------------------------------------------------------------
(1) ESPN benches Hank Williams Jr. for good
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Reactions to Occupy Wall Street Protests
For the past few weeks, a group of liberal protesters have held a series of protests on Wall Street in New York City over what they call "wealth inequality" in America. The reality is these are members of the entitlement generation who believe they are owed a job, owed a paycheck, owed a living, and owed benefits.
The basis of these frustrations against Wall Street start with a mentality that anyone who has wealth obtained it by some ill means. The attitude is "if you have money, you stole it from someone else, therefore we are entitled to take it back." Unfortunately, the truth of capitalism is far different.
The truth is business owners take a risk with their money. They put up their own money with two potentials: They could make a profit or lose their money. If their product is good and there is a demand for it, a profit is made. If that product is in high enough demand, new employees are hired to meet the demand for production.
That's 180 degrees different from earning a paycheck. A paycheck is a contract. Unless you fail to do the work you are guaranteed that paycheck. That is why it's taxed differently than wages. Even then, if you were pretending to do the work, you'll still get paid until they fire you. With business investment there is the risk of loss that goes with the risk of gain.
Throughout this entire process of owning a business, the owner is deciding whether to take their money and get out or to keep reinvesting it in the company. If their company has stood for years, they have continued to risk their money, year after year. They make their millions because their product continues to be in demand.
To me, this is the glory of America, the truest sense of the American Dream, and what is great about this country. To these protesters it is ill-gotten gain. So now they are protesting that these people have DARED to be successful in their investments and wise with their fiscal property (that would be "money" for those of you in Palm Beach County, FL), demanding that they pay "their fair share."
The truth is, and this is quoted quite regularly, the top 1% of wage earners pay 38% of the tax burden, the top 5% pay 58% of the tax burden, the top 10% pay 70% of the tax burden, and the bottom 50% pay less than 3% of the tax burden. (1)
Now these Occupy Wall Street types are going to tell you "but those wealthy are the ones who have reaped the most benefit from our system, they should pay more taxes." Well, let's look at who gets the most benefit from the tax dollars paid. According to a study performed in 2007 by the Tax Foundation:
Overall, we find that America's lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America's highest-earning households received $0.41. Government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60 percent of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in federal, state and local taxes. (2)
Wait a minute...so the wealthiest among us pay significantly MORE in taxes, but receive significantly LESS from the government? Wouldn't that mean they are actually paying MORE than their "fair share" and receiving LESS than their "fair share" in return? Wouldn't that also mean that the poorest among us pay LESS than their "fair share" and receive MORE than their "fair share" in return? Only if you consider receiving 800% as much as you put in from the government while the same "evil rich people" receive 40% of their tax investment back.
The truth of the matter is these Wall Street types are paying significantly more than their fair share. They have made successful investments and that has paid off. They have then been wise enough hold on to their fiscal property (Palm Beachers, that's money).
As for the "million dollar bonuses" that these Wall Street executives receive, I have one simple answer to you liberals. Please listen carefully to me: IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! If my employer feels that I have done such a good job that they want to give me a bonus as a reward for my success, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! It does not matter how much that bonus happens to be, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! It's not your money being given. A company can do whatever they want with their fiscal property (again, Palm Beachers, that's money), including giving that money to an employee as a reward, and IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!
Friends this type of baloney really steams my clams, because these entitled liberals think that a person getting a bonus is their business. Fact of the matter is if that executive didn't get that bonus, it would not make your life one iota better and it would not put a nickel into your pocket. You can call it unfair and not like it, but once again IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!
Bottom line: The Occupy Wall Street protests are nothing more than a group of whiny entitlement generation liberals who want to tear other people down who have succeeded. Government has zero right to confiscate the fiscal property (money) of the people who work on Wall Street REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH THEY HAVE. It is not now, nor will it ever be, your money. Regardless of how much they have, regardless of how big a bonus someone is given, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) National Taxpayers Union: Who Pays Income Taxes?
(2) Tax Foundation: Who Pays America's Tax Burden, and Who Gets the Most Government Spending?
If you have any questions about the terminology used herin, please check out the Biblical Conservative Dictionary. Thanks!
The basis of these frustrations against Wall Street start with a mentality that anyone who has wealth obtained it by some ill means. The attitude is "if you have money, you stole it from someone else, therefore we are entitled to take it back." Unfortunately, the truth of capitalism is far different.
The truth is business owners take a risk with their money. They put up their own money with two potentials: They could make a profit or lose their money. If their product is good and there is a demand for it, a profit is made. If that product is in high enough demand, new employees are hired to meet the demand for production.
That's 180 degrees different from earning a paycheck. A paycheck is a contract. Unless you fail to do the work you are guaranteed that paycheck. That is why it's taxed differently than wages. Even then, if you were pretending to do the work, you'll still get paid until they fire you. With business investment there is the risk of loss that goes with the risk of gain.
Throughout this entire process of owning a business, the owner is deciding whether to take their money and get out or to keep reinvesting it in the company. If their company has stood for years, they have continued to risk their money, year after year. They make their millions because their product continues to be in demand.
To me, this is the glory of America, the truest sense of the American Dream, and what is great about this country. To these protesters it is ill-gotten gain. So now they are protesting that these people have DARED to be successful in their investments and wise with their fiscal property (that would be "money" for those of you in Palm Beach County, FL), demanding that they pay "their fair share."
The truth is, and this is quoted quite regularly, the top 1% of wage earners pay 38% of the tax burden, the top 5% pay 58% of the tax burden, the top 10% pay 70% of the tax burden, and the bottom 50% pay less than 3% of the tax burden. (1)
Now these Occupy Wall Street types are going to tell you "but those wealthy are the ones who have reaped the most benefit from our system, they should pay more taxes." Well, let's look at who gets the most benefit from the tax dollars paid. According to a study performed in 2007 by the Tax Foundation:
Overall, we find that America's lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America's highest-earning households received $0.41. Government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60 percent of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in federal, state and local taxes. (2)
Wait a minute...so the wealthiest among us pay significantly MORE in taxes, but receive significantly LESS from the government? Wouldn't that mean they are actually paying MORE than their "fair share" and receiving LESS than their "fair share" in return? Wouldn't that also mean that the poorest among us pay LESS than their "fair share" and receive MORE than their "fair share" in return? Only if you consider receiving 800% as much as you put in from the government while the same "evil rich people" receive 40% of their tax investment back.
The truth of the matter is these Wall Street types are paying significantly more than their fair share. They have made successful investments and that has paid off. They have then been wise enough hold on to their fiscal property (Palm Beachers, that's money).
As for the "million dollar bonuses" that these Wall Street executives receive, I have one simple answer to you liberals. Please listen carefully to me: IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! If my employer feels that I have done such a good job that they want to give me a bonus as a reward for my success, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! It does not matter how much that bonus happens to be, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! It's not your money being given. A company can do whatever they want with their fiscal property (again, Palm Beachers, that's money), including giving that money to an employee as a reward, and IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!
Friends this type of baloney really steams my clams, because these entitled liberals think that a person getting a bonus is their business. Fact of the matter is if that executive didn't get that bonus, it would not make your life one iota better and it would not put a nickel into your pocket. You can call it unfair and not like it, but once again IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!
Bottom line: The Occupy Wall Street protests are nothing more than a group of whiny entitlement generation liberals who want to tear other people down who have succeeded. Government has zero right to confiscate the fiscal property (money) of the people who work on Wall Street REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH THEY HAVE. It is not now, nor will it ever be, your money. Regardless of how much they have, regardless of how big a bonus someone is given, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) National Taxpayers Union: Who Pays Income Taxes?
(2) Tax Foundation: Who Pays America's Tax Burden, and Who Gets the Most Government Spending?
If you have any questions about the terminology used herin, please check out the Biblical Conservative Dictionary. Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)